Anarcho-Capitalism and Young Earth Creationism: parallels - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The 'no government' movement.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14365846
I have noticed several similarities between the movements of Young Earth Creationism and of Anarcho-Capitalism. It seems like there are similar sort of social and mental forces driving both. I find it fascinating.

  • Both are some of the most driven groups in pushing their beliefs in respective fields. They find it imperative to have as many people as possible accept their views, to the point of the preaching becoming an obsession.
  • Both are small groups with beliefs far outside of scientific consensus.
  • Both believe in a scientific conspiracy of professors. In one case it's "darwinists", in the other it's "statists", united against the truth.
  • Both try to make their views popular mostly through appeals to the public rather than publishing research papers in the relevant fields.
  • Both believe there is much wider support of their views but it is suppressed. In one case people supposedly don't truly deep-down believe they are descended from apes, in the other case they don't truly support statist aggression.
  • Both simplify the field to a single overreaching rule: it must be so because God said so / it must be so because it's what the Non-Aggression Principle dictates.
  • Both appeal to morality supporting their biology/physics and economics views. Whatever the Bible / NAP implies is also ultimately best / economically optimal.
  • Both strongly attach themselves personally to these views. Anything that disagrees is an attack and a matter of honor.
  • Both have a pre-determined answer and look at arguments and evidence specifically with the aim of supporting that previously decided on answer or finding a counter-argument to what the enemy claims. Friendly results are met with easy approval, unfriendly results are a cause for quick rejection through finding anything that casts doubt on the argument.
#14367770
I have noticed several similarities between the movements of Young Earth Creationism and of Anarcho-Capitalism. It seems like there are similar sort of social and mental forces driving both. I find it fascinating.



I find your reasoning fascinating as well




[*]Both are some of the most driven groups in pushing their beliefs in respective fields. They find it imperative to have as many people as possible accept their views, to the point of the preaching becoming an obsession.


And Driven=wrong, right? Actually, i'm an Anarchist who is Christian and a 'young earth creationist' at that. But imperative to convince you and others? Not really, because I also believe in Free Will. Having a minority opinion heard isn't being pushy or preachy, it simply is an attempt to be heard above the Herd, to have a voice at all in the face of consensus paradigms and orthodox scientific priesthoods jealous of academic power and worried about no longer being lauded by the crowd.


[*]Both are small groups with beliefs far outside of scientific consensus.


And that too makes them wrong, right?



[*]Both believe in a scientific conspiracy of professors. In one case it's "darwinists", in the other it's "statists", united against the truth.


Some people call it 'conspiracy', and maybe it was at first when it wasn't a ruling paradigm, but Statism and Evolution are due more to arrogance, stupidity, and justifications for the power outside of the 'science' field proper.


[*]Both try to make their views popular mostly through appeals to the public rather than publishing research papers in the relevant fields.


Try getting any kind of contrarian research paper published that lies beyond the groupthink and herd mentality and see what happens, it can be difficult.


[*]Both believe there is much wider support of their views but it is suppressed. In one case people supposedly don't truly deep-down believe they are descended from apes, in the other case they don't truly support statist aggression.


It's possible, how could it be proven either way?


[*]Both simplify the field to a single overreaching rule: it must be so because God said so / it must be so because it's what the Non-Aggression Principle dictates.


What's wrong with speaking plainly and simply so that everyone can read or hear what's at stake, instead of speaking in a language that protects what's being said from the uninitiated into the New Heiratic Priesthood?



[*]Both appeal to morality supporting their biology/physics and economics views. Whatever the Bible / NAP implies is also ultimately best / economically optimal.



Wrong on the creationist part, ironically. Many i've talked to simply put it that if God exists and has the power to do as it says He did, why not? Bible isn't about morality, never was, it's about Faith, Trust, Love, and Obedience.



[*]Both strongly attach themselves personally to these views. Anything that disagrees is an attack and a matter of honor.


Hold these views, right or wrong, and see and hear the vile venom that spews from many holders of more popular views, and see how you react over time. A person who holds unpopular views would by definition have a great personal committment to that belief. Most people don't suddenly wake up one day deciding to go against the majority in anything.


[*]Both have a pre-determined answer and look at arguments and evidence specifically with the aim of supporting that previously decided on answer or finding a counter-argument to what the enemy claims. Friendly results are met with easy approval, unfriendly results are a cause for quick rejection through finding anything that casts doubt on the argument.


I actually see this kind of thinking as being a property of those who hold the more popular viewpoints more than creationists or Ancaps, emblematic of whoever follows the popular ruling paradigm and suddenly seeing or hearing a contrary opinion, even a minority, becomes afraid.
#14368070
Fascinating, I never thought I'd actually meet a young earth creationist. I assumed they were some kind of story made up to scare children into attending their science lessons at primary school.

annatar1914 wrote:And that too makes them wrong, right?


It means that you're probably wrong, yes. 97% of all scientists support evolution. But of course, I'm sure you know better than those silly scientists, right? Science doesn't even real.

annatar1914 wrote:Try getting any kind of contrarian research paper published that lies beyond the groupthink and herd mentality and see what happens, it can be difficult.


The problem is that you do not understand how the scientific process works. Let me try and explain it to you in a very simple way.

The reason that 97% of scientists agree that evolution is real is not just because of Darwin. It's because further peer-reviewed, verified, and reproduced research has compounded to form a compelling case for it. There are literally hundreds of different experiments, dissertations, etc. which all compile together to collectively form an understanding of the topic.

So when you say that it's difficult to get a "contrarian" research paper published, I don't think you've actually understood why that is. You blame it on "groupthink" and "herd mentality," but the reality is that it's because it would take a truly revolutionary paper to overturn the collective knowledge of about 200 years worth of research that has been produced by thousands of independent scientists, all arriving at the same conclusion with compounding evidence.

If the paper actually had scientific merit, there would be no difficulty in getting it published. They love to publish headlines that grab attention, and a strong case against an established theory would generate a lot of them.

The reason why this has not happened is because there has not been a scientifically sound paper published that successfully refutes, even partially, the theory of evolution. And the great thing about science is that, even if a paper was published that pointed out x and y flaws in evolution, that just brings us closer to the truth.

Here's a good post from Reddit that explains some of the evidence for the case of evolution to a Young-Earther like yourself.
#14368494
Fascinating, I never thought I'd actually meet a young earth creationist. I assumed they were some kind of story made up to scare children into attending their science lessons at primary school.


Lol.... I don't bite, don't live in a trailer park, don't own guns, absolutely believe in free will, and politically i'm a Communist of the Christian Anarchist variety.


It means that you're probably wrong, yes. 97% of all scientists support evolution. But of course, I'm sure you know better than those silly scientists, right? Science doesn't even real.


Ah, I never said 'science' was wrong, I said Evolution was; an important distinction. I got won over to the side of Global Warming because I saw the scientific merits of it, and for most of my life, I was an evolutionist. Strange thing Anarchism and Christianity; once you believe both, and that God is an Anarchist too, being totally free, He can make all things exactly as He's said to have and there isn't an iota of evidence to prove He couldn't.

The problem is that you do not understand how the scientific process works. Let me try and explain it to you in a very simple way.


Oh, I know how it works alright, a 'young earth creationist' by the name of Blaise Pascal practically invented the idea in it's modern form, but the 'scientific process' these days is subjected a great deal to atheistic and materialistic bias, hobbling it for more than 90 years now certainly.

The reason that 97% of scientists agree that evolution is real is not just because of Darwin. It's because further peer-reviewed, verified, and reproduced research has compounded to form a compelling case for it. There are literally hundreds of different experiments, dissertations, etc. which all compile together to collectively form an understanding of the topic.


'Stovepiped' research, in which many heavily specialized scientists assume a certain general framework given to them from their early days as undergrads and such, and interpret new information gathered in their specialized fields in the light of their now-old general worldview. Heretics like Velikovsky and Tom van Flandern, not exactly creationists either, get the Galileo treatment of today.

So when you say that it's difficult to get a "contrarian" research paper published, I don't think you've actually understood why that is. You blame it on "groupthink" and "herd mentality," but the reality is that it's because it would take a truly revolutionary paper to overturn the collective knowledge of about 200 years worth of research that has been produced by thousands of independent scientists, all arriving at the same conclusion with compounding evidence.


It would take a truly revolutionary paper? I've read a few that overthrow the whole Cosmological basis for evolution and indeed all modern ideology. They are out there, but there is a real 'soft persecution' involved with anyone who goes this route, for reasons you're not willing to admit. Modern 'Science' has become ossified and tied to upholding the present system, the present world order, well before the 'null' results of the Michaelson-Morely Interferometer experiments of 1887 on.


If the paper actually had scientific merit, there would be no difficulty in getting it published. They love to publish headlines that grab attention, and a strong case against an established theory would generate a lot of them.


Only to a point, an arguement between different schools of scientists who all uphold today's paradigms, yes. But an actual heretic against the New Priesthood like modern scientists were in the 16th century against the Aristotleans/Ptolemaics? No.

The reason why this has not happened is because there has not been a scientifically sound paper published that successfully refutes, even partially, the theory of evolution. And the great thing about science is that, even if a paper was published that pointed out x and y flaws in evolution, that just brings us closer to the truth.


A paper that you know of, but again, the point is moot. It remains that at no point is it shown scientifically to be impossible that a God described as His followers believe Him to be could NOT have created all things exactly as they believed Him to for centuries.

Here's a good post from Reddit that explains some of the evidence for the case of evolution to a Young-Earther like yourself.


Ah the assumptions people make about 'young-earthers' like myself.
#14368662
annatar1914 wrote:It remains that at no point is it shown scientifically to be impossible that a God described as His followers believe Him to be could NOT have created all things exactly as they believed Him to for centuries.

Well it is impossible to prove that something didn't happen. We can only make a strong case that something did happen. So I guess no scientific theory could ever sufficiently prove evolution for you?
#14368783
Much as I dislike Libertarianism, I don't think its accurate to put it on the same level with YEC.

However my question to the large majority who do you accept Old Earth Creationism:

Why do you accept Old Earth Creationism? Have you studded Geology, the fossil record, chemistry etc?

I would suggest that most people, myself included accept OEC purely on the basis of authority, purely on the basis of the authority of the scientific community. I'm generally pro free speech (not as an absolute). Which means I generally support the right of people to argue for what they want even when it goes against the doctrines of the establish authorities as with Young Earth Creationism and so called Holocaust denial.
#14368868
Well it is impossible to prove that something didn't happen. We can only make a strong case that something did happen. So I guess no scientific theory could ever sufficiently prove evolution for you?


Evolution in a macro scale wasn't proven to me when I was a rabid atheist and die-hard militant one at that, so why would it be 'proven' to me now? I was already quite the Catastrophist at any rate even then, I always felt that the 'billions and billions of years' was absurd and intended by militant atheist 'scientists' to render the Judeo-Christian account totally ludicrous in the eyes of the masses, a rank exaggeration and quite reletive at points in time when there was no earthly observers to count those years to begin with. Then as now I was always more humanist and anthropogenic than my secular comrades were and are.

Science can never 'prove' evolution because It is not 'falsifiable' on scientific grounds, just as creationism is not falsifiable. Where evolution can be shown as falsifiable is in the realm of philosophy, unfortunately the atheism of modern 'philosophers' was what infected those students of science, not the other way around.

I will say this however; I do admit of almost singular and revolutionary exceptions to my general rule of not allowing for Macro Evolution, of 'Speciation' events, and I do likewise allow for what I truly see as biological degeneration and in fact a universal De-Evolution. Where Darwin and his acolytes see Progress, I see a general entrophic decline leading to Thermodynamic Death.
#14369275
annatar1914 wrote:Try getting any kind of contrarian research paper published that lies beyond the groupthink and herd mentality and see what happens, it can be difficult.

I disagree. If you have a paper that uses the scientific method, is methodologically sound and produces findings that are seemingly contradictory to the ruling theory, then you will get published easily. As such a finding is surprising many researchers will be interested in it. Thus your article will be much read and much cited and this is what publishers care about.

If researchers can duplicate your findings and confirm that you are right, then the theory of evolution is not destroyed. The next step would be that researchers try to explain this new finding and try to adapt the theory of evolution in order to integrate this new finding. Results that are seemingly contradictory will not likely destroy the theory of evolution. More likely, the theory will be adapted. If the theory of evolution is actually a wrong theory, then more and more findings that are not compatible with evolution will be found and this would cause the evolution theory to lose its status as the ruling theory.

In reality however, many studies have found evidence in favor of evolution rather than against. Making evolution theory the most credible theory.

I think even the researchers who believe in evolution most, will be happy to find a result that contradicts the ruling theory. Such a result is bound to make an impact and can make the career of any researcher.
#14369382
annatar1914 wrote:Evolution in a macro scale wasn't proven to me when I was a rabid atheist and die-hard militant one at that, so why would it be 'proven' to me now?


Evolution (defined as a population group of a certain species becoming another species) has been observed many times.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I was already quite the Catastrophist at any rate even then, I always felt that the 'billions and billions of years' was absurd and intended by militant atheist 'scientists' to render the Judeo-Christian account totally ludicrous in the eyes of the masses, a rank exaggeration and quite reletive at points in time when there was no earthly observers to count those years to begin with. Then as now I was always more humanist and anthropogenic than my secular comrades were and are.


Since the timeline described by science is not an attempt to ridicule Judeo-Christian mythology, this part of your post is irrelevant.

Science can never 'prove' evolution because It is not 'falsifiable' on scientific grounds, just as creationism is not falsifiable. Where evolution can be shown as falsifiable is in the realm of philosophy, unfortunately the atheism of modern 'philosophers' was what infected those students of science, not the other way around.


Since evolution is a fact, there is no need for it to be falsifiable. What needs to be falsifiable is the theory of evolution through natuiral selection, which is falsifiable and has been tested repeatedly.

annatar1914 wrote:I will say this however; I do admit of almost singular and revolutionary exceptions to my general rule of not allowing for Macro Evolution, of 'Speciation' events, and I do likewise allow for what I truly see as biological degeneration and in fact a universal De-Evolution. Where Darwin and his acolytes see Progress, I see a general entrophic decline leading to Thermodynamic Death.


Oh, this argument. No doubt kangaroos and many other Australian mammals devolved into marsupials while the vast majority of others devolved into placental mammals. And you no doubt have evidence that the ancestors of kangaroos were somehow both placental and marsupial.
#14369606
I disagree. If you have a paper that uses the scientific method, is methodologically sound and produces findings that are seemingly contradictory to the ruling theory, then you will get published easily. As such a finding is surprising many researchers will be interested in it. Thus your article will be much read and much cited and this is what publishers care about.


I would suspect, because of the earlier example I cited of over-specialization and 'stovepiped' research, that much of the material damaging to evolution is in papers already, and has been circulating for years, but hasn't been integrated into a coherent indictment of evolution. Or, if it is such an indictment it is seen as such and is not published.

If researchers can duplicate your findings and confirm that you are right, then the theory of evolution is not destroyed. The next step would be that researchers try to explain this new finding and try to adapt the theory of evolution in order to integrate this new finding. Results that are seemingly contradictory will not likely destroy the theory of evolution. More likely, the theory will be adapted. If the theory of evolution is actually a wrong theory, then more and more findings that are not compatible with evolution will be found and this would cause the evolution theory to lose its status as the ruling theory.


But here is where the rails come off on your argument with all due respect; as you say, researchers (who are specialized and rely on what they were tought as undergrads as true in regards to evolution, that evolution is 'a priori' true)try to adapt (i.e. 'shoehorn') new information into the old theory. And I believe that more and more findings are found that are in fact not compatible.

In reality however, many studies have found evidence in favor of evolution rather than against. Making evolution theory the most credible theory.


Easy to believe that if evolution is accepted as 'a priori' fact.

I think even the researchers who believe in evolution most, will be happy to find a result that contradicts the ruling theory. Such a result is bound to make an impact and can make the career of any researcher.


I don't think so, because most of their peers would suspect their findings as a 'trojan horse' for bringing religion back into the sacred citadel of science. Mores the pity, because it's true that religion strictly speaking doesn't belong admixed with science. I reject religion and evolution for the same reasons; human dogmatism created by limited human sense-experience and abundant human imagination, causing people to mythologize.
#14369650
annatar1914 wrote:Actually, i'm an Anarchist who is Christian and a 'young earth creationist' at that.
annatar1914 wrote:I reject religion and evolution for the same reasons

Did you just change from being a Christian to being non-religious during the last week?

About the Young Earth Creationism: do you believe astronomers that the distance to the other side of Milky Way is about 100,000 light years?

Rich wrote:I would suggest that most people, myself included accept OEC purely on the basis of authority, purely on the basis of the authority of the scientific community.

There is no support for creationism (Young Earth or Old Earth) in the scientific community consensus.

Also, I wouldn't call the age of the Earth being accepted "on the basis of authority". You could call it that if it was one scientist making a credible claim and people saying "yeah he's smart, he's probably telling the truth". But instead you have thousands of scientists in different fields - astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, physics - painting consistent pictures that all point to the same age of the Earth. So it's not as much believing in authority as it is believing that there is no vast and complex conspiracy to hide the truth.

There was a puzzle in late 19th century, when the age of the Sun was estimated by physicists at much younger (a few million years - of course still way over what YECs claim) than what biologists estimated from looking at the history of life on Earth. But that puzzle was solved when nuclear fusion was discovered to be driving the Sun which makes it shine much longer than if it was a huge burning lump of coal.

A few decades ago there was another puzzle: the ages of the oldest stars were estimated to be older than the measured age of the universe from other measurements (still, both on the order of billions of years). But that puzzle got resolved too more recently with more precise measurements, and now it all fits together quite nicely.
#14369743
Technology wrote:The list is fairly interchangeable with every group of political/ideological fringe zealots, including left-anarchists.

Yeah, that's also the first thing I thought of. And interestingly enough, there are people who'd label various political ideologies as "political religions" (especially marxism-leninism and national socialism).
#14369816
emmitt wrote:And interestingly enough, there are people who'd label various political ideologies as "political religions" (especially marxism-leninism and national socialism).
And reverencing slave Lords who pimped in liberty like Washington and Jefferson could also be seen as full bore religious dementia.
#14369821
annatar1914 wrote:I don't think so, because most of their peers would suspect their findings as a 'trojan horse' for bringing religion back into the sacred citadel of science. Mores the pity, because it's true that religion strictly speaking doesn't belong admixed with science. I reject religion and evolution for the same reasons; human dogmatism created by limited human sense-experience and abundant human imagination, causing people to mythologize.


I don't think this problem would occur. If evolution was false, then scientists would find a lot of evidence that it was false. Finding flaws in the theory of evolution is not the same as bringing religion back into science. Most of the findings would have nothing to do with religion anyway. It would be about the shape of whale bones, the composition of ground layers and stuff. If evolution was false, we would be able to find evidence of it without having to refer to religion.
#14369933
Did you just change from being a Christian to being non-religious during the last week?


I am a Christian; true Christianity isn't a 'religion', it stands or falls on the verification of at least eventually testable evidence in an empirical and positivistic manner. almost everybody hides, denies, or obfuscates this fact among the religionists who adhere to a form of 'christianity'. I guess my main influence in that respect is the work of the late Fr. John Romanides among others; he once called Religion a 'neurobiological sickness' and with that I agree and it doesn't effect my faith in the slightest, in fact it rather improves it. Atheists have never pissed me off; it's been the Religionists who quake in their shoes at the thought of standing up to atheists that anger me. In fact I have a number of atheist friends still and I get along better with them, once we get past the fact i'm not going to wilt or practically agree with them to please them in a debate.

About the Young Earth Creationism: do you believe astronomers that the distance to the other side of Milky Way is about 100,000 light years?


Sure I do, I have no problem with that vast distance or in fact the very edge of the Universe; the distance in scale is less than that between an atomic nucleus and the orbit of an electron proportionally. But at any rate, an omnipotent God should have no problem in creating this Hologram, this computer program we call the Cosmos, in any level of implementation. Scientists know this too.
#14413646
The comparison fails before it even gets started, because the two worldviews belong to different domains.

Young Earth Creationism is a historical theory, in the sense of advancing a particular view on what actually historically transpired.

Anarcho-Capitalism is (mainly) a political worldview. Its advocate call for a change in the constitution of our society, believing it to be both ethically and pragmatically superior.


So, for example, Anarcho-Capitalists do not believe in "scientific conspiracy", although many Anarcho-Capitalists hold economic views which are well outside the mainstream (economics isn't a science, btw.)

By the same token, I don't think Young Earth Creationists rely on "morality" to support their views. Rather, they deem biblical evidence to have positive, historic value.


Most of the common characteristics would apply to any minority worldview. For example, Abolitionism in the 18th century or 19th century feminism.
#14423576
lucky wrote:[*]Both are some of the most driven groups in pushing their beliefs in respective fields. They find it imperative to have as many people as possible accept their views, to the point of the preaching becoming an obsession.

Preaching is an obsession for me. I admit I discuss libertarianism here a lot. But that's because this is a politics forum. So its not surprising that people discuss politics at length here.
[*]Both are small groups with beliefs far outside of scientific consensus.

Libertarianism is a moral theory. There is no possible scientific consensus about morality. My beliefs regarding real science topics are pretty mainstream.

[*]Both believe in a scientific conspiracy of professors. In one case it's "darwinists", in the other it's "statists", united against the truth.
I disagree. I don't believe in a conspiracy. I do believe that the other side is wrong. But that goes for everyone, for every politician and in every political discussion.

[*]Both try to make their views popular mostly through appeals to the public rather than publishing research papers in the relevant fields.

Libertarian scholars do a lot of scholarly work. Just check out mises.org. Those aren't appeals to the public. Those are academic articles. For example, Hayek received a nobel prize for his work. You can hardly call this non-academic. Anyway, I'm not a scholar so of course I don't publish research papers.

[*]Both believe there is much wider support of their views but it is suppressed. In one case people supposedly don't truly deep-down believe they are descended from apes, in the other case they don't truly support statist aggression.

I believe many people do indeed support statist aggression. That's not the point of libertarianism.

[*]Both simplify the field to a single overreaching rule: it must be so because God said so / it must be so because it's what the Non-Aggression Principle dictates.

Using the NAP in argumentation can merely show the internal logic of libertarianism. If the NAP is true, then this must follow. It helps discovering what libertarianism really support and what it really says. But it isn't an overreaching rule. As there is no such arguement regarding the validity of the NAP. Libertarianism is the NAP, that just getting your basic definitions down. But the case why the NAP is valid is something entirely different.

[*]Both appeal to morality supporting their biology/physics and economics views. Whatever the Bible / NAP implies is also ultimately best / economically optimal.
Well yeah. In general. But name one political theory that doesn't say the same? Do social-democrats say: "if you follow us, you will lead a just life in poverty"? I don't think so.

[*]Both strongly attach themselves personally to these views. Anything that disagrees is an attack and a matter of honor.

This seems to be a personal property, rather than a property of the ideology. As your posts show, you behave like you are attacked personally by libertarianism just like it is a matter of honor.

[*]Both have a pre-determined answer and look at arguments and evidence specifically with the aim of supporting that previously decided on answer or finding a counter-argument to what the enemy claims. Friendly results are met with easy approval, unfriendly results are a cause for quick rejection through finding anything that casts doubt on the argument.

This is not libertarianism. This is human nature. People look for arguements that support their world view. When was the last time you read a libertarian post and not immediatly looked for ways to criticise it? I can't imagine that happens often.
#14423953
lucky wrote:Anarcho-Capitalism

Nunt wrote:Hayek

So you're saying Hayek was an anarchist? Friedrich Hayek?

Nunt wrote: As your posts show, you behave like you are attacked personally by libertarianism just like it is a matter of honor.

I don't know what you're talking about. I consider myself a libertarian.

I like debating ridiculous claims, regardless of whether the person supports similar policies as I do. Actually - I will debate such people more strongly, because their bad arguments only work against the rational reasons to support good policies, make rational supporters leave in disgust, leaving only cranks behind.

Nunt wrote:If the NAP is true, then this must follow. It helps discovering what libertarianism really support and what it really says.

The Non-Aggression Principle can't be "true" or "false". It can be a good idea or a bad idea, a good policy or a bad policy, you can support it or oppose it, etc. But the words "true" and "false" mean something very different.

In any case, the NAP, or at least the simplistic vulgar version of it used by Anarcho-Capitalists (such as what Eran presents in this forum), has hardly any relation to libertarianism. The aforementioned Hayek did not support anything like it, for example.

lucky wrote:Both appeal to morality supporting their biology/physics and economics views. Whatever the Bible / NAP implies is also ultimately best / economically optimal.

Nunt wrote:Well yeah. In general. But name one political theory that doesn't say the same? Do social-democrats say: "if you follow us, you will lead a just life in poverty"? I don't think so.

You didn't get the point. Social-democrats don't generally say "Let's do XYZ because our interpretation of the Standard Morality Book unambiguously implies that this is what we must do because that's what it says. Oh and incidentally it seems that following it will also make us all better off - lucky us!". They, as most people, try to make these decisions the other way, deliberately aiming for the betterment of social welfare, knowing that we humans are the ones that define policy.

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]