Aspies For Freedom

I meant to come back to this thread but it slipped my mind.

First of all resources includes wealth, after all wealth/currency is used to underpin the trade in resources, and income is the means by which wealth is distributed. To try and exclude wealth/currency from a definition of resources is pointless as a coutry's resources are ultimatley measured in a monetary form whether it be oil, gold, cotton, corn etc.

That many western countries are "in the middle" of income distribution equality means very little, even for those in the top 3. Why? because these are relative measurements and the same underlying issue remains for all, just on varying scales.

But however you look at the figures the facts remain. A small elite in all countries around the world country control vast amounts of the wealth and a small number of countries around the world control a vast amount of the wealth. This shows that the market economy has utterly failed to distribute and allocate resources instead allowing those who already possess the wealth to accumulate more.

You also claim that the situation of the skewed possesion of wealth in developed countries is better than the situation in a country such as Azerbaijan where almost all are poor. The main reason that it is better to be poor, in a developed country, is because even though you are poor there are social safeguards in place to ensure you don't starve.

These social safeguards are not due to the market economy but instead are in spite of them. The idea of social welfare is contradictory to the very principles of a market economies. I also need to say that a market economy does not truly exist anywhere on our planet what we have instead are mixed economies with varying degrees of state intervention.

The results of the market economy has been to establish a small ruling elite in possession of large amounts of the worlds wealth and therefore it's resources. With this ruling elite has come a poverty trap which really does TRAP people in poverty.

How you can claim that "a market economy is the most efficient way to distribute and allocate resources" despite this evidence is beyond me.

I'm more a technocrat, but I have strong Fabian Socialist leanings, because "eat the rich" is not just a cute slogan.

As for free market economies, Australia is tearing itself apart trying to be one, but with things like European and US farm subsidies to contend with it seems to be ideology gone mad.

Not to mention the Free Trade Agreement with the US that stops us importing DVDs from the US (not sure how that's free trade, I'm not an economist)...

...Alex.

I haven't seen anyone advocate war.

I haven't seen anyone advocating much really.

What am I missing?

...Alex.

socialism could only work an extremely small community i.e. native american tribe.

i am seriously against being part of a socialist society, i Need to won my own belongings and Not be expected to check with people before i do my won stuff.

i need to own my own belongings, i ment.

You mean, like the prosperity found in socialist countries like Cuba and North Korea.

Socialism in the real world--concrete socialism.

I am beginning to seriously doubt whether or not "concrete thinking" is all that universal to Asperger's given that there seem to be quite a few Aspergics who studiously avoid concrete thinking when it comes to political matters.  Instead, they reject the concrete--a system as it exists in the real world and insist upon imposing the abstract as if it were concrete.

I'm talking about concrete, real-world socialism, the way it happens in reality.  Evidently, that whole "concrete thinking" thing isn't actually that strong a trait in Aspergers...

Then you oppose every country exists or that has ever existed, because that's how all of them work, without exception.

What you are doing is indulging in the "No True Scotsman" fallacy/rhetorical weasel trick.

And you are solidifying my own contention that concrete thinking and Aspergers very well may have nothing at all to do with each other.  I talk about socialism in the real world, in the concrete, and the responses I get are to dismiss the concrete in favor of a fantasy form of socialism.

WITH democracy, the same thing will happen specifically because some people are better at manipulating democratic processes for their own benefit than are the majority of us.

The versions of Fundamentalist Theocracy that you refer to have failed more due to the totalitarian aspects of the regimes...[/quote]

A future implementation of Fundamentalist Theocracy wouldn't necessarily have the same failings.  The failure of Fundamentalist Theocracy isn't in my opinion in the ideology but rather the autocracy that these regimes tried to bring with the Fundamentalist Theology.


Let's see some actual concrete evidence to back up your contentions.

You just adore using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, like any good hardcore dogmatic would.

You DO know what I mean by "No True Scotsman", right?

Socialism is about extending government control.  The only way it differs from naked fascism is the propaganda it prefers to spew.  Either way, it's bigger and bigger government, more and more interference.

im a libertarian with some very mild bleeding into republican views at times. libertarians are disorganized and sometimes a little ignorant on how things really can and cant work, but they always have the greater good and freedom in mind. republicans are the lessor of two evils between them and democrats.

socialism is "mild fascism" modernly. its rather disgusting.

i dont get into the headache of politics. dont even try to debate with me because i am literally seriously incapabble Becuase of my autism, i do not have aspegrers, and do have verbal dificulties.


i am one of the minority my age, i do not know what capitalism means, i do not know what a neo-conservative is, but i DO know what fascism means. i cant describe things taht are words so dont ask me to define it without the aid of a dictionary or choice website.

i do not know anything about norway at all. i do know a few artists in norway thats about it. they hate it there, though.

i dont think libertarins can BE socialist, fundamentally therye almost oposites arent they?

Once again, you diddle in fallacious rhetoric worthy only of out-of-touch ivory-tower types, of people who reject concrete reality.

  
It might do if you have a very warped definition of the term and one which bears no resemblence to the original meaning of the word.[/quote]

Original meaning?  You want to play that game?  Okay, I demand that you use the "original meaning" of ALL WORDS, from now, on.  Good luck.  I'll let you consult the OED for "original meanings", or at least the oldest possible meaning.

I say that you have a warped definition of socialism and of libertarianism.  If you wish to respond, please only use the original meaning of every word (or the earliest meaning available from the OED, if the original meaning is unknown).

I have proven my point.  I mention the most stridently and supremely socialist states to have existed in the real world, and the cultists and out-of-touch dogmatics refuse to address reality in the concrete, preferring to cling to their fantasies and delusions of a "perfect" socialism that has never really existed.

"Socialist"=="delusional" and will remain such until someone really does address socialism in the real world, not just in pretty little fairy tale fantasy versions.