User Tag List

First 567

Results 61 to 69 of 69

  1. #61
    Demon King Tenebris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    2,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    How is China performing?

    I know its Market Maoism and not many capitalists will be claiming it, although some will I'm sure Eminent Domain has its supporters in the US even, but it seems to be an exception to your personal rule of thumb there.

    You'd have been of to a better start if you'd suggested there's only capitalism and state capitalism and from the history of both social democracy and dictatorships the world over the state variety is not preferable and "here's why..." though who am I to suggest which press release you got to believe.

    For my part I dont find it persuasive at all what you've got to say and I dont buy the argument that socialism requires cultural homogeneity, it sounds like one of those arguments that comes from a place concerned about some pretty unsocialistic things.
    Capitalism is not a government system. It is by definition, producing goods in exchange for currency. Everything else is a response to that simple exchange, which takes on various forms.

    China, is a technocratic communist republic, and uses the capitalist system. They buy and sell goods, and trade with the world. They have the rich elite just like any other country. The only difference, is that China's government has a lot more say in it, and controls/is controlled by mega corporations. Much of China, is still stuck in the 3rd world. Where many peasants live in thatch cottages. To judge the wealth of a nation, you must judge it by its poorest residents. The leaders of China, do not care about anyone but their own class. And their society reflects that.

    Democracy/government style, is entirely separate from an economic model, but work together. So you can have any form of government you want, but if you are trading currency with people other than the government. You are practicing capitalism. Such things included under capitalism includes private property, capital accumulation (able to save money), working for money, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.

    Under socialism, all of this is dictated by the government, instead of the people. So if the government just decides it doesn't want people to do X. It can simply not produce it, and there is nothing the people can do about it legally. So if the government desires to cut costs, and decides to stop making toilet paper. The people just wont have toilet paper. A government runs exactly like a business in this sense. Supply and demand. The people need it, the government has the people produce it (usually for free), and the people receive it. In a perfect world, this would work. But alas, socialism/communism spends most of its money on increasing its own power and control instead. We have seen this throughout history many times. Basic amenities become non existent very quickly. There is no economic growth under communism, or socialism, because there is no competitive market. Things then will gradually decline in quality because of lack of competition, and currency will hyper inflate. Meaning eventually, the currency becomes worthless. People then switch to bartering to survive. The government, to stop people taking their lives into their own hands. Goes out and prevents farmers from farming for free, just to feed people. Because that action means that the government no longer has control over that asset and is considered treason. In many instances, they are killed.

    Under capitalism, the price goes up and the incentive to produce toilet paper goes up along with it. So the person making it, makes money, and the people pay for it now have toilet paper. People compete with more and more innovative designs to make as much money as possible. Or provide a service for the people. Under capitalism, people do better because its made by the people, for the people. This all operates outside of the government, who does sometimes try to control it from going out of control (breaking up monopolies). But the potential for good, is far more better under capitalism. As opposed to communism's extremely high track record of going bad. So thinking you can keep doing the same thing over and over again, and getting different results. It is the definition of insanity, arrogance, and an extreme underestimation of human nature.

    As for my comment about homogeneous culture has a better chance of improving the effects of socialism is simple. Similar mindsets, similar beliefs, means less problems, and arguments. If you have two opposing cultures that have opposite views, you are not going to get them to work together. It's like asking an Atheist and a devout Christian to design a school. They will have very different views on what the curriculum will be. IF you had two atheists come together to create a school, they will be far more likely to come to a solution and far more quickly.
    Omnivariant
    Likes Tellenbach liked this post

  2. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exolvuntur View Post
    Capitalism is not a government system. It is by definition, producing goods in exchange for currency. Everything else is a response to that simple exchange, which takes on various forms.

    China, is a technocratic communist republic, and uses the capitalist system. They buy and sell goods, and trade with the world. They have the rich elite just like any other country. The only difference, is that China's government has a lot more say in it, and controls/is controlled by mega corporations. Much of China, is still stuck in the 3rd world. Where many peasants live in thatch cottages. To judge the wealth of a nation, you must judge it by its poorest residents. The leaders of China, do not care about anyone but their own class. And their society reflects that.

    Democracy/government style, is entirely separate from an economic model, but work together. So you can have any form of government you want, but if you are trading currency with people other than the government. You are practicing capitalism. Such things included under capitalism includes private property, capital accumulation (able to save money), working for money, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets.

    Under socialism, all of this is dictated by the government, instead of the people. So if the government just decides it doesn't want people to do X. It can simply not produce it, and there is nothing the people can do about it legally. So if the government desires to cut costs, and decides to stop making toilet paper. The people just wont have toilet paper. A government runs exactly like a business in this sense. Supply and demand. The people need it, the government has the people produce it (usually for free), and the people receive it. In a perfect world, this would work. But alas, socialism/communism spends most of its money on increasing its own power and control instead. We have seen this throughout history many times. Basic amenities become non existent very quickly. There is no economic growth under communism, or socialism, because there is no competitive market. Things then will gradually decline in quality because of lack of competition, and currency will hyper inflate. Meaning eventually, the currency becomes worthless. People then switch to bartering to survive. The government, to stop people taking their lives into their own hands. Goes out and prevents farmers from farming for free, just to feed people. Because that action means that the government no longer has control over that asset and is considered treason. In many instances, they are killed.

    Under capitalism, the price goes up and the incentive to produce toilet paper goes up along with it. So the person making it, makes money, and the people pay for it now have toilet paper. People compete with more and more innovative designs to make as much money as possible. Or provide a service for the people. Under capitalism, people do better because its made by the people, for the people. This all operates outside of the government, who does sometimes try to control it from going out of control (breaking up monopolies). But the potential for good, is far more better under capitalism. As opposed to communism's extremely high track record of going bad. So thinking you can keep doing the same thing over and over again, and getting different results. It is the definition of insanity, arrogance, and an extreme underestimation of human nature.

    As for my comment about homogeneous culture has a better chance of improving the effects of socialism is simple. Similar mindsets, similar beliefs, means less problems, and arguments. If you have two opposing cultures that have opposite views, you are not going to get them to work together. It's like asking an Atheist and a devout Christian to design a school. They will have very different views on what the curriculum will be. IF you had two atheists come together to create a school, they will be far more likely to come to a solution and far more quickly.
    You post your beliefs in a very didactic fashion, are you aware of that?

    I assure you I've read about this topic in depth and there are differing, very differing, accounts to which you're presenting here which are much more persuasive than what you've invested the time in regurgitating.

    I'd say check them out, what's to be lost by doing so? Whereas you could gain a fresh and different perspective.

  3. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exolvuntur View Post
    As for my comment about homogeneous culture has a better chance of improving the effects of socialism is simple. Similar mindsets, similar beliefs, means less problems, and arguments. If you have two opposing cultures that have opposite views, you are not going to get them to work together. It's like asking an Atheist and a devout Christian to design a school. They will have very different views on what the curriculum will be. IF you had two atheists come together to create a school, they will be far more likely to come to a solution and far more quickly.
    But what you are suggesting is patently not the case at present in any capitalist society you choose to mention.

    You are assuming equal resources on the part of your athiests and christians school builders, a number of other factors besides too, including ideal (I would say idealised) market factors such as perfect competition, perfect information, consumer sovereignty, demand and supply responsive markets. At best these are all a mixture of half truths and over simplifications at best too.

    Its also assuming that your exclusive definition of socialism as central planned command economies dominated by a state or state like apparatus is legit. I wouldnt suggest it is. There's as much variety in socialist schools of thought or practical experiments as there are capitalist ones. No one would suggest that the capitalism in the US, UK, Germany, Scandinavian states, Japan, Canada or Australia were similar, let alone carbon copies of one another. They arent. They all deserve or would choose to be described as capitalist but there's some variety there.

    There is a mixture of public and private ownership of firms, goods, assets, services. There's also a mixture of sectors, goods and services. Not every economy, for instance, would choose to be so heavily dominated by its financial sector as the UK is, in part a legacy of an ideological struggle past conservative administrations choose to have with the energy sector, specifically organised labour in the mining sector, for largely political reasons.

    Just as there is that diversity within what is labelled academically or popularly as capitalism there's the same within socialism. Not every socialist would consider that a strength. Its none the less the case. I think it is a strength. I think that diversity and pluralism are strengths. I think that because I think that freedom and flexibility are strengths and that the accidential distributions of material wealth and resources does not lend itself to that. Instead it lends itself to class struggle. If your society is marked by class struggle (and its consequent stratification which allows some to accumulate vast reserves of wealth, legacies, while others are starved of resources, opportunity and a hope in hell of getting a independent "business" plan off the ground) then it doesnt matter if you claim your society is socialist to the core its not.

    There's a bunch of pluralist varieties of socialism which dont give props to state capitalism, monopolies, oligarchies (public or private). Mutualism, market socialism, council communism, co-operatives, syndicalism, guild socialism (in its arcane and idealised patterns). Participatory Economics is only the latest variety of the same, which thinks its managed to out think Hayek's criticism of socialist planning in the calculation debate, with clever IT, consumer and workers councils, boards of planners and smart AI.

    Personally, I'm a pragmatist, the best, most successful capitalist societies are the most diverse and mixed, in terms of ownership and sectors. Any socialist alternative which is not at least as dynamic is doomed to failure. For the same reason that I think monopoly or oligopoly capitalism will be doomed to failure. The class struggles set like concrete, eventually diversions like racism dont count for much anymore, the serfs get sick and tired of it, or prove to be surplus to requirement and society self-destructs.

    Even if it proved to be able to produce more "monopoly socialism" would not necessarily be achieving allocative efficiency. Or more importantly be as free. Freedom is the litmus test. Not the abstract idea that if maybe differing schools of thought wanted to set up different schools they could, if they only had the money, but one which actually enables and facilitates the same and not simply by taxing, redistributing and spending.

    Anyway, I dont think you'll realistically look into any of that, you've got a script which you can confidently recite and that's all most people are interested in. No offence.

    Realistically, I personally dont think the prospects for either capitalism or socialism are that good. Very basic things like personal responsibility, healthy attachment styles, other psychological traits have all been shot to shit. Basic cultural patterns which are pretty essential have been eroded away too, what conservatives would call spontaneous order, liberals would call civil society and socialists would call free association has been shot to shit and its as important in my opinion, or more, than political and economic institutions.

    The consequences of this might be felt sooner than ecological devastation from fundamental resource depletion but I dont know for sure, there's unlikely to be any agreement about its genesis or any fix to it.

  4. #64
    Demon King Tenebris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    2,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    But what you are suggesting is patently not the case at present in any capitalist society you choose to mention.

    You are assuming equal resources on the part of your athiests and christians school builders, a number of other factors besides too, including ideal (I would say idealised) market factors such as perfect competition, perfect information, consumer sovereignty, demand and supply responsive markets. At best these are all a mixture of half truths and over simplifications at best too.

    Its also assuming that your exclusive definition of socialism as central planned command economies dominated by a state or state like apparatus is legit. I wouldnt suggest it is. There's as much variety in socialist schools of thought or practical experiments as there are capitalist ones. No one would suggest that the capitalism in the US, UK, Germany, Scandinavian states, Japan, Canada or Australia were similar, let alone carbon copies of one another. They arent. They all deserve or would choose to be described as capitalist but there's some variety there.

    There is a mixture of public and private ownership of firms, goods, assets, services. There's also a mixture of sectors, goods and services. Not every economy, for instance, would choose to be so heavily dominated by its financial sector as the UK is, in part a legacy of an ideological struggle past conservative administrations choose to have with the energy sector, specifically organised labour in the mining sector, for largely political reasons.

    Just as there is that diversity within what is labelled academically or popularly as capitalism there's the same within socialism. Not every socialist would consider that a strength. Its none the less the case. I think it is a strength. I think that diversity and pluralism are strengths. I think that because I think that freedom and flexibility are strengths and that the accidential distributions of material wealth and resources does not lend itself to that. Instead it lends itself to class struggle. If your society is marked by class struggle (and its consequent stratification which allows some to accumulate vast reserves of wealth, legacies, while others are starved of resources, opportunity and a hope in hell of getting a independent "business" plan off the ground) then it doesnt matter if you claim your society is socialist to the core its not.

    There's a bunch of pluralist varieties of socialism which dont give props to state capitalism, monopolies, oligarchies (public or private). Mutualism, market socialism, council communism, co-operatives, syndicalism, guild socialism (in its arcane and idealised patterns). Participatory Economics is only the latest variety of the same, which thinks its managed to out think Hayek's criticism of socialist planning in the calculation debate, with clever IT, consumer and workers councils, boards of planners and smart AI.

    Personally, I'm a pragmatist, the best, most successful capitalist societies are the most diverse and mixed, in terms of ownership and sectors. Any socialist alternative which is not at least as dynamic is doomed to failure. For the same reason that I think monopoly or oligopoly capitalism will be doomed to failure. The class struggles set like concrete, eventually diversions like racism dont count for much anymore, the serfs get sick and tired of it, or prove to be surplus to requirement and society self-destructs.

    Even if it proved to be able to produce more "monopoly socialism" would not necessarily be achieving allocative efficiency. Or more importantly be as free. Freedom is the litmus test. Not the abstract idea that if maybe differing schools of thought wanted to set up different schools they could, if they only had the money, but one which actually enables and facilitates the same and not simply by taxing, redistributing and spending.

    Anyway, I dont think you'll realistically look into any of that, you've got a script which you can confidently recite and that's all most people are interested in. No offence.

    Realistically, I personally dont think the prospects for either capitalism or socialism are that good. Very basic things like personal responsibility, healthy attachment styles, other psychological traits have all been shot to shit. Basic cultural patterns which are pretty essential have been eroded away too, what conservatives would call spontaneous order, liberals would call civil society and socialists would call free association has been shot to shit and its as important in my opinion, or more, than political and economic institutions.

    The consequences of this might be felt sooner than ecological devastation from fundamental resource depletion but I dont know for sure, there's unlikely to be any agreement about its genesis or any fix to it.
    The part you have quoted in this post, was not addressing capitalism. It is addressing how similarities make socialism easier to function. I was not talking about atheist and christian builders existing at the same time, I was talking about them working together to create one thing. So I have no idea why you just went off on a tangent about capitalistic factors, nor why you said "perfect". Nothing is perfect, that is the entire problem. But the pros of Capitalism far outweigh its cons, and Communism/Socialism literally has no pros. It sounds good on paper, but has yet to manifest even the slightest bit of functional in reality.

    My definition of socialism is not exclusive.

    so·cial·ism
    /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
    noun
    a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


    "Owned or regulated by the community as a whole" implies that there is some form/will be a form of authority to enforce this order, or there is anarchy.

    com·mu·nism
    /ˈkämyəˌnizəm/Submit
    noun
    a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.


    Communism, ushers in class warfare. How does one go about destroying a class?

    You can either:
    a) kill them
    b) take everything they own and redistribute it
    c) take everything they own, and give it to the new government.

    Generally speaking, only a) and c) happen.

    So exactly how is my definitions exclusive? I stated that the government (the authority in communism/socialism) enforces that economic structure. If it does not, then it is anarchy. To keep that authority, communism/socialism remove threats to its power/authority. But in communism, even the farmer can be seen as a threat because they produce assets where the government cannot/does not want to.

    I said in my original post, that capitalism is an economic model, not a system of government. How a government uses capitalism, can vary. I for one, think Conservatism is better for the economy, as well as culture. Because the more slowly it moves, the easier time everything can adjust. Because it takes a while to realize the problems before they compound. So having a slower moving government means more stability.

    Communism and socialism will only work if everyone agrees to the idea. The moment someone says no, is when the system collapses. And if you use force to correct that no, then you have already made the same mistakes many have before you in trying out communism/socialism. I do not know what is so hard about looking at history, and learning about what went wrong. Its insanely obvious that communism will fail. Socialism, is only sustainable as slave to capitalism but just barely and under the right conditions like homogeneity. The problem is the idea is contagious, and like all things. As time goes on, people who were alive to see the horrors first hand die and cannot share their warnings about it. It is why history always repeats itself. You have so little to gain, and everything to lose under communism.

    I do not however, completely think totally socialism is bad. I just know it will not work in the West. We have a culture of individuality, and diversity. These are just not compatible. It is not that I am against idea. I do not want my country, or any other country to try, fail, and become something like Russia.

    What you should actually be against, instead of capitalism. Is how it is abused, and educating yourself and people on how to avoid being taken advantage of. I personally, cannot blame smart people for taking advantage of stupid people.

    The West has also embraced a culture of CONSUME. They have thrown their ancestral heritage into the trash, and embraced hedonism and self loathing. They no longer care about their culture, and they are so desperate in their decadence that they masochistically invite their own demise in the name of justice against themselves. Self-flagellating on the idea that they are so superior and better off than the rest of the world. I find that utterly disrespectful to both our history, culture, and ancestors. No animal should have to apologize for out-competing other animals, because it is against nature itself.

    I personally think you have not seen the big picture, or how the health of our government is in direct correlation with our culture. Culture, has been on the decline because of cultural changes like the move away from Christianity. The embrace of victim culture, and the outrage culture. The embrace of hedonism, and lack of modesty. While I do not like religion, it has a wisdom in it that has been passed down for 1000s of years. Atheists, took it literally. They overlooked the impact religion has on culture and society. Even without the fear of god, things like modesty, sexual abstinence, marriage, and gender roles played a massive role in creating a stable society. All of that, went out the window because someone said you cannot prove god exists. Without realizing religion was created as a way of passing down realistic knowledge in an easier to understand format. It was never meant to be taken literally, and if it was. It still worked. So it was the perfect system to control both the stupid people, and useful for the smart people. Now this wouldn't have been so bad, if there wasn't the atheist movement. If it was an agnostic movement, it would have turned out better. Or a movement that taught these principles as a foundation for a stable society without god. The increase of mental illness, also correlates directly the the decline in culture.

    Also, I would appreciate it if you quite assuming that I got a "Script" or some other conspiracies when I make my posts. It's rude, and contributes nothing to the conversation.
    Omnivariant

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27,064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Exolvuntur View Post
    The part you have quoted in this post, was not addressing capitalism. It is addressing how similarities make socialism easier to function. I was not talking about atheist and christian builders existing at the same time, I was talking about them working together to create one thing. So I have no idea why you just went off on a tangent about capitalistic factors, nor why you said "perfect". Nothing is perfect, that is the entire problem. But the pros of Capitalism far outweigh its cons, and Communism/Socialism literally has no pros. It sounds good on paper, but has yet to manifest even the slightest bit of functional in reality.

    My definition of socialism is not exclusive.

    so·cial·ism
    /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
    noun
    a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


    "Owned or regulated by the community as a whole" implies that there is some form/will be a form of authority to enforce this order, or there is anarchy.

    com·mu·nism
    /ˈkämyəˌnizəm/Submit
    noun
    a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.


    Communism, ushers in class warfare. How does one go about destroying a class?

    You can either:
    a) kill them
    b) take everything they own and redistribute it
    c) take everything they own, and give it to the new government.

    Generally speaking, only a) and c) happen.

    So exactly how is my definitions exclusive? I stated that the government (the authority in communism/socialism) enforces that economic structure. If it does not, then it is anarchy. To keep that authority, communism/socialism remove threats to its power/authority. But in communism, even the farmer can be seen as a threat because they produce assets where the government cannot/does not want to.

    I said in my original post, that capitalism is an economic model, not a system of government. How a government uses capitalism, can vary. I for one, think Conservatism is better for the economy, as well as culture. Because the more slowly it moves, the easier time everything can adjust. Because it takes a while to realize the problems before they compound. So having a slower moving government means more stability.

    Communism and socialism will only work if everyone agrees to the idea. The moment someone says no, is when the system collapses. And if you use force to correct that no, then you have already made the same mistakes many have before you in trying out communism/socialism. I do not know what is so hard about looking at history, and learning about what went wrong. Its insanely obvious that communism will fail. Socialism, is only sustainable as slave to capitalism but just barely and under the right conditions like homogeneity. The problem is the idea is contagious, and like all things. As time goes on, people who were alive to see the horrors first hand die and cannot share their warnings about it. It is why history always repeats itself. You have so little to gain, and everything to lose under communism.

    I do not however, completely think totally socialism is bad. I just know it will not work in the West. We have a culture of individuality, and diversity. These are just not compatible. It is not that I am against idea. I do not want my country, or any other country to try, fail, and become something like Russia.

    What you should actually be against, instead of capitalism. Is how it is abused, and educating yourself and people on how to avoid being taken advantage of. I personally, cannot blame smart people for taking advantage of stupid people.

    The West has also embraced a culture of CONSUME. They have thrown their ancestral heritage into the trash, and embraced hedonism and self loathing. They no longer care about their culture, and they are so desperate in their decadence that they masochistically invite their own demise in the name of justice against themselves. Self-flagellating on the idea that they are so superior and better off than the rest of the world. I find that utterly disrespectful to both our history, culture, and ancestors. No animal should have to apologize for out-competing other animals, because it is against nature itself.

    I personally think you have not seen the big picture, or how the health of our government is in direct correlation with our culture. Culture, has been on the decline because of cultural changes like the move away from Christianity. The embrace of victim culture, and the outrage culture. The embrace of hedonism, and lack of modesty. While I do not like religion, it has a wisdom in it that has been passed down for 1000s of years. Atheists, took it literally. They overlooked the impact religion has on culture and society. Even without the fear of god, things like modesty, sexual abstinence, marriage, and gender roles played a massive role in creating a stable society. All of that, went out the window because someone said you cannot prove god exists. Without realizing religion was created as a way of passing down realistic knowledge in an easier to understand format. It was never meant to be taken literally, and if it was. It still worked. So it was the perfect system to control both the stupid people, and useful for the smart people. Now this wouldn't have been so bad, if there wasn't the atheist movement. If it was an agnostic movement, it would have turned out better. Or a movement that taught these principles as a foundation for a stable society without god. The increase of mental illness, also correlates directly the the decline in culture.

    Also, I would appreciate it if you quite assuming that I got a "Script" or some other conspiracies when I make my posts. It's rude, and contributes nothing to the conversation.
    I think its a shame you're so shut off from thinking about this.

    Although it must work for you, so carry on. I'm just skeptical about the growing gulf or yawning gap between capitalism in theory, which is great, one of the most utopian ideas ever dreamt up, and the practice. Reviving a lot of old cold war thinking isnt going to get anyone beyond the present impasse. The same as the other right wing revivals of other sorts of atavistic thinking wont do it either.

  6. #66
    Lord Grumpus Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    4,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus
    No, that's science.
    It's entrepreneurship. Leftist regimes stifle creativity through regulatory red tape. People are discouraged from starting businesses and creating jobs by the government in leftist regimes; highly successful nations like Israel and the USA have significantly less red tape and produce many more start-ups. Start-ups produce innovative products that benefit mankind. Science is merely the tool/instrument to achieve an end. The tool is of no use if the government says you can't use the tool. This is why the USA is vastly superior to every leftist regime.
    Kate Mulgrew sure mulgrewed a lot.
    Likes Tenebris liked this post

  7. #67
    Garbage human
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    13,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    It's entrepreneurship. Leftist regimes stifle creativity through regulatory red tape. People are discouraged from starting businesses and creating jobs by the government in leftist regimes; highly successful nations like Israel and the USA have significantly less red tape and produce many more start-ups. Start-ups produce innovative products that benefit mankind. Science is merely the tool/instrument to achieve an end. The tool is of no use if the government says you can't use the tool. This is why the USA is vastly superior to every leftist regime.
    I can appreciate these sentiments but I think the problem with Socialists on the left and Libertarians on the right is their absolute, principled adherence to their own ideals of government and economics and a stubborn refusal to even entertain the idea that a mixed economy just might be more feasible and more beneficial to society--because that would mean admitting that the other team's ideas are worth consideration and *gasp* trying--particularly in the current climate where both ends of the ideological spectrum have gone full retard with identity politics and frequently envision their opposition as inhuman, evil, subversive, then it is that much easier to dismiss and reject any idea or policy that isn't born from their own ideological tribes. They can be almost autistic in that regard.
    'When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff.'

    -Cicero

  8. #68
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    11,493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic View Post
    I can appreciate these sentiments but I think the problem with Socialists on the left and Libertarians on the right is their absolute, principled adherence to their own ideals of government and economics and a stubborn refusal to even entertain the idea that a mixed economy just might be more feasible and more beneficial to society--because that would mean admitting that the other team's ideas are worth consideration and *gasp* trying--particularly in the current climate where both ends of the ideological spectrum have gone full retard with identity politics and frequently envision their opposition as inhuman, evil, subversive, then it is that much easier to dismiss and reject any idea or policy that isn't born from their own ideological tribes. They can be almost autistic in that regard.
    I know I've *never* heard a person on the left (even resistancy types non Socialist) mention mixed/Nordic/Australian type economy as a real option in the US. Not once.

    That isn't the same as saying - I have no interest in electing centrist Dems or moderate Republicans and that actually means I want extremists from either side.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

  9. #69
    Lord Grumpus Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    4,854

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asynartetic
    I can appreciate these sentiments but I think the problem with Socialists on the left and Libertarians on the right is their absolute, principled adherence to their own ideals of government and economics and a stubborn refusal to even entertain the idea that a mixed economy just might be more feasible and more beneficial to society--because that would mean admitting that the other team's ideas are worth consideration and *gasp* trying--particularly in the current climate where both ends of the ideological spectrum have gone full retard with identity politics and frequently envision their opposition as inhuman, evil, subversive, then it is that much easier to dismiss and reject any idea or policy that isn't born from their own ideological tribes. They can be almost autistic in that regard.
    I don't know what you're talking about. I'm a pragmatist as I suspect most libertarians are. If socialism worked, I'd be a socialist. That's really the difference between socialists and libertarians; these are zealots who ignore mountains of empirical evidence that their ideas don't work.
    Kate Mulgrew sure mulgrewed a lot.

Similar Threads

  1. What is dividing the left from the right in America?
    By uumlau in forum Politics, History, and Current Events (Temporarily Closed)
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 12-14-2016, 10:54 PM
  2. What is truth (split from post poll)
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 01-27-2013, 09:47 AM
  3. What is Philosophy?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 01-09-2013, 09:10 PM
  4. What is the craziest bit of technology you have read about in SF?
    By macjoven in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:15 PM

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