Looking for An Honest Socialist

[Dissipate]

Looking for an Honest Socialist

by Bill Walker

There are no free-enterprise nations today. Every country has government-enforced fiat currency, large State-run economic sectors, and bureaucratic meddling in every area of human life. Many nations even have more than one government telling their citizens what to do, often the US and UN governments as well as their own local kleptocrats. So we don?t really know what an undistorted market economy would look like today; we can make guesses, but we must admit that they can?t be very accurate.

Many libertarians have hoped that a wealthy businessman would step up and fund the creation of a free-enterprise enclave somewhere. Perhaps Bill Gates might put up a couple of billion out of petty cash to buy Kazakhstan or Costa Rica , just so he could have an FDA-free zone for his fledgling biotech companies. Or maybe Oprah would take over an African nation from its foreign-aid dictator and give everyone there a shiny SUV. But history has not been kind to such hopes. There may be 500 American billionaires or so, but most of them are old and burned out. They?d rather put their efforts into using government to put their competitors out of business, or to give themselves subsidies, than put any effort into reducing government itself. Most old capitalists don?t like capitalism; it involves way too much work and financial risk.

Fortunately, capitalism need not depend on capitalists for support. The best hope of capitalism is to find an honest Socialist.

Socialists claim to be trying to improve human lives. They claim that Socialism can mitigate the horrors of unrestrained capitalism. Specifically, they claim that forcibly taking the fruit of their labor from productive people and redistributing the wealth can improve society as a whole in many measurable ways. For example, they claim that education, health care, and the environment can be improved by this use of force.

But how can the Socialist know that they have improved on the lives that an unregulated market would have provided? How can a government ?planner? know that they aren?t just a harmful parasite on the productive part of society? How can they know that the lives they send to the Gulag are human sacrifices well spent? Well, they can?t know, unless they have a fully capitalist nation as a control group. No honest Socialist can do anything without a capitalist control; after all, Socialism is supposed to be scientific. Who ever heard of a scientist without a control group?

Now of course many famous Socialists have been openly admitted frauds. Few people would suggest that the ?Socialist? dictators of Africa have much interest in anything but their Swiss bank accounts. Nor is there much hope for finding any honest Socialists in academia, where there has never been much interest among the professors in explaining exactly how they were going to solve the problems of economic calculation without the market. Still, just because thousands of ?Socialists? are con artists, does this mean that ALL of them are? Of course not.

Now all we have to do is find that one honest Socialist. He or she will immediately see the necessity of all Socialists to band together and protect a free-enterprise enclave, somewhere in the world, to serve as Socialism?s Control Group and Cautionary Tale. Using force and fraud as necessary, they will then torture, imprison, and execute their fellow Socialists until the goal of allowing capitalism in one country is achieved.

Then, finally, we will find out how education, health care, water and air-pollution rights, and yes, even the roads, would work in a free society.

In the time of the Internet and the ?five degrees of separation? theory, finding the Honest Socialist should not take us more than a week or so. Somewhere in the nomenclatura of Myanmar , Byelorussia , or Berkeley , the Honest Socialist is lurking. So don?t delay; immediately forward this missive to all your socialist friends, acquaintances and enemies. Spam every Socialist forum, put classified ads into the People?s Daily and the Village Voice. Spread this meme into every Socialist ecological niche.

Workers Unite! You have nothing to lose but your lack of a control group!

Text

I thought this was a witty article. The interesting thing about socialists and social engineers in general is that their experiments always involve the use of government force. Why is it that they never want to experiment with just leaving people alone?

Honest socialists should step forward and attempt to prove freedom lovers wrong once and for all by exempting one state from all federal laws, and abolishing all state and local government in that state. Then, only one law should be placed on the books: that no official government shall be created. I believe they would never do this because that state would rapidly become a mecca of prosperity, free from socialism, both the conservative corporate flavor of the Republicans and the social democratic egalitarian flavor of the Democrats.

 

[Forsythe]

Are you serious?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Are you serious?

He is.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The interesting thing about socialists and social engineers in general is that their experiments always involve the use of government force. Why is it that they never want to experiment with just leaving people alone?

You know, being an individualist (Borderline anarchist) myself. I've asked myself that question many times. And the conclusion I've come to is that people like oppressing, being oppressed and having people tell them how to live. That or they don't know they are being oppressed or being told how to live, because they've become so used to it. They've become conditioned enough not to notice it.

Btw, nice article. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Albatross]

the intellectual and moral development of humanity is far from the requirements
an anarchy society would require.envy and resentment are the great engines of socialism imo.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The interesting thing about socialists and social engineers in general is that their experiments always involve the use of government force. Why is it that they never want to experiment with just leaving people alone?

You know, being an individualist (Borderline anarchist) myself. I've asked myself that question many times. And the conclusion I've come to is that people like oppressing, being oppressed and having people tell them how to live. That or they don't know they are being oppressed or being told how to live, because they've become so used to it. They've become conditioned enough not to notice it.

Btw, nice article. Thanks for posting it.

Anarchy doesn't work because humans are social animals responding to dominance and submission. Those who can will dominate the others. Some will rise to power because they crave it and can convince others they should support an agenda. If pure capitalism were to exist, the powerful would still dominate, and more effectively because they would have direct control of your job. In effect businesses would be in control of you and your income. Remember what happened when unions first tried to organize? They were beaten by thugs paid by business. Without govt protection look for the same thing.

I like "Love thy neighbor as thyself". If everyone did that, all the worlds ills would go "poof". Nice philosophy, but it won't work for the masses. Neither will unfettered capitalism.

 

[judasmachine]

what free trade has become is a way to let the wealthy protect themselves instead of relying on pressuring of the government to have police and such to protect thier wealth. it isn't even really economic darwinism, it's just another form of making wage slaves more desperate.

 

[JackStorm]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Anarchy doesn't work because humans are social animals responding to dominance and submission. Those who can will dominate the others. Some will rise to power because they crave it and can convince others they should support an agenda. If pure capitalism were to exist, the powerful would still dominate, and more effectively because they would have direct control of your job. In effect businesses would be in control of you and your income. Remember what happened when unions first tried to organize? They were beaten by thugs paid by business. Without govt protection look for the same thing.

I like "Love thy neighbor as thyself". If everyone did that, all the worlds ills would go "poof". Nice philosophy, but it won't work for the masses. Neither will unfettered capitalism.

As humans are right now, yes. You're right that true anarchy wouldn't work right now because we've become so dependent on 'society' and it's 'rules'.

I know some people (like me) deep inside want to be free of the will of others that is forced upon them and the chains of society that is placed on us almost from the moment we are born.

But as you've pointed out, that's not really possible right now. Which is why I try to find a balance (Which isn't easy, since I'm an individualist and a free spirit at heart). Now I basically just live my own little way, though without trying to force my own will on others. And as long as no one tries to force feed my some idea or rule I don't like, I'll remain 'pacified'(Though reluctantly).

But I can guarantee you that the moment some person or government tries to force it's will on me, in a way that crosses the line, I'll revolt against their sorry asses. I'll accept (reluctantly)the garbage they're feeding me right now, but if they try to shovel it in, they'll regret it.

So, all in all, I guess I'm a "Don't fuvk with me and I won't fuvk with you." kinda guy. Yeah...I'm an individualist alright...

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: albatross
the intellectual and moral development of humanity is far from the requirements
an anarchy society would require. envy and resentment are the great engines of socialism imo.

And your opinion is absolutely correct.

Originally posted by: judasmachine
what free trade has become is a way to let the wealthy protect themselves instead of relying on pressuring of the government to have police and such to protect thier wealth. it isn't even really economic darwinism, it's just another form of making wage slaves more desperate.

Case in point. Global free trade is nothing of the sort. It is the last vestiges of capitalism seeking to keep afloat the economic impossibility and irrationality that is socialism. It is easing your burden, not making it more desperate. Or do you not like the low cost of goods from China?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Anarchy doesn't work because humans are social animals responding to dominance and submission. Those who can will dominate the others. Some will rise to power because they crave it and can convince others they should support an agenda. If pure capitalism were to exist, the powerful would still dominate, and more effectively because they would have direct control of your job. In effect businesses would be in control of you and your income. Remember what happened when unions first tried to organize? They were beaten by thugs paid by business. Without govt protection look for the same thing.

I like "Love thy neighbor as thyself". If everyone did that, all the worlds ills would go "poof". Nice philosophy, but it won't work for the masses. Neither will unfettered capitalism.

As humans are right now, yes. You're right that true anarchy wouldn't work right now because we've become so dependent on 'society' and it's 'rules'.

I know some people (like me) deep inside want to be free of the will of others that is forced upon them and the chains of society that is placed on us almost from the moment we are born.

But as you've pointed out, that's not really possible right now. Which is why I try to find a balance (Which isn't easy, since I'm an individualist and a free spirit at heart). Now I basically just live my own little way, though without trying to force my own will on others. And as long as no one tries to force feed my some idea or rule I don't like, I'll remain 'pacified'(Though reluctantly).

But I can guarantee you that the moment some person or government tries to force it's will on me, in a way that crosses the line, I'll revolt against their sorry asses. I'll accept (reluctantly)the garbage they're feeding me right now, but if they try to shovel it in, they'll regret it.

So, all in all, I guess I'm a "Don't fuvk with me and I won't fuvk with you." kinda guy. Yeah...I'm an individualist alright...

That was the point that Karl Marx was trying to make in the Communist Manifesto. His whole theory is based around changing humans through Oppressive(real oppression, not this quasi-oppression thrown around in this thread) Socialism, eventually reaching "Communism" which was Social Anarchy(no Government, where Individuals worked together for the common good). When it comes down to it, Marx's form of Anarchy is the only form that has a chance in Hell to work, as it minimizes Humanities desire to Oppress by treating others as Equals and seeks to make life about helping your neighbour.

Just to make clear, I am not a Marxist, neither am I an Anarchist. Anarchy will never work, at least not in the way Anarchist wax poetic about it. It is a pipe-dream, a Utopian paradise that is unacheivable.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Anarchy doesn't work because humans are social animals responding to dominance and submission. Those who can will dominate the others. Some will rise to power because they crave it and can convince others they should support an agenda. If pure capitalism were to exist, the powerful would still dominate, and more effectively because they would have direct control of your job. In effect businesses would be in control of you and your income. Remember what happened when unions first tried to organize? They were beaten by thugs paid by business. Without govt protection look for the same thing.

I like "Love thy neighbor as thyself". If everyone did that, all the worlds ills would go "poof". Nice philosophy, but it won't work for the masses. Neither will unfettered capitalism.

As humans are right now, yes. You're right that true anarchy wouldn't work right now because we've become so dependent on 'society' and it's 'rules'.

I know some people (like me) deep inside want to be free of the will of others that is forced upon them and the chains of society that is placed on us almost from the moment we are born.

But as you've pointed out, that's not really possible right now. Which is why I try to find a balance (Which isn't easy, since I'm an individualist and a free spirit at heart). Now I basically just live my own little way, though without trying to force my own will on others. And as long as no one tries to force feed my some idea or rule I don't like, I'll remain 'pacified'(Though reluctantly).

But I can guarantee you that the moment some person or government tries to force it's will on me, in a way that crosses the line, I'll revolt against their sorry asses. I'll accept (reluctantly)the garbage they're feeding me right now, but if they try to shovel it in, they'll regret it.

So, all in all, I guess I'm a "Don't fuvk with me and I won't fuvk with you." kinda guy. Yeah...I'm an individualist alright...

That was the point that Karl Marx was trying to make in the Communist Manifesto. His whole theory is based around changing humans through Oppressive(real oppression, not this quasi-oppression thrown around in this thread) Socialism, eventually reaching "Communism" which was Social Anarchy(no Government, where Individuals worked together for the common good). When it comes down to it, Marx's form of Anarchy is the only form that has a chance in Hell to work, as it minimizes Humanities desire to Oppress by treating others as Equals and seeks to make life about helping your neighbour.

Just to make clear, I am not a Marxist, neither am I an Anarchist. Anarchy will never work, at least not in the way Anarchist wax poetic about it. It is a pipe-dream, a Utopian paradise that is unacheivable.

That's my point, you are automatically claiming it wouldn't work without even being willing to give it a try. We are already in anarchy, all we need to do is eliminate people's belief in absolute state authority. Personally, I don't believe the world would implode if that happened.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: albatross
the intellectual and moral development of humanity is far from the requirements
an anarchy society would require.envy and resentment are the great engines of socialism imo.

Wow make that compassion and concern for your fellow human beings.

Anarchists are idiots. Plain and simple. There is no way that system will ever work. With no strong government militia's will rise up around any and every which ideology and there will be constant warfare. Is that what you want?

It is time for the libertarians here to be intellectually honest. Calm down. Take a seat. Let go of your ego, and just chill. Then start thinking about human nature and what you are advocating. Hopefully you can get far enough away from the my land, my car BS and realize that a strong government is necessary for an equal society.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Anarchy doesn't work because humans are social animals responding to dominance and submission. Those who can will dominate the others. Some will rise to power because they crave it and can convince others they should support an agenda. If pure capitalism were to exist, the powerful would still dominate, and more effectively because they would have direct control of your job. In effect businesses would be in control of you and your income. Remember what happened when unions first tried to organize? They were beaten by thugs paid by business. Without govt protection look for the same thing.

I like "Love thy neighbor as thyself". If everyone did that, all the worlds ills would go "poof". Nice philosophy, but it won't work for the masses. Neither will unfettered capitalism.

As humans are right now, yes. You're right that true anarchy wouldn't work right now because we've become so dependent on 'society' and it's 'rules'.

I know some people (like me) deep inside want to be free of the will of others that is forced upon them and the chains of society that is placed on us almost from the moment we are born.

But as you've pointed out, that's not really possible right now. Which is why I try to find a balance (Which isn't easy, since I'm an individualist and a free spirit at heart). Now I basically just live my own little way, though without trying to force my own will on others. And as long as no one tries to force feed my some idea or rule I don't like, I'll remain 'pacified'(Though reluctantly).

But I can guarantee you that the moment some person or government tries to force it's will on me, in a way that crosses the line, I'll revolt against their sorry asses. I'll accept (reluctantly)the garbage they're feeding me right now, but if they try to shovel it in, they'll regret it.

So, all in all, I guess I'm a "Don't fuvk with me and I won't fuvk with you." kinda guy. Yeah...I'm an individualist alright...

That was the point that Karl Marx was trying to make in the Communist Manifesto. His whole theory is based around changing humans through Oppressive(real oppression, not this quasi-oppression thrown around in this thread) Socialism, eventually reaching "Communism" which was Social Anarchy(no Government, where Individuals worked together for the common good). When it comes down to it, Marx's form of Anarchy is the only form that has a chance in Hell to work, as it minimizes Humanities desire to Oppress by treating others as Equals and seeks to make life about helping your neighbour.

Just to make clear, I am not a Marxist, neither am I an Anarchist. Anarchy will never work, at least not in the way Anarchist wax poetic about it. It is a pipe-dream, a Utopian paradise that is unacheivable.

That's my point, you are automatically claiming it wouldn't work without even being willing to give it a try. We are already in anarchy, all we need to do is eliminate people's belief in absolute state authority. Personally, I don't believe the world would implode if that happened.

Not sure exactly how that's your point, but I'm sure you'll clarify further.

You are right, if we got rid of governments everything wouldn't just implode, immediately. Over time it would though, as Individuals begin to form cadres with other like minded individuals who would begin to overwhelm the goodwill necessary for the Utopian Anarchy to work. Those outside the cadres will need to organize or become Serfs. After many generations Society will once again welcome Representative Democracy as the most stabilising form of Society, if they are lucky enough to overthrow the Power Mongers who, working in their own interest, will go to great lengths to maintain their Power.

We have yet to reach the Pinnacle of Societies possibility and their is much change necessary to acheive it, but reverting to Anarchy is not it. Anarchy is a step back to the Dark Ages, the era where the greatest Society ever to exist(Rome) ceased to exist. Anarchy proved to thwart progress and developement, it took many centuries for Societies to rediscover what was common knowledge to the Romans. No thanks.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JackStorm

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Anarchy doesn't work because humans are social animals responding to dominance and submission. Those who can will dominate the others. Some will rise to power because they crave it and can convince others they should support an agenda. If pure capitalism were to exist, the powerful would still dominate, and more effectively because they would have direct control of your job. In effect businesses would be in control of you and your income. Remember what happened when unions first tried to organize? They were beaten by thugs paid by business. Without govt protection look for the same thing.

I like "Love thy neighbor as thyself". If everyone did that, all the worlds ills would go "poof". Nice philosophy, but it won't work for the masses. Neither will unfettered capitalism.

As humans are right now, yes. You're right that true anarchy wouldn't work right now because we've become so dependent on 'society' and it's 'rules'.

I know some people (like me) deep inside want to be free of the will of others that is forced upon them and the chains of society that is placed on us almost from the moment we are born.

But as you've pointed out, that's not really possible right now. Which is why I try to find a balance (Which isn't easy, since I'm an individualist and a free spirit at heart). Now I basically just live my own little way, though without trying to force my own will on others. And as long as no one tries to force feed my some idea or rule I don't like, I'll remain 'pacified'(Though reluctantly).

But I can guarantee you that the moment some person or government tries to force it's will on me, in a way that crosses the line, I'll revolt against their sorry asses. I'll accept (reluctantly)the garbage they're feeding me right now, but if they try to shovel it in, they'll regret it.

So, all in all, I guess I'm a "Don't fuvk with me and I won't fuvk with you." kinda guy. Yeah...I'm an individualist alright...

That was the point that Karl Marx was trying to make in the Communist Manifesto. His whole theory is based around changing humans through Oppressive(real oppression, not this quasi-oppression thrown around in this thread) Socialism, eventually reaching "Communism" which was Social Anarchy(no Government, where Individuals worked together for the common good). When it comes down to it, Marx's form of Anarchy is the only form that has a chance in Hell to work, as it minimizes Humanities desire to Oppress by treating others as Equals and seeks to make life about helping your neighbour.

Just to make clear, I am not a Marxist, neither am I an Anarchist. Anarchy will never work, at least not in the way Anarchist wax poetic about it. It is a pipe-dream, a Utopian paradise that is unacheivable.

That's my point, you are automatically claiming it wouldn't work without even being willing to give it a try. We are already in anarchy, all we need to do is eliminate people's belief in absolute state authority. Personally, I don't believe the world would implode if that happened.

Can we try communism first?

 

[Albatross]

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: albatross
the intellectual and moral development of humanity is far from the requirements
an anarchy society would require.envy and resentment are the great engines of socialism imo.

Wow make that compassion and concern for your fellow human beings.

Anarchists are idiots. Plain and simple. There is no way that system will ever work. With no strong government militia's will rise up around any and every which ideology and there will be constant warfare. Is that what you want?

It is time for the libertarians here to be intellectually honest. Calm down. Take a seat. Let go of your ego, and just chill. Then start thinking about human nature and what you are advocating. Hopefully you can get far enough away from the my land, my car BS and realize that a strong government is necessary for an equal society.

Wow make that compassion and concern for your fellow human beings.
what do you mean?it means somehow that u are more compassionate and concerning because u r (supposingly) socialist?how come?

Anarchists are idiots, Let go of your ego
yeah compassion....easy with the assumptions.

equal society
what`s so great about enforced equality when clearly the differences between people are enormous?btw i`m eastern european so i "know" about the desirability and effects of strong government.

Then start thinking about human nature and what you are advocating.explain.i already mentioned a few things about human nature.are they false?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: albatross

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: albatross
the intellectual and moral development of humanity is far from the requirements
an anarchy society would require.envy and resentment are the great engines of socialism imo.

Wow make that compassion and concern for your fellow human beings.

Anarchists are idiots. Plain and simple. There is no way that system will ever work. With no strong government militia's will rise up around any and every which ideology and there will be constant warfare. Is that what you want?

It is time for the libertarians here to be intellectually honest. Calm down. Take a seat. Let go of your ego, and just chill. Then start thinking about human nature and what you are advocating. Hopefully you can get far enough away from the my land, my car BS and realize that a strong government is necessary for an equal society.

Wow make that compassion and concern for your fellow human beings.
what do you mean?it means somehow that u are more compassionate and concerning because u r (supposingly) socialist?how come?

Anarchists are idiots, Let go of your ego
yeah compassion....easy with the assumptions.

equal society
what`s so great about enforced equality when clearly the differences between people are enormous?btw i`m eastern european so i "know" about the desirability and effects of strong government.

Then start thinking about human nature and what you are advocating.explain.i already mentioned a few things about human nature.are they false?

I'm sorry I can't understand anything you have posted. I'm not trying to be rude, I understand that English is probably not your first language.

I think the problem here is that you are not understanding the difference between a strong government and an iron hand. What you had was an iron hand. A strong government is completely different. Western Europe and slowly America have/will have strong governments.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: albatross

Originally posted by: Proletariat

Originally posted by: albatross
the intellectual and moral development of humanity is far from the requirements
an anarchy society would require.envy and resentment are the great engines of socialism imo.

Wow make that compassion and concern for your fellow human beings.

Anarchists are idiots. Plain and simple. There is no way that system will ever work. With no strong government militia's will rise up around any and every which ideology and there will be constant warfare. Is that what you want?

It is time for the libertarians here to be intellectually honest. Calm down. Take a seat. Let go of your ego, and just chill. Then start thinking about human nature and what you are advocating. Hopefully you can get far enough away from the my land, my car BS and realize that a strong government is necessary for an equal society.

Wow make that compassion and concern for your fellow human beings.
what do you mean?it means somehow that u are more compassionate and concerning because u r (supposingly) socialist?how come?

Anarchists are idiots, Let go of your ego
yeah compassion....easy with the assumptions.

equal society
what`s so great about enforced equality when clearly the differences between people are enormous?btw i`m eastern european so i "know" about the desirability and effects of strong government.

Then start thinking about human nature and what you are advocating.explain.i already mentioned a few things about human nature.are they false?

Just a FYI. The differences between Eastern European "strong governments" and Western European, US, Canada, and other Western/Free World "strong governments" is enormous. In regards to the Warsaw era anyway.

 

[Albatross]

well since u preach equlity how strong should the government be to equalize people?and u didn`t answer my questions. i`m sure my english can`t be that cryptic.funny how the most prosperous country wants socialism despite its success based on liberalism,in the european meaning.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: albatross
well since u preach equlity how strong should the government be to equalize people?and u didn`t answer my questions. i`m sure my english can`t be that cryptic.funny how the most prosperous country wants socialism despite its success based on liberalism,in the european meaning.

It doesn't want socialism. You don't understand America at all. Americans hate socialism, but the evolution of government makes the change to Socialism inevitable. Capitalism is needed for development. Once you are developed Socialism is necessary to insure social well-being.

I understand that Eastern Europe is now benifitting from Capitalism, thus you have a good view of it. You will eventually see the need to evolve though.

 

[Vic]

Strong government can never ensure equality for everyone. It will only breed corruption. Once given enough strength, a government will only seek to become stronger. And the stronger the government, the greater the corruption, the more the inequality, until the inequality becomes so bad that a single group or individual takes complete power. History has proven this so many times, I find it hard to believe that anyone claiming to advocate for liberty and equality can even pretend to be for strong government.

To use a single person as an analogy for a country, capitalism is working for a living, socialism is retirement. One brings growth, the other death. Once a country has developed, it seeks to rest on its laurels, and institutes socialism. There is not so much as a single country with the smallest tinge of socialism on this planet that is not mired in horrific debt or crushing taxation or both. This is because strong governments choke economies, and socialism is economically infeasible. Not one country in history ever fell militarily before it fell economically.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
Strong government can never ensure equality for everyone. It will only breed corruption. Once given enough strength, a government will only seek to become stronger. And the stronger the government, the greater the corruption, the more the inequality, until the inequality becomes so bad that a single group or individual takes complete power. History has proven this so many times, I find it hard to believe that anyone claiming to advocate for liberty and equality can even pretend to be for strong government.

To use a single person as an analogy for a country, capitalism is working for a living, socialism is retirement. One brings growth, the other death. Once a country has developed, it seeks to rest on its laurels, and institutes socialism. There is not so much as a single country with the smallest tinge of socialism on this planet that is not mired in horrific debt or crushing taxation or both. This is because strong governments choke economies, and socialism is economically infeasible. Not one country in history ever fell militarily before it fell economically.

That's alot of hyperbole! :beer:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
That's alot of hyperbole! :beer:

Hey, at least it's honest.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Vic
Strong government can never ensure equality for everyone. It will only breed corruption. Once given enough strength, a government will only seek to become stronger. And the stronger the government, the greater the corruption, the more the inequality, until the inequality becomes so bad that a single group or individual takes complete power. History has proven this so many times, I find it hard to believe that anyone claiming to advocate for liberty and equality can even pretend to be for strong government.

To use a single person as an analogy for a country, capitalism is working for a living, socialism is retirement. One brings growth, the other death. Once a country has developed, it seeks to rest on its laurels, and institutes socialism. There is not so much as a single country with the smallest tinge of socialism on this planet that is not mired in horrific debt or crushing taxation or both. This is because strong governments choke economies, and socialism is economically infeasible. Not one country in history ever fell militarily before it fell economically.

*Yawn* Why do conservatives always adhere to the slippery slope fallacy?

OMG gays are going to ruin American culture!!! No, Liberals are!!! No, the government is !!!

I've never seen a group of people so hateful of intellectuals and generally peace loving people.

As for your post. *Yawns again*. Europe is mired in something? While they are pushing forward the UN and global understanding, you are in Iraq participating in neo-imperialism and losing coalition members every few months. India is mired in something? They have one of the fastest economic growth rates in the entire world. Socialism isn't the death of anything.

The only two true Socialist regions of the world are doing fine. What exactly is your point?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Proletariat
*Yawn* Why do conservatives always adhere to the slippery slope fallacy?

OMG gays are going to ruin American culture!!! No, Liberals are!!! No, the government is !!!

I've never seen a group of people so hateful of intellectuals and generally peace loving people.

As for your post. *Yawns again*. Europe is mired in something? While they are pushing forward the UN and global understanding, you are in Iraq participating in neo-imperialism and losing coalition members every few months. India is mired in something? They have one of the fastest economic growth rates in the entire world. Socialism isn't the death of anything.

The only two true Socialist regions of the world are doing fine. What exactly is your point?

There was no slippery slope in my argument and the only hate I see here came from you, in inaccurate labeling of me as though that logical fallacy of ad hominem (hey, if you want to stoop to logical fallacies on an internet forum, I guess I will too) somehow validates your agument. It doesn't.
As for intellectualism... one of us does finance at a desk for a living, while the other does it from an armchair. So, if you would care to rephrase your statement to say that I am hateful of pseudo-intellectualism... I would appreciate it.

Europe IS mired in debt, high unemployment, and a stagnant economy. This is known and uncontested. India is only profiting right now because it is whoring its population at rockbottom prices to the American capitalists, a staggering inequality. That won't last forever.

Back to your ASSumptive mislabeling of me, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning, and continue to be opposed to it to this day. A large active military IS socialism, just a different form from what your pseudo-intellectualism accepts. I bear absolutely no hate towards any peace-loving peoples (your ad hominem here was just pathetic). However, when you find a truly peace-loving people on this planet (and not "peace-loving" simply because they are already in an inferior militaristic position), please let me know.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Proletariat
*Yawn* Why do conservatives always adhere to the slippery slope fallacy?

OMG gays are going to ruin American culture!!! No, Liberals are!!! No, the government is !!!

I've never seen a group of people so hateful of intellectuals and generally peace loving people.

As for your post. *Yawns again*. Europe is mired in something? While they are pushing forward the UN and global understanding, you are in Iraq participating in neo-imperialism and losing coalition members every few months. India is mired in something? They have one of the fastest economic growth rates in the entire world. Socialism isn't the death of anything.

The only two true Socialist regions of the world are doing fine. What exactly is your point?

There was no slippery slope in my argument and the only hate I see here came from you, in inaccurate labeling of me as though that logical fallacy of ad hominem (hey, if you want to stoop to logical fallacies on an internet forum, I guess I will too) somehow validates your agument. It doesn't.
As for intellectualism... one of us does finance at a desk for a living, while the other does it from an armchair. So, if you would care to rephrase my statement to say that I am hateful of pseudo-intellectualism... feel free.

Europe IS mired in debt, high unemployment, and a stagnant economy. This is known and uncontested. India is only profiting right now because it is whoring its population at rockbottom prices to the American capitalists, a staggering inequality. That won't last forever.

Back to your ASSumptive mislabeling of me, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning, and continue to be opposed to it to this day. A large active military IS socialism, just a different form from what your pseudo-intellectualism accepts. I bear absolutely no hate towards any peace-loving peoples (your ad hominem here was just pathetic). However, when you find a truly peace-loving people on this planet (and not "peace-loving" simply because they are already in an inferior militaristic position), please let me know.

Finance.. good you are already biased. Economics is the business-end of the Capitalist religion.

Whoring? Are you sure? I work in a company that outsources. The company is being jerked around by very intelligent Indian professionals who want more money. They are being paid less in American dollars but they are being paid MORE than fine by Indian rupee standards. I know a lot of professionals there that have a job retention period of 2 years. American companies are begging for these people. Also if you were being an adult and properly analyzed the situation you would realize that India's combination of GOOD software professionals and excellent English skills is unmatched. It cannot be matched in near future. That is the legacy of 200 years of British rule. These are unique things. India's future success is almost guaranteed. A more vibrant/hard-hitting media compared to our Fox News, excellent democratic structure, highly educated youth, growing middle class and many reformists.

Europe is doing better economically than the entire world except the United States. I think they are quite fine. That is your slippery slope. Whining about someone in second place is ridiculous. They are far from a failure.