Using basic terms incorrectly...

[BotanyBoy]

So for the third time now

What rational are you using to ignore the following definitions:

I'm not ignoring them high speed LOL

What rational are you using to ignore EVERY other part that you didn't bold?

It's just not as black and white as "Government ownership = socialism and private ownership = capitalism".

There is a lot of grey between the those two of effective government ownership while bullshitting about who's actually running shit and it's called government regulation.

The more government control (regulation/effective ownership) over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services, the closer to that lefty utopia of total government ownership....socialism, in any number of it's sub-flavors.

Not really a far stretch to consider the ever growing police state exercising ever tighter controls over the means of production socialism in action, the growth of socialism in their society or socialist in nature. If you're not a totally brainwashed Marxist who thinks that government control over the means of production = capitalism that is.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

I'm not ignoring them high speed LOL

What rational are you using to ignore EVERY other part that you didn't bold?

Which bit do you believe makes your case that I didn’t bold?

And you will note I did bold “regulation.”

It's just not as black and white as "Government ownership = socialism and private ownership = capitalism".

There is a lot of grey between the those two of effective government ownership while bullshitting about who's actually running shit and it's called government regulation.

The more of that over the means of production the closer to government ownership and the more socialist.

The less of that there is and more privatized things are = more capitalist.

This is nothing more than opinion, your opinion; it is not defined as such by any authority of what the definition is.

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

Which bit do you believe makes your case that I didn’t bold?

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Look beyond "government ownership" and BOOM!! right there says any of various shit pushing for more government control(effective ownership) or official ownership over the means = socialism.

And you will note I did bold “regulation.”

You did, and everything about the oxford definition and Marx definition backs me up. Socialism that place between free market capitalism (no government control over the means) and communism (total government ownership over the means) the more control the government has the more socialist, the less government control the more capitalist.

This is nothing more than opinion, your opinion; it is not defined as such by any authority of what the definition is.

Woof!

No it's not, everything I've said is reflected in most definitions of the word including Websters, Marx, Oxford, FreeDictionary.whatever, Wiki, Britannica and many others if you read them in their entirety and don't focus in on "government ownership" to the extent you're ignoring everything else that is being said.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Look beyond "government ownership" and BOOM!! right there says any of various shit pushing for more government control(effective ownership) or official ownership over the means = socialism.



You did, and everything about the oxford definition and Marx definition backs me up. Socialism that place between free market capitalism (no government control over the means) and communism (total government ownership over the means) the more control the government has the more socialist, the less government control the more capitalist.



No it's not, everything I've said is reflected in most definitions of the word including Websters, Marx, Oxford, FreeDictionary.whatever, Wiki, Britannica and many others if you read them in their entirety and don't focus in on "government ownership" to the extent you're ignoring everything else that is being said.

Your argument is still badly flawed. You say - Because socialism advocates government control, then all forms of government control are socialist.

That follows the logic:

Dogs have four legs; therefore any animal that has four legs is a dog.

Government control does not have to be based on socialist theory but perhaps on pragmatic common sense for example by ensuring that the food people eat is fit to eat.

An aside: I wouldn't eat a cheaply sold US-raised chicken. Some are kept in poor conditions living in their own shit and washed with chorinated water to remove the pathogens. US food regulations are not as comprehensive as those in Europe.

 

[Hypoxia]

Capitalism: What you like if you have money and hate if you don't.
Socialism: What you hate if you have money and love if you don't.
Religion: What you ignore if you have money and live by if you don't.
Law: Rich and poor alike are banned from sleeping in parks and stealing bread.

I see many argument where about definitions, few about effects. Which states have higher standards of living, better medial care, less social disparity: pure capitalisms, or social democracies?

 

[Rightguide]

I'm not ignoring them high speed LOL

What rational are you using to ignore EVERY other part that you didn't bold?

It's just not as black and white as "Government ownership = socialism and private ownership = capitalism".

There is a lot of grey between the those two of effective government ownership while bullshitting about who's actually running shit and it's called government regulation.

The more government control (regulation/effective ownership) over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services, the closer to that lefty utopia of total government ownership....socialism, in any number of it's sub-flavors.

Not really a far stretch to consider the ever growing police state exercising ever tighter controls over the means of production socialism in action, the growth of socialism in their society or socialist in nature. If you're not a totally brainwashed Marxist who thinks that government control over the means of production = capitalism that is.

It's undeniable that government "owns" the means of production through the regulatory process. There is no aspect of it that isn't controlled, guided, or dictated by the government. The only decision that is left to the entrepreneur is the initial decision to go into business, which is in effect, entering into a legal agreement (or economic straitjacket) with the government.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Your argument is still badly flawed. You say - Because socialism advocates government control, then all forms of government control are socialist.

No it doesn't.

It says all government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services are socialist.

You can have a government enforcing laws against murder, drunk driving, fraud and other anti-social, degenerate and or destructive behaviors without ever telling people how much they can do, who they can sell their products/services too and for how much.

Government ensuring peace and tranquility doesn't require market mongering and manipulation.

 

[Rightguide]

No it doesn't.

It says all government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services are socialist.

You can have a government enforcing laws against murder, drunk driving, fraud and other anti-social, degenerate and or destructive behaviors without ever telling people how much they can do, who they can sell their products/services too and for how much.

Government ensuring peace and tranquility doesn't require market mongering and manipulation.

Or mandating a government approved mattress, Showerhead, toothpaste, or toilet.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Capitalism: What you like if you have money and hate if you don't.
Socialism: What you hate if you have money and love if you don't.
Religion: What you ignore if you have money and live by if you don't.
Law: Rich and poor alike are banned from sleeping in parks and stealing bread.

I see many argument where about definitions, few about effects. Which states have higher standards of living, better medial care, less social disparity: pure capitalisms, or social democracies?

Living standards and medical care get better the more capitalist you get.

Social disparity obviously goes to the Robin Hood ....I mean social democracies.

It's undeniable that government "owns" the means of production through the regulatory process.

Apparently to some it's all pure free market capitalism right up until the government hangs a "Department of" sign on it.

There is no aspect of it that isn't controlled, guided, or dictated by the government. The only decision that is left to the entrepreneur is the initial decision to go into business, which is in effect, entering into a legal agreement (or economic straitjacket) with the government.

I feel similarly but I know it could be much, much worse.

 

[richard_daily]

It says all government control over the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods and services are socialist.
.

So give me a single government on earth that doesn't currently do this.

By YOUR definition, every government is socialist.

 

[richard_daily]

Living standards and medical care get better the more capitalist you get.

What metric are you using? What living standards? I'm assuming you're only using GDP, right? If that's the case, then social inequity immediately comes into play. If you're using another metric, what is it?

Because democratic socialist nations have better health care than what we've got, for 1/3 of the price.

 

[Que]

What metric are you using? What living standards? I'm assuming you're only using GDP, right? If that's the case, then social inequity immediately comes into play. If you're using another metric, what is it?

Because democratic socialist nations have better health care than what we've got, for 1/3 of the price.

That is such a dumb comparison. Completely different population sample and the mass majority of our most expensive Health Care problems in this country we heavily subsidized into being a problem.

We subsidize corn and sugar and are likely the only society in history to feed our impoverished to a level of morbid obesity.

 

[silver gurl]

That is such a dumb comparison. Completely different population sample and the mass majority of our most expensive Health Care problems in this country we heavily subsidized into being a problem.

We subsidize corn and sugar and are likely the only society in history to feed our impoverished to a level of morbid obesity.

Health care in the States is quality but with a price. Health care in Quebec sucks but it is free.

Homeless shelters provide ok meals. Below poverty, people go the McDonalds and buy big gulps.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Look beyond "government ownership" and BOOM!! right there says any of various shit pushing for more government control(effective ownership) or official ownership over the means = socialism.

That’s it????

You don’t get to snip a sentence in an attempt to make your nonsense stand up, the full quote is:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

Where the “look beyond” part=where you make something up that isn’t part of any definition anywhere, brilliant.

You did, and everything about the oxford definition and Marx definition backs me up. Socialism that place between free market capitalism (no government control over the means) and communism (total government ownership over the means) the more control the government has the more socialist, the less government control the more capitalist.

Great, if that’s so I’m sure you can highlight anywhere it says this, if not you’re just making it up.

Do it, do it now.

No it's not, everything I've said is reflected in most definitions of the word including Websters, Marx, Oxford, FreeDictionary.whatever, Wiki, Britannica and many others if you read them in their entirety and don't focus in on "government ownership" to the extent you're ignoring everything else that is being said.

Oxford is the authority on the English language and when read in total refutes what you’ve said.

Websters is the authority on American English and absolutely refutes what you’ve said.

Marx is the most well-known proponent of Socialist and refutes what you’ve said.

Quote what has you convinced about your sliding scale theory where only no regulation at all is free market Capitalism, because your quote above refutes your position.

I'll even help ya out; look up AJ's favourites Von Mises and Hayek they try the same bullshit, and make the same argument as you're trying to do, albeit, more eloquently. It's still desperate bullshit though.

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Apparently to some it's all pure free market capitalism right up until the government hangs a "Department of" sign on it.

Misrepresentation and misstating, AGAIN!

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Government control does not have to be based on socialist theory but perhaps on pragmatic common sense for example by ensuring that the food people eat is fit to eat.

Or, perhaps, to benefit another Capitalist....oligarch, monopoly.

Woof!

 

[richard_daily]

Health care in the States is quality but with a price. Health care in Quebec sucks but it is free.

Homeless shelters provide ok meals. Below poverty, people go the McDonalds and buy big gulps.

Que once again shows that his ignorance on topics has no limits. No wonder why Trump is his guy.

Here are the top 15 for 2014-2016... notice a country not doing so well? The one that the blind partisans are rah-rahing about is ranking at 14th...

http://worldhappiness.report/

 

[water505]

The World Happiness Report?

That's the funniest thing I've heard in a very long time.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So give me a single government on earth that doesn't currently do this.

The US didn't used to, and was minimalist as hell about it for years....thus the capitalist reputation, that is fading quickly.

By YOUR definition, every government is socialist.

No by the definition of Websters, OED, and Britannica and most other non-bat shit revisionist social justice dip shit definition, every functional government in the 1st world is socialist to some degree.

You really need to go read the definition again, and look at all the words not just "government ownership".

What metric are you using?

The obvious one....where do rich people come to cut a check to cure their HIV and cancer? Get transplants?

Rebuild faces and all sorts of other good shit their socialist HC won't do for them?

The USA...that's right.

I cut a check last year for 280k and got my old man's cancer taken care of practically over night and on the spot.

Can tell me where else I can do that?

Because democratic socialist nations have better health care than what we've got, for 1/3 of the price.

Some of them have better GOVERNMENT healthcare systems.....they don't have better HC.

Which is exactly what I’ve been saying.

ME TOO!!!

Oxford is the authority on the English language and when read in total refutes what you’ve said.

Websters is the authority on American English and absolutely refutes what you’ve said.

Marx is the most well-known proponent of Socialist and refutes what you’ve said.
!

No they don't...you're just an idiot who can't look past "Government ownership" or critically think about what the definition is saying.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Misrepresentation and misstating, AGAIN!

Woof!

Not at all, you keep focusing on ownership and refusing to read the rest of the definition.

Which would mean you think it's not socialism till the government owns everything, and that's just a load of shit.

Or, perhaps, to benefit another Capitalist....oligarch, monopoly.

Woof!

Irrelevant who it helps or if it's good or bad..... if it's government control over the means.....it's socialist buddy, read the definition sometime.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

ME TOO!!!
No they don't...you're just an idiot who can't look past "Government ownership" or critically think about what the definition is saying.

Not at all, you’re ignoring what is precisely written in the definition and preferring to interject your supposed “critical thinking” “look beyond”,etc which are nothing more than your own opinion and ideas which are not contained in the definition, anywhere.

I’ve now asked you 4 times to highlight where anything resembling this is written in the definition and you have utterly failed to do so; the only conclusion the casual reader can come to, at this point, is you can’t…… the reason why you can’t is because it doesn’t exist anywhere except inside your head.


Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Not at all, you keep focusing on ownership and refusing to read the rest of the definition.

I have read it, all of it, and asked you 4 times to highlight where it says any such thing.

Which would mean you think it's not socialism till the government owns everything, and that's just a load of shit. .

Lies, lies, misunderstanding, misdirection, and more lies, more of the same.
Please link to any post where I’ve ever said such a thing or implied it.

Irrelevant who it helps or if it's good or bad..... if it's government control over the means.....it's socialist buddy, read the definition sometime.

So if a capitalist pays off government to regulate in such a way so as he has a defacto monopoly; this is Socialism!

Too ridiculous for words.

Woof!

 

[BotanyBoy]

I have read it, all of it, and asked you 4 times to highlight where it says any such thing.

If you won't look past "government ownership" and take the meaning of the definition in it's entirety then I can't help you.

Maybe you should visit a speech therapist or take a reading class.

Lies, lies, misunderstanding, misdirection, and more lies, more of the same.
Please link to any post where I’ve ever said such a thing or implied it.

Every time you highlighted "government ownership" and ignored the rest of the definition.

So if a capitalist pays off government to regulate in such a way so as he has a defacto monopoly; this is Socialism!

Too ridiculous for words.

Woof!

Is the government controlling the means of production, distribution and or exchange at that point??

Definition of socialism
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods



I'm sorry the definition of socialism hasn't worked out to be the "warm fluffy unicorn farts 'progressives' approve of" that you wish it was.

The cold harsh reality is that socialism can manifest itself in some very ugly if not downright horrific manners.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Not at all, you’re ignoring what is precisely written in the definition

Woof!

Not in any way shape or form.

You can't even point out where I'm wrong or explain how....all you can do is "NUH UHH!!!".

 

[Bad_Doggie]

Every time you highlighted "government ownership" and ignored the rest of the definition.

This is typical of you and your inability to follow a discussion or even discern what you’re reading or being asked.

Allow me to demonstrate>>>

In amongst your other unsupported, non-factual blabbering you posted this molten gold nugget of misrepresentation and lie about what I think. This is an Olympic class strawman fallacy

Which would mean you think it's not socialism till the government owns everything, and that's just a load of shit.

To which I asked you…….

Lies, lies, misunderstanding, misdirection, and more lies, more of the same.
Please link to any post where I’ve ever said such a thing or implied it.

To which you answered……

Every time you highlighted "government ownership" and ignored the rest of the definition.

And here we’ve hit the bed rock of your problem; your inability to comprehend what you are reading and instead make-up something you wish I thought and said rather than something I actually wrote. Same goes for the definitions.

It would be as stupid of me to think that “it's not socialism till the government owns everything” as it would be to believe “it's not capitalism unless there is no regulation what-so-ever over the economy.”

To make this even more absurd I have already, a few pages ago, described the likes of Sweden and the UK economy 1950’s>1970’s as socialist and neither “government owns/owned everything.”

Furthermore I also said “I don’t believe socialism to either work or be desirable to pursue” and gave reasons why; so sorry Bud but you continue your typical one dimensional, Red box, blue box swiping at the shadows idiocy and ignoring what you read in favour of the voices in your head.

I highlighted it because you seem unable to see it, preferring instead to focus on the voices in your head telling you that anything other than a completely unregulated economy is socialist!

There are many and various types of economy and a few regulations do not make your supposed Capitalist utopia (conveniently ignoring monopolises and oligarchs) instantly socialist. The tipping point is where the state, or collective owns (certain parts of) the means and/or distributes the wealth evenly and that's what all the definitions keep telling you.

(Snip) His definition is essentially meaningless; to mean anything, socialism has to be a desire for the means by which society produces things to be held in common, by the whole of that society, rather than by a clique of people who become very rich whilst the poor have no stake and little say, at all, in the society in which they live.

By means of production and distribution, we are especially talking about agriculture and heavy “smokestack” industries being owned by the state. (Snip)

(Snip)
Sure…..there’s cronyism and corruption in socialism as much as there is in capitalism. That said socialism (light) as practised by the Nordic countries seems to work quite well.

I would also say the UK 50’s to 70’s was socialist…..which didn’t work so well, although that seems to being more and more disputed <sic> trains etc.

Woof!

Umm this relates to socialism and not communism really.

And no-one has ever claimed that it increases wealth….what it claims to do is a fairer distribution of wealth, i.e. between the owners (state/commune/ workers) and the workers. And it seems to work reasonably well in the Nordic states.

However, it’s downfall, in my opinion, is that long term it doesn’t work across the board as this system lacks completion which stifles innovation and tends to lead to a malaise and economic stagnation/downfall.(Snip)

Woof!