Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
How Obama Got Elected
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I don't think I want to see anything like 'that' even if the 'interviewer' was 'on my side' -- 'that' being an ingenuous and intentional misrepresentation of 'facts' being posed as questions to a small subset of one community so as to elicit confused and uninformed responses that can be made to appear representative of an entire political party -- as Ziegler did here. Do you really want to see an 'interview' with these McCain people -- who are clearly suffering from an epidemic of hate?!?:
People you might meet if you did the 'interviews' with McCain supporters in Pottsville, PA
People you might meet if you did the 'interviews' with McCain supporters in Henderson, NV
People you might meet if you did the 'interviews' with McCain supporters in Denver, CO
Epidemic #1 Definition: affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time
What facts were misrepresented? What was the least bit confusing about the questions? Would YOU have had trouble answering them? The one that was a slight misrepresentation was the Palin "I can see Alaska from my home" question, which was designed to elicit whether people remembered the actual quote or what Tina Fey said. Why do you have a problem with that?
Showing me crazy supporters at a rally is no the same thing as interviews with nice, decent folks who are simply the ignorant products of government education. Obama had just as many crazies at his rallies so did hillary. Not the same thing at all as what I am sharing.
Either way, thanks for sharing those videos and showing that you can't show me what I showed you.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Because stating random things without any fact to back it up or examples is a good idea, right? I could as well say that you're a giant green blob of ectoplasm that floats around the world, and the possibility of either of these statements being true would be the same. Apart from that the people interviewed are of course the most informed ones since they actually know less about politics than I, as a person from Sweden do.
???
fishermage.blogspot.com
This video would hold at least a small amount of credibility if the interviewer had asked the same questions to people who were McCain supporters. I suspect that didn't happen because it probably would have shown there are also about 5 or 6 McCain voters who were as clueless as the these Obama voters, thus negating the purpose of such obvious propaganda. Keep looking Fish. Better luck in finding better, more compelling rubbish to post.
This video would hold at least a small amount of credibility if the interviewer had asked as the same questions to people who were McCain supporters. I suspect that didn't happen because it probably would have shown there are also about 5 or 6 McCain voters who were as clueless as the these Obama voters, thus negating the purpose of such obvious propaganda. Keep looking Fish. Better luck in finding better, more compelling rubbish to post.
Your overlooking the fact that FOX news has to feed there minions a steady diet of insulting belittling drool or they start to twitch.
This video would hold at least a small amount of credibility if the interviewer had asked as the same questions to people who were McCain supporters. I suspect that didn't happen because it probably would have shown there are also about 5 or 6 McCain voters who were as clueless as the these Obama voters, thus negating the purpose of such obvious propaganda. Keep looking Fish. Better luck in finding better, more compelling rubbish to post.
Your overlooking the fact that FOX news has to feed there minions a steady diet of insulting belittling drool or they start to twitch.
Is that why the other "News Networks" are still in Buisness? What is your Flavor then ;p
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
Because stating random things without any fact to back it up or examples is a good idea, right? I could as well say that you're a giant green blob of ectoplasm that floats around the world, and the possibility of either of these statements being true would be the same. Apart from that the people interviewed are of course the most informed ones since they actually know less about politics than I, as a person from Sweden do.
???
You lost so freaking live with it.
And you Clearly dont Bother reading any of Fishers posts...
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
I don't think I want to see anything like 'that' even if the 'interviewer' was 'on my side' -- 'that' being an ingenuous and intentional misrepresentation of 'facts' being posed as questions to a small subset of one community so as to elicit confused and uninformed responses that can be made to appear representative of an entire political party -- as Ziegler did here. Do you really want to see an 'interview' with these McCain people -- who are clearly suffering from an epidemic of hate?!?:
People you might meet if you did the 'interviews' with McCain supporters in Pottsville, PA
People you might meet if you did the 'interviews' with McCain supporters in Henderson, NV
People you might meet if you did the 'interviews' with McCain supporters in Denver, CO
Epidemic #1 Definition: affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time
What facts were misrepresented? What was the least bit confusing about the questions? Would YOU have had trouble answering them? The one that was a slight misrepresentation was the Palin "I can see Alaska from my home" question, which was designed to elicit whether people remembered the actual quote or what Tina Fey said. Why do you have a problem with that?
Showing me crazy supporters at a rally is no the same thing as interviews with nice, decent folks who are simply the ignorant products of government education. Obama had just as many crazies at his rallies so did hillary. Not the same thing at all as what I am sharing.
Either way, thanks for sharing those videos and showing that you can't show me what I showed you.
The 'facts' were misrepresented because while you could make an argument that they were 'factual' so could another person make a reasoned argument that they are 'loaded questions'. (Separately, do you not realize that those 'crazy supporters at a rally' go home on non-rally days to be those 'nice, decent folks who are simply the ignorant products of government education' ? -- they are the same people, whether McCain or Obama supporters, the 'nuts' are just 'normal' people showing their 'ugly' side) Anyways, about the misrepresentation...
'Loaded Question' from Wikipedia:
Many questions, also known as complex question, presupposition, loaded question, "trick question", or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy.[1] It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.
'Loaded Question' from the Urban Dictionary:
1. A question that has a hidden purpose behind it's asking. The questioner will usually ask the question to find something out without blatantly asking. 2. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. 3. A question that is asked not to find information but with the intent to cause an emotional reaction from the person being asked.
Loaded Question from the Fallacy Files:
A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.
___________________
"presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved"
"a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption."
"A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition. "
I think that these definitions apply to at least some of the questions asked, examples:
"Which candidate said their policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?"
-In the same Chronicle interview Obama said "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them, because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," AND ALSO "if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it." To some people this reads like the 'question' does, assuming that bankruptcy for the coal industry is now a functional and necesary extention of future policy -- but to others this reads quite differently, especially in it's full context of the original article, and it makes no such morbid assurances as the 'question' implies. The question is 'which candidate' but the question assumes that the referenced statement is represented accurately. That 'dispute' over his statements is what makes the 'fact' a 'questionable presupposition' and therefore a loaded question, a misrepresentation by the 'interviewer', plain and simple.
"Before this past election, which political party controlled both houses of congress?"
- First, the numbers: R(36.5%) D(42.6%) Neither(12.9%) NS(8%) -- So 20% didn't even answer with a party name (scary, yes) and 36.5% answered 'incorrectly' -- or did they? Again we have a question that presupposes. In this case it is assumed that every respondee will take 'before this past election' to mean 'in the two years before this past election' and not to mean 'most of the past two full election cycles before this past election'. You will possibly dispute my assesment, but it is the dispute that makes the 'question' a 'questionable presupposition' and therefore another loaded question.
As for your highlighting the Tina Fey question, just like Ziegler is repeatedly doing, I cannot speak to that, and I don't 'have a problem with that' as you put it. What bothers me deeply is that people let their TVs think for them -- my frustration peaked maybe 5 years ago when I shut that damned thing off. (thanks to eztv.it I can still get LOST and other goodies) Kill your TV man.
Because stating random things without any fact to back it up or examples is a good idea, right? I could as well say that you're a giant green blob of ectoplasm that floats around the world, and the possibility of either of these statements being true would be the same. Apart from that the people interviewed are of course the most informed ones since they actually know less about politics than I, as a person from Sweden do.
???
You lost so freaking live with it.
It seems that the only ones having trouble living with anything are those who got what they wanted.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I don't think I want to see anything like 'that' even if the 'interviewer' was 'on my side' -- 'that' being an ingenuous and intentional misrepresentation of 'facts' being posed as questions to a small subset of one community so as to elicit confused and uninformed responses that can be made to appear representative of an entire political party -- as Ziegler did here. Do you really want to see an 'interview' with these McCain people -- who are clearly suffering from an epidemic of hate?!?:
People you might meet if you did the 'interviews' with McCain supporters in Pottsville, PA
People you might meet if you did the 'interviews' with McCain supporters in Henderson, NV
People you might meet if you did the 'interviews' with McCain supporters in Denver, CO
Epidemic #1 Definition: affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time
What facts were misrepresented? What was the least bit confusing about the questions? Would YOU have had trouble answering them? The one that was a slight misrepresentation was the Palin "I can see Alaska from my home" question, which was designed to elicit whether people remembered the actual quote or what Tina Fey said. Why do you have a problem with that?
Showing me crazy supporters at a rally is no the same thing as interviews with nice, decent folks who are simply the ignorant products of government education. Obama had just as many crazies at his rallies so did hillary. Not the same thing at all as what I am sharing.
Either way, thanks for sharing those videos and showing that you can't show me what I showed you.
The 'facts' were misrepresented because while you could make an argument that they were 'factual' so could another person make a reasoned argument that they are 'loaded questions'. (Separately, do you not realize that those 'crazy supporters at a rally' go home on non-rally days to be those 'nice, decent folks who are simply the ignorant products of government education' ? -- they are the same people, whether McCain or Obama supporters, the 'nuts' are just 'normal' people showing their 'ugly' side) Anyways, about the misrepresentation...
'Loaded Question' from Wikipedia:
Many questions, also known as complex question, presupposition, loaded question, "trick question", or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy.[1] It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.
'Loaded Question' from the Urban Dictionary:
1. A question that has a hidden purpose behind it's asking. The questioner will usually ask the question to find something out without blatantly asking. 2. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. 3. A question that is asked not to find information but with the intent to cause an emotional reaction from the person being asked.
Loaded Question from the Fallacy Files:
A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.
___________________
"presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved"
"a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption."
"A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition. "
I think that these definitions apply to at least some of the questions asked, examples:
"Which candidate said their policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket?"
-In the same Chronicle interview Obama said "So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them, because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," AND ALSO "if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it." To some people this reads like the 'question' does, assuming that bankruptcy for the coal industry is now a functional and necesary extention of future policy -- but to others this reads quite differently, especially in it's full context of the original article, and it makes no such morbid assurances as the 'question' implies. The question is 'which candidate' but the question assumes that the referenced statement is represented accurately. That 'dispute' over his statements is what makes the 'fact' a 'questionable presupposition' and therefore a loaded question, a misrepresentation by the 'interviewer', plain and simple.
"Before this past election, which political party controlled both houses of congress?"
- First, the numbers: R(36.5%) D(42.6%) Neither(12.9%) NS(8%) -- So 20% didn't even answer with a party name (scary, yes) and 36.5% answered 'incorrectly' -- or did they? Again we have a question that presupposes. In this case it is assumed that every respondee will take 'before this past election' to mean 'in the two years before this past election' and not to mean 'most of the past two full election cycles before this past election'. You will possibly dispute my assesment, but it is the dispute that makes the 'question' a 'questionable presupposition' and therefore another loaded question.
As for your highlighting the Tina Fey question, just like Ziegler is repeatedly doing, I cannot speak to that, and I don't 'have a problem with that' as you put it. What bothers me deeply is that people let their TVs think for them -- my frustration peaked maybe 5 years ago when I shut that damned thing off. (thanks to eztv.it I can still get LOST and other goodies) Kill your TV man.
Those are some pretty weak arguments there.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That's funny -- I thought the same thing about the whole Ziegler survey.
That's funny -- I thought the same thing about the whole Ziegler survey.
A survey isn't an argument.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That's funny -- I thought the same thing about the whole Ziegler survey.
A survey isn't an argument.
This one was. The survey was commissioned to make the argument that your average Obama voter is woefully misinformed -- it did just this by asking loaded questions to a targeted demographic in only one area -- and I find both the underlying argument as well as the way the 'data' was gathered to be 'weak'. (and also your support of it, that's weak too)
This video would hold at least a small amount of credibility if the interviewer had asked the same questions to people who were McCain supporters. I suspect that didn't happen because it probably would have shown there are also about 5 or 6 McCain voters who were as clueless as the these Obama voters, thus negating the purpose of such obvious propaganda. Keep looking Fish. Better luck in finding better, more compelling rubbish to post.
The survey wasn't testing the knowledge of voters, but of Obama supporters. If he were trying to show the knowledge level of the voter, he needs to show both sides, but if he isn't, he doesn't. I do however look forward to see anyone doing a similar poll of McCain supporters.
Personally, I tend to think BOTH sides have their number of ignorant people; which is why two very weak candidates were picked by both parties. I, being a fairly well informed guy on these matters, couldn't support either.
That being said, I am looking for a similar thing about McCain voters, and when I find it, I'll share that as well.
fishermage.blogspot.com
That's funny -- I thought the same thing about the whole Ziegler survey.
A survey isn't an argument.
This one was. The survey was commissioned to make the argument that your average Obama voter is woefully misinformed -- it did just this by asking loaded questions to a targeted demographic in only one area -- and I find both the underlying argument as well as the way the 'data' was gathered to be 'weak'. (and also your support of it, that's weak too)
The questions weren't loaded. They were simple knowledge questions. How would you have done?
fishermage.blogspot.com
I have the PDF -- I 'took the survey'. I would have missed two, the Biden plagairism which I had to look up (shameful) and the Palin/Tina Fey/Russia one (only thing on my TV is static). Just don't ask me to pretend I am surprised that a politician in high office is 'dirty' or that any opinions are changed to hear it confirmed. I believe the avereage voter assumes as they cast a vote that even their pick is inevitably tarnished, that they all are, and probably in more ways than they know.
Oh, and I lose an extra point for continuing to humor you (self deducted) -- you don't seem to think they were loaded questions, you don't seem to mind the targeted location or demographics, and so I will let your judgement speak for itself.
I have the PDF -- I 'took the survey'. I would have missed two, the Biden plagairism which I had to look up (shameful) and the Palin/Tina Fey/Russia one (only thing on my TV is static). Just don't ask me to pretend I am surprised that a politician in high office is 'dirty' or that any opinions are changed to hear it confirmed. I believe the avereage voter assumes as they cast a vote that even their pick is inevitably tarnished, that they all are, and probably in more ways than they know.
Oh, and I lose an extra point for continuing to humor you (self deducted) -- you don't seem to think they were loaded questions, you don't seem to mind the targeted location or demographics, and so I will let your judgement speak for itself.
How can a simple knowledge test be loaded? You haven't shown that they were loaded at all.
In terms of demographics:
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Those don't seem to be unfair demographics to me. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. These are supposedly educated people, and the survey shows how ignorant they were on their own candidates and the issues. They showed they knew a lot of what the media has said about Palin.
Oh, and I got 100%. So did my wife.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well Said m8
To be completely honest on the subject, I think that whole news story was simply a way stroke some bruised egos after the election.
Also, because I feel more information is always better, here's some more info about the Zogby Poll:
www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm
Hmm sure seems a lot of people get awfully upset when a guy tries to share information with people. If YOU supported Obama, this says NOTHING about YOU. Why take it so personally? If you don't think it's valid, feel free to ignore it. If you do, take it for what it's worth.
Either way, it's nothing worth getting angry over or resorting to namecalling, as some have done here.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Socialism never rebuilt anything.
There were far more Democratic hands on this economic mess than Republican ones. It's not even close.
Yes it has...
You do realize paying taxes is a form of socialism, your taxes go to the government, the government pays themselves, the civil servants, and a bunch of other things like 700 billion dollar bailouts.
The country is built on a hybrid form of socialism and capitalism, the elections over can we stop with the buzz words.
Quotations Those Who make peaceful resolutions impossible, make violent resolutions inevitable. John F. Kennedy
Life... is the shit that happens while you wait for moments that never come - Lester Freeman
Lie to no one. If there 's somebody close to you, you'll ruin it with a lie. If they're a stranger, who the fuck are they you gotta lie to them? - Willy Nelson
I have the PDF -- I 'took the survey'. I would have missed two, the Biden plagairism which I had to look up (shameful) and the Palin/Tina Fey/Russia one (only thing on my TV is static). Just don't ask me to pretend I am surprised that a politician in high office is 'dirty' or that any opinions are changed to hear it confirmed. I believe the avereage voter assumes as they cast a vote that even their pick is inevitably tarnished, that they all are, and probably in more ways than they know.
Oh, and I lose an extra point for continuing to humor you (self deducted) -- you don't seem to think they were loaded questions, you don't seem to mind the targeted location or demographics, and so I will let your judgement speak for itself.
How can a simple knowledge test be loaded? You haven't shown that they were loaded at all.
In terms of demographics:
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Those don't seem to be unfair demographics to me. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. These are supposedly educated people, and the survey shows how ignorant they were on their own candidates and the issues. They showed they knew a lot of what the media has said about Palin.
Oh, and I got 100%. So did my wife.
Not only do I think individual questions were loaded (examples on earlier page of this thread, which you seem to disagree with the validity of) but I think the context of the survey was 'loaded' -- and it fits the Random House defintion of a Push-Poll, being "a seemingly unbiased telephone survey that is actually conducted by supporters of a particular candidate and disseminates negative information about an opponent." That the 'survey' includes a self-admitted 'trick question' just reinforces its borderline illegitimacy as a supposed gauge of political knowledge.
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong, I cannot quickly re-locate the source), the corresponding YouTube video interviews were conducted in one area, in a poor district in South Central L.A., and that would be the demographic that I have a beef with, and yes, targeting a location is targeting a demographic.
From Demographics on Wikipedia:
Commonly-used demographics include race, age, income, disabilities, mobility (in terms of travel time to work or number of vehicles available), educational attainment, home ownership, employment status, and even location
Oh, and congrats to you and your wife on your 100% scores on the Ziegler/Zogby survey. You must really have worked hard to earn such an elite honor, even watching SNL to know what Tina Fey said differently from Sarah Palin and all -- you're in the political bigtime now. *golfclap*
I have the PDF -- I 'took the survey'. I would have missed two, the Biden plagairism which I had to look up (shameful) and the Palin/Tina Fey/Russia one (only thing on my TV is static). Just don't ask me to pretend I am surprised that a politician in high office is 'dirty' or that any opinions are changed to hear it confirmed. I believe the avereage voter assumes as they cast a vote that even their pick is inevitably tarnished, that they all are, and probably in more ways than they know.
Oh, and I lose an extra point for continuing to humor you (self deducted) -- you don't seem to think they were loaded questions, you don't seem to mind the targeted location or demographics, and so I will let your judgement speak for itself.
How can a simple knowledge test be loaded? You haven't shown that they were loaded at all.
In terms of demographics:
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Those don't seem to be unfair demographics to me. I'm not sure what you are trying to say. These are supposedly educated people, and the survey shows how ignorant they were on their own candidates and the issues. They showed they knew a lot of what the media has said about Palin.
Oh, and I got 100%. So did my wife.
Not only do I think individual questions were loaded (examples on earlier page of this thread, which you seem to disagree with the validity of) but I think the context of the survey was 'loaded' -- and it fits the Random House defintion of a Push-Poll, being "a seemingly unbiased telephone survey that is actually conducted by supporters of a particular candidate and disseminates negative information about an opponent." That the 'survey' includes a self-admitted 'trick question' just reinforces its borderline illegitimacy as a supposed gauge of political knowledge.
As I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong, I cannot quickly re-locate the source), the corresponding YouTube video interviews were conducted in one area, in a poor district in South Central L.A., and that would be the demographic that I have a beef with, and yes, targeting a location is targeting a demographic.
From Demographics on Wikipedia:
Commonly-used demographics include race, age, income, disabilities, mobility (in terms of travel time to work or number of vehicles available), educational attainment, home ownership, employment status, and even location
Oh, and congrats to you and your wife on your 100% scores on the Ziegler/Zogby survey. You must really have worked hard to earn such an elite honor, even watching SNL to know what Tina Fey said differently from Sarah Palin and all -- you're in the political bigtime now. *golfclap*
It in no way was "push Poll" by that definition; it was a simple test of knowledge. The questions were,m if anything, "loaded" to make Sarah palin look bad, not Obama, so if you mean that, I GUESS you have a case, but otherwise, I don't see it at all.
Okay, if you don't like the demographic of the video, that I can give you. I don't think it's particularly important, but if you do, so be it. I am talking about the poll itself, which reflects what the video says quite well -- since YOU were combining the two I thought I could.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Socialism never rebuilt anything.
There were far more Democratic hands on this economic mess than Republican ones. It's not even close.
Yes it has...
You do realize paying taxes is a form of socialism, your taxes go to the government, the government pays themselves, the civil servants, and a bunch of other things like 700 billion dollar bailouts.
The country is built on a hybrid form of socialism and capitalism, the elections over can we stop with the buzz words.
Paying taxes is not a form of socialism -- that makes all government socialism and teh term socialism meaningless. My taxes go to some legitimate government functions and some illegitimate ones; some functions that are better done by government and some that are not.
I am against my money going to the socialist ones. You are not. That's fine, we can agree to disagree.
This country, and all countries that have been successful, were build with a capitalist skeleton and body and are infected with the virus of socialism. I am in favor of that which built this country and against that which has hurt it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
My thoughts on why Obama won:
1) We might be going through a political realignment in America, where every 30 years or so the out of power party becomes the party in power.
2) Obama seems to have been appealing to voters in the political center. In our two party, winner take all system, he who can capture the center wins the White House.
3) In the age of television, the most charismatic candidate won the election. Why should this election be any different?
My thoughts on political definitions:
I don't buy what a bunch of Austrian effetes with an agenda say about socialism, communism, capitalism, or fascism. I'd rather go to the source.
First of all, let's be very clear that Adam Smith never used the word 'capitalism' in The Wealth of Nations. He talks about capital, but never capitalism. In other words, Smith himself wasn't a 'capitalist,' and unlike Rand and Mises, was rather critical of the motives of the bourgeoisie. He called "those who live by profit . . . an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it (WoN I.11)." Marx agrees.
A 'capitalist' is someone who buys into the utopian ideology that if the government could just limit itself to protecting property rights, we could have an era of peace, prosperity, racial harmony, and equality. Now everybody has property in themselves, but those who have more property have their other property protected by the government. In this way, the just distribution of the public concern is for those who own more rather than those who own less. In other words, the state is not about forging a common way of life together as a people, but merely a big bank that protects assets through the legitimate use of force.
'Socialists' defined by Engels in his introduction to the Communist Manifesto include "the adherents of the various Utopian systems" like those of Owen, Fourier, Proudhon, and others. Socialists also include people (Engels calls them "multifarious social quacks") "who, by all manners of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances," and "in both cases [utopians and the 'social quacks] . . . men outside the working class movement, and looking rather to the 'educated' classes for support." Socialism is "a middle-class movement" as well. In other words, like capitalists, socialists are utopians who try and shape the social landscape by proposing new ways of life, or bringing up issues for public consideration that aren't regularly seen as issues. I put many environmentalists into this category, because many of them want to create wholly new experiments in environmentally friendly and enlightening communities that do not suffer from the aesthetic problems in our cities.
Now 'communism' is strictly a working-class movement. It seeks to overthrow the power-elite and establish a state for the working class and by the working class through violent revolution or political means. As Marx states in the CM: "The proletaraiat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible."
While it is true that fascists regulate, so does every other ideological position (capitalist, socialist, communist). In fact, I don't see, nor can I conceive of any political instance in the history of mankind that hasn't regulated something or other for the sake of the common good. To not regulate is to not be political, and since we are political animals, we cannot help but regulate economic things, social things, and every other thing we so choose.
The difference between fascists and everyone else isn't that they regulate any more or any less than any other political ideology. The difference is why fascists regulate, and what purpose the regulations serve. In the case of fascists, regulation is for the interests of the 'nation' or the 'race' or the 'volk' or any other specific ethnic, cultural, religious, or historical group the state is seen to serve. It is a system that sees no interest as valid but the national interest, and this national interest is very strictly and narrowly defined. Like all the other ideologies afforementioned, it tries to abolish all distinctions of class or perspective, claiming only one vision of what a citizen should be as 'valid' in the eyes of the law.
Personally, I think all these 'isms' are the legacy of modernity that we could do without. States have always been divided in terms of the 'many' and the 'few,' they will always fight, violently if need be, to get what they want. The best political system is one where neither the needs of the many nor the few are ignored, but both are able to have a voice and a stake in their political system as free equals counterbalancing each other. The state should promote the common good, not to the advantage of private interests, and should be strong enough to do whatever the citizens can agree upon.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Interesting point of view, but one, which you, I couldn't disagree with more. A "capitalist" (or a better term would be a person who believes in free enterprise) is someone who loves his neighbor enough to know that stealing from his neighbor is not the proper way to arrange society.
capitalists are not the least bit "utopians"
I think "isms" are the only way to discuss what we are talking about, and willfully blurring the distinctions between what people mean when they say what they mean is what modernity could do without.
I care what austrian "effetes" (I thought you were above attacking people, sad to see I was wrong), think because Mises actually came up with the most comprehensive definitions based upon the facts on the ground when he was writing. he lived through fascism and nazism and knew communism as well. he alsow as a stduent of various other forms of socialism like syndicalism and the like, and was very adept at drawing the distinctions.
There are differences as to WHY people regulate, and that is no doubt important, but more importantly, what they regulate, whether such regulation is done by a consistent rule of law, with consistent application of human rights, or done with the MOST consistent application of human rights.
Not Utopian, but there are BETTER or WORSE.
Communism was far from a workers movement. It was an intellectual movement designed to fool the workers into mudrering for the elites, and then used to enslave those workers by those intellectuals under a totalitarian regime, making the intellectuals the new elite.
It was not utopian, but a practical means of realizing that great dream men have had from Plato on down -- rule by the philsopher kings who know better than the grubs under them how best for those grubs to live. It of course always broke down because as the intellectuals failed to deliver the goods, the bigger and bigger thugs took over each and every time -- leading to rule by arbitrary thug.
The "capitalist" believes in or needs none of this. He wants to be free to do what he likes as long as he doens't harm others, and realizes that the free market, while no utopia, is the best means to that end.
What the "capitalist" believes in is not even an "ism" since capitalism is the word made up for it by the socialists, he is a believer in limited government, free markets, express human rights, and rule of law. None of these are utopian concepts and are all subject to the ugly mess of human interaction, but, the more consistently they are applies by the imperfect humans who apply them, the greater the freedom of the individuals concerned, which is the GOAL. The BYPRODUCT is the greatest good for the greatest number, and has been so in every country everywhere on earth at all times and places -- and none of thee places have been utopias.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Then Fascism fits in the description of the US.
Unfortunately, we are, by far, much closer to fascism than socialism.
Obama, where he is from Cook County, pays, literally, HIGHER than European taxes - WITHOUT free education, health care, and public transportation. I swear it. Do me ONE, but only one, favor? Look where the HIGHEST taxes in the United states are - Obama county. Pls, if you prove me wrong, I will give you 10,000 USA dollars.
The Public is going to get taxe until they are broke.
So be it. I say suck it more. The sooner the better. I say deprive them so much they get mad, and then, ultimately, involved in their own government.
I say let powerful people control the government, screw the middle class, and stir up a bees nest. I am confident in the middle class that if you tax, control and fire them enough they "participate" in their own government, which is not only their right but their destiny.