Economic Populism Sells...Libertariansim? Not so much...

TheDanold said:
Pretty much the last. Are you actually going to deny that you hate Capitalism?
You have spent too many posts attacking pieces of it to try and pretend now that you don't.
Click to expand...

I am all too aware of the many victims of unregulated capitalism run-amok...I am not a communist however, as you would like to believe, nor even an out and out socialist.
 
TheDanold said:
Pretty much the last. Are you actually going to deny that you hate Capitalism?
You have spent too many posts attacking pieces of it to try and pretend now that you don't.
Click to expand...


Acknowledging that "free market" or "privitizie it" are not the only two answers to all of the world's problems is not an attack on capitalism. It's merely acknowledging that there are limitations to the market and that market failures exist.

Me, I'm a big fan of capitalism but I recognize that: a) the market is amoral and government has a role to play in bringing about morally acceptable outcomes in market transactions; b) some things ought not be part of the market system and should not be operated on a profit-seeking basis; and, c) market failures exist and government has a role to play in addressing market failures where they occur.
 
Oh, and a lot of people would dispute that I'm an intellectual as well...just look to the Happy Thanksgiving thread for reasons why.
 
Dungheap said:
Acknowledging that "free market" or "privitizie it" are not the only two answers to all of the world's problems is not an attack on capitalism. It's merely acknowledging that there are limitations to the market and that market failures exist.

Me, I'm a big fan of capitalism but I recognize that: a) the market is amoral and government has a role to play in bringing about morally acceptable outcomes in market transactions; b) some things ought not be part of the market system and should not be operated on a profit-seeking basis; and, c) market failures exist and government has a role to play in addressing market failures where they occur.
Click to expand...

Yet the problem with that is that

a) The GOVERNMENT is amoral and has a bad tendency to selling out to the highest bidder

b) Who is to say what should and should not be done by the government or what should be run for profit and not?

c) Government failures are far more common... witness the 9 trillion in debt our nation faces all because the government refuses to quit increasing our debt. 1960 was the last year of fiscal responsibility. Not to mention the failures that are welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, education etc.... (not the concepts, but the manner in which they are run)
 
Dungheap said:
Acknowledging that "free market" or "privitizie it" are not the only two answers to all of the world's problems is not an attack on capitalism. It's merely acknowledging that there are limitations to the market and that market failures exist.

Me, I'm a big fan of capitalism but I recognize that: a) the market is amoral and government has a role to play in bringing about morally acceptable outcomes in market transactions; b) some things ought not be part of the market system and should not be operated on a profit-seeking basis; and, c) market failures exist and government has a role to play in addressing market failures where they occur.
Click to expand...

I hear this line a lot from lefties and I don't trust it for the following reasons:
1. None of them have ever said specifically where they would stop growing government (ie: after universal healthcare no more government growth)

2. The fact that leftwingers in different countries view what is government's role is often dependent on what is viewed as the next big thing they need to do something in, rather than actual so called "market failures". For example, leftwingers in America want healthcare under government control, but lefties in Canada are now onto universal daycare and public car insurance. The former consumes so much resources in taxes and takes such a prominent role, that people THEN find it hard to pay for other services like daycare and then opt to have government "help out" where the market is "failing" (ie: where they find it NOW costs too much to pay).

3. They fail to deal with their extremists. Blackascoal is a self-admitted socialist, I've also come across other Socialists/Communists on boards and have NEVER and I mean NEVER seen regular Liberals debate them or denounce them or their ideas. I know they read their threads/ideas, because they agree where it's perceived as safe to agree, but they don't disagree openly on anything.
This coincides with number 1, that regular lefties do want ever expanding government but are practical enough to try and sell it in steps.

4. They don't ever defend capitalism, just their rep as being ok with capitalism.


I don't see that ever changing until you can see that the role of Capitalism is not to 'solve' a 'problem' or 'succeed' at anything, it is simply to allow free individuals WITHIN that market to solve and succeed or fail based on their own free choices with neither hindrance, nor help.
This is the greatest allure of Marxism and leftwing doctrine - that a great central body will swoop in and save the day for issue X of the day.
 
TheDanold said:
I hear this line a lot from lefties and I don't trust it for the following reasons:
1. None of them have ever said specifically where they would stop growing government (ie: after universal healthcare no more government growth)

2. The fact that leftwingers in different countries view what is government's role is often dependent on what is viewed as the next big thing they need to do something in, rather than actual so called "market failures". For example, leftwingers in America want healthcare under government control, but lefties in Canada are now onto universal daycare and public car insurance. The former consumes so much resources in taxes and takes such a prominent role, that people THEN find it hard to pay for other services like daycare and then opt to have government "help out" where the market is "failing" (ie: where they find it NOW costs too much to pay).

3. They fail to deal with their extremists. Blackascoal is a self-admitted socialist, I've also come across other Socialists/Communists on boards and have NEVER and I mean NEVER seen regular Liberals debate them or denounce them or their ideas. I know they read their threads/ideas, because they agree where it's perceived as safe to agree, but they don't disagree openly on anything.
This coincides with number 1, that regular lefties do want ever expanding government but are practical enough to try and sell it in steps.

4. They don't ever defend capitalism, just their rep as being ok with capitalism.


I don't see that ever changing until you can see that the role of Capitalism is not to 'solve' a 'problem' or 'succeed' at anything, it is simply to allow free individuals WITHIN that market to solve and succeed or fail based on their own free choices with neither hindrance, nor help.
This is the greatest allure of Marxism and leftwing doctrine - that a great central body will swoop in and save the day for issue X of the day.
Click to expand...

You need to study fiat currency and how it warps society in an non-reality based form of groupthink fascism.
 
TheDanold said:
"I am a socialist" - Blackascoal
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?p=154907#post154907

Feel free to attack his ideas or support for authoritarian Socialist Chavez. Convince me, here is your golden chance.
Click to expand...

That's the first time I've seen him say that, he always says "mixed economy".

But he links to an entire, long article written by that idiot Albert Einstein, to explain what sort of socialism he is referring to. Did you read the article to find out?
 
TheDanold said:
I hear this line a lot from lefties and I don't trust it for the following reasons:
1. None of them have ever said specifically where they would stop growing government (ie: after universal healthcare no more government growth)

2. The fact that leftwingers in different countries view what is government's role is often dependent on what is viewed as the next big thing they need to do something in, rather than actual so called "market failures". For example, leftwingers in America want healthcare under government control, but lefties in Canada are now onto universal daycare and public car insurance. The former consumes so much resources in taxes and takes such a prominent role, that people THEN find it hard to pay for other services like daycare and then opt to have government "help out" where the market is "failing" (ie: where they find it NOW costs too much to pay).

3. They fail to deal with their extremists. Blackascoal is a self-admitted socialist, I've also come across other Socialists/Communists on boards and have NEVER and I mean NEVER seen regular Liberals debate them or denounce them or their ideas. I know they read their threads/ideas, because they agree where it's perceived as safe to agree, but they don't disagree openly on anything.
This coincides with number 1, that regular lefties do want ever expanding government but are practical enough to try and sell it in steps.

4. They don't ever defend capitalism, just their rep as being ok with capitalism.


I don't see that ever changing until you can see that the role of Capitalism is not to 'solve' a 'problem' or 'succeed' at anything, it is simply to allow free individuals WITHIN that market to solve and succeed or fail based on their own free choices with neither hindrance, nor help.
This is the greatest allure of Marxism and leftwing doctrine - that a great central body will swoop in and save the day for issue X of the day.
Click to expand...



First of all, you apparently don't know what Marxism actually is. Second, you don't know what a market failure is. The latter really is your biggest problem. Perhaps you should read up on market failures and why they matter before you assail people for trying to address them.

Additionally, heath insurance falls into categories a and b for me. Note: I did not say health care. Health insurance providers that operate on a for-profit basis (and even non-profits that want to stay solvent) can make a profit or stay solvent in one way: insuring people that don't need health insurance and not insuring people that do need health insurance. The result is that the people that really need it don't get it and the people that don't really need it do get it. This is a classic area where the rational market participant seeking his own self-interest results in an bad outcome: people who need health insurance aren't getting it. The government certainly has a role to play to help achieve a moral outcome.
 
Darla said:
That's the first time I've seen him say that, he always says "mixed economy".

But he links to an entire, long article written by that idiot Albert Einstein, to explain what sort of socialism he is referring to. Did you read the article to find out?
Click to expand...
I've read similar, Einstein believed in a form of so called "democratic Socialism", to me that is like believing "democratic Fascism" can exist. Both lean to authoritarian means to control what parts of the economy or society they wish to.
Chavez proves that too, he is not just advancing Socialism, he is overriding local governments, forbidding other things being taught in school, changing the Constitution to allow him to govern for life. He needs to do these things to enact what he wants. BAC loves the guy.

I think Einstein himself in later years acknowledged that his idea of it would not work and begrudgingly accepted Capitalism:

"It's no accident that capitalism has brought with it progress, not merely in production but also in knowledge. Egoism and competition are, alas, stronger forces than public spirit and sense of duty." – Albert Einstein
 
TheDanold said:
I've read similar, Einstein believed in a form of so called "democratic Socialism", to me that is like believing "democratic Fascism" can exist. Both lean to authoritarian means to control what parts of the economy or society they wish to.
Chavez proves that too, he is not just advancing Socialism, he is overriding local governments, forbidding other things being taught in school, changing the Constitution to allow him to govern for life. He needs to do these things to enact what he wants. BAC loves the guy.

I think Einstein himself in later years acknowledged that his idea of it would not work and begrudgingly accepted Capitalism:

"It's no accident that capitalism has brought with it progress, not merely in production but also in knowledge. Egoism and competition are, alas, stronger forces than public spirit and sense of duty." – Albert Einstein
Click to expand...


I just read the article it's fascinating. What is with Chavez? Get off of Chavez. No one is talking about Chavez.
 
Medved must have been reading my articles and posts.

The game is up for Ron Paul .. Stick a fork in his ass, he's done. He will never distance himself from the hate groups because he believes as they believe.

All the whining and denial by his supporters has been exposed as the blind lunacy it truly is.
 
blackascoal said:
Medved must have been reading my articles and posts.

The game is up for Ron Paul .. Stick a fork in his ass, he's done. He will never distance himself from the hate groups because he believes as they believe.

All the whining and denial by his supporters has been exposed as the blind lunacy it truly is.
Click to expand...


and of course, HATE to you describes anyone who thinks racial discrimination against white people is wrong. Your brain is a tragedy.
 
Darla said:
That's the first time I've seen him say that, he always says "mixed economy".

But he links to an entire, long article written by that idiot Albert Einstein, to explain what sort of socialism he is referring to. Did you read the article to find out?
Click to expand...

Of course you're correct. I not only advocate mixed economies, I also advocate mixed ideological strategies such as a blending of collectivism and capitalism .. which was also advocated by Einstein.

Collectivism/socialism triggers shock responses from the capitalist, but the truth is that the formation of this nation was an act of collectivism, a collective effort to free Americans from the british, a collective effort to work for the general benefit.

Without pre-conditioned knee-jerk response to "collectivism", isn't that when America is at its best?

There is a giant gaping hole in the concept of democracy and it's called MONEY. Inject enough money in a democratic capitalist system and it will soon be controlled by those with the money, not the will of the people.

The current state of America is a great testament to that truth.
 
AssHatZombie said:
and of course, HATE to you describes anyone who thinks racial discrimination against white people is wrong. Your brain is a tragedy.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to articulate the discrimination against white people .. in a land dominated by white people .. that you're talking about and claim is so obvious.

What is wrong with your brain that you can't intellectually describe what you're talking about beyond the talk-radio-inspired-bumper-sticker-goofy man's logic you speak from?

Shouldn't this speak volumes to the false concept of "superiority"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top