Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system. This may refer to extending principles of democracy in the economy, or may simply refer to trends of socialism that emphasis... e democratic principles as inalienable from their political project.There is no exact definition of democratic socialism. Some forms of democratic socialism overlap with social democracy, while other forms reject social democratic reformism in favor of more revolutionary methods, and overlap with Revolutionary Socialism
Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions, but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations. Anarchism ... holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.As a subtle and anti-dogmatic philosophy, anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications
Libertarian conservatism is a conservative political philosophy and ideology that combines right-libertarian politics and conservative values. Libertarian conservatives' first value is negative liberty to achieve socially and culturally conservative... ends. They reject liberal social engineering. Frank Meyer, a co-founder of National Review has called this combination fusionism. In political science, the term is used to refer to ideologies that combine the advocacy of economic principles, such as fiscal discipline, respect for contracts, defense of private property and free markets and the classical conservative stress on self-help and freedom of choice under a laissez-faire capitalist society with social tenets such as the belief in natural inequality, the importance of religion, and the value of traditional morality through a framework of limited, constitutional, representative government.Freedom & Virtue: The Conservative Libertarian Debate, edited by George W. Carey, contains essays which describe "the tension between liberty and morality" as "the main fault line dividing the two philosophies.
Marxism–Leninism is a term invented by Joseph Stalin to describe the political ideology adopted, under his rule, by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Comintern, which its proponents consider to be based on Marxism and Leninism. Marxism–Len... inism is often erroneously equated to Marxism and communism; in fact, Marxists hold a broad range of views on Marxism-Leninism.The goal of Marxism–Leninism, according to its proponents, is the development of a state into what it considers a socialist state through the leadership of a revolutionary vanguard composed of "professional" revolutionaries, an organic part of the working class who come to socialist consciousness as a result of the dialectic of class struggle. The socialist state, which according to Marxism–Leninism represents a "dictatorship of the proletariat", is primarily or exclusively governed by the party of the revolutionary vanguard through the process of democratic centralism, which Lenin described as "diversity in discussion, unity in action." Through this policy, the communist party is the supreme political institution of the state and primary force of societal organisation
Social liberalism is a political ideology with the belief that the right to freedom from coercion should include a societal foundation. Social liberalism seeks to balance individual liberty and social justice. Like classical liberalism, it endorses ... a market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights and liberties, but differs in that it believes the legitimate role of the government includes addressing economic and social issues such as poverty, health care and education. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left. The term social liberalism is used to differentiate it from classical liberalism, which dominated political and economic thought for several centuries until social liberalism branched off from it around the Great Depression
The New Democratic Party is a major social democratic federal political party in Canada. The current leader of the NDP is Thomas Mulcair, who was elected in the 2012 leadership election.The NDP was founded in 1961 out of the merger of the Co-operati... ve Commonwealth Federation with the Canadian Labour Congress.The provincial wing of the NDP in Manitoba currently forms the government in that province. Provincial parties have previously formed governments in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, and the territorial party formed the government in Yukon from 1985–1992 and 1996–2000.In the 2011 federal election under the leadership of Jack Layton, the NDP won the second-most seats in the Canadian House of Commons, gaining the title of Official Opposition for the first time in Canadian history
The belief that experts in a technical field should control the government. It also includes the belief that social issues can be solved using the scientific method. For more info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
Opportunism is a system where all individuals entering the workforce and adulthood have a roughly equal chance of success, but after a "fair start for all" whatever inequalities result are accepted, seeing as how everyone who was successful must've ... done something right to earn it and those who are not successful must've either done something wrong or have shifted their priorities away from wealth to something which they deem more important (not necessarily a bad choice to make with one's life; money isn't everything), not accounting for stuff like crippling illnesses. People would be discouraged from passing on wealth to their kids but rather encouraging their kids to earn whatever level of wealth they attain. A very large inheritance tax would be placed on the rich to prevent large-scale generational transfer of affluence. Likewise, all people would have access to equal quality schools growing up. There would be only standard levels of taxes on the rich (no progressive income tax) because it wouldn't be right to take from them which they obviously earned. Likewise, the poor would also be taxed at standard rates, not being given an exemption from paying taxes for having not made something of their lives (or at least not having become economically successful). Welfare programs would be at a minimum and they'd only be for the sake of keeping people from growing up in utterly crappy homes, not for the sake of the parents
Stalinism is the means of governing and related policies implemented by Joseph Stalin. Stalinist policies in the Soviet Union included: rapid industrialization, the theory of socialism in one country, a centralized state, collectivization of agricul... ture, and subordination of interests of foreign communist parties to those of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union—deemed by Stalinism to be the most forefront vanguard party of communist revolution at the time.Stalinism is also commonly used in a critical manner to refer to Stalin's style of governance with associations to political repression, cult of personality, etc. This was utilized by communist parties who detracted from Stalin's policies to assert the independence of Marxism-Leninism from Stalin, with Marxism-Leninism was first described by Stalin in the Soviet Union and later copied by states based on the Soviet model; however Marxism-Leninism stayed after de-Stalinization
Islamism or political Islam is a set of ideologies holding that "Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life". "Islamism" is a controversial neologism whose definition sometimes varies. Islamists can have varying interpretations... on various Quranic suras and ayahs. Islamist views emphasize the implementation of Sharia; of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the selective removal of non-Muslim, particularly Western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world that they believe to be incompatible with Islam. Some observers suggest Islamism's tenets are less strict, and can be defined as a form of identity politics or "support for [Muslim] identity, authenticity, broader regionalism, revivalism, [and] revitalization of the community". Following the Arab Spring, political Islam has been described as "increasingly interdependent" with political democracy.Islamists generally oppose the use of the term, claiming that their political beliefs and goals are simply an expression of Islamic religious belief
Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky identified as an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, and supported founding a vanguard party of the working-class, proletarian internationalism, and a dictatorship of the... proletariat based on working-class self-emancipation and mass democracy. Trotskyists are critical of Marxism-Leninism, as they oppose the idea of Socialism in One Country. Trotskyists also criticise the bureaucracy that developed under the Stalin period of the USSR.Vladimir Lenin and Trotsky were close both ideologically and personally during the Russian Revolution and its aftermath, and some call Trotsky its "co-leader". However, Lenin criticized Trotsky's ideas and intra-Party political habits. Trotsky was the paramount leader of the Soviet Red Army in the direct aftermath of the Revolutionary period.Trotsky originally opposed some aspects of Leninism. Later, he concluded that unity between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks was impossible, and joined the Bolsheviks. Trotsky played a leading role with Lenin in the revolution. Assessing Trotsky, Lenin wrote, "Trotsky long ago said that unification is impossible
As both "conservatism" and "liberalism" have had different meanings over time and across countries, the term liberal conservatism has been used in quite different senses. In political science, the term is used to refer to ideologies that combine the... advocacy of laissez-faire economic principles, such as respect for contracts, defense of private property and free markets with the belief in natural inequality, the importance of religion, and the value of traditional morality through a framework of limited, constitutional, representative government. It contrasts with classical liberalism and especially aristocratic conservatism, rejecting the principle of equality as something in discordance with human nature, instead emphasizing the idea of natural inequality.As the conservative ideology in democratic countries embraced typical liberal institutions such as the rule of law, private property, market economy, and constitutional representative government, the liberal element of liberal conservatism became consensual outside of the socialist camp
Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience.Juan Linz, whose 1964 description of authoritarianism is infl... uential, characterised authoritarian regimes as political systems by four qualities: "limited, not responsible, political pluralism"; that is, constraints on political institutions and groups, a basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency; neither "intensive nor extensive political mobilization" and constraints on the mass public and "formally ill-defined" executive power, often shifting or vague
Social conservatism is a political ideology that focuses on the preservation of what are seen as traditional values. The accepted goals and ideologies related to preserving traditions and morality often vary from group to group within social conserv... atism. Thus, there are really no policies or positions that could be considered universal among social conservatives. There are, however, a number of general principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere, such as support for traditional family values
It depends. Liberals encourage personal freedom and equality, while Conservatives encourage economic freedom and equality. Liberals like to put their nose in business regulations stuff like that, and Conservatives like to put in Personal matters like Abortion and Gay Marriage.
Well, that depends on what country you're talking about, as well. In the United States, at least, liberals are generally more authoritarian. Its true that they support social liberties like abortion, but they also want to repress some. For example, most people that think offensive speech should be banned are liberals. Liberals want to remove gun rights or at least increase restrictions. Plus, as you said, they're against economic freedoms. Liberals are generally for bigger government and conservatives are generally for smaller government, so on the whole, liberals are more authoritarian. I'm not necessarily calling that an inherently negative thing right now, but I'm stating it as I see it.
But, Tajshar2k, those are not personal matters. Rather, they are matters that determine ones eternity. There is a difference between what one decides (opinions) and what the TRUE LAW dictates (the Bible). The legalization of abortion and gay marriage is a legalization of sin. That is scary, since sin leads to death, eternal death and hell, that is. Should a government legalize and promote the death of its citizens?
The bible is not the law of the United States. Church and State are separate. I don't want to start a whole argument on abortion, but the fact is you are meddling in the personal business of somebody, whether it is right or wrong.
@Pro-Life Conservative I'm not sure whether or not you're a troll. Either way, you're ruining this discussion. Whether your Bible-thumping is genuine or not, it would be nice if you could either accept that subjectivity exists and is applicable here or stop talking.
Yeah I don''t like the term "liberal" because it is too good a word for SOME of the people on the left who camouflage themselves as proponents of freedom while simultaneously supporting hate speech laws, censorship, anti-gun laws, anti-tobacco laws ect.
The Bible has no importance in law? God is the creator of laws, and blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD. I do not see the lack of a correlation between God and laws. America is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values. Clearly the Bible has a place in government.
@Pro-lifeConservative You said, "America is a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values. Clearly the Bible has a place in government." The first Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Pro-lifeConservative, meet Constitution. Constitution, Pro-lifeConservative. It would be convenient for humanity as a whole if you two became acquainted.
Economic freedom and limited government are also Conservative positions. Being libertarian means you support all freedom, both personal and economical. Even triangle isn't completely libertarian, he supports military intervention, and keeping prostitution illegal. I myself aren't fully liberal either. I support military intervention, death penalty and both wars.
Should be discouraged for sure, I agree 100%, but I do not believe the government should regulate what goes on in the bedroom. It's not their job. Atleast with legalizing we can make set some regulations on spreading STDS.
@TheOpinionist. Actually, I don't think there would be much of a point in us debating our ideologies. We could debate specific policies such drug decriminalization (for which I am in favor) for instance, or universal healthcare, but debating ideology, in my experience, is usually a waste of time. But like I said, I would be more than happy to debate you on whether or not the government should regulate the environment.
By Judeo-Christian, I mean laws that are founded based on the teachings of the Jewish and Christian faiths. The country was not founded on a religion, but adopted the teachings of the religion. What good is salvation if you are forced into it? No good! Salvation is a matter of the heart, and the founding fathers understood this, so they did not make a national religion. Life: God is the only giver or eternal life, and life in general. Liberty: God grants liberty to all who run to him, he frees them from their sin. Happiness: Being in Christ, we are new creations, we are filled with the joy of the LORD. Murder (prohibited in the 10 Commandments) is prohibited in America. Stealing (10 Commandments), is also outlawed. Need I go on? America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles.
You're distorting the decleration of independence to jewish-christian values. The terms "life liberty and happiness" mentioned in the DOI is literally what it means, people can live, have freedom and be happy. The terms of life liberty and happiness are political, not religious. People had those 3 things from religion back in Great Britain at the time by your describing. And stuff like theft and murder is basic morality, nearly all religions prohibit this. What's to say that the US was founded on Hindu values? Because Hinduism prohibits theft and murder. And not all of the 10 commandments take in place. The first one which is to worship no other gods to be a Christian, that doesn't apply in US law. There are atheists and polytheists (mainly hindus) in the US, there's no law against not believing in the Abrahamic god.
Also, the Decleration has no relevance to US law. It was simply a document for other nations to show why the people are rebelling and forming their own nation. The Constitution also doesn't have the word "god" in it, nor does it say anywhere about the Bible having relevancy to US law.
It's true that killing and stealing are against the law, and part of the Biblical "Big 10. That doesn't mean that we are founded on Christian principles. The Code of Hammurabi was written before the OT in the Bible. So really we're founded on ancient Babylon Law. But wait, Muslims believe in the Mosiac Laws, so we must have a Babylonian Judea-Christian-Muslim law based system Oh no, there's more sacred texts that say we should no kill and steal, so now we have to add in the religions of Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Confucian, Jadeism, and Sikhism. I haven't even began mentioning oral tradition laws within tribal nations. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Roman Empires also believed that stealing and killing were wrong...(that's why Moses ran and hid for years after killing the Egyptian).
Side note, Christians that cheat on their taxes, in the US, are on a path to Hell for not rendering unto Caesar, what is Caesar's. That's in big red letters, which I believe trumps all in the Christian world. If you want an OT scripture for that try out, "Thou shalt not bear false witness, on your 1040 or 1099 forms."
You said, "Liberty: God grants liberty to all who run to him, he frees them from their sin." The liberty you speak of here is the liberty from eternal damnation, which can only be given to those who turn to God. The Christian God also grants liberty to all humans, including the ones that do not follow Him. It is called free will. The Christian God, in His benevolence, has granted free will...The choice to behave as one pleases, to everyone. If an omnipotent God does not force His will on people to follow his rules, what gives you the right to force God's will on people to follow his rules. Are you more powerful than God? Do you have God's consent to force people to follow His rules?
Then you said, "Happiness: Being in Christ, we are new creations, we are filled with the joy of the LORD." A semantics argument, but one that should be clarified, Happiness is temporal; it can go as soon as it comes. Joy is what the Lord gives to those who have been eternally redeemed, for joy is everlasting.
I have my own set of core beliefs and standards that I hold myself to. I will voice my opinion from time to time, but I will never try to force another person to adhere to my beliefs. It is wrong even trying to do so. Each person is responsible for their own words, thoughts, and actions. If the Bible is true, then on the day of judgment, I don't believe I will be seeing you or I being held responsible for little Lucy having abortions 7 states away. That is not how the Christian God behaves, and there is no Biblical passage that says there one person will be accountable for another person's sin.
In order for you to say that our nation's laws are only based on Judea-Christian laws, then all laws would have to line up with the Bible. I can think of many places where they do not agree, i.E., drunkenness. What about smoking pot? The Bible does not say anything one way or another about it, but the Bible says obey the law of the land; does that mean pot smokers in 26 states have no need to repent, but the smokers in the other 24 states have to?
Be careful saying that we have a law system based on Judea-Christian beliefs, because we're far from it and haven't been since 1933 when the UCC and various other statutory laws came into play.
To all those who keep stating that religion has no place in politics. Should we be allowed to say that whatever you base your opinions on how society should be structured has no place in politics? Perhaps we should realize that attempting to define who has the right to weigh in on an issue and which beliefs should be allowed is simply a form of policing thought. George Orwell would be proud.
I do enjoy how "Liberal" receives the most attractive definition and first ranking. Seems to be a little bias in the creation from the start. Most liberal positions have led to less freedom and less equality in our society. But lets not judge my results, just intentions.
Umm... Liberalism does not value freedom or equality, despite what they claim. How does support for abortion, affirmative action, and welfare promote freedom and equality? Conservatism is the true proponent of the two.
Politics are not new to me. It took me a long time to finally affiliate the way I currently do. You on the other hand, should not denounce people as wrong who are clearly eager in debating why they are right.
@Bob13 1. Abortion: Allowing women to have control of her reproductive rights gives the women freedom. I don't find a fetus as equal as a developed human. Put it like this, I wouldn't have a struggle deciding one over the other if i had to sacrifice one. 2. Affirmative action: The only way affirmative action would be against freedom and equality is if you were on the side of the people discriminating and not allowing minorities to have a fair chance. Do you even know what affirmative action is? Racists, etc don't deserve freedom to discriminate. 3. Welfare: What the hell does welfare have to do with any of this?
Wow, two issues? First of all, the only thing affirmative action promotes is inequality. In a world without an establishment, that is where you encounter true equality. As for abortion, I generally believe it is not the governments role to decide, although many liberals do not use this argument and devalue the life of the fetus all together. The value of the fetus is its potential, not its current state of life. That is why we do not kill newly borns out of the womb whenever we do not want to care for them. On the question of welfare, that is again a promotion of inequality, since priveleges are being granted only to the people who needed them, at the expense of people who never needed them. Welfare is also a breeding ground for dependency and fiscal irresponsibility.
@BlackFlags Can you explain yourself further on affirmative action? Using "potential" as a way to value a premature life is useless. The fetus could grow up to save the world or destroy it. A newly born has far greater awareness than a 8-9 week old. Need to go quick, my tutor is here.
A system designed on punishing earners and rewarding non-earners is not effective at creating equality. Especially in an economy in which people *should* have equal opportunity. Even if you buy into the argument that redistribution of wealth overall benefits earners as well (which is nonsense), the system would still have to be involuntary, so that makes it not so free. Either way, it fails to provide both freedom and equality, and actually produces a negative on these things.
@BlackFlags Wait, how do you define affirmative action?.. What is affirmative action? Distribution of wealth: 1. A guide to statistics on historical trends in income inequality - http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality 2. Income disparity seen as one of the world's greatest threats - http://www.weforum.org/news/worsening-wealth-gap-seen-biggest-risk-facing-world-2014 3. The majority of amercan economic experts favour wealth redistribution - http://datab.us/i/wealth%20redistribution I could just keep on going. Do some research for yourself.
Telling me to do research is a little bit demeaning again. Just throwing links in my face does not degrade my previous viewpoints. Affirmative action is for the most part a policy self declared "positive" discrimination, but I know better than to believe that political discrimination between two people can ever be a good thing. We call for equality, but we are actively discriminating out of respect for race, instead of socioeconomic circumstances, which definitely is not equal in the slightest. I personally believe as though the system of greatest equality, is one in which there is no establishment to deny equal opportunity.
Income equality is not perceived as a threat by me, and I can't say I really care about what other people think on the topic, because I believe most people are just uneducated sheep in one form or another anyways.. It is just common sense that capitalism will never go away, and that in a system of capitalism, people are going to attain varying amounts of wealth. You could prop up socialist authoritarian regimes to start redistributing wealth, while to micromanage people's wallets, but if you truly want freedom, then start looking towards independent consumer education as an alternative.
Truism is a legitimate argument here, You made an irrelevant argument in response to my point on potential, in which I replied by stating that you cannot reasonably measure potential by age. Conception is called what it is, because it is the moment when the child is first conceptualized. The actual crime here is that we are killing a unique human with a special background, born under circumstances and at a time which can never be imitated twice. In other words, we are killing an idea which can never be re-imitated.
@BlackFlags I'm going to keep these posts as short as possible Because they'll get out of control, plus i don't like typing sh_tloads. It's better for people to look stuff up for themselves instead of throwing links aside without fully examining them. You've exhibited such a characteristic when commenting on income disparity (I'm pretty sure you meant Income disparity when you said "Income equality is not perceived as a threat by me...") Because otherwise you wouldn't of made sense. But anyway, my income disparity link consisted of a report that was calibrated by Marsh & McLennan Companies, Swiss Re, Zurich Insurance Group ,National University of Singapore , Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center and the University of Pennsylvania. But it doesn't matter, you just think most people are uneducated sheep about it (sarcasm). I'm not done yet.
@BlackFlags "Just throwing links in my face does not degrade my previous viewpoints." It does if you actually looked at them. Can you send me a link of what affirmative action is please? I'm not done yet.
@BlackFlags Oh, we were coming from two different angles. I think i should focus on this... "The actual crime here is that we are killing a unique human with a special background, born under circumstances and at a time which can never be imitated twice. In other words, we are killing an idea which can never be re-imitated." I'm sorry, but variety isn't a unique trait of nature. There is over 7 billion of us.
@reece Abortion- allowing a woman to murder her child for no reason other than she does not want it.
Affirmative Action- Punishing whites for things that their ancestors did and that they would never do while giving racial minorities an unfair advantage.
Welfare- giving people money because they don't work.
So you think that women, racial minorities, and the unemployed are more important than children, whites, and the employed? That doesn't sound like equality. Do you think that the right to live and the right to get a job are reserved for certain people? That doesn't sound like freedom.
How I define murder: The pre-meditated taking of an innocent human life. Abortion: The pre-meditated taking of an innocent human life. The vast point of difference between the pro-abortion side and the pro-life side is the definition of what constitutes a human life. Pro-life believes that the baby is a baby and deserves protection from the time it is conceived. Pro-abortion seeks to remove the humanity from the baby to justify killing it for whatever reason is convenient.
Pro-choice** No pro-choicers are pro-abortion. It's not abortion itself we are supporting, but the women that want the opportunity when they will become mothers and her situation. Forcing an already developed human being to do something she does not want to do is taking away her freedom. I am not for stripping a woman's decision away to cater to a potential she didn't want. (I'm not going to debate abortion on this poll. I don't see the relevance it has to the matter of this poll.)
I'm not entirely sure where I line up with my belief, so I suppose that's something I would have to think about. Pro-choice, anti-affirmative action, no opinion on welfare, for legalizing prostitution and drugs. I guess my view is: "Adults are capable of making their own decisions." With little interference of government. I suppose liberal, I guess.
@Bob When it deals with a person killing another human being, it is. You can shape the definition, which you'd be doing either way, but it is a legal term and there are plenty of dictionaries that shows that it is a legal term.
@Reece, if your positions on things are so strong that you will use profanity to defend them, you certainly must have EXCELLENT reasons for holding them. Please present them, or else you have really lost any intellectual honesty
Why? Because a fetus cannot survive on it's own without another organism giving it the ability to stay alive. If a mom dies, the fetus will die. Can't say the same for a baby that was born. If the mom dies, the baby won't die, because it's organs are independent and functioning.
@Tajstar If I left anyone up to the age of 4 to fend for themselves, they would probably wind up dead really quick. Of course a grown fetus is able to theoretically survive outside the womb, but that wouldn't last to long without a mother or someone to take care of the child. Would you support aborting children up to the age of 4, or am I about to find a contradiction in your argument?
Personhood is philosophical. Everyone is going to have their own answers for it. Given that a fetus' personhood itself has not met a consensus,the legal definition a fetus is not a person because it has not been born. Rights have been given to born persons. Arguing the state of a fetus's personhood will eventually fall flat. Personhood revolves around human beings, under the biology definition it is not due to lack of sapience, sentience and agency, but personhood in religious tenses is absolute, and others immediately grant it to anything "human." You'll receive different opinions and answers for it.
That's is not the point. The point is that that the fetus is part of the mother, therefore it technically is part of the mother. It is not a person, because it is not an individual. @Blackflag, if the mother dies, technically somebody can take care of it to help it survive.