It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system. Givernments don't need to set up a socialist system to support capitalism -- they merely need to set up a consitutional limited republic and protect individual rights. The rest is up to the people. That's capitalism. A system based upon human rights and not the ownership of people through the ownership or control of provate property and commerce. What are the three most socialistic enterprises in the US? Education, Money, and Health Care. I find it interesting that those are the three biggest basket cases within our economy. Nothing unbridled, unregulated, or capitalist about any of those three. Anyway since you seem more interested in making personal attacks than actually having a discussion, I'll leave you to your myths about unfettered, unregulated capitalism and I'll just enjoy my Koo-koo for cocoa puffness, as you so cleverly described me and my mental conditin, again instead of actually having a mature discussion. Have fun laughing. You're still wrong.
And I quote: "It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system."
Did you start to drink? That makes no sense.
Anyways, I guess I'm teasing you because I find it offensive that you insist on responding with incoherent drivel. I mean do you even think about what you type?
You say the three most socialist components of the US economy are education, money, and Healthcare. Right. I completely forgot about your government healthcare program! I guess you don't have the option to buy private health insurance there since its so heavily socialized right? Your employer can't choose either I would imagine.
And the government controlled banks. You know, the ones you can buy stocks from on the NYSE. Oh...wait...
And education...ya. It would be horrible if there were private universities. Imagine if Harvard or Yale was private? Social control I say, they aren't allowed to make any decisions on their own because of Affirmative Action...thus the whole system is socialist mess!
Newsflash: Just because the government makes laws that through an administration are turned into regulations, does not make the entire system socialist.
It is impossible to offend me. As always, I am merely amused by your need to pepper everything you post with appeals to ridicule and personal attacks. I am even more amused that you think I am offended when I am merely pointing out what you are doing here.
Once again you don't actually ANSWER what i say, merely use it as a springboard for more personal attacks.
Also, you have done nothing to disprove anything I said. Showing that a socialist system is capable of aping what capitalism looks like in no way makes it capitalism.
I am responding to your posts by:
a) quoting what you post;
b) paraphrasing it to clarify meaning;
and
c) debunking what you say.
So in other words, I'm answering exactly what you post. You POSTED what you thought the three largest socialist components of the US are. I responded back as to why they are not. Everytime you have made a claim I have explained and detailed the flaw in your argument and why it is not true.
And sure I'm throwing a dart or two. That doesn't change the substance of my rebuttals. I have disproven it and you have resorted to avoiding the topics entirely (notice you are not even bothering to respond now) or posting links from some blog to demonstrate your point. I read the blog article...or at least the first half of it. He is very predictable in his rhetoric:
1. Obama sucks
2. Nazis were socialists
3. The Federal Reserve is out to get us
4. The Gold standard was so wonderful
5. Public Healthcare is sin
6. The only way to increase wealth is to reduce taxes on the rich
It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system. Givernments don't need to set up a socialist system to support capitalism -- they merely need to set up a consitutional limited republic and protect individual rights. The rest is up to the people. That's capitalism. A system based upon human rights and not the ownership of people through the ownership or control of provate property and commerce. What are the three most socialistic enterprises in the US? Education, Money, and Health Care. I find it interesting that those are the three biggest basket cases within our economy. Nothing unbridled, unregulated, or capitalist about any of those three. Anyway since you seem more interested in making personal attacks than actually having a discussion, I'll leave you to your myths about unfettered, unregulated capitalism and I'll just enjoy my Koo-koo for cocoa puffness, as you so cleverly described me and my mental conditin, again instead of actually having a mature discussion. Have fun laughing. You're still wrong.
And I quote: "It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system."
Did you start to drink? That makes no sense.
Anyways, I guess I'm teasing you because I find it offensive that you insist on responding with incoherent drivel. I mean do you even think about what you type?
You say the three most socialist components of the US economy are education, money, and Healthcare. Right. I completely forgot about your government healthcare program! I guess you don't have the option to buy private health insurance there since its so heavily socialized right? Your employer can't choose either I would imagine.
And the government controlled banks. You know, the ones you can buy stocks from on the NYSE. Oh...wait...
And education...ya. It would be horrible if there were private universities. Imagine if Harvard or Yale was private? Social control I say, they aren't allowed to make any decisions on their own because of Affirmative Action...thus the whole system is socialist mess!
Newsflash: Just because the government makes laws that through an administration are turned into regulations, does not make the entire system socialist.
It is impossible to offend me. As always, I am merely amused by your need to pepper everything you post with appeals to ridicule and personal attacks. I am even more amused that you think I am offended when I am merely pointing out what you are doing here.
Once again you don't actually ANSWER what i say, merely use it as a springboard for more personal attacks.
Also, you have done nothing to disprove anything I said. Showing that a socialist system is capable of aping what capitalism looks like in no way makes it capitalism.
I am responding to your posts by:
a) quoting what you post;
b) paraphrasing it to clarify meaning;
and
c) debunking what you say.
So in other words, I'm answering exactly what you post. You POSTED what you thought the three largest socialist components of the US are. I responded back as to why they are not. Everytime you have made a claim I have explained and detailed the flaw in your argument and why it is not true.
And sure I'm throwing a dart or two. That doesn't change the substance of my rebuttals. I have disproven it and you have resorted to avoiding the topics entirely (notice you are not even bothering to respond now) or posting links from some blog to demonstrate your point. I read the blog article...or at least the first half of it. He is very predictable in his rhetoric:
1. Obama sucks
2. Nazis were socialists
3. The Federal Reserve is out to get us
4. The Gold standard was so wonderful
5. Public Healthcare is sin
6. The only way to increase wealth is to reduce taxes on the rich
The shtick is predictable.
You have not shown that health care, money and banking, and education are not the MOST socialist systems in our economy. Bringing up slightly capitalist elements again proves nothing. In order to rebut me you would need to show systems that are MORE socialist (I'll give you some help here: defense procurement is a close one), and then shown how the SYSTEMS were not socialist. You did not.
You haven't made any real rebuttals, just misdirections, appeals to ridicule, and personal attacks. Yes indeed, your schtick is VERY predictable.
You have not shown that health care, money and banking, and education are not the MOST socialist systems in our economy. Bringing up slightly capitalist elements again proves nothing. In order to rebut me you would need to show systems that are MORE socialist (I'll give you some help here: defense procurement is a close one), and then shown how the SYSTEMS were not socialist. You did not. You haven't made any real rebuttals, just misdirections, appeals to ridicule, and personal attacks. Yes indeed, your schtick is VERY predictable.
Social Security. Police. Transportation Infrastructure. Fire Departments. Justice. And obviously, with 700 billion in spending, the military. I think something like 8% of military spending is privatized and 95% of that is contract work (like janitorial services, food services, waste disposal, etc.). But because that funding comes exclusively from government taxes, it is 100% socialist. You must hate the military.
No points for you at all. Stll you keep making assertions with nothing to back them up. Once again you are talking about the deregulation of SOCIALISM, not capitalism. You haven't even dealt with what I am talking about. You are calling a system something it isn't. Our money and banking system is many things, but it isn't capitalism. It is the most socialist part of our economy. It begins and ends with government. Anything Freddie and fannie do is essentially government action. Everything the Fed does is government action. None of this has anything to do with capitalism or free markets, or deregulated capitalism. It has to do with the failure of socialist banking and credit systems. You are missing my whole point, and keep arguing against a straw man. Attack socialism all you want; you just should call it what it is, not attach another name to it so you can attack the thing you don't like. Sad to see however that you consider this all a game, with points being delivered, instead of a serious discussion of the issues.
I would respond more to this, but this guy doesn;t make any sense he keeps referring to socialist policies and calling them capitalism. ALL WIND ..... I mean if he watches the cspan footage of the freddie and fannie hearings he would see this for himself, but of course that would refute his claims so he doesn't want to see it for what it is. I don't know if it is possible to reason with someone who doesn't see it when it is right in front ot their face. Can lead a horse to water .. but can't make them drink lol. Oh no don't look directly at it it cannot be there .. pretend it is invisible. lol
No points for you at all. Stll you keep making assertions with nothing to back them up. Once again you are talking about the deregulation of SOCIALISM, not capitalism. You haven't even dealt with what I am talking about. You are calling a system something it isn't. Our money and banking system is many things, but it isn't capitalism. It is the most socialist part of our economy. It begins and ends with government. Anything Freddie and fannie do is essentially government action. Everything the Fed does is government action. None of this has anything to do with capitalism or free markets, or deregulated capitalism. It has to do with the failure of socialist banking and credit systems. You are missing my whole point, and keep arguing against a straw man. Attack socialism all you want; you just should call it what it is, not attach another name to it so you can attack the thing you don't like. Sad to see however that you consider this all a game, with points being delivered, instead of a serious discussion of the issues.
I would respond more to this, but this guy doesn;t make any sense he keeps referring to socialist policies and calling them capitalism. ALL WIND ..... I mean if he watches the cspan footage of the freddie and fannie hearings he would see this for himself, but of course that would refute his claims so he doesn't want to see it for what it is. I don't know if it is possible to reason with someone who doesn't see it when it is right in front ot their face. Can lead a horse to water .. but can't make them drink lol. Oh no don't look directly at it it cannot be there .. pretend it is invisible. lol
I would not be surprised if it does not make sense to you. I have no clue why you keep referring to this CSpan footage but it does little to address the points that the majority of this mess came from mortgages not insured by the government (ie Freddie Mac). So I fail to see how those two entities have anything to do with it. Care to explain?
You see, private banks were able to bundle these MBS in the free market. That is where the problem came in. They were free to invent financial instruments that boosted their short term profits but ultimately backfired. If that is not capitalism, please define to me what capitalism is?
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
You have not shown that health care, money and banking, and education are not the MOST socialist systems in our economy. Bringing up slightly capitalist elements again proves nothing. In order to rebut me you would need to show systems that are MORE socialist (I'll give you some help here: defense procurement is a close one), and then shown how the SYSTEMS were not socialist. You did not. You haven't made any real rebuttals, just misdirections, appeals to ridicule, and personal attacks. Yes indeed, your schtick is VERY predictable.
Social Security. Police. Transportation Infrastructure. Fire Departments. Justice. And obviously, with 700 billion in spending, the military. I think something like 8% of military spending is privatized and 95% of that is contract work (like janitorial services, food services, waste disposal, etc.). But because that funding comes exclusively from government taxes, it is 100% socialist. You must hate the military.
Actually, if you knew what laissez faire capitalism was, and knew anything of capitalist thought, you would know that the very function of a government is the protection of human rights. Therefore, the Police and the military are proper functions of government.
That being said, even if they are proper functions of government -- look how badly government does with them. Corruption all around, just like everything else government does.
Social Security. Ha. Thanks for bringing that up. Another socialist boondoggle, another failure.
Thanks for helping prove my main thesis
Socialism: epic fail on all counts and in all ways.
Obviously I can see from your answers that you don't even know what capitalism or socialism are, so that helps explain a lot.
Yup, which is a form of socialism, and the one many of the people here are advocating.
So basically what people here are saying when they talk about "capitalism" is the idea of Laissez-faire Capitalism?
Hmmm. So you are all aspiring to an idea which has never happened anywhere at anytime in any country?
Because you move on from that and capitalism is all ABOUT government. Even laissez-faire is about government.
Also in the context of "state capitalism" being socialist then pretty much any social movement has socialist elements. However much you try and move away from it capitalism in all it's varieties are forms of socialism. All you are arguing now is the "level" of socialism/capitalism you want to adopt.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Yup, which is a form of socialism, and the one many of the people here are advocating.
So basically what people here are saying when they talk about "capitalism" is the idea of Laissez-faire Capitalism?
Hmmm. So you are all aspiring to an idea which has never happened anywhere at anytime in any country?
Because you move on from that and capitalism is all ABOUT government. Even laissez-faire is about government.
Also in the context of "state capitalism" being socialist then pretty much any social movement has socialist elements. However much you try and move away from it capitalism in all it's varieties are forms of socialism. All you are arguing now is the "level" of socialism/capitalism you want to adopt.
Different people here are saying different things. I was answering someone who was making a false claim that free, unfettered capitalism caused the current crisis, which is complete BS. There is nothing free and unfettered about our capitalism.
What I am saying is, generally, the more capitalistic (a better word would be free market-oriented) the better; the less so, the worse. The guy I was debating with (well ,I was debating, he was making personal attacks and shifting contexts, making false assertions and backing up nothing) was seemingly wanting even MORE government shoved down our throats.
I know I am talking about the "'level" and have said so many times. It is more than the level though -- it is a different view about the FUNCTION of government.
From wikipedia:
"State capitalism, for Marxists and heterodox economists is a way to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist.[1] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation."
State capitalism is not in the least bit capitalism of any sort. It is what marxists have always done, and discussed by Orwell. They hijack words. This is the way the word "liberal" became associated with people who favor big government.
I agree however it is all about government. Capitalism is all about government protecting people's rights. It is not anarchy. Socialism is all about people owning one another, and the state enforcing that. I favor the first and am against the second.
Different people here are saying different things. I was answering someone who was making a false claim that free, unfettered capitalism caused the current crisis, which is complete BS. There is nothing free and unfettered about our capitalism.
What I am saying is, generally, the more capitalistic (a better word would be free market-oriented) the better; the less so, the worse. The guy I was debating with (well ,I was debating, he was making personal attacks and shifting contexts, making false assertions and backing up nothing) was seemingly wanting even MORE government shoved down our throats.
I know I am talking about the "'level" and have said so many times. It is more than the level though -- it is a different view about the FUNCTION of government.
From wikipedia:
"State capitalism, for Marxists and heterodox economists is a way to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist.[1] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation."
State capitalism is not in the least bit capitalism of any sort. It is what marxists have always done, and discussed by Orwell. They hijack words. This is the way the word "liberal" became associated with people who favor big government.
I agree however it is all about government. Capitalism is all about government protecting people's rights. It is not anarchy. Socialism is all about people owning one another, and the state enforcing that. I favor the first and am against the second.
Fishermage argues from the position that all developed nations who monitor and adjust their currency are essentially socialist because they fit the Capitalist State model. And therefore they are not in the least bit capitalist, and therefore anything YOU THINK is capitalism in the system (where the government lets people make economic decisions) is so regulated by the government that it cannot be true capitalism.
In other words, every developed nation in the world right now is one big corporate government giant and therefore capitalism has never actually existed in these systems.
I mean, I understand the philosophy.
I also understand why meth addicts sell their bodies for their next hit.
You can't have a reasonable, pragmatic conversation with someone who thinks this way because their assumptions about the economy and society are so beyond the argument that it is impossible to deal with. These ideals come from reading too much philosophy and not enough about economics.
Different people here are saying different things. I was answering someone who was making a false claim that free, unfettered capitalism caused the current crisis, which is complete BS. There is nothing free and unfettered about our capitalism.
What I am saying is, generally, the more capitalistic (a better word would be free market-oriented) the better; the less so, the worse. The guy I was debating with (well ,I was debating, he was making personal attacks and shifting contexts, making false assertions and backing up nothing) was seemingly wanting even MORE government shoved down our throats.
I know I am talking about the "'level" and have said so many times. It is more than the level though -- it is a different view about the FUNCTION of government.
From wikipedia:
"State capitalism, for Marxists and heterodox economists is a way to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist.[1] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation."
State capitalism is not in the least bit capitalism of any sort. It is what marxists have always done, and discussed by Orwell. They hijack words. This is the way the word "liberal" became associated with people who favor big government.
I agree however it is all about government. Capitalism is all about government protecting people's rights. It is not anarchy. Socialism is all about people owning one another, and the state enforcing that. I favor the first and am against the second.
Fishermage argues from the position that all developed nations who monitor and adjust their currency are essentially socialist because they fit the Capitalist State model. And therefore they are not in the least bit capitalist, and therefore anything YOU THINK is capitalism in the system (where the government lets people make economic decisions) is so regulated by the government that it cannot be true capitalism.
In other words, every developed nation in the world right now is one big corporate government giant and therefore capitalism has never actually existed in these systems.
I mean, I understand the philosophy.
I also understand why meth addicts sell their bodies for their next hit.
You can't have a reasonable, pragmatic conversation with someone who thinks this way because their assumptions about the economy and society are so beyond the argument that it is impossible to deal with. These ideals come from reading too much philosophy and not enough about economics.
{ModEdit}
There you go again. Willful mischaracterization so you can attack a straw man.
Of course you then return to your childish personal attacks. Yep, more predictable schtick from you. It is getting rather redundant.
I will actually borrow your phrase from earlier Fisher which is
"without black or white there can be no grey"
In the context of this discussion then really pure communism and pure capitalism (laissez-faire) are the blacks and whites. The greys are the systems we have in place now in various countries round the world. Just different shades of grey.
I will say though that if, and it's a big IF, Communism could ever work then it's probably the best system overall. (entirely my opinion). At the same time laissez-faire Capitalism has some damn fine points about it as well. But communism wins out because it looks at the collective rather than the individual. While individuals of brilliance are some of the driving forces of modern society (and through the ages) i don't believe communism would dampen this.
But we are talking about polital ideals which could never happen in real life because of the inherent corruption of individual human beings.
As to litigators previous post being full of personal attacks. On this occasion I don't see it myself. He has used comments you have said yourself to raise points about why he thinks your points are invalid. It's not a personal attack as such.
This is specifically about the previous posts as my connection is so crap here at work it would take agaes to trawl through the previous pages
Thanks T
p.s I'm still waiting to be shot down by all the right wingers here for having the gall to post the Communist Manifesto on what is predominately an American site
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
I will actually borrow your phrase from earlier Fisher which is "without black or white there can be no grey" In the context of this discussion then really pure communism and pure capitalism (laissez-faire) are the blacks and whites. The greys are the systems we have in place now in various countries round the world. Just different shades of grey. I will say though that if, and it's a big IF, Communism could ever work then it's probably the best system overall. (entirely my opinion). At the same time laissez-faire Capitalism has some damn fine points about it as well. But communism wins out because it looks at the collective rather than the individual. While individuals of brilliance are some of the driving forces of modern society (and through the ages) i don't believe communism would dampen this. But we are talking about polital ideals which could never happen in real life because of the inherent corruption of individual human beings.
As to litigators previous post being full of personal attacks. On this occasion I don't see it myself. He has used comments you have said yourself to raise points about why he thinks your points are invalid. It's not a personal attack as such. This is specifically about the previous posts as my connection is so crap here at work it would take agaes to trawl through the previous pages
He makes claims about how my personal life choices (which he is wrong about) is why I have views he disagrees with. he has said his arguments go over my head and claimed I live in a fantasy land. He willfully mischaracterizes what I say for the purpose of the fallacy known as appeal to ridicule, perhaps the most childish form of attack in rhetoric other than outright namecalling.
Sorry you don't see those as personal attacks. I do. They don't bother me, but in that they show how he is not debating in good faith, I call him out on them when he does so.
Once again it shows what we are dealing with here when we who believe in liberty debate with those who don't.
Now, communism is 100% mutual slavery. It claims that need, not rights is the foundation of society. That is evil in theory and in practice. Plus the labor theory of value is simply bunk, and the entire economics of marxism rests on that.
Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.
Not in any way shape or form was I refereing to the bastardized form practiced by the USSR
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
I was talking about communism in the pure sense. Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life. Not in any way shape or form was I refereing to the bastardized form practiced by the USSR
Ah, you mean what we would call today "rational anarchism."
sad to say, that marx was wrong. It isn't the final product of Communism, but of Libertarian Democracy. Once the society of abundance is reached, which we would have reached sometime ago were it not for all the socialist tinkerers who think they know better than people what they want and need.
Marx's problem is you can't start out using NEED as your foundation. That makes people tools for the end of the state, and will invariably lead to that "bastardized" form practiced by the USSR. A false/weak foundation can never lead to a great society.
Comments
And I quote: "It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system."
Did you start to drink? That makes no sense.
Anyways, I guess I'm teasing you because I find it offensive that you insist on responding with incoherent drivel. I mean do you even think about what you type?
You say the three most socialist components of the US economy are education, money, and Healthcare. Right. I completely forgot about your government healthcare program! I guess you don't have the option to buy private health insurance there since its so heavily socialized right? Your employer can't choose either I would imagine.
And the government controlled banks. You know, the ones you can buy stocks from on the NYSE. Oh...wait...
And education...ya. It would be horrible if there were private universities. Imagine if Harvard or Yale was private? Social control I say, they aren't allowed to make any decisions on their own because of Affirmative Action...thus the whole system is socialist mess!
Newsflash: Just because the government makes laws that through an administration are turned into regulations, does not make the entire system socialist.
It is impossible to offend me. As always, I am merely amused by your need to pepper everything you post with appeals to ridicule and personal attacks. I am even more amused that you think I am offended when I am merely pointing out what you are doing here.
Once again you don't actually ANSWER what i say, merely use it as a springboard for more personal attacks.
Also, you have done nothing to disprove anything I said. Showing that a socialist system is capable of aping what capitalism looks like in no way makes it capitalism.
I am responding to your posts by:
a) quoting what you post;
b) paraphrasing it to clarify meaning;
and
c) debunking what you say.
So in other words, I'm answering exactly what you post. You POSTED what you thought the three largest socialist components of the US are. I responded back as to why they are not. Everytime you have made a claim I have explained and detailed the flaw in your argument and why it is not true.
And sure I'm throwing a dart or two. That doesn't change the substance of my rebuttals. I have disproven it and you have resorted to avoiding the topics entirely (notice you are not even bothering to respond now) or posting links from some blog to demonstrate your point. I read the blog article...or at least the first half of it. He is very predictable in his rhetoric:
1. Obama sucks
2. Nazis were socialists
3. The Federal Reserve is out to get us
4. The Gold standard was so wonderful
5. Public Healthcare is sin
6. The only way to increase wealth is to reduce taxes on the rich
The shtick is predictable.
And I quote: "It is not capitalism when you, under a socialist system, give a class proveleges under that socialist system more priveleges under that socialist system."
Did you start to drink? That makes no sense.
Anyways, I guess I'm teasing you because I find it offensive that you insist on responding with incoherent drivel. I mean do you even think about what you type?
You say the three most socialist components of the US economy are education, money, and Healthcare. Right. I completely forgot about your government healthcare program! I guess you don't have the option to buy private health insurance there since its so heavily socialized right? Your employer can't choose either I would imagine.
And the government controlled banks. You know, the ones you can buy stocks from on the NYSE. Oh...wait...
And education...ya. It would be horrible if there were private universities. Imagine if Harvard or Yale was private? Social control I say, they aren't allowed to make any decisions on their own because of Affirmative Action...thus the whole system is socialist mess!
Newsflash: Just because the government makes laws that through an administration are turned into regulations, does not make the entire system socialist.
It is impossible to offend me. As always, I am merely amused by your need to pepper everything you post with appeals to ridicule and personal attacks. I am even more amused that you think I am offended when I am merely pointing out what you are doing here.
Once again you don't actually ANSWER what i say, merely use it as a springboard for more personal attacks.
Also, you have done nothing to disprove anything I said. Showing that a socialist system is capable of aping what capitalism looks like in no way makes it capitalism.
I am responding to your posts by:
a) quoting what you post;
b) paraphrasing it to clarify meaning;
and
c) debunking what you say.
So in other words, I'm answering exactly what you post. You POSTED what you thought the three largest socialist components of the US are. I responded back as to why they are not. Everytime you have made a claim I have explained and detailed the flaw in your argument and why it is not true.
And sure I'm throwing a dart or two. That doesn't change the substance of my rebuttals. I have disproven it and you have resorted to avoiding the topics entirely (notice you are not even bothering to respond now) or posting links from some blog to demonstrate your point. I read the blog article...or at least the first half of it. He is very predictable in his rhetoric:
1. Obama sucks
2. Nazis were socialists
3. The Federal Reserve is out to get us
4. The Gold standard was so wonderful
5. Public Healthcare is sin
6. The only way to increase wealth is to reduce taxes on the rich
The shtick is predictable.
You have not shown that health care, money and banking, and education are not the MOST socialist systems in our economy. Bringing up slightly capitalist elements again proves nothing. In order to rebut me you would need to show systems that are MORE socialist (I'll give you some help here: defense procurement is a close one), and then shown how the SYSTEMS were not socialist. You did not.
You haven't made any real rebuttals, just misdirections, appeals to ridicule, and personal attacks. Yes indeed, your schtick is VERY predictable.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Social Security. Police. Transportation Infrastructure. Fire Departments. Justice. And obviously, with 700 billion in spending, the military. I think something like 8% of military spending is privatized and 95% of that is contract work (like janitorial services, food services, waste disposal, etc.). But because that funding comes exclusively from government taxes, it is 100% socialist. You must hate the military.
I would not be surprised if it does not make sense to you. I have no clue why you keep referring to this CSpan footage but it does little to address the points that the majority of this mess came from mortgages not insured by the government (ie Freddie Mac). So I fail to see how those two entities have anything to do with it. Care to explain?
You see, private banks were able to bundle these MBS in the free market. That is where the problem came in. They were free to invent financial instruments that boosted their short term profits but ultimately backfired. If that is not capitalism, please define to me what capitalism is?
Only one thing to say on this
State Capitalism.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Social Security. Police. Transportation Infrastructure. Fire Departments. Justice. And obviously, with 700 billion in spending, the military. I think something like 8% of military spending is privatized and 95% of that is contract work (like janitorial services, food services, waste disposal, etc.). But because that funding comes exclusively from government taxes, it is 100% socialist. You must hate the military.
Actually, if you knew what laissez faire capitalism was, and knew anything of capitalist thought, you would know that the very function of a government is the protection of human rights. Therefore, the Police and the military are proper functions of government.
That being said, even if they are proper functions of government -- look how badly government does with them. Corruption all around, just like everything else government does.
Social Security. Ha. Thanks for bringing that up. Another socialist boondoggle, another failure.
Thanks for helping prove my main thesis
Socialism: epic fail on all counts and in all ways.
Obviously I can see from your answers that you don't even know what capitalism or socialism are, so that helps explain a lot.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Yup, which is a form of socialism, and the one many of the people here are advocating.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Yup, which is a form of socialism, and the one many of the people here are advocating.
So basically what people here are saying when they talk about "capitalism" is the idea of Laissez-faire Capitalism?
Hmmm. So you are all aspiring to an idea which has never happened anywhere at anytime in any country?
Because you move on from that and capitalism is all ABOUT government. Even laissez-faire is about government.
Also in the context of "state capitalism" being socialist then pretty much any social movement has socialist elements. However much you try and move away from it capitalism in all it's varieties are forms of socialism. All you are arguing now is the "level" of socialism/capitalism you want to adopt.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Laissez-faire capitalism www.capitalism.org/
socialism www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php
capitalism www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_capitalism.php
Also an interesting read www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Yup, which is a form of socialism, and the one many of the people here are advocating.
So basically what people here are saying when they talk about "capitalism" is the idea of Laissez-faire Capitalism?
Hmmm. So you are all aspiring to an idea which has never happened anywhere at anytime in any country?
Because you move on from that and capitalism is all ABOUT government. Even laissez-faire is about government.
Also in the context of "state capitalism" being socialist then pretty much any social movement has socialist elements. However much you try and move away from it capitalism in all it's varieties are forms of socialism. All you are arguing now is the "level" of socialism/capitalism you want to adopt.
Different people here are saying different things. I was answering someone who was making a false claim that free, unfettered capitalism caused the current crisis, which is complete BS. There is nothing free and unfettered about our capitalism.
What I am saying is, generally, the more capitalistic (a better word would be free market-oriented) the better; the less so, the worse. The guy I was debating with (well ,I was debating, he was making personal attacks and shifting contexts, making false assertions and backing up nothing) was seemingly wanting even MORE government shoved down our throats.
I know I am talking about the "'level" and have said so many times. It is more than the level though -- it is a different view about the FUNCTION of government.
From wikipedia:
"State capitalism, for Marxists and heterodox economists is a way to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist.[1] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation."
State capitalism is not in the least bit capitalism of any sort. It is what marxists have always done, and discussed by Orwell. They hijack words. This is the way the word "liberal" became associated with people who favor big government.
I agree however it is all about government. Capitalism is all about government protecting people's rights. It is not anarchy. Socialism is all about people owning one another, and the state enforcing that. I favor the first and am against the second.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Different people here are saying different things. I was answering someone who was making a false claim that free, unfettered capitalism caused the current crisis, which is complete BS. There is nothing free and unfettered about our capitalism.
What I am saying is, generally, the more capitalistic (a better word would be free market-oriented) the better; the less so, the worse. The guy I was debating with (well ,I was debating, he was making personal attacks and shifting contexts, making false assertions and backing up nothing) was seemingly wanting even MORE government shoved down our throats.
I know I am talking about the "'level" and have said so many times. It is more than the level though -- it is a different view about the FUNCTION of government.
From wikipedia:
"State capitalism, for Marxists and heterodox economists is a way to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist.[1] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation."
State capitalism is not in the least bit capitalism of any sort. It is what marxists have always done, and discussed by Orwell. They hijack words. This is the way the word "liberal" became associated with people who favor big government.
I agree however it is all about government. Capitalism is all about government protecting people's rights. It is not anarchy. Socialism is all about people owning one another, and the state enforcing that. I favor the first and am against the second.
Fishermage argues from the position that all developed nations who monitor and adjust their currency are essentially socialist because they fit the Capitalist State model. And therefore they are not in the least bit capitalist, and therefore anything YOU THINK is capitalism in the system (where the government lets people make economic decisions) is so regulated by the government that it cannot be true capitalism.
In other words, every developed nation in the world right now is one big corporate government giant and therefore capitalism has never actually existed in these systems.
I mean, I understand the philosophy.
I also understand why meth addicts sell their bodies for their next hit.
You can't have a reasonable, pragmatic conversation with someone who thinks this way because their assumptions about the economy and society are so beyond the argument that it is impossible to deal with. These ideals come from reading too much philosophy and not enough about economics.
{ModEdit}
Different people here are saying different things. I was answering someone who was making a false claim that free, unfettered capitalism caused the current crisis, which is complete BS. There is nothing free and unfettered about our capitalism.
What I am saying is, generally, the more capitalistic (a better word would be free market-oriented) the better; the less so, the worse. The guy I was debating with (well ,I was debating, he was making personal attacks and shifting contexts, making false assertions and backing up nothing) was seemingly wanting even MORE government shoved down our throats.
I know I am talking about the "'level" and have said so many times. It is more than the level though -- it is a different view about the FUNCTION of government.
From wikipedia:
"State capitalism, for Marxists and heterodox economists is a way to describe a society wherein the productive forces are owned and run by the state in a capitalist way, even if such a state calls itself socialist.[1] Within Marxist literature, state capitalism is usually defined in this sense: as a social system combining capitalism — the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value — with ownership or control by a state apparatus. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single giant corporation."
State capitalism is not in the least bit capitalism of any sort. It is what marxists have always done, and discussed by Orwell. They hijack words. This is the way the word "liberal" became associated with people who favor big government.
I agree however it is all about government. Capitalism is all about government protecting people's rights. It is not anarchy. Socialism is all about people owning one another, and the state enforcing that. I favor the first and am against the second.
Fishermage argues from the position that all developed nations who monitor and adjust their currency are essentially socialist because they fit the Capitalist State model. And therefore they are not in the least bit capitalist, and therefore anything YOU THINK is capitalism in the system (where the government lets people make economic decisions) is so regulated by the government that it cannot be true capitalism.
In other words, every developed nation in the world right now is one big corporate government giant and therefore capitalism has never actually existed in these systems.
I mean, I understand the philosophy.
I also understand why meth addicts sell their bodies for their next hit.
You can't have a reasonable, pragmatic conversation with someone who thinks this way because their assumptions about the economy and society are so beyond the argument that it is impossible to deal with. These ideals come from reading too much philosophy and not enough about economics.
{ModEdit}
There you go again. Willful mischaracterization so you can attack a straw man.
Of course you then return to your childish personal attacks. Yep, more predictable schtick from you. It is getting rather redundant.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I will actually borrow your phrase from earlier Fisher which is
"without black or white there can be no grey"
In the context of this discussion then really pure communism and pure capitalism (laissez-faire) are the blacks and whites. The greys are the systems we have in place now in various countries round the world. Just different shades of grey.
I will say though that if, and it's a big IF, Communism could ever work then it's probably the best system overall. (entirely my opinion). At the same time laissez-faire Capitalism has some damn fine points about it as well. But communism wins out because it looks at the collective rather than the individual. While individuals of brilliance are some of the driving forces of modern society (and through the ages) i don't believe communism would dampen this.
But we are talking about polital ideals which could never happen in real life because of the inherent corruption of individual human beings.
As to litigators previous post being full of personal attacks. On this occasion I don't see it myself. He has used comments you have said yourself to raise points about why he thinks your points are invalid. It's not a personal attack as such.
This is specifically about the previous posts as my connection is so crap here at work it would take agaes to trawl through the previous pages
Thanks T
p.s I'm still waiting to be shot down by all the right wingers here for having the gall to post the Communist Manifesto on what is predominately an American site
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
He makes claims about how my personal life choices (which he is wrong about) is why I have views he disagrees with. he has said his arguments go over my head and claimed I live in a fantasy land. He willfully mischaracterizes what I say for the purpose of the fallacy known as appeal to ridicule, perhaps the most childish form of attack in rhetoric other than outright namecalling.
Sorry you don't see those as personal attacks. I do. They don't bother me, but in that they show how he is not debating in good faith, I call him out on them when he does so.
Once again it shows what we are dealing with here when we who believe in liberty debate with those who don't.
Now, communism is 100% mutual slavery. It claims that need, not rights is the foundation of society. That is evil in theory and in practice. Plus the labor theory of value is simply bunk, and the entire economics of marxism rests on that.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I was talking about communism in the pure sense.
Karl Marx posited that communism would be the final stage in human society, which would be achieved through a proletarian revolution. "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.
Not in any way shape or form was I refereing to the bastardized form practiced by the USSR
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." -George W. Bush, discussing the decline of the French economy with British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Ah, you mean what we would call today "rational anarchism."
sad to say, that marx was wrong. It isn't the final product of Communism, but of Libertarian Democracy. Once the society of abundance is reached, which we would have reached sometime ago were it not for all the socialist tinkerers who think they know better than people what they want and need.
Marx's problem is you can't start out using NEED as your foundation. That makes people tools for the end of the state, and will invariably lead to that "bastardized" form practiced by the USSR. A false/weak foundation can never lead to a great society.
fishermage.blogspot.com