User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 86

  1. #61
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    You mean setting conditions for aid money they don't have to accept? In any event, I would be the last person to claim that the EU project is based around the concepts of either limited government or de-centralized authority....quite the opposite.

    Who do you think would be in charge (or in a better position to influence those in charge) of all the centralized beaurocratic institutions that 'protect' the common people from the dangers and external costs of free enterprise? We are talking about elites, not the rank and file.

    'Classical' as in the central planning advocates from Hayek's time, as opposed to the social democrats of today who focus on regulation and redistribution through taxation, all the while justifying their position on the same moral principles which underlay the socialist movements of the past.

    I'm not an objectivists, and John Galt never existed.

    I was not privy to the inner-most workings of their minds, but they no longer asked for explanations after I mentioned Rumsfeld's name. You needn't feel indignant on their behalf, they spend quite a lot of time tag-teaming against me during our bull-sessions (which of course took place in Hooters more often than not), they were not some long-suffering victims of political tirades by an agressive, socially dominant friend.
    I dont see how anyone could be a socialist or oppose capitalism for its machinations and trends rather than inequity and inefficiency or market failings and embrace elitism. The only protection against that, as with any sort of predation is self-defence and responsibility, it cant be taken care of by anyone else.

    Do you know anything of the actual central planners of Hayek's day? I suspect not, have you read Barbara Wooton for instance? Who wrote "Freedom Under Planning" as a response to Hayek's Road To Serfdom? No? So you only know of these sources via their detractors and opposition?

    Anyway, central planning is not synomonous with socialism nor socialism with central planning, its been a gross error perpetuated with by both socialism's worst enemies and pretenders. Some of the greatest socialist thinking there has been has not even involved state ownership or central planning at all, consider for instance Robert Edward Dell's book on socialism and personal liberty its proposals resemble those of Henry George or single taxers or so called geo-libertarians. There are a lot of other sources like that and some of the greatest socialists were American writers virtually written out of history by Americans and others (they were major opponents of Bolshevism and Lenin from before the October Putsch in Russia).

    Although you'll not know of any of these authors or books because they dont get republished and you're probably content with the accounts you have of these movements and ideas second hand via their detractors anyway. I know John Galt didnt exist that was meant to be a turn of phrase to illustrate a point.

    I dont feel indignant on anyones behalf, I just think its a shame when people who could be smarter than the stock capitalist answers to thinks choose not to be instead.

    I wonder what what would mean.

  2. #62
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Do you know anything of the actual central planners of Hayek's day? I suspect not, have you read Barbara Wooton for instance? Who wrote "Freedom Under Planning" as a response to Hayek's Road To Serfdom? No? So you only know of these sources via their detractors and opposition?

    Anyway, central planning is not synomonous with socialism nor socialism with central planning, its been a gross error perpetuated with by both socialism's worst enemies and pretenders. Some of the greatest socialist thinking there has been has not even involved state ownership or central planning at all, consider for instance Robert Edward Dell's book on socialism and personal liberty its proposals resemble those of Henry George or single taxers or so called geo-libertarians. There are a lot of other sources like that and some of the greatest socialists were American writers virtually written out of history by Americans and others (they were major opponents of Bolshevism and Lenin from before the October Putsch in Russia).
    No, I've never gotten around to reading Barbara Wootton; my professors typically had us read Polyani or Keynes as examples of early 20th century thought on the political economy (I was only introduced to Hayek in a political theory class I audited for fun, and the professor who taught that class was an American liberal who preferred the early works of John Rawls) and otherwise concentrated on more contemporary sources. And I'm well aware that Hayek was not opposed to basic, sustainable social welfare policies, nor am I opposed to them myself.....the modern debate is essentially over the direction and public/private breakdown of a mixed economy, not laissex faire (a term Hayek rejected as simplistic and counter-productive) versus nationalization and central planning.

    And every effective Commuist movement somehow never represented 'true' communism; if you think my use of the term 'classical socialism' is problematic, I'm happy to concede the point, and will instead say 'politically and academically dominant trends in socialist thought thru the first half of the 20th century'.

  3. #63
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    No, I've never gotten around to reading Barbara Wootton; my professors typically had us read Polyani or Keynes as examples of early 20th century thought on the political economy (I was only introduced to Hayek in a political theory class I audited for fun, and the professor who taught that class was an American liberal who preferred the early works of John Rawls) and otherwise concentrated on more contemporary sources. And I'm well aware that Hayek was not opposed to basic, sustainable social welfare policies, nor am I opposed to them myself.....the modern debate is essentially over the direction and public/private breakdown of a mixed economy, not laissex faire (a term Hayek rejected as simplistic and counter-productive) versus nationalization and central planning.

    And every effective Commuist movement somehow never represented 'true' communism; if you think my use of the term 'classical socialism' is problematic, I'm happy to concede the point, and will instead say 'politically and academically dominant trends in socialist thought thru the first half of the 20th century'.
    You could say "socialism in practice" if you were to be explicit as to what that meant, classic to me means early or in its beginnings but I think you mean archetypical as I read more of your posts.

    I dont believe the debate is about the weighting towards public or private of a mixed economy, I think it should be, but for a lot of folk it really is about laissez faire vs. nationalisation because they would really prefer that ideological struggle to the dull complexity of the real world.

    The extent to which the public and the private intersect and are inderdependent is not something that free marketeers want to consider really because it upsets most of the narratives they like the most, its no mistake that Rand and her fairy tales matter the most in the capitalist lexicon.

    Real basic things like how to run a business without consumers if all benefits were pulled to provide the tax cuts which are central to libertarian demands/dreams dont feature.

    Polyani is someone I've only began to read now, I've read Keynes and most of it is very reasonable, I dont think he has the answers to address all of the economy's contradictions but I'm not sure who does. Keynes was a capitalist though, that's what a lot of Hayek's fans wont admit, and he wasnt any sort of fool either, he just wanted to see capitalism survive in some shape or form.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jontherobot View Post
    Opposed to markets, I would be inclined to read should you expound that idea.


    What sorts of alternative/multiple currencies could be used in lieu of gold, other precious metals and materials?
    Its not my idea but Hayek did not like the monopoly which a central bank, publically owned or privately owned, had upon printing money and felt that competition and multiple currencies would be a good idea.

    I'm not sure of the practicality of it, like I say its not my idea, although it isnt the old fiat vs. precious metals backed currencies debate most libertarians love. Personally I think that's a lot of ramping by gold speculating crooks and stoked by national rivalries as much as marginal tea party opinions in the US but anyway.

    Markets are a poor means of calculating demand and supply in the economy, prices dont reflect costs or lead to the equitable and efficient allocation of scarce resources, class struggles and issues of that kind will always eschew the figures.

    I dont believe there's a single alternative and of the more credible ideas I've considered, such as participatory economics, there are problems or could be models engendering a kind of market function but I still think that markets are a poor invention in want of something better.

  5. #65
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    Oh, we got into serious discourse. Time to throw another dumb fucking perspective into the mix.

    Did anyone watch the video of the thing?


    The way he pauses, inflects, and gesticulates before and as he says that damning line is pretty telling. He fucked up his word choice--because he was improvising a bit and was obviously fishing for a good word in the moment--but everything else about that part of the speech communicated exactly what he intended to communicate.

    When I fuck up my wording in the lecture hall, I have the luxury of being able to laugh it off to the students, catch a few of their smiles so that I know we're on the same page, and say something along the lines of "Wait, wait.. hold on.. what I meant was.." and clarify myself--but those giving 'serious political speeches' just kinda have to keep going. I wonder if there's going to be a way for this post to skirt by without either (a) being 'called out' as politically leaning one way or another, and therefore being completely biased, and therefore expressing an invalid sentiment; or (b) having parts of this quoted with "YEAH BUT [PARTY] DOES THIS ALL THE TIME." There isn't a way, is there?

  6. #66
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    I still hate him, but, yeah, that really wasn't that bad.

    He said the same thing during one of the Republican debates.

    "Smart people" even is said in a kind of condescending way: it basically means "supposedly smart people", as someone already mentioned.

    Which brings us back to my point about how retarded these political-trolling-based-on-straw-men threads are.

    Congratulations, someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum of you made a gaffe.

    And, really, based on that video, this isn't even that bad of one.

  7. #67
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I've never heard of this Latour and dont know what SSK is.

    Who are the leftists you're talking about, you mean like Zizek?

    I think that some of the stuff produced by the supposedly left wing academia in the states, including that guy who has the doodles put to his lecturers and identifies as a marxist are not that radical seeming.
    Bruno Latour is a French academic who writes about things largely related to the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK.)

    And no, I wasn't talking about Zizek. I wouldn't count him among the science-denying, full social-constructionist types. In fact, he's criticized them before.

    Your new book, Living in the End Times, is about the demise of global capitalism. What is science’s place in all this?

    Science is completely entangled with capital and capitalism. It is simultaneously the source of some threats (such as the ecological consequences of our industries or the uncontrolled use of genetic engineering), and our best hope of understanding those threats and finding a way to cope with them.



    Despite your critique, you are positive about science?

    I have a very naive Enlightenment fascination with it. I have total admiration for science.

    Should philosophers be helping scientists?

    Yes. For the last few decades, at least in the humanities, big ontological questions – What is reality? What is the nature of the universe? – were considered too naive. It was meaningless to ask for objective truth. This prohibition on asking the big questions partly accounts for the explosion of popular science books. You read Stephen Hawking’s books as a way to ask these fundamental, metaphysical questions. I think that era of relativism, where science was just another product of knowledge, is ending. We philosophers should join scientists asking those big metaphysical questions about quantum physics, about reality.
    Also, doodling professor? I'm afraid I have no idea to whom you're referring.

    For an idea of the people I'm talking about, simply Google "science wars" or read, "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science" by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  8. #68
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Thank you for this hilarious quote.

  9. #69
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    It's fairly clear that the complete quote is: "We will never have the elite, smart people on our side, because they believe that they should have the power to tell you what to do." I believe it is also fair to say that "smart" is used in a sarcastic "air-quotes".

    This is an aspect of what he's talking about.

    Here is another aspect of what he's talking about.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  10. #70
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    The thing I'm wondering is, how can he say the SECOND part of that with a straight face? "Because they believe that they should have the power to tell you what to do"? Hello! Santorum would be thrilled to tell the rest of us what to do when it comes to things like birth control, abortion, and gay marriage. I would like to continue to control my own fertility, thanks.

Similar Threads

  1. Why the EU can never be like the USA (one nation).
    By ilikeitlikethat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 01-06-2017, 11:37 PM
  2. Is it wrong for other people to express opinions on the internet...
    By phobik in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-17-2011, 10:17 PM
  3. Thoughts on the ending of Death Note (Spoilers be warned)
    By Savage Idealist in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 08:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO