The hidden violence of the socialistic mindset

[Jhhnn]

It's pretty much like the same 3 liberals on this forum that screams Benghazi whenever there's a thread about Hilary even if no one else bringing it up, lmao. It's the same leftist playbook being used over and over, overreact and call everyone racists if they disagree with you.

Please. The OP oozes objectivism with every word. Only the simple minded would fail to notice.

Benghazi isn't just a city on the Mediterranean, it's also a state of mind just as denial isn't just a river in Africa. It's just another way to say fubar.

The whole notion that society doesn't need to be coercive at some point or another is absurd simply because some of the human race will naturally prey on the rest using a variety of mechanisms.

 

[CitizenKain]

Tell us more o' wise teenage libertarian. Share us your views of the how the world really works while living with your parents.

 

[JSt0rm]

socialist doesnt have the same ring to it as it did years ago. We only need to look to the nordic countries to realize this is the best form of government. For instance they have oil and nationalized it and used the profits from the oil for the good of the country.

We, on the other hand, lease our lands to companies who make big private profit from that oil an destroy the land in the process.

Thats just one example of why that system is better for society. They are just smarter collectively then we are.

 

[realibrad]

I don't know if it was a type-o on your part but the word "liberalism" doesn't appear anywhere in his post.

You do not seem to realize what those words mean. If you did, you would realize that your comment does not make sense.

A Libertarian is someone who believes in the literal use of liberalism. The only reason people do not currently use the word Liberal to describe a Libertarian is because the word Liberal is not used in its literal meaning in most of society.

 

[Jhhnn]

socialist doesnt have the same ring to it as it did years ago. We only need to look to the nordic countries to realize this is the best form of government. For instance they have oil and nationalized it and used the profits from the oil for the good of the country.

We, on the other hand, lease our lands to companies who make big private profit from that oil an destroy the land in the process.

Thats just one example of why that system is better for society. They are just smarter collectively then we are.

We have deeper internal divisions, making us more exploitable at the level of Us vs Them propaganda so favored by the right wing everywhere.

You know, Repub wedge issues.

 

[realibrad]

socialist doesnt have the same ring to it as it did years ago. We only need to look to the nordic countries to realize this is the best form of government. For instance they have oil and nationalized it and used the profits from the oil for the good of the country.

We, on the other hand, lease our lands to companies who make big private profit from that oil an destroy the land in the process.

Thats just one example of why that system is better for society. They are just smarter collectively then we are.

The problem with socialism is that it only works if you have benevolent leadership that makes mistakes small enough to not destroy everything. If you elect someone who is not benevolent, then they can wreck havoc over the system they run. Because the ownership of production is limited to this group, it means 1 mistake can be spread very quickly.

Then there is the problem of systemic risk. In capitalism, you have private actors that look out for their own interests. They will likely not be able to build up enough systemic risk to take down an entire industry. Now, I know you will say, "well what about the financial system". My answer is that the financial was only broken because of the socialist parts. The only reason interests rates are as low as they are, is because the government takes on some of the risk to lower the burden on the banks. If you took the government out of the equation, interests would be much higher, and fewer people would be able to buy their home. You could argue about how that might be a good or bad thing, but it counters the idea that the financial system failed because of capitalism. It failed because of socialism.

As for the countries that you listed as socialist, they are not. I dont mean this in the idea that they are 80% socialist but because they are not 100% they dont count. I mean that the vast majority of markets in that country are free market. They might have some regulation, but the vast majority is open and free.

 

[JSt0rm]

We have deeper internal divisions, making us more exploitable at the level of Us vs Them propaganda so favored by the right wing everywhere.

You know, Repub wedge issues.

As I said they are collectively smarter then us.

The problem with socialism is that it only works if you have benevolent leadership that makes mistakes small enough to not destroy everything. If you elect someone who is not benevolent, then they can wreck havoc over the system they run. Because the ownership of production is limited to this group, it means 1 mistake can be spread very quickly.

This is why in countries where socialism (democracy) works they value having a intelligent population. We value having a stupid population because they are easier to control. The nordic countries have done everything right and a lot of that is in direct opposition to what the righties feel is the correct way. Its just fact.

As for the countries that you listed as socialist, they are not. I dont mean this in the idea that they are 80% socialist but because they are not 100% they dont count. I mean that the vast majority of markets in that country are free market. They might have some regulation, but the vast majority is open and free.

Yes because they are doing it the right way. 100% socialism and 100% capitalism are bad. You need a blend of the 2 to have a functional system that is fair for all. Its fact that those countries are better then us in almost every metric.

 

[realibrad]

As I said they are collectively smarter then us.



This is why in countries where socialism (democracy) works they value having a intelligent population. We value having a stupid population because they are easier to control. The nordic countries have done everything right and a lot of that is in direct opposition to what the righties feel is the correct way. Its just fact.



Yes because they are doing it the right way. 100% socialism and 100% capitalism are bad. You need a blend of the 2 to have a functional system that is fair for all. Its fact that those countries are better then us in almost every metric.

Then the argument is not that socialism works, its that capitalism works when constrained. I do not know of a mostly socialist country that is considered to "work". So to say that Socialism works is not true, unless your argument is that socialism is defined as a tiny sliver socialism and the vast majority capitalism. If that is your argument, then you have just redefined "socialism".

Further, I would argue that the countries you listed simply have regulation that is better than the US regulation. Both countries have a crap ton of anti-freemarket regulation.

 

[JSt0rm]

Then the argument is not that socialism works, its that capitalism works when constrained. I do not know of a mostly socialist country that is considered to "work". So to say that Socialism works is not true, unless your argument is that socialism is defined as a tiny sliver socialism and the vast majority capitalism. If that is your argument, then you have just redefined "socialism".

If thats the case then why do people on the right call Hillary Clinton a socialist? They also called Obama a socialist. In fact they call anyone and anything that isnt 100% capitalism socialist. The reality is much more nuanced and having things like a oil sector of the economy that is run by big business and only get those people wealthy is a joke. That oil is all of our birthrights. Norway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

Further, I would argue that the countries you listed simply have regulation that is better than the US regulation. Both countries have a crap ton of anti-freemarket regulation.

The usa has "anti-freemarket" regulation that benefits .01% of the population. Norway has "anti-freemarket" regulation that benefits the majority of the population.

Now some people say we get the government we deserve but we have been propagandized to by people who stood to make large profits over the last 70 years and we have what we are today.

This thread is a continuation of that crap policy - demonize anyone who has an opinion that the greater good is the good that is for the most people.

We can have a competitive society where people are rewarded for innovation and doing hard work and still have some progressive ideas in the mix.

 

[Murloc]

Then the argument is not that socialism works, its that capitalism works when constrained. I do not know of a mostly socialist country that is considered to "work". So to say that Socialism works is not true, unless your argument is that socialism is defined as a tiny sliver socialism and the vast majority capitalism. If that is your argument, then you have just redefined "socialism".

Further, I would argue that the countries you listed simply have regulation that is better than the US regulation. Both countries have a crap ton of anti-freemarket regulation.

with socialism, most people mean social democracy. Which is just capitalism more constrained than it currently is in the US. Most means of production are not in the hands of the state regardless.
I know that due to the red scare, in the US everybody thinks socialist = communist sympathizer/pinko.

Communism doesn't work indeed because whoever control all means of production lacks the information to know what to make and how much of it and how to distribute it.
With capitalism, if an area lacks cabbage, the price rises and people will rush there to sell cabbages. Problem solved, the information was disseminated automatically through the price.

Venezuela is capitalist but it has communist policies, i.e. political prices enforced through state spending. With the result that there is no food or toilet paper and whatever appears is sometimes bought by corrupt handlers who then sell it in Colombia at market price for a profit.

Socialists don't usually want this. They'd rather make sure that everyone has a minimum income (on the condition that they look for work and do what they are ordered to) so that they can afford to buy at market prices.


In the US you have food stamps which AFAIK have no requirement except being poor, so people get food stamps, buy crates of soda and then use it as currency. That's no good, bad socialists

 

[DrDoug]

If thats the case then why do people on the right call Hillary Clinton a socialist? They also called Obama a socialist. In fact they call anyone and anything that isnt 100% capitalism socialist. The reality is much more nuanced and having things like a oil sector of the economy that is run by big business and only get those people wealthy is a joke. That oil is all of our birthrights. Norway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway





The usa has "anti-freemarket" regulation that benefits .01% of the population. Norway has "anti-freemarket" regulation that benefits the majority of the population.

Now some people say we get the government we deserve but we have been propagandized to by people who stood to make large profits over the last 70 years and we have what we are today.

This thread is a continuation of that crap policy - demonize anyone who has an opinion that the greater good is the good that is for the most people.

We can have a competitive society where people are rewarded for innovation and doing hard work and still have some progressive ideas in the mix.

The people with money and power are exploiting the fact that people like to be on a 'team'. AMD vs. Intel, AMD vs. nVIDIA, dems vs. repubs and so on. Hockey teams, basketball teams, auto racing, you name it and you can have at least two sides going at each other over it. Extend that to public policy deliberately misinforming and misleading the public and you have the mess we are in today. It no longer matters what is best for our country, what really matters is one political ideology totally defeating the other. There is no real attempt at "governing", little to no cooperation unless it's to allow the rich guys to pump our pockets some more. It's been distilled down to this; Us vs. Them.

So lets keep at each others throats and trying to totally defeat the other side while our politicians and rich boys clean us out. After all, they can't do it without our help and they love to see the rabble going at each other like gladiators in an arena.

We're all just sacrificial pawns in their game of life.

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem with socialism is that it only works if you have benevolent leadership that makes mistakes small enough to not destroy everything. If you elect someone who is not benevolent, then they can wreck havoc over the system they run. Because the ownership of production is limited to this group, it means 1 mistake can be spread very quickly.

Then there is the problem of systemic risk. In capitalism, you have private actors that look out for their own interests. They will likely not be able to build up enough systemic risk to take down an entire industry. Now, I know you will say, "well what about the financial system". My answer is that the financial was only broken because of the socialist parts. The only reason interests rates are as low as they are, is because the government takes on some of the risk to lower the burden on the banks. If you took the government out of the equation, interests would be much higher, and fewer people would be able to buy their home. You could argue about how that might be a good or bad thing, but it counters the idea that the financial system failed because of capitalism. It failed because of socialism.

As for the countries that you listed as socialist, they are not. I dont mean this in the idea that they are 80% socialist but because they are not 100% they dont count. I mean that the vast majority of markets in that country are free market. They might have some regulation, but the vast majority is open and free.

That's remarkably inaccurate. Rates are low because we're in a liquidity trap where lowering rates is like pushing on a string because there's too little real demand. That didn't matter during the Ownership Society flimflam because lenders lowered their standards enormously to inflate prices & create false demand, create loans they knew would never be repaid. They also knew they'd get bailed out, just like they did with LTCM in 1998. It's called the Greenspan put. The bailout wasn't a choice- it was a necessity, thanks to the fulfillment of Repubs dreams, de-regulated finance.

When a bank holds mortgages, those are liabilities. when they hold paper based on mortgages those are assets to be used to lend more money on fractional reserve principles. When investors lagged in purchasing, they just sold them to each other to keep the scam growing & bet against each other in derivatives. They bonused themselves clear to Heaven. When it all fell down, they lacked the liquidity to cover.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

with socialism, most people mean social democracy. Which is just capitalism more constrained than it currently is in the US. Most means of production are not in the hands of the state regardless.
I know that due to the red scare, in the US everybody thinks socialist = communist sympathizer/pinko.

Communism doesn't work indeed because whoever control all means of production lacks the information to know what to make and how much of it and how to distribute it.
With capitalism, if an area lacks cabbage, the price rises and people will rush there to sell cabbages. Problem solved, the information was disseminated automatically through the price.

Venezuela is capitalist but it has communist policies, i.e. political prices enforced through state spending. With the result that there is no food or toilet paper and whatever appears is sometimes bought by corrupt handlers who then sell it in Colombia at market price for a profit.

Socialists don't usually want this. They'd rather make sure that everyone has a minimum income (on the condition that they look for work and do what they are ordered to) so that they can afford to buy at market prices.


In the US you have food stamps which AFAIK have no requirement except being poor, so people get food stamps, buy crates of soda and then use it as currency. That's no good, bad socialists

And this is what the left in the US ignores completely. I.e., the model that works in those Nordic nations is a model that is dependent on everyone not milking the system and doing what is best to ensure those social safety nets do not implode/fall apart from the sheer volume and weight of masses of people jumping onto them or abusing them at such a rate that they can reliably handle.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I would dare say that even in these wonderful Nordic countries it has long been a tradition that people frowned upon someone who is able bodied, and able of mind yet they make no real effort to get off government assistance?

That the collective and overall homogeneous cultures found in places like Norway is one that everyone should do their part and that the safety net is only there for rare instances or occasions where someone may slip and fall during the course of their life. Of which this net is used to get them out of that net and back on track and thus it is not, should not rvrt be a hammock where someone permanently resides.

Last but not least (this is where we might part ways), while those nations may have strong social benefits and taxation to prop up those benefits they are not in anyway communist or heavy handed socialist "utopias" where government agencies control the economy or prevent others from rising to the top and being succesful.

In other words that the overall general means of production is actually market based and not controlled by bureaucrats or politicians as we see in the example of Venezuela. That even these vaunted Nordic "socialist" countries understand that prices and market fundimentals such as supply and demand interactions are a superior mechanism toward managing an economy if what you seek is to push efficiency and an ever growing standard of living.

For which that aforementioned social safety net (that is not viewed to ever become a permanent hammock by most) can then be funded by when all's said and done. That government interaction is only used as a measure of last resort to either restore a balance or to ensure that distortions do not occur. Yet it is never viewed as a primary mechanism to continually attempt to suppress market forces pointing toward a undeniable truth of scarcity, i.e. the hammer that is the perpetual and singular solution to every problem big or small to those who are left wing in the US.

 

[nickqt]

That's remarkably inaccurate. Rates are low because we're in a liquidity trap where lowering rates is like pushing on a string because there's too little real demand. That didn't matter during the Ownership Society flimflam because lenders lowered their standards enormously to inflate prices & create false demand, create loans they knew would never be repaid. They also knew they'd get bailed out, just like they did with LTCM in 1998. It's called the Greenspan put. The bailout wasn't a choice- it was a necessity, thanks to the fulfillment of Repubs dreams, de-regulated finance.

When a bank holds mortgages, those are liabilities. when they hold paper based on mortgages those are assets to be used to lend more money on fractional reserve principles. When investors lagged in purchasing, they just sold them to each other to keep the scam growing & bet against each other in derivatives. They bonused themselves clear to Heaven. When it all fell down, they lacked the liquidity to cover.

They lacked the liquidity to cover.

By "they", you of course mean the institutions that were used. The institutions were the hosts, the individual criminals working from inside them were the cancerous tumors sucking the life out of the host. And because the hosts were so intertwined with the entire economy, the individual cancerous tumors metastasized everywhere.

The best part of the Wall St. casino for the criminals who exploit it, is that when everything is up, they're earning lots of money as Fees, Commissions and Bonuses (FCBs). And then the institutions themselves are finally revealed to be broke and full of cancer, the market drops, allowing the criminals to then buy everything at Firesale prices.

When you're at the top, destroying an economy is win-win. First you win by siphoning money from every possible source, and then you win by using that money to buy tangible and durable assets such as land, equipment, and licenses which have much more concrete, liquid value than stocks and bonds which may or may not pan out next week/month/year/decade.

 

[ivwshane]

You do not seem to realize what those words mean. If you did, you would realize that your comment does not make sense.

A Libertarian is someone who believes in the literal use of liberalism. The only reason people do not currently use the word Liberal to describe a Libertarian is because the word Liberal is not used in its literal meaning in most of society.

So which is it? I either don't know what the word means or you are using a definition that no one any longer uses?
Certainly in the modern sense, libertarianism isn't the same thing as liberalism.

 

[nickqt]

tl;dr version below for the functionally illiterate

And this is what the left in the US ignores completely. I.e., the model that works in those Nordic nations is a model that is dependent on everyone not milking the system and doing what is best to ensure those social safety nets do not implode/fall apart from the sheer volume and weight of masses of people jumping onto them or abusing them at such a rate that they can reliably handle.

Are you implying that the left in the US wants people to milk the system? To abuse it, thereby making it more likely that the population will then vote for people who want to destroy the social safety net? The left wants people to abuse the system so it is eventually destroyed?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I would dare say that even in these wonderful Nordic countries it has long been a tradition that people frowned upon someone who is able bodied, and able of mind yet they make no real effort to get off government assistance?

That the collective and overall homogeneous cultures found in places like Norway is one that everyone should do their part and that the safety net is only there for rare instances or occasions where someone may slip and fall during the course of their life. Of which this net is used to get them out of that net and back on track and thus it is not, should not rvrt be a hammock where someone permanently resides.

Again, are you implying that the left in the US wants as many as possible to collect "welfare" benefits forever? Unemployment insurance in most states runs out after awhile. Food stamps barely cover food. Do you really think that most people who receive assistance are living high and mighty...and that the average person on the left wants them to live high and mighty, forever?

If you think that, can you explain what gives you this impression?

Last but not least (this is where we might part ways), while those nations may have strong social benefits and taxation to prop up those benefits they are not in anyway communist or heavy handed socialist "utopias" where government agencies control the economy or prevent others from rising to the top and being succesful.

The US has the most billionaires per capita than any other country in the world. Are you trying to say our economic system stops people from being rich if they so choose? Most tax laws allow people who earn income passively to pay less in taxes than some shlub who works for a living. Is this an example of US tax laws preventing people from becoming rich? I don't get it. There are loads of millionaires and billionaires here. People are still coming from around the world to get rich here. But you think that the left wing is going to forbid people from becoming rich?

The left wing controlled 2/3 of government from 1932 to 1980, and I don't remember any policies that actively prevented people from becoming rich. And after 1980, things became even easier for the already-rich to maintain their wealth and expand on it. Are you just worried that moving even remotely toward a European social democracy model will totally annihilate the ability of people to get rich? That's the only thing I can imagine that would do what you seem to be talking about here.

In other words that the overall general means of production is actually market based and not controlled by bureaucrats or politicians as we see in the example of Venezuela. That even these vaunted Nordic "socialist" countries understand that prices and market fundimentals such as supply and demand interactions are a superior mechanism toward managing an economy if what you seek is to push efficiency and an ever growing standard of living.

Most industry in the US is controlled by the private sector. Can you point to an elected left winger in the US who is calling for the appropriation of some/many/most/all industry? Not just a blogger or a parody troll.

For which that aforementioned social safety net (that is not viewed to ever become a permanent hammock by most) can then be funded by when all's said and done. That government interaction is only used as a measure of last resort to either restore a balance or to ensure that distortions do not occur. Yet it is never viewed as a primary mechanism to continually attempt to suppress market forces pointing toward a undeniable truth of scarcity, i.e. the hammer that is the perpetual and singular solution to every problem big or small to those who are left wing in the US.

You keep claiming that the left wing in the US wants to use government to solve everything. The government can't solve most problems of inequity, but it can pass laws that do not favor the already rich and powerful over the rabble.

Do you really believe that the rich and powerful in the US are some persecuted class, with the rabble constantly redistributing substantial wealth from the rich to themselves? Hell, donate to charity and your tax bill goes down. This is still a policy, no?

You talk a lot about a social safety net, and yet the reason why it is so strong in other western countries is because the taxation rates are higher than they are here. It's weaker here. Do you see this as an example of the US and left wing using the government to attack the wealthy...by allowing the wealthy to pay less taxes than other places? By writing tax code that allows the wealthy to shelter far more of their income into 15% brackets than the people who work for their money?

I get that you think the left wing in the US is trying to use the hammer of government to destroy capitalism, but if you look at the actual laws that are on the books, right now, I don't see how you can claim that the rich and powerful aren't currently abusing the system at a much greater success rate than someone getting $150 a month in food stamps who could, if hired, make minimum wage at a McDonalds.

And here's the thing. At the end of the day, you could hire someone to work for the government to find abuse and report it. You could effectively hire Peter to stop Paul from abusing the system. But, the right wing in this country is constantly screaming that government doesn't create jobs. As a matter of faith, since in reality, the government creates a lot of jobs.

Most left wingers don't want "more government", they want more effective, working government. And the right wing, who as a matter of faith say the government "is the problem", do everything in their power to ensure that the left wing can't make the government more effective, otherwise the right wing would be allowing the left wing to prove that government isn't necessarily the problem. And that's the positive feedback cycle we're in. Just saying that the left wing wants even more-ier government than we have now bypasses the point that the left would rather have government function efficiently and for the benefit of everyone, rather than the people who it already benefits.

Hell.

tl;dr version:

Do you think the US government works more diligently on behalf of the poor, or the rich?

 

[flexy]

No one wants to abandon the free market economy and replace it with a different system. What means of production are "in government hands" in W. European countries? Say Germany, Norway, Sweden etc. which some of you consider "socialist"?

We're not talking about failed socialist/communist systems like former Eastern Europe or the Soviet Union, we're talking real working social democracy that is in place in many W. European countries FOR A LONG TIME and which is proven to work.

It builds on the same system and in fact embraces a free trade and capitalism BUT with some better implemented safety nets and the one or the other regulation.

US: UNREGULATED ("WILD") CAPITALISM
EU: MORE REGULATED CAPITALISM ("social democracy")

"Unregulated" would be if corporates can do what they want as long as it profits them, including off-shoring and outsourcing. Look at fricking Detroit!

"Regulated", for example, could mean that they get taxed big time if they continue outsourcing, or, say, the government could create incentive programs for businesses/corporates to produce IN the US and to hire people from their own country. Or tax reductions/incentives for businesses who hire unemployed. Etc..etc..

All those things are really improvements of this "unregulated capitalism", borne of that after WW2, those nations who implemented social democracy looked over the American system and thought about ways how to make it better because IT IS FLAWED in some aspects.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Since the OP is getting worked up about the socialist need to create institutions to protect us and to tax us for it remember this -- the US Military is just abut the biggest socialistic institution we have. It's there to protect us and we have no choice but to pay for it with our taxes.

Why does the right hate the military?


Brian

 

[brycejones]

Since the OP is getting worked up about the socialist need to create institutions to protect us and to tax us for it remember this -- the US Military is just abut the biggest socialistic institution we have. It's there to protect us and we have no choice but to pay for it with our taxes.

Why does the right hate the military?


Brian

The OP isn't the right. The OP is way out in some field other than left or right.

 

[sandorski]

There are always Rulers who dominate the Masses. It is rare though that the Masses have a choice in who those Rulers are and a voice in how those Rulers exercise their power.

All Anarchy offers is to reset the system, to start from scratch. Starting from scratch creates Warlords and Feudal societies who rule with a merciless iron fist. Fuck that shit.

 

[realibrad]

So which is it? I either don't know what the word means or you are using a definition that no one any longer uses?
Certainly in the modern sense, libertarianism isn't the same thing as liberalism.

You dont know what the words mean. You tried to imply that I did not by the use of my chosen words. The way I see things there are 2 options here.

You did not know that the words were related and your comment was made out of ignorance.

The other option is that you did not know that the words were related, and you wanted to indirectly expose my ignorance.

English is a funny language. If you go by the current definitions of the words, I am completely correct. If you go by the way that most people use the word liberalism, then the definition is not correct. If you want to pick the side that I am right about the definition, but wrong in the sense of how people use it, then so be it.

 

[MovingTarget]

Just so you know, puling out Ayn Rand when no one but you have brought it up kind of poisons the well if you know what I mean. Which tells me your initial reaction to my thread was an emotional one.

This reality that you speak of is the same one I am commenting on. It is an involuntary socialist state which uses the threat of force to achieve its social and political agendas. That's the very definition of terrorism.



Theft
noun
1.
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

Extort:
Law.
to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like.

Can't change the definition of the words. By definition it is theft and extortion. If you have not given of your own will but are instead contributing out of fear, then you are being extorted by definition. You can't escape that fact.

One cannot represent me if I have not chosen them to do so. The majority cannot speak for me and I cannot for them.





It is if it's forced. See definition

Terrorism
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.






Actually this is the crux of the problem. The market elite who have the money and the government bureaucrats with the power in cahoots. If the politicians have power but not money, and the wealthy have money but not power, how long do you think it'll be before they are scratching each others backs? Corruption is inherent to hierarchical structures and there's no way to stop that.



Then take up your argument with the definition. They are enforcing laws with violence and threats for political goals. The war on drugs for example?



I don't? That's an opinion some may have and I'm fine with that. The socialist mindset starts with good intentions and ends with violence in all of its applications.

I mentioned Ayn Rand precisely because your post is soaked in Objectivist philosophy with regards to the role of government. Even a cursory reading or viewing of The Fountainhead is enough to demonstrate that your views of what is Socialist mirrors hers in many ways. It isn't poisoning the well, but a direct and relevant comparison.

Other than that, I believe you are being deliberately obtuse about the meaning of words, citing definitions and claiming that they can't be changed, inviting others to argue with a definition inevitably set in stone. You can change them, "literally"! Words are often chosen and used in order to obfuscate their intent and effects. The definitions you cite lack any real meaning without their larger context. Honestly, that kind of argument is something I'd expect from a sophomore's term paper for a history class, "literally" phoning it in at the last minute.

But, you do have a legitimate grievance somewhere in all of that nonsense. Big business and government are too much in cahoots. You won't get much argument about that from either side of the political aisle. I even agree with you on the war on drugs, too. The problem is that you seem to argue that in order to reduce the negative influence of business on government and therefore on us, you must shrink the government. Is this true? If so, then please tell me how the deregulation of industry and finance has helped this situation. Tell me, how has the reduced oversight of businesses' activity (particularly in the wake of Citizens' United) has helped to reduce the negative influence of business over the past forty years. This is smaller government in action, folks. If you want to separate government and business, then I'm all ears. The antidote to this influence, in any form, is decried as "Socialism" by those that oppose it.

So yes, government is imperfect, but it remains the only entity that is accountable to all stakeholders (read: citizens, voters, etc.) instead of just the monied few. As far as the external influences in your life, THAT is only difference between business and government that matters. For more and more of us these days, we may not have a dollar to our names, but we do have a vote. In that we are all (or should be) equal. So, pick your poison. Do we continue to let the wealthy few dominate our current system? Do we allow government to do its job regardless of its size, and reign those abuses in? Or do we throw our hands up and revert back to Hobbes' State of Nature, rolling the dice on something new? In those scenarios, Social Democracy is the least violent of all options.

 

[realibrad]

That's remarkably inaccurate. Rates are low because we're in a liquidity trap where lowering rates is like pushing on a string because there's too little real demand. That didn't matter during the Ownership Society flimflam because lenders lowered their standards enormously to inflate prices & create false demand, create loans they knew would never be repaid. They also knew they'd get bailed out, just like they did with LTCM in 1998. It's called the Greenspan put. The bailout wasn't a choice- it was a necessity, thanks to the fulfillment of Repubs dreams, de-regulated finance.

So let me understand this correctly. I say that the government is taking on risk which lowered interest rates. You counter by saying that is wrong, and then saying that lenders gave out loans to people because they knew that the government would bail them out if they got into trouble. This caused increased demand and the lenders being competitive pushed rates down.

How was I wrong?

When a bank holds mortgages, those are liabilities. when they hold paper based on mortgages those are assets to be used to lend more money on fractional reserve principles. When investors lagged in purchasing, they just sold them to each other to keep the scam growing & bet against each other in derivatives. They bonused themselves clear to Heaven. When it all fell down, they lacked the liquidity to cover.

Yes, but not sure what this has to do with what I said.

 

[lopri]

No political system exists without violence. The OP is either mistaken or engaging in sophistry.

 

[realibrad]

If thats the case then why do people on the right call Hillary Clinton a socialist?

Because they are too swept up in politics and will say anything to make the other side look bad. That is my best guess though, as I am not on the "right".

They also called Obama a socialist. In fact they call anyone and anything that isnt 100% capitalism socialist. The reality is much more nuanced and having things like a oil sector of the economy that is run by big business and only get those people wealthy is a joke. That oil is all of our birthrights. Norway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

Obama enacted socialist things, but I would say he is also not socialist. I also don't think he is a Muslim either. So yay to us I guess.

The usa has "anti-freemarket" regulation that benefits .01% of the population. Norway has "anti-freemarket" regulation that benefits the majority of the population.

I agree there. I will simply add that I might disagree with the idea that Norway has a net benefit to the overall population. It would depend on the regulation though.

Now some people say we get the government we deserve but we have been propagandized to by people who stood to make large profits over the last 70 years and we have what we are today.

Again, I agree here. The current system benefits the top more than anyone else.

This thread is a continuation of that crap policy - demonize anyone who has an opinion that the greater good is the good that is for the most people.

No, at least not in my view. I don't dislike socialism on the grounds that I don't want to help people. I disagree with socialism because it has always worked out to hurt the vast majority of people. I also feel the counter arguments against socialism are logical and I have not yet heard of a way that socialism counters corruption and ignorance better than capitalism with regulation.

We can have a competitive society where people are rewarded for innovation and doing hard work and still have some progressive ideas in the mix.

I do not want to reward people for doing hard work. I want to reward people for doing productive work. That is not semantics either. A guy who cleans bathrooms all day does not deserve as much money as a surgeon who worked for a half day saving lives. I also do think that a surgeon who worked 8 hours saving someone's life deserves as much as a surgeon who was born with a talent that allowed him to save 3 lives in half the time during the same surgery.

If you can do more work in less time with less effort, and people are willing to pay you more for it, then you should be allowed to earn more. Working hard should mean nothing.