Socialism

[JenAltArmy]

are you still coming up with a way to counter how I took these away from your socislist fantasy (schools, police, fire, bla, bla)

then again, I'm sure losing hurts. by now, you should be use to it.

check mate!

Isn't that; "I can lead you to kool aid"?

 

[JenAltArmy]

clif notes:

I win
socialism is bad

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://www.dirtandseeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/reaganomics.jpg

 

[JenAltArmy]

Sorry that u picked a bad career, but that isn't my fault or is it society’s responsibility.

It’s up to u to make good choices.

If economically you didn't improve, ask yourself (or family) why? What type of career are you in (if in manufacturing or union - well u r screwed)

My alive family members started purchasing homes under caters term. Freaking 18 % mortgages were the norm. Fucking government retards programs.

That was wrong, the carter years.

Once carter got the ole elbow, things became even better. More spendable income, lower taxes (always a good thing), lower interest and less inflation.

So I don't know wtf u r talking

I think a good personal growing experience would be for you to stop blaming others for your failures and see how you can improve.

Take responsibility and become accountable. Be a grown up, and not a dependant to government

Remember, do u want to be in the same place in 6 years that u r in today?

Hopefully not

so yes, Regan economics worked!

http://www.dirtandseeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/reaganomics.jpg

 

[JenAltArmy]

So the silence is defining of the socialist lost.

Their argument of “we are a socialist country” because we have schools, military, this and that; well clearly I had taken that way from the nut jobbers.

That schools, police, military, this and that; is a brilliant capitalist move.

All I can say, is check mate to those fools


2ndly, how can anyone say that Regan was bad for the country? lower taxes, lower inflation, and lower interest rates where a great thing!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. You posted: "Some how under Bush an underbelly of socialism started..."

You think that "underbelly of socialism" began during the Bush presidency? Which Bush?

You don't need to read Bronze or Luke's posts, nor any book by a president to know about, oh, say, welfare or the New Deal. Neither of which started under either Bush.

I agree that what's happening in China is interesting. The USSR didn't "morph," it imploded.

Which countries do you think were "purely socialist?"

As to your questions, I think you need to ask them that. You probably stand a much better chance of getting a straight answer if you ask under your regular nick, as opposed to this alt.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

http://chandrakantha.com/articles/indian_music/filmi_sangeet/media/1984_reaganomics.jpg

Reaganomics

Reagan instituted the idea of treating “people in trouble as people who make trouble” (Reeves, p. 73, 1994). With the advent of Reagon as political leader, government-funded programs intended to aid the poor, such as welfare and affirmative action, were suddenly against government policy. This idea of essentially abandoning the poverty-stricken to fend for themselves was completely held up by the Reagan-instituted panic about crack.

Reagan advocated social Darwinism, a theory that allows the rich to feel justified in their constant exploitation of the people deemed “less fit” to live. Reaganomics is essentially “the presumption that economic growth was simply a matter of stimulating the entrepreneurial realm with economic rewards” (p. 75, 1994). This ideology was viewed as a positive reward system, while welfare supposedly rewarded the 'negative', as in, poor inner-city people with no jobs. As many of the people on welfare were women of color, Reaganomics “was both masculinist and racist” (p. 76. 1994).

Reagan advocated the small entrepreneur and helped these businesses by significantly reducing government control over labor policies and the market. This phenomenon aided the uptake of prison labor. Reeves calls Reagan the "great deregulator" (p. 87, 1994). With his policy of deregulation both union members "and the nonunionized working poor, especially those isolated in America's inner cities...[felt] a devastating impact...[from Reagan's] radical restructuring of the labor market under flexible accumulation" (p. 88, 1994). Reagan's ideologies excluded the nation's poor; the rich and middle class were included by their mutual appreciation of the disposal of federal taxes. Reagan's idea of a burgeoning free market harken back "to the gilded age of a pre-Fordist, Horatio Alger enterprise culture" (p. 90, 1994). Reagan's utopian dream was stopped by the inherent racism in his policies. This racism, though less overt than in previous decades, essentially considered blacks and other "racial minorities as lazy by nature and intellectually, as well as biologically, inferior to the white race" (p. 91, 1994). With the popular free market ideology came the popular assumption that anyone could succeed and make enough money if he tried hard enough. If a person was unsuccessful, she was culpable. Therefore, poor blacks in the inner city were to blame for their failure to flourish. America's justification for ending welfare programs stemmed from these beliefs; government money supplementing such programs was supposedly abetting the poor's inherent laziness.

Reagan and the War on Drugs

Created by: maynard@lclark.edu
Updated: December 13, 2001

http://legacy.lclark.edu/~soan221/01wlc/prison/prisonandreaganomics.html

 

[JenAltArmy]

the small entrepreneur must be hunted down and terminated!

Reaganomics


Reagan advocated the small entrepreneur and helped these businesses by significantly reducing government control over labor policies and the market. This phenomenon aided the uptake of prison labor. Reeves calls Reagan the "great deregulator" (p. 87, 1994). With his policy of deregulation both union members "and the nonunionized working poor, especially those isolated in America's inner cities...[felt] a devastating impact...[from Reagan's] radical restructuring of the labor market under flexible accumulation" (p. 88, 1994). Reagan's ideologies excluded the nation's poor; the rich and middle class were included by their mutual appreciation of the disposal of federal taxes. Reagan's idea of a burgeoning free market harken back "to the gilded age of a pre-Fordist, Horatio Alger enterprise culture" (p. 90, 1994). Reagan's utopian dream was stopped by the inherent racism in his policies. This racism, though less overt than in previous decades, essentially considered blacks and other "racial minorities as lazy by nature and intellectually, as well as biologically, inferior to the white race" (p. 91, 1994). With the popular free market ideology came the popular assumption that anyone could succeed and make enough money if he tried hard enough. If a person was unsuccessful, she was culpable. Therefore, poor blacks in the inner city were to blame for their failure to flourish. America's justification for ending welfare programs stemmed from these beliefs; government money supplementing such programs was supposedly abetting the poor's inherent laziness.

Reagan and the War on Drugs

Created by: maynard@lclark.edu
Updated: December 13, 2001[/I]

http://legacy.lclark.edu/~soan221/01wlc/prison/prisonandreaganomics.html

 

[eyer]

(^ "Yes.")

(>"Hardly."<)

Nonono... You got it all wrong... Eeyore doesn't GET any mail. I'm not sure how he pulls that off exactly. Eeyore, care to enlighten us???

It's really simple, dick...

...don't send, don't receive.

And for backup...

...don't live @ a deliverable address.

I'm more reachable by Pony Express than USSPS.

Optout is an outstanding piece to have in the toolkit of individual liberty.

Don't you see it? You're doing precisely the same thing. You're fine with some, but not as much as we have.

Or, you're not fine with any. Which is it?

It's as reasonable to call YOU a socialist, by your own criteria. You've said you believe in some government intervention; I've showed that there's no quantifiable criteria for that. You might as well go ahead and make the leap from "some" to "all."

Where was it that you "showed that there's no quantifiable criteria for that."?

*************************

BTW: I read an article today by a guy on the set during the filming of Atlas Shrugged, and he was assuming that some die-hard Randists might be almost impossible to please if the movie didn't exactly follow the book, and he used the example that they might take offense that Dagney's assistant is a black guy in the movie, but is not in the book...which led him to quote Ayn Rand herself (and which I have verified):

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism."

To repeat earlier post thoughts: anyone who participates in the act of slavery cannot be creditably labeled a capitalist, nor can the act of slavery itself be credibly labeled capitalism when at its very principle lies the fact that capitalism is free transaction among free individuals.

I await the bowery boys to school me now on how American slavery wasn't racist...

BTW2: at the following link you can find Rand's quote above in the outstanding piece Racism published in the September, 1963 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter and which was also included as a chapter in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness.

For those old enough to remember the racial climate in this nation around that date, read the entire article to understand how far afront of the collective Rand's philosophy was at the time...and still is.

http://freedomkeys.com/ar-racism.htm

 

[cjh]

Capitalism and objectivism are two different concepts. Objectivism undoubtedly celebrates capitalism. But it doesn't get to redefine it to suit its morality.

 

[eyer]

Capitalism and objectivism are two different concepts. Objectivism undoubtedly celebrates capitalism. But it doesn't get to redefine it to suit its morality.

Economically, I'm a capitalist...

...philosophically, I am not an objectivist.

Morality is defined by truth...

...no matter what a subjectivist may offer.

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism."

Forget who said it...

....do you agree or not?

 

[badbabysitter]

Economically, I'm a capitalist...

...philosophically, I am not an objectivist.

Morality is defined by truth...

...no matter what a subjectivist may offer.

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism."

Forget who said it...

....do you agree or not?

Morality defined as truth?

you'll need to clear up what you mean by that


the Nazi's were certain jews were an inferior people.. that was their morality.. is that then the truth?

 

[Peregrinator]

Where was it that you "showed that there's no quantifiable criteria for that."?

Repeatedly, all over this thread and many others in the last six or seven years.

Every time someone describes their "acceptable" level of government intervention, it's always an opinion. It's never something that can be clearly, indisputably quantified. But, of course, it's always presented as if it were.

 

[eyer]

Repeatedly, all over this thread and many others in the last six or seven years.

Can you specifically link me to where exactly in this thread??

I'm interested...

Every time someone describes their "acceptable" level of government intervention, it's always an opinion. It's never something that can be clearly, indisputably quantified. But, of course, it's always presented as if it were.

Too bad there's not a political hardware store in your area...

...you know, so you could go there and match "clearly, indisputable quantified" pallets to suit your taste(s).

 

[Peregrinator]

Can you specifically link me to where exactly in this thread??

I'm interested...



Too bad there's not a political hardware store in your area...

...you know, so you could go there and match "clearly, indisputable quantified" pallets to suit your taste(s).

Dood! I'd have to re-read all 30-whatever pages. Try post #587; at least I address it there with Frisco.

It kinda is too bad. It would be a lot easier if there was some definitive way of saying what is too much government and what is not. The problem is the line has to be drawn somewhere, and people on one side of that line, no matter where it's drawn, look at the other side and call them socialists. The most common definition by far, collective or governmental control of the means of production and distribution, isn't sufficient to justify that, so we get a bunch of parsing, with the side advocating less--but not no--control getting to call the other side names.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

To be honest, I think the whole conversation is a red herring.

Are there things that the government can do better than the private sector, for any of a number of circumstantial reasons? If so, let the government do them, and remember that you'd be paying for it either way, private or public.

Are there things that the private sector can do better than the government? If so, let the market work it out, and remember that you'd be paying for it either way, private or public.

Are there incentives toward corruption in the private market? Yes. If the knowledge that mom and dad are watching would save the consumer more money than it costs for mom and dad to watch, then you should be demanding that they watch and forget about what it's called.

Are there incentives toward bloating and overregulation in the public sector? Yes. If shifting those processes to the private sector would save more than the above-mentioned corruption would cost, you should be demanding that it go private and forget about it's called.

Are there wide swaths in the middle open to debate, interpretation, exploitation and shifting definitions? Of course. Embrace them and be grateful you're able to have the debate at all. But remember that that also means accounting for the other "side" as a viable voice in the discussion.

 

[Devil'sChild]

Let's see. Vette, AJ, Eyer..etc.. believe the right

Daily, Luke, CJH, Babysitter etc hang to the left

So its another he said, she said, you are right, I am right, fuck you for you're belief's thread?

 

[eyer]

It would be a lot easier if there was some definitive way of saying what is too much government and what is not.

Imagine a see-saw, with socialism - "the common good" - and individual liberty - "the individual" - seated on each end...

...for perfect balance, government is fixated exactly in the middle.

Our founders believed that "the common good" depended entirely on securing the individual's "certain unalienable rights" "endowed by their Creator".

To "secure" these individual rights is the declarative purpose of the institution of American federal government and all its power which, itself, can only be derived from the consent of those same individuals...

...as by which it, too, can be altered or abolished when it becomes destructive to securing those same unalienable individual liberties.

Our founders understood the natural tyrannical tendencies of individuals, a lone king, and the mob of majority toward the unalienable individual liberty of man. That is why they worried enough to warn us what would happen if we did not keep close to our hearts the flame of individual freedom and the cost of keeping it lit.

But, back to the see-saw of today...

...understanding what the declarative foundational principle of American federal government is to be, the direction you allow the government to slide on any issue will tell you if you're an individual or a socialist.

The stronger weight of power to the virtuous individual should produce more liberty and freedom in every individual endeavor...

...which will then naturally constitute the totality of liberty for the entire "common good".

On the other hand...

...if the weight of power is slid directly to "the common good", government sanctioned mob (majority) rule will naturally ensue.

And, whereas the individual allows the collective common good to be possible at all, the flip side is not the case: the common good, once accomplished from the input of individuals, has no further need of each unique individual contribution.

The question always comes down to which side of the see-saw you choose to sit.

It's really that simple.

And, if you don't agree that American federal government's declarative instituted purpose is to first and primarily secure the unalienable individual liberties of all men then...

...Boston, we have a problem.

But, when one doesn't believe in the Creator, individual American unalienable rights declared to be endowed by Him become just more fairy tale material to socialists...

...thus socialists, who acknowledge no higher authority than man, look naturally to the government of man to legislate what rights individuals may have and which s/he doesn't merit.

Then, those declarative American individual rights of life, liberty, and property naturally become less and less of a foundational principle, as does the likewise declarative principle that American federal government may only exist at the consent of such free individuals...

...to a point where the warning "the less government is the best government" is exchanged easily for "I'm with the government and I'm here to help you."

The true beauty of individual liberty in the political sphere is the only FORCE involved with it is defensive. Whether another individual shares my poltical philosophy doesn't matter as long as he feels the same way about mine...

...but the collective doesn't feel the same about the individual because the two political value systems are not the same. Whereas the individual reveres individual liberty for each, the collective understands that freedom to be the primary threat to its statist existence. After all, what power has any collective if each individual within it is allowed the freedom to individually act?

So the confrontation begins...

...if whatever "common good" is deemed more important than the individual's liberty, FORCE is offensively applied to compel the individual to join what the collective determines is "the common good".

My position is that that exact collectivist action is demonstrated day in and day out all over the world and the government of the United Socialist State of America is its main proponent.

 

[roomfor1more]

Socialism is the controlling of essential services by the state. Typically you will have the government controlling things such as energy prices, health care, mail, television, social services, transport, and other services deemed to be essential for the country to survive. As a form of government socialism has either merged with a movement called Social Democracy, an example of this would be the Labour Party in the UK. Whereby a free market economy exists and privatization of most services exist. However protection of workers rights and keeping some essential services public remains. On the other extreme you will see the state more control of production and this extreme blends with Communism such as Russia prior to the collapse of Eastern Europe.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Don't you see it? You're doing precisely the same thing. You're fine with some, but not as much as we have.

Or, you're not fine with any. Which is it?

It's as reasonable to call YOU a socialist, by your own criteria. You've said you believe in some government intervention; I've showed that there's no quantifiable criteria for that. You might as well go ahead and make the leap from "some" to "all."

Which "some" government intervention do I believe in?

 

[JenAltArmy]

I’m so sorry but I disagree with this. Whether the service is private sector or public there is a huge difference in cost to the tax payer. Now, do I want to see the police outsourced? Nope. So yes, some services must stay in “government land”

Now, example the retards up in Gainesville at one point terminated FPL and decided to allow the government to take control of the power. WHY? They are paying more due to that bad decision, just in the sake of government? With government, the cost to is higher to the consumer, therefore government must hand over operations to FPL.

To be honest, I think the whole conversation is a red herring.

Are there things that the government can do better than the private sector, for any of a number of circumstantial reasons? If so, let the government do them, and remember that you'd be paying for it either way, private or public.

Are there things that the private sector can do better than the government? If so, let the market work it out, and remember that you'd be paying for it either way, private or public.

Are there incentives toward corruption in the private market? Yes. If the knowledge that mom and dad are watching would save the consumer more money than it costs for mom and dad to watch, then you should be demanding that they watch and forget about what it's called.

Are there incentives toward bloating and overregulation in the public sector? Yes. If shifting those processes to the private sector would save more than the above-mentioned corruption would cost, you should be demanding that it go private and forget about it's called.

Are there wide swaths in the middle open to debate, interpretation, exploitation and shifting definitions? Of course. Embrace them and be grateful you're able to have the debate at all. But remember that that also means accounting for the other "side" as a viable voice in the discussion.

 

[JenAltArmy]

clearly, we all can agree that I'm correct

Let's see. Vette, AJ, Eyer..etc.. believe the right

Daily, Luke, CJH, Babysitter etc hang to the left

So its another he said, she said, you are right, I am right, fuck you for you're belief's thread?

 

[patrick1]

I'm a libertarian socialist, by the way - a category that doesn't seem to be allowed to exist in this peculiar debate. Among many oddities, people here are consistently confusing State intervention in people's lives with socialism. These are two entirely separate phenomena. They arise at different times in different places for entirely different reasons. A little historical perspective on places other than the United States would help.

This emphasis on individual liberty derived from the 18th Century figures you refer to as 'our' Founders. How does that square with 'of the people, by the people, for the people', which has a kind of collectivist twang to me?

P

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You are confused and conflicted. That is all...






You might try Mises.org to cure you of your either of libertarian delusion or your socialist delusion; they cannot coexist.

 

[rosco rathbone]

if that means that we don't wind up with another standard oil, if we can minimize the likelihood of another enron, if i don't have to worry about living next to a toxic waste dump, if drugs like fen-phen don't make it to market, etc. -- then, yes.

The fact is that many of the railroad men and corporate managers are known to be in favor of these measures [federal control of interstate companies], and this is of vast significance. In the end it is probable that all of the corporations will find that a reasonable system of federal regulation is to their interest.

It is not meant by this that the financial interests who are in favor of the administrative measures approve of them exactly in the shape in which they have been presented by the President and Commissioner Garfield, but with the principle of the thing they are disposed to agree.

Now as between governmental regulation by forty-five states and governmental regulation by the central authority of the federal government there can be but one choice...The choice must be that of a federal regulation, for that will be uniform over the whole country and of a higher and more equitable standard.

--The Wall Street Journal December 28, 1904

 

[vrosej10]

Let's see. Vette, AJ, Eyer..etc.. believe the right

Daily, Luke, CJH, Babysitter etc hang to the left

So its another he said, she said, you are right, I am right, fuck you for you're belief's thread?

This is clearly a 'take your favourite hobby horse out for a ride thread'. You have two choices in this situation, saddle up or sit on the sidelines laughing and trying to keep score.