Socialism

[richard_daily]

if you mean blue light special, yes! we have discounts, sure its not the five finger discount program you normally enjoy....but hey, you got to do what you have to do, as you enjoy that social crack program, right?

You call it a "blue light special"?

What an odd way to treat your johns. Do you get one of those classy lightbulbs and dress up in a pvc french maid outfit too?

I mean... I guess it beats what you USED to do for a living.

 

[jeninflorida]

You call it a "blue light special"?

What an odd way to treat your johns. Do you get one of those classy lightbulbs and dress up in a pvc french maid outfit too?

I mean... I guess it beats what you USED to do for a living.

keep on coming back, it works if you work it?!? right?

what ever helps you sleep at night....so sad but hey, not everyone can be a winner right?

and it seems that you are lashing out at me for something you did....did you try to rent-a-slut and did she turn you down again? after all, this is how you think of of....women, right?

I'm guessing this fantasy of "street girls" is something from your childhood....maybe family business? don't look down on them, after all...I'm sure they might be sucessful. so why do you look down on them?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Errmmm . . . that's one point of view . . . Here's another.

Omg... you are little children still trying to convince yourselves that Socialism is a good thing? Some day, maybe you nuts can wear big boy pants

thanks for trying, NEXT

What did the post you quoted (about the TV show The Prisoner) have to do with socialism?

 

[richard_daily]

What did the post you quoted (about the TV show The Prisoner) have to do with socialism?

Jenin is an idiot... there's no rhyme or reason to it.

 

[CaptainKirk]

http://www.photorox.com/images/whiteknight64/6eatingpopcorn.jpg

 

[neci]

whore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

did you wash the dishes?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

But, it doesn't. Look at Europe today. It's certainly not getting more socialistic.

That's because since 1880, it (assuming one can actually treat Europe as a block of similar states, possibly a bad assumption) keeps trying to turn hard Left and every time it does economic reality forces it back to the right as it descends either into inflation, war, or both.

Note what is happening to the American dollar. This is all due to Obama's call to follow the path blazed by "The Socialists of the Chair."

Right now, their pendulum, has indeed swung back to the right, but it will swing back again just as soon as a semblance of order is restored and the Keynesians can claim that they've reworked their master plan and this time, by golly, it's going to work!
__________________
“There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian.”
Murray Rothbard

I'm Hungary for some French-fried €PIIGS!
A_J, the Incredulous

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

As far as I can see, you're right here. There's no coherent definition in use. The right screams "socialist!" when they see something they don't like. Ishmael takes it a step further and screams "communist!" when he sees it. How did Rand define it?

You'd think, if someone was going to use a word like that, it would be easy enough to say, "When I call Obama a socialist, I mean his goals are government ownership and control of the means of production and transportation of goods," but instead what you get is answers like "What do you mean he's not a socialist? He bailed out GM!" To which the only sensible response is "Socialism means government bailouts?"

I didn't address Ish's list, because I still don't buy his argument that socialism is communism, so a list of communist manifesto principles and how they're already upon us is as irrelevant as a list of the abuses of power committed by Idi Amin would be. I will note in passing that it amused me to see this:



...knowing that he's been a staunch defender of the factory-farming industry in discussions about its environmental degradation.

The give us a better word.

As I pointed out, it doesn't matter what word you use, there's enough leeway in the interpretation of the definition that everyone of that ilk has deniable plausibility. Is "The Politic of Altruism" an acceptable substitute, for that which we discuss is the purview of the social and economic moral busybodies of anti-Capitalism and Liberalism.
__________________
"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
CS Lewis

 

[Sean]

That's because since 1880, it (assuming one can actually treat Europe as a block of similar states, possibly a bad assumption) keeps trying to turn hard Left and every time it does economic reality forces it back to the right as it descends either into inflation, war, or both.

Note what is happening to the American dollar. This is all due to Obama's call to follow the path blazed by "The Socialists of the Chair."

Right now, their pendulum, has indeed swung back to the right, but it will swing back again just as soon as a semblance of order is restored and the Keynesians can claim that they've reworked their master plan and this time, by golly, it's going to work!
__________________
“There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian.”
Murray Rothbard

I'm Hungary for some French-fried €PIIGS!
A_J, the Incredulous

Yep, all those socialist investment banks that caused a global economic crash won't be reading their copies of Das Kapital for a while.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I'm very, very, almost painfully familiar with your slippery slope argument. If you put on your crampons and go uphill, where do you stop? Where's the top of that slope?

Me? Interventionalist? But you're the one who wants uteruses to be state-controlled real estate. I want 'em free of any government intervention.

What your whole post fails completely to address is that there's the same amount of parsing available to you; where's the line between "good" and "bad" government intervention? Once we start eliminating government, how do we know where to stop?



Curious, this. When I read it, the first thing that came to mind was "Exxon." Why do you suppose that is?

So too, do you, it's just the degree of which gives you a false sense of superiority and I am tired of having this slander hurled at me unless I am wrong in your position so let's find out.

Can a woman chose to have an abortion right up to the minute before the baby crowns, and then it must be killed lest you be telling her what she can do "with her uterus (Gawd, what disgusting phraseology)" while we at once tell her she cannot sell her kidney or liver? Or, do you to, think that at some arbitrary point that you can begin to tell her what to do with her uterus, and if so, then do we not share the same position, only with differing time lines?
__________________
There is black and white, and if you refuse to believe that, then you will accept grey and let me tell you gray tends to black for when you say ∃ of anything is a good function of government then ∃ is everything ¬∀ and while you may be able to advocate for ∃ you won't be allowed to define it and in this manner its limit will be ∀ for ∑f(∪∃)i [i=from you to the total population] will never tend to ∅ by definition so it is easy to see that it is, indeed, an ∀ or ∅ when it comes to government.
A_J, the Stupid

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

"What your whole post fails completely to address is that there's the same amount of parsing available to you; where's the line between "good" and "bad" government intervention? Once we start eliminating government, how do we know where to stop?"


"[W]hat limits ought to be set to the activity of the state," is "that the provision of security, against both external enemies and internal dissensions must constitute the purpose of the state, and occupy the circle of its activity."
Wilhelm von Humboldt

"Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things."
Adam Smith

Self-defense against enemies of the state and a sound legal structure that addresses actual wrong, not a government that tries to anticipate wrongs.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Yep, all those socialist investment banks that caused a global economic crash won't be reading their copies of Das Kapital for a while.

Those banks are built on a false premise. That money is a pure commodity unto itself and that the central bank(s) can fully comprehend the forces of a chaotic system, ignore the free market, and keep just the right amount of commodity on hand...

 

[kbate]

You're doing it wrong.

Instead, ask baggers to explain how libertarians aren't anarchists.

That's always good for a laugh.

Why would any bother? You wish to keep your precious theory that a desire to Limit Government means to abolish it entirely and are not willing to even consider a government that does not control all economic activity.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Why would any bother? You wish to keep your precious theory that a desire to Limit Government means to abolish it entirely and are not willing to even consider a government that does not control all economic activity.

Nonsense. Government is always involved in economic activity, and the rest is just politics.

 

[kbate]

Nonsense. Government is always involved in economic activity, and the rest is just politics.

And thusly, you prove my statement true.

 

[off2bed]

I think you socialists are more ignorant of the definitions of "libertarian" and "anarchist" than you think we are about "socialist."

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I think you socialists are more ignorant of the definitions of "libertarian" and "anarchist" than you think we are about "socialist."

I grok that!

I say one and "PRESTO CHANGE-O!" I'm the other...

 

[off2bed]

I grok that!

I say one and "PRESTO CHANGE-O!" I'm the other...

But they don't believe you're either. If you're against Socialism, you must be, by definition, a Republican Neanderthal. Theirs is the world of black and white, us against them.

 

[kbate]

I think you socialists are more ignorant of the definitions of "libertarian" and "anarchist" than you think we are about "socialist."

It is important to remember that a tenet of the Progressive philosophy is to never admit that you are a socialist - but to instead obfuscate with ever increasingly fancy terminology the truth that central planning is socialism.

The reason they want to equate Libertarian with Anarchy - is because to a progressive - is because everyone knows Anarchy is The Bad (despite there not having been a true anarchy in written history) and we must avoid it by going as far in the other direction as possible.

 

[off2bed]

Heh, writing the history of a true anarchy would nullify its trueness. There have surely been anarchies - cavemen may have lived under anarchy, who knows.

You'd think that if Socialism was so good for us, its proponents would proudly declare themselves Socialists. What are they afraid of?

"Hello, my name is King Orfeo, and I am proud to be a Socialist. And you should be, too. Here's why..."

 

[rosco rathbone]

You folks are anarchists and the rest is just equivocation, pettifoggery, misdirection and false memes.

 

[off2bed]

You folks are anarchists and the rest is just equivocation, pettifoggery, misdirection and false memes.

You left out "folk demons."

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

But they don't believe you're either. If you're against Socialism, you must be, by definition, a Republican Neanderthal. Theirs is the world of black and white, us against them.

While they scream, "YOU PEOPLE THINK IN TERMS OF BLACK AND WHITE!"

Liberal used to be a good word implying educated and Libertarian in a social and economic sense, then those with no discernible label what-so-ever turned it to educated and socialist, but we're not socialists, we just think that Individual Liberty and Free Markets are tantamount to anarchy...

... you have to have rules, controls, and regulations or the powerful are going to rape you, so please give us the power to stop them from raping you...

... we'll be gentle and use soothing language.

 

[richard_daily]

Why would any bother? You wish to keep your precious theory that a desire to Limit Government means to abolish it entirely and are not willing to even consider a government that does not control all economic activity.

So ultimately; you're really no different from a communist, in that you dream of a utopia that has never existed, and will never exist.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why would any bother? You wish to keep your precious theory that a desire to Limit Government means to abolish it entirely and are not willing to even consider a government that does not control all economic activity.

No government but North Korea's has ever controlled all economic activity.