03-13-2007, 02:58 AM
03-14-2007, 07:15 PM
Logical paradox Wrote:
No, it means that capitalists consume more of it 
.
.
Then the obvious intelligent choice is to be capitalist, since they get more of the beer.
03-18-2007, 09:03 PM
StuartM Wrote:
[quote=DogBrain]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?
You DO know what I mean by "No True Scotsman", right?
No I don't and I can't be bothered trying to find out what it is and how it applies to this particular discussion.
Quote:
"No True Scotsman" is a fallacious argument. It's taken from a short story where a character denies that a Scotsman could ever have committed a particular heinous crime. When it turns out that it was a Scotsman, the character shoots back with "No TRUE Scotsman could have..." It's a tactic employed by out-of-touch dogmatics who can't deal with the real world. See also "no true Christian" or "no true Socialist".
DogBrain Wrote:
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.
Really? When did I advocate extending government control?
I'm talking about how socialism is implemented in the real world--in those countries that have adopted it.
Quote:
If you had read the site I posted about the events in Spain you would see that I advocate a libertarian socialist society where things are run not by any state but democratically by working people.
Libertarianism requires a free market and rejects socialism in any and all forms. The anarcho-syndicalists of Spain were mass murderers.
03-31-2007, 09:47 PM
I am a socialist if what you mean is that I belive that a goverment has a responsibility to protect and care for its population. However I am NOT a communist (many get the two confused). Communisim would be great if only people wern't so damn greedy and selfish. In theory it's a great system, just not in execution.
04-02-2007, 07:44 PM
The best long-term way for a government "to protect and care for its population" is to not burden it down with massive amounts of regulation and interfere constantly in matters of commerce. Planned economies and government-coerced "sharing" of property result in greater long-term harm than good.
10-24-2007, 08:20 AM
Sat_Chit_Anand Wrote:
I am a democratic nationalist, with a radical viewpoint on socialism.
I believe that socialist enthusiasts should be given interest-free loans by to set up collectives, co-ops and communes, and that workers should be able to get assistance from local authorities to form co-operatives, or to create worker shareholder schemes, if they choose to.
I believe that socialist enthusiasts should be given interest-free loans by to set up collectives, co-ops and communes, and that workers should be able to get assistance from local authorities to form co-operatives, or to create worker shareholder schemes, if they choose to.
One of the problems in British society appears to be that the government experimented with socialism, such as with the port authorities, and housing projects, only to dump the socialised projects on the free market for a song. This placed pensioned workers in a very bad position.
I was watching a comedy sketch by Billy Connolly the other day and was amazed at the blighted conditions of the port and housing projects in Scottland where he grew up.
Meanwhile the taxes increased even as former government endevours were privatised. I've met a few Britons and found that they always freely talk about the situation in which they are already overtaxed for what they get.
I would think that industry regulation on a pay as you go, or Paygo system would be a more ideal system than actual socialism. Regulatory systems could have sunset provisions in which an entire regulatory body could be disposed of if not operating efficiently. Finances could be modeled after the governmental fund accounting system and original appointments could be designated by the executive branch.
As a corollary, fixed exchange rates such as the U.S. China 1:4 need scrapped before there are some serious repercussions in the markets and ultimately attempts by poorer countries to split from the banking system. I believe that this has already been hinted at by Ignacio Lula de Silva.
11-17-2007, 06:46 AM
"National Review Online" http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTA...Q0N2M2YTc=
Chavez’s economic program is also not helping ordinary Venezuelans. Inflation is on the rise and price controls have led to shortages of Venezuelan staples like coffee and beef. Worse may be on the way: In a recent broadcast of his talk show Alo Presidente, Chavez called for replacing the economy with a national barter system.
Overshadowing these problems is Venezuela’s frightening crime rate. Last March the murder of three Venezuelan-Canadian brothers and their driver sparked massive protests across Caracas highlighting public rage at the frequency of such crimes. Since Chavez took office, Venezuela’s homicide rate has doubled to become the highest in the world, with 10,000 people murdered annually out of an overall population smaller than that of Canada.
Chavez’s economic program is also not helping ordinary Venezuelans. Inflation is on the rise and price controls have led to shortages of Venezuelan staples like coffee and beef. Worse may be on the way: In a recent broadcast of his talk show Alo Presidente, Chavez called for replacing the economy with a national barter system.
Overshadowing these problems is Venezuela’s frightening crime rate. Last March the murder of three Venezuelan-Canadian brothers and their driver sparked massive protests across Caracas highlighting public rage at the frequency of such crimes. Since Chavez took office, Venezuela’s homicide rate has doubled to become the highest in the world, with 10,000 people murdered annually out of an overall population smaller than that of Canada.
11-17-2007, 06:58 AM
Blog on international barter system: ALBA
It seems like this would be a good idea with commodities such as grain, timber, or oil. Beyond that it may be a little far fetched?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.acti...a?lnk=raot
The major
benefit is that ALBA is essentially a barter system in which countries
decide for themselves what any given commodity or service is worth
rather than letting traders in New York, Chicago or London set the
prices for them. That makes trade less vulnerable to the kind of sudden
price fluctuations that have hurt Latin American economies before.
Surrounded by turbulent financial waters, Latin America is creating a
zone of relative economic calm and predictability, a feat presumed
impossible in the globalization era.
When one country does face a financial shortfall, this increased
integration means that it does not necessarily need to turn to the IMF
or the US Treasury for a bailout.
It seems like this would be a good idea with commodities such as grain, timber, or oil. Beyond that it may be a little far fetched?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.acti...a?lnk=raot
The major
benefit is that ALBA is essentially a barter system in which countries
decide for themselves what any given commodity or service is worth
rather than letting traders in New York, Chicago or London set the
prices for them. That makes trade less vulnerable to the kind of sudden
price fluctuations that have hurt Latin American economies before.
Surrounded by turbulent financial waters, Latin America is creating a
zone of relative economic calm and predictability, a feat presumed
impossible in the globalization era.
When one country does face a financial shortfall, this increased
integration means that it does not necessarily need to turn to the IMF
or the US Treasury for a bailout.
11-17-2007, 07:52 AM
Global banking requires a global army.
Sometimes you get nothing for something.
I have to admit, when the two threads are seen in sequence, the do have some unusual connotations. That's probably why I've been getting the ridiculous ethnic jokes in the other threads.
Here is my disclaimer:
[b]I did not begin the threads. I only posted ideas which may or may not have been read.
http://www.matthewbarr.co.uk/sounds/1million.wav
http://www.mattsmoviesounds.co.uk/sounds...n_bone.wav
Sometimes you get nothing for something.
I have to admit, when the two threads are seen in sequence, the do have some unusual connotations. That's probably why I've been getting the ridiculous ethnic jokes in the other threads.
Here is my disclaimer:
[b]I did not begin the threads. I only posted ideas which may or may not have been read.
http://www.matthewbarr.co.uk/sounds/1million.wav
http://www.mattsmoviesounds.co.uk/sounds...n_bone.wav
11-17-2007, 09:04 AM
Alrighty, then
Why?
Why?
11-17-2007, 01:39 PM
P. James Moriarty Wrote:
Absolutely not. My arguments with people usually go something like this:
Me: You wish the federal government was more socialist?
Them: Yeah, it would be better for the people.
Me: So you believe in socialism on a national level then?
Them: Yes.
Me: Ya know, National Socialism's been tried. That little experiment didn't work out so well.
Them: What?
Me: Next time you're next to a web-linked computer, do a search for just those two words, "National Socialism" and see what you come up with.
I normally never hear from them again. The same arguments that people use to support their case for socialism can and have been used to increase government control over populations to the point of dictatorships and eugenics. Freedom is a scary thing. True freedom means not having a government, any government, dictate how you will live your life or if you life is to be continued in the face of "the greater good". But it also means that you take responsibility for yourself. You never get something for nothing. If the government "gives" you services, it will demand something in return, and that thing is always your freedoms, and sometimes your life. I would think that someone who has been designate aberrant from the "norm", people would be just a little more cautious about such things.
Me: You wish the federal government was more socialist?
Them: Yeah, it would be better for the people.
Me: So you believe in socialism on a national level then?
Them: Yes.
Me: Ya know, National Socialism's been tried. That little experiment didn't work out so well.
Them: What?
Me: Next time you're next to a web-linked computer, do a search for just those two words, "National Socialism" and see what you come up with.
I normally never hear from them again. The same arguments that people use to support their case for socialism can and have been used to increase government control over populations to the point of dictatorships and eugenics. Freedom is a scary thing. True freedom means not having a government, any government, dictate how you will live your life or if you life is to be continued in the face of "the greater good". But it also means that you take responsibility for yourself. You never get something for nothing. If the government "gives" you services, it will demand something in return, and that thing is always your freedoms, and sometimes your life. I would think that someone who has been designate aberrant from the "norm", people would be just a little more cautious about such things.
That argument is totally rotten. I'm not a socialist, but to equate national socialism (i.e., nazism) with socialism on a national level shows only your own ignorance.
Nazism is a totalitarian, fascistic, nationalistic and undemocratic policy, whereas most self-professed socialists are social democrats.
Since you are against government, are you also against hierarchial organization?
11-17-2007, 02:07 PM
You don't think we should learn from past mistakes?
11-17-2007, 08:12 PM
P. James Moriarty Wrote:
Simen Wrote:
That argument is totally rotten. I'm not a socialist, but to equate national socialism (i.e., nazism) with socialism on a national level shows only your own ignorance.
I didn't equate national socialism with socialism on a national level.
You wrote:
Quote:
Me: So you believe in socialism on a national level then?
Them: Yes.
Me: Ya know, National Socialism's been tried. That little experiment didn't work out so well.
Them: Yes.
Me: Ya know, National Socialism's been tried. That little experiment didn't work out so well.
You jump from "So you believe in socialism on a national level" to "National socialism's been tried". How is that not equating the two? If you don't think they are the same, then obviously the failure of national socialism shouldn't be used as an argument against socialism on a national level.
Quote:
If you'll review your history, The NAZIs rose to power on the backs of the National Socialist movement. I simply provided a starting point for people to reserch the results of national socilistic policies from a historical perspective. The social policies are close enough that it is not a difficult transition. Beyond that, if the people have surrendered enough of thier freedoms to make socialistic policies work on a national level to a central government, do you really think, given an honest assessment of human nature, think that someone in government wouldn't take that power for themselves? If not it is you who are "ignorant", not I.
I don't know what you mean with that. I live in a country with many "socialistic policies" in practice, however our government is much less corrupt than the US government.
National socialism is not socialism; in fact, pure socialism is a far left position, whereas pure nazism is a far right position which is also deeply racistic in nature. Whereas socialists and communists preach the equality of all, the nazists preach the superiority of the Aryan race. Whereas modern social democrats preach the virtues of democracy, nazists support totalitarian, authoritarian and anti-democratic governments. Whereas nazists often supported social darwinism, socialists support the complete opposite.
The fact that both movements want strong government control is just about the only thing they have in common.
The nazis rose to power on a wave of unemployment, global depression, anti-semitism and xenophobia. Hitler convinced the government to make him effectively dictator by appealing to the fear of communists after the Reichstag fire, passing a law that made it possible for him to make his own laws without Reichstag approval.
Whatever the flaws of socialism, they are far from the flaws of nazism, and to play the Hitler card is disingeniuous and stupid.
Quote:
Simen Wrote:
Nazism is a totalitarian, fascistic, nationalistic and undemocratic policy, whereas most self-professed socialists are social democrats.
Useful idiots. (Lenin)
So you say. Experience tells me different.
Quote:
Simen Wrote:
Since you are against government, are you also against hierarchial organization?
Here you start making assumtions. I never said I was against government.
You emphasized freedom and said that any government intervention was limiting your freedom, hence I assumed you were against government.
Quote:
I am however for LIMITED government and against consolidation of increasing amounts of power in the federal which socialism fosters at a price to the peoples freedoms. Defend your freedoms or lose them. Beynd that it disgusts me that a group of otherwise capable folks (whatever label you care to slap on them) are such whimps that they cry to the federal "oh please take care of me, I'm sooooo incapable of taking care of myself". Punks. There are some who genuinely need government services, no doubt.
I'm sure you'd say that if you were at the bottom of the social ranking. Ever thought about John Rawl's Original Position thought experiment?
Quote:
But to make socilistic policies blanket (re "universal health care", etc.) will have unintended consiquences in terms of loss of personal freedoms, regressive taxes, and a net loss of actual services availlible (see Canadian socialized medical system sending high risk pregnancy cases to America for lack of services in Canada).
I live in a country which has universal health care and happens to not be Canada. I don't see the consequences you talk about.
11-17-2007, 09:05 PM
P. James Moriarty Wrote:
Interesting discusion, no doubt, but I'm new here and don't want to create enemies, so let me leave it like this: I don't like having anyone or any thing interfering in my life, especialy a faceless government. I am a staunch individualist (a frontier type) and see Socialism in general as a danger to it. You have your own beliefs. I respect them, though I disagee and see positive danger in the practical application. We'll see how it plays out in reality.
Heh, you'd be unlikely to get any enemies for disagreeing, I hope, but whatever, I shan't push you if you don't want to argue.
I should add that I don't like any forms of collectivism, but I hold that the government should secure positive as well as negative liberty. I don't believe in the Night Watchman State.
11-17-2007, 10:23 PM
Lucie1 Wrote:
I don't have a political mind - but I can reason right from wrong.
While "I don't have a political mind" sounds nice and humble, being able to reason right from wrong (apart from, say, "murder is wrong", "theft is wrong" and other widely-accepted norms) isn't really humble.
Making moral cases, I have found, is extremely hard, especially since even establishing the existence of objective morality is so hard.