[DISCUSSION] Abolishing the ideological ban rule

[Unibot III]

Perhaps the rule should be that the GA can't ban what is physically impossible to ban: beliefs, for example. The rain. Death. Mornings. Anything beyond the capacity of states to administer.

[Kitzerland]

Perhaps the rule should be that the GA can't ban what is impossible to ban: beliefs, for example.

The GA can't ban what the GA can't ban? I like it.

[Unibot III]

Perhaps the rule should be that the GA can't ban what is impossible to ban: beliefs, for example.

The GA can't ban what the GA can't ban? I like it.

Well, it's just, it's clear we can ban almost everything involved with Christianity or Socialism or Market Liberalism, we can prevent you comprehensively from practicing these ways of life, but we can't prevent you from thinking about them - that's one limitation that is obvious.

The other intuitive notion that the ideological ban rule is covering is that you can't ban something that is ill-defined!

Authors need to define what it is they are banning before they ban it and it must be physically possible to ban. These two conditions would bar "ban Christianity!" or "ban Socialism!" but would do it in a way that is more consistent than an "ideological ban rule" (because what is and isn't an ideology or a ban is nebulous.)

[Separatist Peoples]

The GA can't ban what the GA can't ban? I like it.

Well, it's just, it's clear we can ban almost everything involved with Christianity or Socialism or Market Liberalism, we can prevent you comprehensively from practicing these ways of life, but we can't prevent you from thinking about them - that's one limitation that is obvious.

The other intuitive notion that the ideological ban rule is covering is that you can't ban something that is ill-defined!

Authors need to define what it is they are banning before they ban it and it must be physically possible to ban. These two conditions would bar "ban Christianity!" or "ban Socialism!" but would do it in a way that is more consistent than an "ideological ban rule" (because what is and isn't an ideology or a ban is nebulous.)

If the rule isn't rewritten, I would at least adopt this test to enforce it.

[Unibot III]

If thus the ideological ban rule were two conditions:

1. Cannot be ill-defined.
2. Must be physically possible to ban.

We can think of five examples...


Example 1

1. Defines socialism as the state redistribution of wealth - through any direct or indirect form of transfer, tax rebate or social assistance - from those living above the median income to those living below the median income.

2. Bans socialism as a practice.

Passes both conditions. Legal as far that rule is concerned.

Example 2

1. Defines socialism as the belief that the state should redistribute wealth to the poorest.

2. Bans socialism as a practice.

Fails the second test - you can't physically ban an idea.

Example 3

1. Bans socialism as a practice.

Fails the first test - socialism is undefined.

Example 4

1. Defines socialism as the indecent combination of hippie shirts, cheap drugs and the esoteric teachings of weird bearded men.

2. Bans socialism as a practice.

A perfectly sensible resolution but illegal for failing the first condition. Socialism is ill-defined here: it isn't defined what counts as a hippie shirt, or what is cheap for a drug, or what counts as esoteric or weird, or indecent. You're trying to ban something without at all delineating what it is you're banning - nor is an authority further placed in charge of defining these concepts.

This can be resolved with a committee...

Example 5

1. Defines socialism as the indecent combination of hippie shirts, cheap drugs and the esoteric teachings of weird bearded men.

2. Tasks the WA Committee of Un-Capitalist Activities with the duty of identifying socialism, its practitioners and their activities.

3. Bans socialism as a practice.

By placing a committee in charge of identifying socialism on the basis of that arbitrary definition, the author has resolved the resolution's problem and this would pass the first and second condition.

But of course, it'd also be bloody silly...

[Excidium Planetis]

You can't ban what goes on between your ears. I mean, you can try, but its as enforceable as me telling you "Don't see the color blue." One can, theoretically, practice a religion between one's ears without ever wearing a cross, being baptized, or preaching salvation. The difference is one of thought and expression, and it's a very important distinction to my mind.

I don't think there is as bug a divide between thought and practice as you would like. Say a person claimed to hold the belief "murder is wrong, and I don't like it" but chose to murder someone every day. Can you really say that believe murder to be a bad thing? Can you really say that they believe that they should not murder?

Now take it in the context of a religious belief. A person believes that they must do X as required by the all powerful spirit being that determines what happens to them in the afterlife. They also believe that they want a good outcome in the afterlife, and unless they do X as required, that will not happen. If the person merely thinks about doing X, but never actually does X, can you really say that they believed they were required to do X? Did they really believe that they needed to do X to end up well off in the afterlife?

I would argue that you cannot truly believe you need to do something and not do it. Either you don't really believe you need to do it, or you do believe you need to do it and make the choice to do so.

So, therefore, when a religion like Christianity asks of its adherents certain actions (like spreading the gospel), how can an individual hold those beliefs without breaking the law?

[Separatist Peoples]

You can't ban what goes on between your ears. I mean, you can try, but its as enforceable as me telling you "Don't see the color blue." One can, theoretically, practice a religion between one's ears without ever wearing a cross, being baptized, or preaching salvation. The difference is one of thought and expression, and it's a very important distinction to my mind.

I don't think there is as bug a divide between thought and practice as you would like. Say a person claimed to hold the belief "murder is wrong, and I don't like it" but chose to murder someone every day. Can you really say that believe murder to be a bad thing? Can you really say that they believe that they should not murder?

Now take it in the context of a religious belief. A person believes that they must do X as required by the all powerful spirit being that determines what happens to them in the afterlife. They also believe that they want a good outcome in the afterlife, and unless they do X as required, that will not happen. If the person merely thinks about doing X, but never actually does X, can you really say that they believed they were required to do X? Did they really believe that they needed to do X to end up well off in the afterlife?

I would argue that you cannot truly believe you need to do something and not do it. Either you don't really believe you need to do it, or you do believe you need to do it and make the choice to do so.

So, therefore, when a religion like Christianity asks of its adherents certain actions (like spreading the gospel), how can an individual hold those beliefs without breaking the law?

That's still a distinction between belief and action, and an important one. One can believe in the tenets of a religion and ascribe to their moral teachings without acting out the physical requirements. That isn't to say that their god would be happy, but that definitively isn't our concern.

Christianity makes an excellent example here, and if you'll forgive me for using a more generalized point that has probably been dispensed with in some sects, everybody will be happier. IIRC, the old testament bans the wearing of blended fibers and the eating of shellfish. Plenty of Christians violate that and are still Christians. One can believe veganism and nonviolence are the only moral philosophy to live by, and still ingest meat by accident or defend themselves in an emergency. Hell, the First Commandment is Thou Shalt Not Kill, yet there are plenty of Catholic soldiers. Plenty of socialists on this site own personal property in the form of computers and currency despite their collectivist beliefs. That doesn't make them not Christians, vegans, or socialists. It makes them, at worst, bad Christians, vegans, and socialists, and far more likely just adherents who need to do some atoning of some sort.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The obvious IRL historical parallel here is the Mormons. A ban on polygamy is not a ban on the religion itself. You can still believe that certain harmful practices are virtuous; you're just not allowed to actually do them. The religion itself is not banned, just the harmful practices some of its members happen to carry out.

In factual history, the United States government banned the practice of polygamy even though this was seen as a gross First Amendment violation against the rights of, and indeed a wholesale attack on, Mormons. There were Mormons who claimed having multiple wives was central to their belief system. The courts disagreed, polygamy was suppressed, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is doing just fine (and, for the most part, monogamously).

The ban of a practice is a categorically different thing than the ban of the beliefs that lead to it.

...Plenty of socialists on this site own personal property in the form of computers and currency real estate and market investments despite their collectivist beliefs. That doesn't make them not Christians, vegans, or socialists. It makes them, at worst, bad Christians, vegans, and socialists, and far more likely just adherents who need to do some atoning of some sort.

FTFY

[Excidium Planetis]

That's still a distinction between belief and action, and an important one. One can believe in the tenets of a religion and ascribe to their moral teachings without acting out the physical requirements. That isn't to say that their god would be happy, but that definitively isn't our concern.

But that isn't belief in the tenets of that religion. That's claiming to believe the tenets of that religion, but actually not believing them.

You can't believe you support women's suffrage and actively campaign against women's suffrage. You can't uphold Jim Crow and believe that you are a civil rights activist with the best interests of African Americans at heart. You can't believe that you are complying with World Assembly resolutions in good faith and blatantly violate them. You can't believe that it is the duty of every citizen to vote and yet refuse to do so year after year.

Christianity makes an excellent example here, and if you'll forgive me for using a more generalized point that has probably been dispensed with in some sects, everybody will be happier. IIRC, the old testament bans the wearing of blended fibers and the eating of shellfish. Plenty of Christians violate that and are still Christians.

That's because those Christians do not believe that they need to do that. I challenge you to find a Christian who honestly, truly believes that God has commanded them not to eat shellfish, and who still eats shellfish all the time.

I eat shellfish, yes. I am a Christian, yes. I do not, however, believe that I am required to do the former, for reasons that I could explain but would detract from this thread.

One can believe veganism and nonviolence are the only moral philosophy to live by, and still ingest meat by accident or defend themselves in an emergency.

Those are accidents and emergencies, not a continuous lifestyle. If a person claimed to be vegan but chose to eat nothing but meat and animal products, would you say that they really believed in veganism?

Hell, the First Commandment is Thou Shalt Not Kill, yet there are plenty of Catholic soldiers.

Thou Shalt Not Murder, not kill (Young's Literal Translation, considered one of the most faithful translations from the original text, reads "Thou dost not murder"). As a law student, you should know the difference between murder and killing. It would be kinda silly if God told the Israelites not to kill anyone and then immediately followed it up with commands to execute people for various offenses, would it not?

Plenty of socialists on this site own personal property in the form of computers and currency despite their collectivist beliefs.

They either don't believe that owning those things is wrong, or don't believe that they own those things. If they really believed that it was wrong for them to own a personal computer they wouldn't own one. Ask a socialist on this site if they really believe that they are doing something wrong by owning a computer. Ask them if they should not own the computer.

[Separatist Peoples]

That's still a distinction between belief and action, and an important one. One can believe in the tenets of a religion and ascribe to their moral teachings without acting out the physical requirements. That isn't to say that their god would be happy, but that definitively isn't our concern.

But that isn't belief in the tenets of that religion. You can't believe you support women's suffrage and actively campaign against women's suffrage. You can't uphold Jim Crow and believe that you are a civil rights activist with the best interests of African Americans at heart. You can't believe that you are complying with World Assembly resolutions in good faith and blatantly violate them.

I won't address the WA Resolutions one. Its too complicated. You can, however, believe something and still work against it for practical reasons. Anecdotally, I've reported people for crimes I believe are unjust because they are nonetheless crimes. One can work against women's sufferage or enforce Jim Crow laws if it's that or something worse happens, like losing your job, being jailed (during the US women's suffrage movement, WW1 broke out, and many protestors were jailed for various seditious claims), or being attacked as a political enemy (which, for Jim Crow laws, was a genuine risk for white opponents of the laws in the South).

That's because those Christians do not believe that they need to do that. I challenge you to find a Christian who honestly, truly believes that God has commanded them not to eat shellfish, and who still eats shellfish all the time.

Gotchya on that one, actually. I have a friend in school who is an honest to god Yankee adherent to the Pentecostal church and follows the old testament laws (though, I always thought that Pentecostals didn't have to). He wears a blended fiber suit because he can't afford a pure wool one, and it's that or starve. He believes that his god will forgive him, knows he's breaking a rule, but believes it is necessary to better serve his god.

Those are accidents and emergencies, not a continuous lifestyle. If a person claimed to be vegan but chose to eat nothing but meat and animal products, would you say that they really believed in veganism?

Its still an example of a breach of action and not belief. Honestly, who am I to say what they really believe? I'm not between their ears.

Hell, the First Commandment is Thou Shalt Not Kill, yet there are plenty of Catholic soldiers.

Thou Shalt Not Murder, not kill (Young's Literal Translation, considered one of the most faithful translations from the original text, reads "Thou dost not murder"). As a law student, you should know the difference between murder and killing. It would be kinda silly if God told the Israelites not to kill anyone and then immediately followed it up with commands to execute people for various offenses, would it not?

I'm aware of the distinction. Nonetheless, not everybody follows the literal translation. And I find much of the bible to be silly, so that's a can of worms I'd rather not open.

They either don't believe that owning those things is wrong, or don't believe that they own those things. If they really believed that it was wrong for them to own a personal computer they wouldn't own one. Ask a socialist on this site if they really believe that they are doing something wrong by owning a computer. Ask them if they should not own the computer.

That's still a disparity between belief and action. Actions can, and often are, contrary to beliefs, and it's damn hard to say "then you don't really believe that" successfully, because you really can't say that they don't believe something. Its inherently subjective, especially when cognitive dissidence is in play out of necessity. For example, the various christian sects in China that live in strict oppression.

You can restrict actions, but until mind control is a genuine thing, you can't control beliefs. Merely expressions of the belief (action). There's a pretty serious difference between the two.

[Tinfect]

They either don't believe that owning those things is wrong, or don't believe that they own those things. If they really believed that it was wrong for them to own a personal computer they wouldn't own one. Ask a socialist on this site if they really believe that they are doing something wrong by owning a computer. Ask them if they should not own the computer.

I'll spare you the effort to put an end to this absurdity; I have explicitly stated in the past that a distinction is made between personal and private property, and that the former is entirely acceptable under Socialism.

[Excidium Planetis]

They either don't believe that owning those things is wrong, or don't believe that they own those things. If they really believed that it was wrong for them to own a personal computer they wouldn't own one. Ask a socialist on this site if they really believe that they are doing something wrong by owning a computer. Ask them if they should not own the computer.

I'll spare you the effort to put an end to this absurdity; I have explicitly stated in the past that a distinction is made between personal and private property, and that the former is entirely acceptable under Socialism.

Thank you Tinfect. See, Tinfect doesn't believe that owning a computer is wrong, exactly as I predicted.

You can, however, believe something and still work against it for practical reasons. Anecdotally, I've reported people for crimes I believe are unjust because they are nonetheless crimes.

You probably believe that crimes should be reported, even if they are unjust. You probably also believe that the law should be followed, even if it is unjust. But would a person who claimed to believe that unjust laws should be broken continue to follow laws they knew to be unjust?

One can work against women's sufferage or enforce Jim Crow laws if it's that or something worse happens, like losing your job, being jailed (during the US women's suffrage movement, WW1 broke out, and many protestors were jailed for various seditious claims), or being attacked as a political enemy (which, for Jim Crow laws, was a genuine risk for white opponents of the laws in the South).

Self preservation comes into play. Those people either believed that self preservation was more or less important than civil rights. Those that believed their cause was more important than their jobs and lives went to prison (or faced that danger), while those who believed their jobs and lives were more important than the right to vote stayed silent.

When it comes to religion, however, things change. If a Christian believes in the traditional heaven/hell afterlife, following the commands of their God becomes a matter of self preservation. I'll talk on this more in my next point, because your friend is a great example.

Gotchya on that one, actually. I have a friend in school who is an honest to god Yankee adherent to the Pentecostal church and follows the old testament laws (though, I always thought that Pentecostals didn't have to). He wears a blended fiber suit because he can't afford a pure wool one, and it's that or starve. He believes that his god will forgive him, knows he's breaking a rule, but believes it is necessary to better serve his god.

Before I go into your friend, let's go back to my original post on this:

Now take it in the context of a religious belief. A person believes that they must do X as required by the all powerful spirit being that determines what happens to them in the afterlife. They also believe that they want a good outcome in the afterlife, and unless they do X as required, that will not happen. If the person merely thinks about doing X, but never actually does can you really say that they believed they were required to do X? Did they really believe that they needed to do X to end up well off in the afterlife?

You said your friend believes God will forgive him. Therefore, your friend is not an example of what I was talking about. The answer to my question "Did they really believe that they needed to do X to end up well off in the afterlife?" is "No". Your friend does not believe that he must not wear blended fiber clothes to end up well off in the afterlife, because he believes he will be forgiven. If, however, your friend believed that he really needed to not wear blended fiber clothes to end up well off in the afterlife, he wouldn't wear them, because he would prioritize not going to hell over not dying of starvation (as long as he is the above example, where I stated "They also believe that they want a good outcome in the afterlife". Clearly some people would rather live a decent, non-starving life on Earth over obtaining a good outcome in the afterlife, and would still take actions they believed would send them to hell. However, those people do not believe they want a good outcome in the afterlife, clearly they do not want it.)

Its still an example of a breach of action and not belief. Honestly, who am I to say what they really believe? I'm not between their ears.

You are between you own ears. If you ate meat every day, would you believe you are a vegan? I sure wouldn't.

I'm aware of the distinction. Nonetheless, not everybody follows the literal translation.

I think the vast majority of if not all the Catholic soldiers you mentioned follow the literal translation. They clearly are okay with killing as part of national defense, so they don't honestly believe that killing is wrong or that God has commanded them not to kill and if they do, something bad happens to them.

That's still a disparity between belief and action. Actions can, and often are, contrary to beliefs, and it's damn hard to say "then you don't really believe that" successfully, because you really can't say that they don't believe something. Its inherently subjective, especially when cognitive dissidence is in play out of necessity. For example, the various christian sects in China that live in strict oppression.

Many of whom violate the law in accordance with their beliefs. Christian martyrs exist precisely because some people really believe that God has called them to do something, and that God's commands are more important than laws.

You claim to have reported people of unjust crimes. You likely believe, unlike the many martyrs throughout history, that the law is higher than personal ideas of justice and right and wrong. On the other hand, there are those who openly violate the law or refuse to report crimes because they believe that personal ideas of justice and right and wrong are above the law.

For an individual who believes that unjust laws are to be broken, passing an unjust law forces them to break the law... you have made their beliefs necessarily a crime.

You can restrict actions, but until mind control is a genuine thing, you can't control beliefs. Merely expressions of the belief (action). There's a pretty serious difference between the two.

Let me ask you a question: where do actions come from? If I take a walk down the street, why did I do it? Was there not a thought process that led to it? Are not all actions performed by mental commands and therfore thoughts? Is not outlawing an action outlawing thinking certain thoughts (such as "raise my right hand")?

[Separatist Peoples]

None of this breaks down the difference between a belief, an internal mental process, and an action, an external manifestation.

[Excidium Planetis]

None of this breaks down the difference between a belief, an internal mental process, and an action, an external manifestation.

Alright. Let me rephrase:
1) Actions can be banned.
2) All human actions are carried out by voluntary or involuntary mental processes.
3) These mental processes are thoughts.
4) These thought processes necessarily result in the banned action taking place.
Therefore
5) An individual may not have certain thought processes without violating the law.
Therefore
6) Banning of actions bans certain thoughts.
Therefore
7) Thoughts can be banned.

8 ) Beliefs are thoughts.
So if
7) Thoughts can be banned.
Then
9) Beliefs can be banned.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

None of this breaks down the difference between a belief, an internal mental process, and an action, an external manifestation.

Alright. Let me rephrase:
1) Actions can be banned.
2) All human actions are carried out by voluntary or involuntary mental processes.
3) These mental processes are thoughts.
4) These thought processes necessarily result in the banned action taking place.
Therefore
5) An individual may not have certain thought processes without violating the law.
Therefore
6) Banning of actions bans certain thoughts.
Therefore
7) Thoughts can be banned.

8 ) Beliefs are thoughts.
So if
7) Thoughts can be banned.
Then
9) Beliefs can be banned.

Your premises 4-7 don't follow from their antecedents and therefore don't support 8 & 9.

I can think about murdering someone without actually doing it. Laws against murder do not affect my internal thought processes except insofar as I use them as one of several reasons not to commit murder.

[Excidium Planetis]

Your premises 4-7 don't follow from their antecedents and therefore don't support 8 & 9.

How does 7 not follow from 6? If banning actions bans thoughts, and actions can be banned, you can ban thoughts. If A produces B, and A is possible, B is therefore possible.

Now on to 4:

I can think about murdering someone without actually doing it. Laws against murder do not affect my internal thought processes except insofar as I use them as one of several reasons not to commit murder.

You can think about murdering someone, but you cannot have the thought process that results in murdering someone. You do know that everything you have ever done is because electrical signals sent from your brain traveled through connections of nerves and stimulated muscles to contract or relax? And where did these signals originate? Some of them may have been involuntary and originated from parts of the brain (or even the spine, for reflexes) that were not associated with thought, but murder is not an involuntary action. To murder someone you have to command yourself mentally to move your body to go murder someone. You have to think "stand up", "walk outside", "grab knife", "stab innocent bystander" (is simplified, of course, the real thoughts would resemble more like "extend right leg" and "contract fingers" and the actual nerve signals themselves would be too specific for me to even list). But there was a series of mental processes that told your body to get up and go murder someone. If the exact same nerve signals were sent out, you would take the exact same actions (because your muscles contracted and relaxed the same way), so those mental processes necessarily result in those actions.

Unless you want to argue that the brain does not control people's actions? Or that there is not a specific mental processes for certain actions? (And there is... that's how you learn to do things, and don't forget them usually. The expression "like riding a bike" is used because riding a bike is a repetitive action, which uses pretty much the same mental process each time. That makes it easy to remember.)

Nobody who ever walked to the park did so spontaneously, everybody who ever walked to the park had a thought process that resulted in walking to the park. Unless they were sleep walking, I suppose. Therefore, if you ban walking to the park, you ban people from having any thought process that necessarily results in their body walking to the park.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Your "if" doesn't hold up there. You're less talking about banning thoughts, then, than you are about banning certain sequences of motor neuron firings. In which case what on earth does it matter? What is banned isn't the thought or contemplation of an action, it's the action itself. Nobody cares about what your nerves are doing when you swing the knife around, they're concerned with the knife!

Now, it does matter that you think you're killing someone. If you're in The Matrix, know it, and "kill" an empty subroutine/avatar (not a real person, basically), there's no reason to prosecute even though your motor neurons were doing exactly the same thing as when you kill someone in the real world! So sure, certain states of mind matter, but only in the context of physical actions. The difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter is in your mental state, basically. But again, what's being banned isn't your state of mind per se, it's the actions you carry out while in that mind state.

All of this by way of saying, this entire line of discussion is a huge digression. Nobody is talking about banning thoughts, only actions. The two are not synonymous; and in the places where you can make a neurologically sophisticated argument that they are, it doesn't have any legal effect because what the law means by banning an action is different from what it could possibly mean by banning a thought.

[Separatist Peoples]

It is impossible to ban neurons from firing, and so it's a moot point. From a legal perspective, a thought is internal and not subject to scrutiny barring action signalling it. You can ban the action, but you sure can't ban the thought. The two are distinct, if not biologically, then in perception and treatment.

[Araraukar]

I'll spare you the effort to put an end to this absurdity; I have explicitly stated in the past that a distinction is made between personal and private property, and that the former is entirely acceptable under Socialism.

Thank you Tinfect. See, Tinfect doesn't believe that owning a computer is wrong, exactly as I predicted.

I'm not entirely sure if you understand the difference between socialism and communism? I emphasized the keyword in Tinfect's answer. Socialism =/= communism, just like socialism =/= capitalism.

As for your question in the other thread about things banning anarchism, I'm going to leave that to be answered by someone who knows a lot about anarchism. I don't. I happen to know a lot about socialism and communism. I was in politics on municipal and sub-parliament national level for 8 years in Left Alliance, which is a left-wing political party. It's basically to the left from social democrats and to the right of communists. (And leaning towards the Green Party in ecological ideology, but that's besides the point here.)

[Tinfect]

I'm not entirely sure if you understand the difference between socialism and communism? I emphasized the keyword in Tinfect's answer. Socialism =/= communism, just like socialism =/= capitalism.

To expound on this, Socialism, is often considered to be the Workers-State, or 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', in more traditional terms. This is characterized by Centralized, or Decentralized control over Production.

In the former variation, the State reprises its role as a strong central authority, ideally, operating as a guiding body that prepares the transition into either Decentralization or right-proper Communism. This follows from more well-known Vanguardist ideologies, and is prone to degeneration into State-Capitalism, as in the USSR, or into... just really hardcore Capitalism, as in PRC, when not accountable to the Workers. This method, while traditionally non-democratic, in modernity, has been developed as a Democratic ideology, so as to avoid the Stalinist and Post-Stalinist degeneration suffered by the Soviet Union.

The latter follows from more Anarchistic ideologies, preferring to abolish Centralization entirely, and therefore avoid the risks of degeneration, as each part of the 'Nation' is effectively its own self-governing territory. In this way, the Workers themselves organize to create a Socialist Society, and maintain direct control over Production, as the State in this instance is merely an organizational body, potentially charged with the collective defense of the 'Nation', and generally serving as the International 'face' of the 'Nation'. This system requires a high-level of understanding and-self organization from the populace, and while quite stable assuming the right societal conditions, and the most easily developed into true classless Communism, it is also effectively impossible to achieve when moving directly from a Capitalist system, as such suppresses or obscures Socialist thought and generally promotes a culture that would be unable to effectively self-organize.

Communism, despite what is taught in American economics textbooks, is not a totalitarian ideology, nor does it involve a significant, or even extant, in many variations, State, especially when the State is defined in the traditional form as an authoritative coercive body. It is an anarchistic system in which all forms of class divisions have been abolished, and society as a whole is able to work towards the collective advancement of such. In this case, should the State even exist, it would be a form accountable to, and formed from, all people collectively. It is not universally agreed upon whether such a society is even possible, but it is agreed that getting as close to it as possible is rather the idea.

It should be noted that these are only quite large generalizations of Socialist ideologies, and is a non-sectarian description, and as such, does not include references to specific ideological divides, I.E: Traditional Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Democratic Socialism, Trotskyism, ect.

As for your question in the other thread about things banning anarchism, I'm going to leave that to be answered by someone who knows a lot about anarchism.

Anarchism is divided on a yet larger number of arbitrary ideological lines than Socialism, to the point that many varieties have goals so wildly different from other anarchist groups that it would be effectively impossible to create a non-sectarian movement. Such as; Anarcho-Communism, AKA Communists with no real plan for what to do after smashing the state. Anarcho-Primitivism, AKA people who literally want to abolish any and all forms of civilization, up to and including language, as they believe it to be a form of socialized oppression, and the only group of Anarchists hated by damn near all the others universally. Anarcho-Capitalism, AKA Anarchists who disregard all forms of traditional Anarchist thought in an attempt to return to a semi-feudalistic society, and the other only group of anarchists hated near universally.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Anarchism is divided on a yet larger number of arbitrary ideological lines than Socialism, to the point that many varieties have goals so wildly different from other anarchist groups that it would be effectively impossible to create a non-sectarian movement. Such as; Anarcho-Communism, AKA Communists with no real plan for what to do after smashing the state. Anarcho-Primitivism, AKA people who literally want to abolish any and all forms of civilization, up to and including language, as they believe it to be a form of socialized oppression, and the only group of Anarchists hated by damn near all the others universally. Anarcho-Capitalism, AKA Anarchists who disregard all forms of traditional Anarchist thought in an attempt to return to a semi-feudalistic society, and the other only group of anarchists hated near universally.

Do you have a puppet in our region (Anarchy)? You really should drop by.

[Tinfect]

Do you have a puppet in our region (Anarchy)? You really should drop by.

OOC:
I was honestly considering it not long ago. But, as I'm not much of an Anarchist myself, and my puppets have a tendency to mysteriously cease to exist, I haven't really got around to it. Might do, but don't expect much out of me in the ways of regional politics.

[Excidium Planetis]

Your "if" doesn't hold up there. You're less talking about banning thoughts, then, than you are about banning certain sequences of motor neuron firings.

And those motor neuron firings were started because you thought something. Motor neurons firing in such a way as to cause you to stab someone does not happen spontaneously.

In which case what on earth does it matter? What is banned isn't the thought or contemplation of an action, it's the action itself.

Which makes it illegal to have those motor neuron firings as well. If you end up in prison every time you have those motor neuron firings, how are they not effectively banned?

Say a law banned driving with a blood alcohol content over a certain amount. That law necessarily bans driving shortly after consuming a certain amount of hard liquor, because if you do so, you are also breaking the law. The law may not say "it is illegal to drive while drinking gin", but nevertheless it is still illegal to drive while drinking gin because you are then breaking the law.

Nobody cares about what your nerves are doing when you swing the knife around, they're concerned with the knife!

It necessarily follows that banning the swinging of a knife bans the motor neuron firings that cause you to swing the knife.

Now, it does matter that you think you're killing someone. If you're in The Matrix, know it, and "kill" an empty subroutine/avatar (not a real person, basically), there's no reason to prosecute even though your motor neurons were doing exactly the same thing as when you kill someone in the real world! So sure, certain states of mind matter, but only in the context of physical actions.

This is not necessarily true. If you attempt to solicit the services of a prostitute, you can be arrested even if the prositute turns out to be an undercover cop and you didn't actually get to the good part.

Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Thoughts can be made illegal.

The difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter is in your mental state, basically. But again, what's being banned isn't your state of mind per se, it's the actions you carry out while in that mind state.

Actually, if manslaughter did not happen to also be a crime, then your state of mind is being banned. The physical actions of manslaughter and murder are the same. But in a world where manslaughter was not a crime, but murder was, the mental state of murder is what is banned. It isn't the physical actions that are banned, as the exact same acting also lead to manslaughter.

One could argue, actually, because murder and manslaughter are separate crimes, the sole difference being mental state, and that murder carries the higher penalty, that the mental state is indeed what is being banned. With manslaughter you are getting punished for killing someone. With murder you a r being punished for killing someone and doing so intentionally. It the and doing so intentionally which is banned, and therefore requires a stiffer sentence.

All of this by way of saying, this entire line of discussion is a huge digression. Nobody is talking about banning thoughts, only actions. The two are not synonymous; and in the places where you can make a neurologically sophisticated argument that they are, it doesn't have any legal effect because what the law means by banning an action is different from what it could possibly mean by banning a thought.

Alright, fine, we'll bring this back to the beginning. Everyone's actions, every voluntary thing a person does, originates in the mind. A person's mind is influenced by their beliefs and knowledge. So a person with a specific belief will be influenced in their thoughts by that belief, and will take actions accordingly.

Say a person believes the following three things:
1) Unjust laws should be broken, even if breaking them endangers you.
2) A specific law is unjust and violates a person's civil rights.
3) Fighting for civil rights is a good and noble cause.

This person will take actions that lead to breaking the law. If a person does not break the law, they must not believe one of those three things. Either they don't believe the specific law is unjust, they don't believe that laws should be broken even if it endangers yourself, or they don't believe that civil rights are a good cause. The law makes holding those three beliefs simultaneously illegal.

As another example, say a nation on Earth banned its citizens from leaving the country. While this may not seem like an ideological ban, it is in fact a ban on Islam. One of the Five Pillars of Islam is the Hajj, which requires able bodied Muslims to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their life. Individuals are forced to make a choice: break the law and make the pilgrimage, or abandon their belief that they must make the pilgrimage. As the Hajj is a core belief of Islam, such a belief cannot be abandoned without abandoning Islam.

I'm not entirely sure if you understand the difference between socialism and communism? I emphasized the keyword in Tinfect's answer. Socialism =/= communism, just like socialism =/= capitalism.

Why are you talking about Communism? Nobody mentioned Communism. We were talking about Socialists.
Let's recap:
SP: Plenty of socialists on this site own personal property in the form of computers and currency despite their collectivist beliefs.
Me: They either don't believe that owning those things is wrong, or don't believe that they own those things. If they really believed that it was wrong for them to own a personal computer they wouldn't own one. Ask a socialist on this site if they really believe that they are doing something wrong by owning a computer. Ask them if they should not own the computer.
Tinfect (socialist): I'll spare you the effort to put an end to this absurdity; I have explicitly stated in the past that a distinction is made between personal and private property, and that the former is entirely acceptable under Socialism.

So yes, I was right in my reply to SP. Socialists don't believe it is wrong to own a computer. Do you want to argue with that?

It is impossible to ban neurons from firing, and so it's a moot point.

As I have argued, banning actions necessarily bans the neuron firings that create that action.

You can ban the action, but you sure can't ban the thought.

They are the same. The thought is part of the action and is necessary for it.

[Tinfect]

Why are you talking about Communism? Nobody mentioned Communism. We were talking about Socialists.

OOC:
Please do not use my statement as an attempt to misdirect and mislead. The distinction between Communists and Socialists is often one of simple semantics; within Socialist/Communist groups, 'Communist' often refers to Anarcho-Communists*, whereas 'Socialist' refers to people preferring Vanguardist ideologies or systems of thought. In terms of practical application, however, it is both accurate and acceptable to describe a Communist or Socialist as either, with few exceptions, notably that Democratic Socialists, originating more closely to Social Democracy, often eschew the term Communist.
*For what I believe is the same reason Democratic Socialists avoid the term, that being its perceived connections to the Soviet Union, Marxist-Lenninists may also use the term. It should be noted that, to my knowledge, the overwhelming opinion among such people is that the Soviet Union was not a Socialist State; losing its way either with the NEP, or Post-Stalin, if you include the few Stalinists/Hardcore Maoists that still float around.

And please, do not use my prior definitions of Communism and Socialism in an attempt to prove a difference between Communists and Socialists. The former two terms have very specific definitions, the latter two depend entirely on context.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Please do not use my statement as an attempt to misdirect and mislead. The distinction between Communists and Socialists is often one of simple semantics; within Socialist/Communist groups, 'Communist' often refers to Anarcho-Communists*, whereas 'Socialist' refers to people preferring Vanguardist ideologies or systems of thought.

Yeah, I'm sure the ideology babble can be turned any which way and combined any which way too, but in practice, socialism has never, to my knowledge, meant "you can't own anything" (nor communism, but I've long since given up trying to get EP to understand the difference between "property" in the legal sense and just owning your own clothes, not to mention that to my knowledge both of you live in USA, where anything leftist is painted with the USSR brush anyway and the rest is just theory), and is the idea of ultimate equality, where you wouldn't have rich or poor people, where everyone would contribute to the society as they can, but even if you couldn't do much (like, say, due to various disabilities), you wouldn't be cast out. A socialist society takes care of its weakest ones, is fully democratic (I know, I know, no true democracies in RL), production and utilities are controlled by the state to ensure equality, same for schooling and healthcare and all such things. If we're talking of actual workable practice (pretty much the Nordic ideals, which, sadly, have been largely demolished by the right wing getting too much power in the last decade or so), then private businesses are allowed, but taxation is progressive to the point of damn near eliminating any income disparity. Is it possible? I believe yes, but not while the macho-capitalist Russia and USA exist as they do now, and with China following in their footsteps.

In terms of practical application, however, it is both accurate and acceptable to describe a Communist or Socialist as either, with few exceptions, notably that Democratic Socialists, originating more closely to Social Democracy, often eschew the term Communist.

I'm even further left than SosDems, but call me a communist and you're asking for trouble.

---

EDIT: I've kinda lost the original point of this thread. I know it's currently Politics Class to Educate EP, but aren't we supposed to talk about the whole of the ideological ban rule, not just private property and communism?