NationStates Jolt Archive

But nor does it guarantee it. A public producer has no incentive to respond to consumer demands.

Sure it does - if those making the decisions don't do it, they will be removed from power.

That's a problem. Democracy and freedom are antithetical.

Democracy is the only free system of political organization. Any other system involves the deprivation of the majority's freedom by an elite minority.

Markets never fail; it is only government interventions which do.

Do you have any evidence to back up that ridiculous claim? The market clearly failed during the Great Depression, it is clearly failing now to come up with a solution to the ridiculous cost of health care in the US and it will continue to fail to stop global warming and climate shift.

Market systems have no respect for the individual. The entire premise of the so called "free market" is profit. It doesn't matter how many people are harmed by a corporation as long as the shareholders can still collect their dividends.

Finally, the post WWII period, perhaps the point when the US economy was most regulated in its history, saw the highest rate of sustain growth of both the economy and the middle class. Since the deregulation of the 1970s, the economy has grown sporadically, and the middle class has been steadily declining.

Do you have any evidence to back up that ridiculous claim? The market clearly failed during the Great Depression, it is clearly failing now to come up with a solution to the ridiculous cost of health care in the US and it will continue to fail to stop global warming and climate shift.
.

The 1930's wasn't a free market.


Market systems have no respect for the individual. The entire premise of the so called "free market" is profit. It doesn't matter how many people are harmed by a corporation as long as the shareholders can still collect their dividends.
.

The market is the only system that respects the individual


Finally, the post WWII period, perhaps the point when the US economy was most regulated in its history, saw the highest rate of sustain growth of both the economy and the middle class. Since the deregulation of the 1970s, the economy has grown sporadically, and the middle class has been steadily declining.

Growth with heavy regulation is not impossible. But will be lower than growth with minimal regulation.

Sure it does - if those making the decisions don't do it, they will be removed from power.
If they serve the needs of the majority, sure, but what about niche markets?

Democracy is the only free system of political organization. Any other system involves the deprivation of the majority's freedom by an elite minority.
Democracy is unlimited majority rule. The reason most countries have constitutions that limit the power of government is to constrain the power of democracy to prevent it from becoming tyrannical.

If the majority is allowed to vote itself benefit at the expense of the minority, that's not freedom. That's tyranny.

Finally, the post WWII period, perhaps the point when the US economy was most regulated in its history, saw the highest rate of sustain growth of both the economy and the middle class. Since the deregulation of the 1970s, the economy has grown sporadically, and the middle class has been steadily declining.
How are you measuring the regulatory burden in those two eras?

Democracy is unlimited majority rule.

The principles behind democracy can easily justify individual rights when the individual's actions only have her as a subject. If it's wrong for an autocrat to decide how everyone else should live and act, it's wrong for everyone else to decide how an individual should act - assuming that her actions have no social consequences. If they do have social consequences, it is perfectly legitimate, and not at all tyrannous, for the democratic institutions to decide on whether or not it is permissible.

And...?
.

And companys can crash, the stock market can crash. Markets can fail. Plus the sheer existance of natural monopolies shows the market cannot take care of everything.


If we left them alone, and stopped supporting Israel, they'd pretty much leave us alone too.
.

Just like Christians left people alone hundreds of years ago.


They have a quasi-nation.
.
But no actual state


It doesn't now.
.
Yes it does. The police work for everyone and we have a thing called the rule of law.



No, it's perfectly acceptable. You just seem to want a coercive territorial monopolist to run it. I can't imagine why.
.

Because its one of those rare things that cannot work with profit as motivation.



No, a lot of laws were created by so-called "liberals", too. In fact, higher penalties for coke/crack use were enthusiastically embraced by the likes of Jesse Jackson and his ilk.
.
Sounds like a liberal who supports a neo con policy than.


No, their services are already contracted-for. Think of it like homeowners or auto insurance. Do you go to the insurance company after an accident to get a policy on your car you just wrecked, or do you get a policy beforehand so that if you wreck, you're covered?
.

Police can only do this by protecting everyone and removing all criminals from society. You know its illigal to drive a car without insurence and its a fair law because this protects other drivers. Its illigal not to contibute in taxes for law and order as everyone benefits from a safe society.


It can be better done by contracting with the police beforehand.
.

You're not directly threatened in this instance. Where is the motivation to phone to police and pay money for their services.


ICK! Friedmanite (and Keynesian) nonsense! The Chicago school is utterly wrong about how money operates.
.[/QUOTE]
That was informative. Mind explaining why.

Restricting economic freedom restricts freedom, period. It restricts the individual from doing what s/he feels is best. That's immoral.

Why put absolute freedom ahead of all other values. Personally I think its immorale to deny people the benefits of education or deny them affordable transport so everyone can travel to work.
The fact both boom the economy make it awful to even consider denying these services.
The freedom to own a gun deprives another of his freedom to live in a gun free environment. The freedom to lack regulation when polluting deprives another of his right to unpolluted water and air. Giving one company the right to acquire a monopoly in a particular sector deprives the consumer of his freedom of choice.

If they serve the needs of the majority, sure, but what about niche markets?

Some sort of proportional system for managing production would probably need to be implemented.

Some sort of proportional system for managing production would probably need to be implemented.
But that's not democratic.

But that's not democratic.

How not? If anything, it's more democratic than strict majority-rule systems.

If it's wrong for an autocrat to decide how everyone else should live and act, it's wrong for everyone else to decide how an individual should act
That's the whole point behind libertarianism.

assuming that her actions have no social consequences. If they do have social consequences, it is perfectly legitimate, and not at all tyrannous, for the democratic institutions to decide on whether or not it is permissible.
I don't understand what you mean by social consequences.

And the word you want there is "tyrannical".

That's the whole point behind libertarianism.

True.

I don't understand what you mean by "scoail consequences"?

Consequences for other members of society.

And the word you want there is "tyrannical".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyrannous

How not? If anything, it's more democratic than strict majority-rule systems.
It's more fair than a strict majority-rule system, but it's not more democratic. You're equating democracy in your head with every positive notion you have. Freedom and fairness are just two examples so far.

But that's not what democracy is. Democracy is majority rule.

It's more fair than a strict majority-rule system, but it's not more democratic. You're equating democracy in your head with every positive notion you have. Freedom and fairness are just two examples so far.

Democracy is a clear example of collective freedom. "Fairness" is not as clear-cut in majority-rule democratic systems, because small minorities can be excluded from real power.

But that's not what democracy is. Democracy is majority rule.

Democracy is rule by the people. That's all the word means. Majority-rule democracy is one manner of political organization that meets the criterion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyrannous
You've driven me to make a trip to my friendly OED.

Hmm. Tyrannous and tyrannic both appear in 1491. Tyrannous appears to have been a Shakespearean creation, but that's true of a lot of words, so I probably can't criticise that (even though Shakespeare often made up words simply to fit his meter). Tyrannic is from Caxton, and gets replaced by tyrannical starting in about 1560 (English likes that -al suffix for adjectives; diabolic disappeared about the same time).

I stand corrected. Tyrannous is a perfectly cromulent word.

Democracy is rule by the people.
And the people, as a group, don't agree on stuff, so they vote. And the majority wins.

That's all the word means.
That's what the Greek roots mean. But English isn't always true to its etymology.

Restricting freedom is not necessarily a bad thing. Property rights restrict other's freedom to use an said property.
It is a bad thing when the government does it, although I did mis-speak. I should have said "restricting rights".

While the analogy is correct in an abstract sense (or moral), it doesn't work in a practical sense because the actual circumstances are so different between a system that takes X% of someone's income and put it in a government's 'pool of money' and two individuals paying X% each of a meal.

Both these fellows ate the same meal, but contributed different amounts to the bill-payment pool.


Hmm, right forgot about the minimum income thing. That should be included.

I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of the last sentence though.
Does the rich only see how much he loses that he doesn't see that the poor loses as much as he does, or do you mean that the rich gets so much taken that it isn't equal to what the poor is taxed?


The second.

What if they give poor but not deadly service but show a good profit?
And a government shouldn't have a monopoly. That's generally a bad idea.

If they show a good profit, their owner(s) will be happy. If they provide poor-but-not-deadly service, their customers will be unhappy. If their prices are low enough to compensate for their shoddy service, they may post good profits for a while longer.

Everyone knew that Pontiac Sunfires were terrible in crash-tests and fuel efficiency compared to a Honda or a Toyota...why did they buy them? Because the price was right.


Would it be possible if the universtity didn't get tutition subsides?

Their parents would still have the money that was taxed from them in order to provide the tuition subsidies, and could pass this on. Even if they didn't, tuition subsidies for higher education in the US are nearly non-existant, and there are thousands of people putting themselves through college as we speak (well, not literally, classes don't start for another 2 months, but you get the point:))

Hmm, isn't university 'higher learning' though?
The system I had in mind finance education as far as high school. After that you have to pay for your education (though there are some tutition subsides as in your current system).

OK

What are bursaries btw? I'm not familiar with the term. Some kind of sponsoring I assume?

Bursary is a British synonym for scholarship, though they're generally awarded on financial need rather than on academic achievement, as scholarships are (though only some dictionaries include need in their definition, that's how I've heard it used).


No, it's not society's fault, but socety would benefit from providing the opportunity for people to realise their potential.
However, this will not work if you put the entire burden on society alone. The individual must also act responsibly and put work and effort into his/her education or no 'helping hand' the government provides, be it ever so great, will help.

If society would benefit, why do we need to force society to contribute? In theory, if they'll benefit, they'll go about providing those opportunities themselves- as they have. A quick search on ScholarshipsCanada.com turns up "568 scholarships for York University [my school] totalling $842,069.00 in value." This is in addition to scholarships which are available to students of any university in Canada, and the entrance scholarships ($2000 for 85% in high school, $4000 for 90%), and what some employers will pay for you to improve your skills, etc etc.

In a way, it's like "if you scratch my back, I scratch yours". The government gives you the opportunity to get an education. Now you have take that opportunity and work to realise your potential (which would benefit both the individual and the society).
There needs to be a safety catch in the system though. If the individual doesn't work and just loafs around and/or want the government to fix the education for him, he/she should loose the privilege of getting the opportunity to realise his/her potential. A warning or two first of course, but if the warning doesn't help, they loose the privilege.

Of course the govenrment wants more productive serfs- they make back thousands in tax revenue for every dollar they spend on university students- according to Census 2001 data, "More than 60% of people in the lowest earnings category did not have more than a high school education in 2000, while more than 60% of those in the top category had a university degree."





Well, you cut up the text so it was a bit out of context. I did say the system had flaws.
And so does the other. Both systems works, neither works perfectly.
Which one is better or more just, is a matter of opinion.


And economics!


Yes. That is the flaw of the system. It's not as easy to affect it as a purely privatized system.
Which is why I argue for a mixed government/private system. There should be an alternative to the governemnt so they don't have a monopoly, and there should be the governemnt who takes care of those that can't pay the fees of the private system.

*shrugs* I can see several flaws with it, but the mixed system is the least evil in my view, in the same sense that democracy is the least evil of the political systems.


The first should be avoidable with a mixed system.
The second I don't quite understand the meaning of. How does it relate to taxes? (I assume that's what it relates to?)

The argument goes like this: Some people are born poor. These people must be given rich people's money in order to give them a chance to succeed.

Most anyone can improve their standing or, even if they can't manage that, can save enough money to send their kids to school, and improve theirs- minimum-wage job or no minimum-wage job. If you are poor, it's a combination of your fault, and your parents'. I have nothing to do with it, therefor I don't have a "social responsability" to keep you alive and happy, or to give you my money so that you can move up the ladder (though I may very well chose to do so).

The last, well, I think we can agree that helping those on the bottom of society is a commendable goal. It's the 'how' where we differ, and I don't think either of us will convince the other to shift view. ;)
Well, in all honesty, that's not really my objective. I'm planning on manning a booth for www.bureaucrash.com at the local Warped Tour stop, and I'm practicing my oratory. How'm I doing? :p

I would ask Grave_n_idle too, but he seems to have broken off the engagement :rolleyes:

As long as the consumer is making decisions on what to purchase, there are markets.
Nope.


A certain amount of currency is required to purchase a given commodity. Just as it is in a capitalist economy.
But does it mean anything?


All I said was that socialist institutions could measure purchases and make decisions on prices and production accordingly. I did not state that it would be centrally planned anywhere.
The only way for your statement to make sense is via central planning.

Do you have any evidence to back up that ridiculous claim?
Do you have any evidence to back up the ridiculous claim that markets fail? No, you do not. No, the Great Depression wasn't a market failure: it was a failure of the US government in interventionist crap via the federal reserve. Markets. Don't. Fail.


Market systems have no respect for the individual.
The free market is all about individuals making their own choices. So I call bullshit.


Finally, the post WWII period, perhaps the point when the US economy was most regulated in its history, saw the highest rate of sustain growth of both the economy and the middle class.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc and non causa/pro causa.


Since the deregulation of the 1970s, the economy has grown sporadically, and the middle class has been steadily declining.
Same as above.

Okay it comes down to this. The government has established a voice of concent to rule the nation. They may decide to tax they may not. As long as they are accountable to the public via the vote and any individual who is unhappy can leave than its not theft.


"If you enter this chalk circle, I will mug you. Nevermind that you have to go through it to reach your family, friends and place of employment."

Just because theft is localized and announced doesn't make it something else.

In any case, the only place I can think of with even a remotely libretarian "government" (Somalia) is embroiled in civil war, and requires clan affiliation for participation. I highly suggest this (http://libertariannation.org/a/n030d1.html) page for an interesting read (though it predates the recent attempts by the local Islamists to forcibly form a government).

And companys can crash, the stock market can crash. Markets can fail.
Markets can't fail.


Plus the sheer existance of natural monopolies shows the market cannot take care of everything.
Non sequitur.


But no actual state
A de facto on.


Yes it does. The police work for everyone
No, they only work for some.


and we have a thing called the rule of law.
Which doesn't apply to the government.



Because its one of those rare things that cannot work with profit as motivation.
Prove it.


Sounds like a liberal who supports a neo con policy than.
Neo-cons didn't exist back then.


Police can only do this by protecting everyone and removing all criminals from society. You know its illigal to drive a car without insurence and its a fair law because this protects other drivers.
No it's not. It's bullshit.


Its illigal not to contibute in taxes for law and order as everyone benefits from a safe society.
So what? It's also illegal to be a prostitute, but that doesn't mean prostitution is somehow wrong.


You're not directly threatened in this instance. Where is the motivation to phone to police and pay money for their services.
Ummm....do you not understand the idea of "contracting beforehand"?


That was informative. Mind explaining why.
A critique of Monetarism (http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/maanen.pdf)


Why put absolute freedom ahead of all other values. Personally I think its immorale to deny people the benefits of education or deny them affordable transport so everyone can travel to work.
I think it's immoral to initiate force against some so that others may have what you desire them to have.


The freedom to own a gun deprives another of his freedom to live in a gun free environment.
BULLSHIT! That's like saying that if I don't want to play chess with you, I'm depriving you of your freedom to play chess.

No, they only work for some.
.

Law and order has to exist for everyone otherwise law is meaningless for many.


Prove it.
.

A police company would boom in times of chaos and crime. A government would crumble and be voted out.



Neo-cons didn't exist back then.
.

Authoritarian con then. At any rate its not liberal.


No it's not. It's bullshit.
.

What is, car insurence? How can you be agains't atleast 3rd party damages



Ummm....do you not understand the idea of "contracting beforehand"?
.

I don't get it. How can you know who is a threat to you. The only way to prevent crime before hand is by catching as many people who break the law after they do it so they can't do it again.


A critique of Monetarism (http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/maanen.pdf)
.

Yet its been proven to succeed in some cases. Both Reagan and Thatcher brought down the inflation rates the United State's inflation rate fell from almost 14% in 1980 to around 3% in 1983 which paved the way for the economic booms of the 1980s.


I think it's immoral to initiate force against some so that others may have what you desire them to have.
.
I think its immoral in any prosperous nation for any individual to be unable to recieve education or the opportunitys to succeed if they want to work for it.


BULLSHIT! That's like saying that if I don't want to play chess with you, I'm depriving you of your freedom to play chess.

My point is that your choice in how you use freedom can negativly affect others. Like polluting, is a company free to do this without government regulation or are other being denyed the freedom to live in a healthy enviroment.

Law and order has to exist for everyone otherwise law is meaningless for many.
No.


A police company would boom in times of chaos and crime. A government would crumble and be voted out.
That doesn't prove your claim that police (or defense in general) is something that cannot be provided by a for-profit company.


Authoritarian con then. At any rate its not liberal.
I'd love to see you tell Jesse Jackson that he isn't a liberal.


What is, car insurence? How can you be agains't atleast 3rd party damages
I'm against mandatory auto insurance.


I don't get it.
Sucks to be you.


How can you know who is a threat to you. The only way to prevent crime before hand is by catching as many people who break the law after they do it so they can't do it again.
*sigh*

Ok, let's go over this r e a l l y s l o w l y.

With auto insurance that you decide to purchase, you contract with the company BEFORE you have an accident or have (further) damage to your car, right? Now then, can you not apply the same type of reasoning to police, or are you incapable of such an easy task?


Yet its been proven to succeed in some cases.
No, monetarism actually hasn't been proven to succeed. In fact, it's given us a lot of the current economic problems.


I think its immoral in any prosperous nation for any individual to be unable to recieve education or the opportunitys to succeed if they want to work for it.
I know that it's immoral for someone to be forced to provide an education for someone else.


My point is that your choice in how you use freedom can negativly affect others. Like polluting, is a company free to do this without government regulation or are other being denyed the freedom to live in a healthy enviroment.
And?

No.


You value economic and social freedoms so much but if the poor can't afford to hire the police their own freedoms can be violated with no consequence.


That doesn't prove your claim that police (or defense in general) is something that cannot be provided by a for-profit company.

Okay perhaps not. I couldn't really say if it could work on not I've never heard it actually being done. Let me ammend my point to say law and order/defense are some of the few things even an incompetant government could handle better for the benefit of everyone. And yes everyone does need law and order and defense.


I'd love to see you tell Jesse Jackson that he isn't a liberal.

A libertarian party could set up and want to ban gay marrage. It wouldn't make that stance libertarian. And I'd love to see you tell lots of liberals they favour stronger punishments on drug use.


I'm against mandatory auto insurance.


Even if it means having to go to court to seek compensation after an accident off a guy who has no money with which to repay you. By ensuring you have 3rd party insurence (as well as everyone else) in inncidents of accidents the party in the right can have his car more easily repaired.

And?[/QUOTE]

You dislike national dept so much because it screws over the next generation of tax payers, but you don't mind damage to the enviroment.

You value economic and social freedoms so much but if the poor can't afford to hire the police their own freedoms can be violated with no consequence.
1. Nonsense.
2. Why wouldn't they be able to afford it.


Okay perhaps not. I couldn't really say if it could work on not I've never heard it actually being done. Let me ammend my point to say law and order/defense are some of the few things even an incompetant government could handle better for the benefit of everyone.
Prove it.


A libertarian party could set up and want to ban gay marrage.
That would be contra to it.


It wouldn't make that stance libertarian. And I'd love to see you tell lots of liberals they favour stronger punishments on drug use.
No problem: Jesse Jackson, you favor stronger punishments on drug use.



Even if it means having to go to court to seek compensation after an accident off a guy who has no money with which to repay you.
Yes.

Mandating insurance is a violation rights.

And please prove that I don't mind damage to the environment.

**Sound of drums and trumpets**

A man appears in the window, and claims:

BROTHERS! SOCIALISM WORKS!

www.marinaleda.com


*A brief resume: Marinaleda is a town in the southern spanish province of Sevilla, and in the late 70's their neighbours agreed to live in a socialist manner: collectivization of the ground, progressism, and laicism.

The results:

-You can afford a house there since 36.000€
-Nobody is unemployed

You should also read the explanation of the town's shield. :D

1. Nonsense.
2. Why wouldn't they be able to afford it.
.
2. Because some people can barely afford to buy the gas to get them to work each day. This will be worse if they have to pay tollbooths, private defense and all other expences they couldn't have afforded anyway.


Prove it.
.
Governments have social stability and order as a motive for an end product to win elections. A company simply has profit as a motive they do not have the well being of the nation in mind and chaos increases the demand for their product (hense desirable)


That would be contra to it.
.
As too would be a "liberal" arguing for harsher drug use penalities.


No problem: Jesse Jackson, you favor stronger punishments on drug use.
.

And that is contra to liberal ideology.


Yes.

Mandating insurance is a violation rights.
.

I guess driving isn't a right. Nonetheless if you participate in an activity where you are possibly at risk of damaging other peoples property (and retribution after I crash into a ferarri isn't possible from my own pocket) insurence should be manditory. You still have a choice, get insurence or don't drive.


And please prove that I don't mind damage to the environment.

Because regulation on business is immorale. And also a state that has the power to impose restrictions on a private business can only have bad consequences.

2. Because some people can barely afford to buy the gas to get them to work each day.
And this has what to do with there not being a government?


This will be worse if they have to pay tollbooths, private defense and all other expences they couldn't have afforded anyway.
Wrong.


Governments have social stability and order as a motive for an end product to win elections.
No they don't; they have promises that can never be kept in order to win elections.


A company simply has profit as a motive they do not have the well being of the nation in mind and chaos increases the demand for their product (hense desirable)
False. If there is an increase in chaos, they aren't doing their job. Hence, they will fail.

You obviously flunked Business 101.


As too would be a "liberal" arguing for harsher drug use penalities.
Nope. It's perfectly consistent.


I guess driving isn't a right. Nonetheless if you participate in an activity where you are possibly at risk of damaging other peoples property (and retribution after I crash into a ferarri isn't possible from my own pocket) insurence should be manditory. You still have a choice, get insurence or don't drive.
That's like "your money or your life". Not a real choice.


Because regulation on business is immorale. And also a state that has the power to impose restrictions on a private business can only have bad consequences.
That didn't actually make any sense.

And this has what to do with there not being a government?
.

You asked why people would be able to afford law and order. I simply mentioned how in todays society some can hardly afford gas money.


Wrong.
.

You can claim taxation is theft. But surely if the low income earners who were previously paying minimal to no tax have to pay an equal cost for roads and all other services as a billionaire pays. Than they will be worse off. In reality I don't know how you expect them not to turn to crime.


No they don't; they have promises that can never be kept in order to win elections.
.

Yet I live in a pretty safe nation and have little threat from other individuals. Its less clear that an anarchic society based on individualism could achieve this.


False. If there is an increase in chaos, they aren't doing their job. Hence, they will fail.

You obviously flunked Business 101.
.

Who are they going to turn to. Another police force who also benefits from such chaos.


Nope. It's perfectly consistent.
.

Its as consistent as a Neo con legalising drugs. Not very.



That's like "your money or your life". Not a real choice.
.

So you shouldn't be forced to compensate a 3rd party if you damage their propery? Insurence is the only way to make sure that even the poorest can compensate the rich in case of an accident.


That didn't actually make any sense.

You are agains't the government regulating bussiness.
Tell me how the enviroment will not be polluted more so than today if they are left to do as they wish.

**Sound of drums and trumpets**

A man appears in the window, and claims:

BROTHERS! SOCIALISM WORKS!

www.marinaleda.com


*A brief resume: Marinaleda is a town in the southern spanish province of Sevilla, and in the late 70's their neighbours agreed to live in a socialist manner: collectivization of the ground, progressism, and laicism.

The results:

-You can afford a house there since 36.000€
-Nobody is unemployed

You should also read the explanation of the town's shield. :D

Great. And in a free society, communities can voluntarily choose to do this. No one needs to be forced into it.

The freedom to own a gun deprives another of his freedom to live in a gun free environment.
This argument is exactly the same as one made by those who don't like black people, or those who oppose gay marriage.

If gay people are allowed to get married, that deprives me of my right to live in a society where gay people don't marry. If my neighbour is black, that deprives me of my freedom to live in a society without black people.

In form and function, they are identical complaints.

This argument is exactly the same as one made by those who don't like black people, or those who oppose gay marriage.

If gay people are allowed to get married, that deprives me of my right to live in a society where gay people don't marry. If my neighbour is black, that deprives me of my freedom to live in a society without black people.

In form and function, they are identical complaints.

Should you also have the right to have anti aircraft missiles in your garden. How about a nuclear wepon. Eventually you have to say this is too dangerous for an ordinary civilian to have are you realy taking someones freedom away by not letting them have their own nuclear wepon?
Crime always happens to some extent or another, if individuals have guns more people will be shot its pretty simple all statisitics point to this. And unlike something like a knife it has no other purpose than to kill.

Should you also have the right to have anti aircraft missiles in your garden. How about a nuclear wepon. Eventually you have to say this is too dangerous for an ordinary civilian to have are you realy taking someones freedom away by not letting them have their own nuclear wepon?
Why do you eventually have to say that?

If you don't trust your legal system to deter activities that harm others, isn't that where the problem lies?

Crime always happens to some extent or another
And I have yet to figure out what affects that rate.

if individuals have guns more people will be shot
True, and a red herring. More people will be shot, but will more people be killed?

People often offer statistics about how much more likely a child is to be shot if he lives in a home with a gun. But who cares how the child is killed? Is the risk of death actaully higher, or is it just that some types of death get replaced with shooting? The gun death rate is the wrong stat.

it has no other purpose than to kill.
That's not true of all guns. Some of them are used in sport.

And what about archery? Archery is designed to kill as much as firearms are. Should we ban that, too.

You asked why people would be able to afford law and order. I simply mentioned how in todays society some can hardly afford gas money.
Yes, and that has what to do with what I was talking about? You realize that you're talking about a situation NOW with governments which do naughty things, right? And I'm not speaking about such a situation.


You can claim taxation is theft. But surely if the low income earners who were previously paying minimal to no tax have to pay an equal cost for roads and all other services as a billionaire pays. Than they will be worse off.
Prove it.


Yet I live in a pretty safe nation and have little threat from other individuals. Its less clear that an anarchic society based on individualism could achieve this.
Why? Do you think that people would just go all Hobbesian State of Nature without a government?


Who are they going to turn to. Another police force who also benefits from such chaos.
And then that company makes money by bringing the crime rate down, while the other company founders.


Its as consistent as a Neo con legalising drugs. Not very.
It's quite consistent.


So you shouldn't be forced to compensate a 3rd party if you damage their propery?
Strawman.


Insurence is the only way to make sure that even the poorest can compensate the rich in case of an accident.
That's fine. But mandating it is wrong.



You are agains't the government regulating bussiness.
Tell me how the enviroment will not be polluted more so than today if they are left to do as they wish.
Tell me how it will be.

Great. And in a free society, communities can voluntarily choose to do this. No one needs to be forced into it.

Of course. You just stated what I previously said.

I hope you won't try somehow to mix socialism and totalitarism... :p Because then you'll 1.- will be wrong and 2.- open the door for all those people who freely states that capitalism = oligarchy :D

Tell me how it will be.
It's called the Clean Air Act. Or the Endangered Species Act. Haha, you're wrong.

Of course. You just stated what I previously said.

I hope you won't try somehow to mix socialism and totalitarism... :p Because then you'll 1.- will be wrong and 2.- open the door for all those people who freely states that capitalism = oligarchy :D
I think socialism is dumb, so I wouldn't implement it at all.

My point was that your example removes any need to impose socialism on unwilling participants. Like me.

It's called the Clean Air Act. Or the Endangered Species Act. Haha, you're wrong.
Non sequitur.

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?

"Power-hungry people, whom luck or personal faults have relegated them to impotence, become revolutionaries. They hope that inversion of the social pyrimid will automatically move them from bottom to top." - L. Sprague de Camp, taken from "Science Fictionisms, compiled by William Rotsler.

My own suspicion is that you could apply de Camp's words not merely to revolutionaries and terrorists but also to many of the more peaceful Marxists as well. ^_~

Yes, and that has what to do with what I was talking about? You realize that you're talking about a situation NOW with governments which do naughty things, right? And I'm not speaking about such a situation.
.

You're speaking of a hypothetical society where people will have to pay for all services themselves. Please look at the real world. Blame the government all you want but even with basic welfare free education and other services some people struggle to live from paycheack to paycheack. Now this might be their fault but how do you expect them to function in a society where they need to pay for their own police and to use the roads each day. They just wouldn't be able to do it.


Prove it.
.
Urm.... before they'd be in a progressive taxation system which benefited them. Now they will be on equal economic terms with millionaires. They will be worse off.


Why? Do you think that people would just go all Hobbesian State of Nature without a government?
.

Its a possibility. And if not I would wager that over time power structures would emerge anyway. Seeking to establish control and order.


And then that company makes money by bringing the crime rate down, while the other company founders.
.

And if for a period of time neither is successful or one company closes. How can you be so open to the possibility of a lawless societuy, even if it emerges for a short period of time the recovery process takes time.


It's quite consistent.
.
Er no. Pushing for tougher crime, particuarly for drug use is in no way consistent with liberal ideology.


Strawman.
.

Exacly. So you should have to pay compensation. And without insurence many drivers can't. Its an easy step to say "Therefore if you wish to drive you must get insurence".


That's fine. But mandating it is wrong.
.

The alternative is risking being hit by a driver who can't compensate you. Not only for damages to your car, but if you have any injuries aswell. That is wrong.



Tell me how it will be.

You can make more profit from not looking after the enviroment. The argument agains't the Kyoto agreement was that it would hurt businesses and the economy. Total un-regulation of businesses in this feild would have significantly worse consequences.

If you don't trust your legal system to deter activities that harm others, isn't that where the problem lies?
.

If I could trust the legal system to deter all activities that harm others than violent crime wouldn't exist and guns wouldn't be an issue.
The fact is an angry guy with a gun is more of a threat than an angry guy with a less lethal wepon.


True, and a red herring. More people will be shot, but will more people be killed?
.

Guns make it easyer for people to kill or injure someone. That's what guns are designed to do. Even assuming crime remains at the same level more people will die.


[/i]
That's not true of all guns. Some of them are used in sport.
.
Hunting?


And what about archery? Archery is designed to kill as much as firearms are. Should we ban that, too.

If because of bows and arrows 77 people lost their lives and 207 people were injured in the USA each day I would argue the benefits of having bows and arrows outweighs the cons.

You're speaking of a hypothetical society where people will have to pay for all services themselves. Please look at the real world. Blame the government all you want but even with basic welfare free education and other services some people struggle to live from paycheack to paycheack.
That's now. What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? Why do you not get that after having been told about 5 times now?


Urm.... before they'd be in a progressive taxation system which benefited them. Now they will be on equal economic terms with millionaires. They will be worse off.
Prove it. Restating your claim does not mean that you've proven it.


Its a possibility. And if not I would wager that over time power structures would emerge anyway. Seeking to establish control and order.
Why would there not be order?


And if for a period of time neither is successful or one company closes. How can you be so open to the possibility of a lawless societuy, even if it emerges for a short period of time the recovery process takes time.
Why would it be lawless?


Er no. Pushing for tougher crime, particuarly for drug use is in no way consistent with liberal ideology.
Er, yes, it is.


Exacly. So you should have to pay compensation. And without insurence many drivers can't. Its an easy step to say "Therefore if you wish to drive you must get insurence".
The same easy step toward dictatorship. Mandating insurance is simply wrong.


The alternative is risking being hit by a driver who can't compensate you. Not only for damages to your car, but if you have any injuries aswell. That is wrong.
Mandating insurance is a violation of rights.


You can make more profit from not looking after the enviroment. The argument agains't the Kyoto agreement was that it would hurt businesses and the economy. Total un-regulation of businesses in this feild would have significantly worse consequences.
No, it wouldn't.

Guns make it easyer for people to kill or injure someone. That's what guns are designed to do.
Wrong. Firearms are designed to fire a projectile at a target.

Wrong. Firearms are designed to fire a projectile at a target.
Similarly, flails were designed to provide a heavy and/or spiky object with increased momentum and a way to retract and reuse them and Television was designed to fire cathode rays onto a luminous screen. However, the mechanism is not necessarily the purpose. Necessity is the mother of invention, as the old saying goes. We did not design a projectile-firing device for the mere intention of throwing bullets; it was to be a tool to assist with a certain operation. Argue all you want about what that need was, of course, but whether that was hunting, mindless murder or simply getting fruit down from trees, there was some direct human need that the firearm was designed to fulfil.

we are all agreed that every politicle system in practice so far has its faults...(socialism/comunism: a low econamy) (capatlizm: a high risk of poverty) so what we need is a mix of capatalizm and socialism (socialatizm...or some other name like that) buinesses should be cept small inside there own comunities, comunities should by and sell to other communities and should socialise with other comunities. to see that everything is fair and sold for the wright prise a goverment reprosenative should be elected from each comunitie to go on the goverment bodey for the whole world and this goverment should be incharge of the laws and other politicle rights. buisness and manafacturing inside/for a comunitie should be run by that comunitie but manafactureing for the whole world should be run by the goverment.........of cause heads of the goverment are needed as well as heads for the goverment bodies of each comunities.......lol its hard to explain in words i have missed loads of stuff out on this system i am creating.

we are all agreed that every politicle system in practice so far has its faults...(socialism/comunism: a low econamy) (capatlizm: a high risk of poverty)
No, we are not all agreed to that. And your suggestion of a mixture will inevitably lead to socialism (which becomes dictatorial).

No, we are not all agreed to that. And your suggestion of a mixture will inevitably lead to socialism (which becomes dictatorial).

Capitalism itself is dynamically centralist. A lack of any taxation will leave wealth to be collected in the hands of a small number of people who will use their power to ensure they retain their position in society.

That's now. What does that have to do with what I'm talking about? Why do you not get that after having been told about 5 times now?
.

I'm just taking a leaf out of reality to explain similar if not grater problems your society would face. Cost is a disincentive - I might be ill and could have a disease that could spread to my workmates do I still want to go to hospital?


Prove it. Restating your claim does not mean that you've proven it.


Progressive taxation used today helps give people free healthcare and education to a standard these poor families would not have been able to afford themselves. That does benefit them.


Why would there not be order?


Because not everyone could protect themselves by hiring police. People will eventually find their situation unfair and pick up a Marxist book and think revolution makes sense.


Why would it be lawless?


A police company doesn't set up in a poor area. It has to close in a middle area. Strikes riots can happen. That to me leads to lawlessness.


Er, yes, it is.


"Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and marijuana and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas. The Netherlands, in this respect, may be the most liberal country in the world today. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism



The same easy step toward dictatorship. Mandating insurance is simply wrong.


Why is that a step towards dictatorship? Most nations have had compulsory insurence for driving on the roads for many decades.


Mandating insurance is a violation of rights.


Sometimes its best to take a pragmatic view of an issue. Look at what ideology produces and look at the alternative and decide which is better.


No, it wouldn't.

So by allowing companys to pollute more they'll actually pollute less. I'm sorry I'm not following the logic.

Capitalism itself is dynamically centralist.
No it isn't.

I'm just taking a leaf out of reality to explain similar if not grater problems your society would face. Cost is a disincentive - I might be ill and could have a disease that could spread to my workmates do I still want to go to hospital?
Since there's no government to jack up the cost of healthcare, you should be able to afford it.


Progressive taxation used today helps give people free healthcare and education to a standard these poor families would not have been able to afford themselves.
Allow me to finish the sentence properly "because the government regulations jack up the cost of healthcare and education."


Because not everyone could protect themselves by hiring police.
They can supplement that with their own weapons.


A police company doesn't set up in a poor area.
Why not?


It has to close in a middle area. Strikes riots can happen. That to me leads to lawlessness.
I'm trying to figure out why such would happen.


"Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and marijuana and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas. The Netherlands, in this respect, may be the most liberal country in the world today. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
And that's false.


Why is that a step towards dictatorship?
It takes choice out of the situation. It's like the people who are against abortion because "the woman made the choice to have sex". It's a totally specious argument.


Most nations have had compulsory insurence for driving on the roads for many decades.
Most people believe in god. I don't.


Sometimes its best to take a pragmatic view of an issue. Look at what ideology produces and look at the alternative and decide which is better.
Statism has produced wars and deaths unconscienable.


So by allowing companys to pollute more they'll actually pollute less. I'm sorry I'm not following the logic.
Probably because you're not correctly stating my position.

That's like "your money or your life". Not a real choice.
Just like "work or starve".

Since there's no government to jack up the cost of healthcare, you should be able to afford it.

Quick questions. How, exactly does the existence of a government significantly increase the costs of health care? No doubt regulations do increase costs in some ways, but i would ask how much do they increase the costs. Secondly, with regulations, we're looking at a trade off between protecting the consumer from bad business practices vs. increasing costs. Second question: How are the protections offered by regulations worth more or less than the cost of regulations?

They can supplement that with their own weapons.

The average person would not be as proficient with weaponry as a police company person or many possible assailants. Also, they might not earn enough money to have access to tactical weapons, which are inherently more expensive than your average hunting rifle or pistol.

Why not?

Poor people don't have as much money as middle class or rich people do. Because businesses and the wealthy are rich targets for opportunists (criminals, mercenaries hired by opposition, which is a distinct possibility), they would hire private police contractors to protect their considerable assets. Private police contractors would be drawn to big business because of the scope of such contracts. Like any private corporation, private police would have to have a solid bottom line, or the shareholders would revolt. It wouldn't make much business sense to cater to anyone but those with money.

I'm trying to figure out why such would happen.

Because without an intermediary force, might makes right. It doesn't matter what your contract says if you are powerless to enforce it.

It takes choice out of the situation. It's like the people who are against abortion because "the woman made the choice to have sex". It's a totally specious argument.

Your argument on mandatory insurances is both a slippery slope and a non sequitor. You haven't provided an example where mandatory insurance has led to dictatorship. Indeed, in the US, insurance has been mandatory for all drivers many years now, and there hasn't been a degeneration into dictatorship. No matter how you argue how it is wrong to have mandatory insurance, it still doesn't prove your original claim.

Statism has produced wars and deaths unconscienable.

No doubt of that, but so has religion, and I don't see many people calling for the ban of all religion in society. The power of business has led to wars also, yet i don't see you or calling for a ban of business for that reason. A more pragmatic solution to the wars caused by statism is simply structuring the state so that it must act in accordance to the needs and wishes of its citizens.

A more pragmatic solution to the wars caused by statism is simply structuring the state so that it must act in accordance to the needs and wishes of its citizens.

How would you manage that?

Just like "work or starve".
Just like "breathe or die". Or "your heart beats or you die".

IOW: facts of reality are like that.

Quick questions. How, exactly does the existence of a government significantly increase the costs of health care?
Regulation. Creating a so-called "entitlement" system which not only encourages abuses of it but dumps the remainder of the cost on the private system.


No doubt regulations do increase costs in some ways, but i would ask how much do they increase the costs. Secondly, with regulations, we're looking at a trade off between protecting the consumer from bad business practices vs. increasing costs.
No, we're just looking at government expansion.


Second question: How are the protections offered by regulations worth more or less than the cost of regulations?
Regulations don't protect.


The average person would not be as proficient with weaponry as a police company person or many possible assailants.
Nothing says they can't be.


Also, they might not earn enough money to have access to tactical weapons, which are inherently more expensive than your average hunting rifle or pistol.
And...?


Poor people don't have as much money as middle class or rich people do.
And?


Because businesses and the wealthy are rich targets for opportunists (criminals, mercenaries hired by opposition, which is a distinct possibility), they would hire private police contractors to protect their considerable assets.
Are you under the misguided impression that the private police are mercenaries, solely protecting one charge? I hope you don't foolishly believe that.


Private police contractors would be drawn to big business because of the scope of such contracts. Like any private corporation, private police would have to have a solid bottom line, or the shareholders would revolt. It wouldn't make much business sense to cater to anyone but those with money.
Then it makes no sense for McDonalds to exist.


Because without an intermediary force, might makes right.
Nonsense.


Your argument on mandatory insurances is both a slippery slope and a non sequitor.
No it isn't.


You haven't provided an example where mandatory insurance has led to dictatorship.
I don't have to, since I didn't claim that it has.


No doubt of that, but so has religion, and I don't see many people calling for the ban of all religion in society.
And?


The power of business has led to wars also,
No it hasn't.

The best solution is to eliminate the state, period.

Nothing says they can't be.
.

You will however be left with the problem of, people (who can't afford police) taking the law into their own hands. Is this really desirable.


And...?
.
And your left with a situation where the poor can't protect themselves properly (after they can't hire anyone to do it for them)


And?
.
Essential services everyone needs will be priced in the middle to upper class bracet since they have so much more money to spend.


Then it makes no sense for McDonalds to exist.


Try giving someone a gun and the use of legitimate violence under minimum wage and see what happens.


I didn't claim that it has.
--
[QUOTE=BAAWAKnights]
The same easy step toward dictatorship. Mandating insurance is simply wrong.
.



And?
.
And we can't just go eliminating ideas or bodies that are a discomfort to some people.

You will however be left with the problem of, people (who can't afford police) taking the law into their own hands. Is this really desirable.
Nothing wrong with that, per se.


And your left with a situation where the poor can't protect themselves properly (after they can't hire anyone to do it for them)
You keep claiming that this will happen--en masse I'm assuming you mean. Would you have ANY evidence to show that this will happen?


Essential services everyone needs will be priced in the middle to upper class bracet since they have so much more money to spend.
Then why is Taco Bell so cheap?


Try giving someone a gun and the use of legitimate violence under minimum wage and see what happens.
Huh?


And we can't just go eliminating ideas or bodies that are a discomfort to some people.
We're gradually eliminating certain memes.

Nothing wrong with that, per se.


In court police officers are generally given the benefit of the doubt since their doing a job which specifically helps society more the most. If we have a bum trying to arrest and lock up people can we give him the same respect/trust.


You keep claiming that this will happen--en masse I'm assuming you mean. Would you have ANY evidence to show that this will happen?


12% of america is under the povery line. Prove to me your system will increase equality or I stick with my claim.


Then why is Taco Bell so cheap?


They serve shit food and pay their workers low wages. Do we want shit police who are payed little money?


Huh?


A lot of people don't even know the law fully. I'd wager this is particuarly true of the poorer members of society. You now want to let them enforce this law.


We're gradually eliminating certain memes.

Is this not the case with anarchism :rolleyes:

In court police officers are generally given the benefit of the doubt since their doing a job which specifically helps society more the most. If we have a bum trying to arrest and lock up people can we give him the same respect/trust.
Yes.


12% of america is under the povery line. Prove to me your system will increase equality or I stick with my claim.
Without the government stealing people's money, prices will go down.


They serve shit food and pay their workers low wages.
But I thought companies liked to price their wares to serve the higher earners. Now you're telling me Taco Bell doesn't do that. Make. Up. Your. Mind.


A lot of people don't even know the law fully. I'd wager this is particuarly true of the poorer members of society. You now want to let them enforce this law.
If they are able to. It's called "self defense". Maybe you've heard of it.


Is this not the case with anarchism :rolleyes:No.

ALL HAIL SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!

ALL HAIL SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!
Not the most convincing argument in the world, eh?

Oh well. I suppose it fits the general attitude of the thread, if nothing else.

yeah but wot would u rather have a load of rich people scamming poor people out of wot money they have or would u rather see the end to world poverty and to suffering because of capatalizm

yeah but wot would u rather have a load of rich people scamming poor people out of wot money they have or would u rather see the end to world poverty and to suffering because of capatalizm
There is no such thing as a quick fix. Capitalism (note; there's an S in Capitalism) is certainly a poor solution to the human trade issue, but it's the one we've got so far, and any other system needs an implementation plan.

Hang tight. I reckon there's a third way. As, oddly enough, does Tony Blair, who I have actually begun to suspect may not necessarily be the raging capitalist the popular media makes him out to be...

yeah but wot would u rather have a load of rich people scamming poor people out of wot money they have or would u rather see the end to world poverty and to suffering because of capatalizm
I'd rather see you learn how to spell correctly. Please invest in a spell-checker. Thanks.

who are you to tell me to get a spell checker u need to get a "keep your mouth shut cheker"

who are you to tell me to get a spell checker
Just someone who cringes at the AOL-speak you use. It causes me pain. Please learn to spell correctly. It will actually help you if you do. People tend to take others more seriously if correct spelling is used.

However, if you just want to be known as some dumb kid who doesn't know a damned thing, please feel free to continue without a spell-checker and using AOL-speak.

I'm just trying to help you.

Just someone who cringes at the AOL-speak you use. It causes me pain. Please learn to spell correctly. It will actually help you if you do. People tend to take others more seriously if correct spelling is used.
... Although I can't help but get the feeling that, in that particular little exchange, it mightn't have made much difference to the response.

Socialism offers hope for humanity. However, the United States keeps sabotaging it. We need the United States to be shut down, then peace and freedom will be throughout the world.

-This is the opinion of most of the world outside the USA and the Democrat Party USA.

Socialism offers hope for humanity. However, the United States keeps sabotaging it. We need the United States to be shut down, then peace and freedom will be throughout the world.

-This is the opinion of most of the world outside the USA and the Democrat Party USA.
Except not.

... Although I can't help but get the feeling that, in that particular little exchange, it mightn't have made much difference to the response.
In that particular case, probably not. However, in future cases, it could.

Just someone who cringes at the AOL-speak you use. It causes me pain. Please learn to spell correctly.

Is it wise to tell someone who might like to annoy annoy you one of your pet peeves?

Is it wise to tell someone who might like to annoy annoy you one of your pet peeves?
You think that one's smart enough to be able to do something about it?

You think that one's smart enough to be able to do something about it?

Good point.

Both your systems are obsolete. Capitalism at least worked at one, point, which communism can't lay claim too. So at least capitalism makes some sense. But most the great economic miracles were created under command economies in the 20th century (Italy, Spain, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Egypt etc.)

Both your systems are obsolete. Capitalism at least worked at one, point, which communism can't lay claim too. So at least capitalism makes some sense. But most the great economic miracles were created under command economies in the 20th century (Italy, Spain, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Egypt etc.)

Many teenagers and college students yearn for communism. They believe their parents don't give them enough allowance, so they want the government to give it to them.

However, teenagers don't realize that it is not a good idea to use this as a reason to support communism. It's really better just to ask for a bigger allowance.

Students of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your 12 noon class.

Both your systems are obsolete. Capitalism at least worked at one, point, which communism can't lay claim too. So at least capitalism makes some sense. But most the great economic miracles were created under command economies in the 20th century (Italy, Spain, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Egypt etc.)

Why is capitalism obsolete? Because individual liberty has failed?

Lets see....lets compare the socialist and communist records on human rights, economic power, individual liberty, and freedom to make the most of ones self to that of capitalism. If capitalism does not seem to be the clear winner to you I think a few history classes or a lot of medication are in order ( or both). Lets see......Marx, Hitler, and Stalin......or Adam Smith, Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan. hehe. wow.

Lets see....lets compare the socialist and communist records on human rights, economic power, individual liberty, and freedom to make the most of ones self to that of capitalism. If capitalism does not seem to be the clear winner to you I think a few history classes or a lot of medication are in order ( or both). Lets see......Marx, Hitler, and Stalin......or Adam Smith, Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan. hehe. wow.
Greenspan betrayed his quasi-Austrian-school roots. I despise him for that.

Originally Posted by Blood has been shed
Capitalism itself is dynamically centralist.
No it isn't.

If I have one pence more than I spend at the end of each day I'll get richer. If I have one pence less than I need to stay alive each day I'll get further and further into dept. Unregulated the poor get poorer and money concentrates into the hands of a small number of rich people.


Yes..
And in a small town community what if the brother of a police officer gets in trouble. Or someone new moving into town isn't particuarly welcome but he's a nice guy. Letting people take the law into their own hands giving ignorant/eneducated people power of law enforcement is simply not desirable.



Without the government stealing people's money, prices will go down.
..

Quite true. This doesn't mean the poor won't become poorer.


But I thought companies liked to price their wares to serve the higher earners. Now you're telling me Taco Bell doesn't do that. Make. Up. Your. Mind.
..
Taco bell isn't a product you can easily market to higher earners. Law and order is. There is a difference between the two examples.




No.

Seems to me is only got less popular since the 60's and 70's

If I have one pence more than I spend at the end of each day I'll get richer. If I have one pence less than I need to stay alive each day I'll get further and further into dept. Unregulated the poor get poorer and money concentrates into the hands of a small number of rich people.
False.


And in a small town community what if the brother of a police officer gets in trouble.
You've never lived in a small town, have you?


Or someone new moving into town isn't particuarly welcome but he's a nice guy. Letting people take the law into their own hands giving ignorant/eneducated people power of law enforcement is simply not desirable.
Prove it.


Quite true. This doesn't mean the poor won't become poorer.
Doesn't mean they will be, either.


Taco bell isn't a product you can easily market to higher earners. Law and order is. There is a difference between the two examples.
No, there is none.


I'd also suggest that you have a look at the number of anarchist websites. That should tell you something.

False.
.
With less opportunity and more expenditure needed to survive (self responcibility or whatever you want to call it) this is the inevitable outcome. I know these are poor examples but these are the only ones history has to offer, but look at the 1920's, the bush administration the Thatcher years. The rich and the poor gaps only increased - Quite dramatically.


Prove it.
.

I'm clearly saying things like this are a possibility. And they are, or have you never been to a small town.


Doesn't mean they will be, either.
.

Having to pay for their education, healthcare, road use, personal defence and all that other stuff at the same cost as the rich means they will be hit harder and lose more money as a % of thier income.


No, there is none.


If taco bell goes out of business I don't care. If a worker is lazy or gives me poor service I don't particuarly suffer. Swich this round to the police.


I'd also suggest that you have a look at the number of anarchist websites. That should tell you something.

And? I bet there are a heap of communist/fundamentalist religious/fascist websites as well. It doesn't change the fact that anarchism is getting weaker since the 60's and you say the "bad" ideas are being gradully erased.

With less opportunity and more expenditure needed to survive (self responcibility or whatever you want to call it) this is the inevitable outcome.
Why would there be less opportunity and more expenditure? You're just wildly making assumptions without any backing.


I'm clearly saying things like this are a possibility. And they are, or have you never been to a small town.
When I lived in Iowa for a couple years, the whole school district had about 600 kids. That's 600 for K-12.

So you tell me.


Having to pay for their education, healthcare, road use, personal defence and all that other stuff at the same cost as the rich means they will be hit harder and lose more money as a % of thier income.
No, it doesn't mean they will be hit harder.



If taco bell goes out of business I don't care. If a worker is lazy or gives me poor service I don't particuarly suffer. Swich this round to the police.
Yet you claim that businesses cater to the rich. I'm confused by your switch.


And? I bet there are a heap of communist/fundamentalist religious/fascist websites as well. It doesn't change the fact that anarchism is getting weaker since the 60's and you say the "bad" ideas are being gradully erased.
Actually, it's getting stronger.

Why would there be less opportunity and more expenditure? You're just wildly making assumptions without any backing.
.

I thought we made this point already. With government help children get free education (that they might not have been able to afford) and are given help so they can help themselves.
Without this help they have less opportunity in which to succeed at whatever they want to do. Not to mention without progressive tax those same poor people will be paying more for roads, health and other services which before they were paying a minimal to nothing ammount for.


When I lived in Iowa for a couple years, the whole school district had about 600 kids. That's 600 for K-12.
.
Well my point about small towns was that the local might group together and they'll be the law and look after their own people or people who think a like. (even more possible in religious communities).

But since you mentioned it I think k-12 is an awful system. No kid by 12 is fully rational nor can they decide yet what subjects skills they're good at. Sticking someone potentially smart (Albert Einstein) in a bottom school or class when he would have accelled in his mid teens is silly. Particuarly if you like stuff like politics or philosophy which most 12 year olds won't have a chance to do for a few more years.


No, it doesn't mean they will be hit harder.
.

This isn't a debatable thing. Lets say a poor person was under the lowest tax braket. Before they were paying £0 to use roads, roads are privitised and now s/he has to pay £5 each day to use the same road. That WILL hit him/her harder. You can disagree that its worth it to give people opportunities and help but you can't disagree that the poor will suffer or are hit harder with debt with no help.



Yet you claim that businesses cater to the rich. I'm confused by your switch.
.

Okay my fault. I agree not every business caters to the rich I phrased it baddly. However with the police your wealth is irrellivent you need it and it takes a large workforce to control law and order. It'll be priced in the middle range especially as the middle class and richer individuals have more need for police. The poor people will either settle for no law and order or poor quality law and order.


Actually, it's getting stronger.

Okay sure I wasn't alive in the 60's nor do I pay much attention to anarchism to have noticed the trend. But why do you value "popular support" for an idea when you're so agains't democracy and you'd say it means nothing (not even that its a good idea) if communism for example suddenly because increasingly popular.

I thought we made this point already.
You thought incorrectly.


With government help children get free education (that they might not have been able to afford) and are given help so they can help themselves.
Again, you keep thinking in terms of NOW. Now is when we have government interference causing a resource-shift, which impacts prices upward.


Without this help they have less opportunity in which to succeed at whatever they want to do. Not to mention without progressive tax those same poor people will be paying more for roads, health and other services which before they were paying a minimal to nothing ammount for.
Taxation is theft, no matter how you slice it. And again, you keep thinking in terms of now, when the government impacts prices upwardly.


Well my point about small towns was that the local might group together and they'll be the law and look after their own people or people who think a like. (even more possible in religious communities).
Is that such a bad thing?


But since you mentioned it I think k-12 is an awful system. No kid by 12 is fully rational nor can they decide yet what subjects skills they're good at. Sticking someone potentially smart (Albert Einstein) in a bottom school or class when he would have accelled in his mid teens is silly. Particuarly if you like stuff like politics or philosophy which most 12 year olds won't have a chance to do for a few more years.
Compulsory education is a great way for the state to brainwash children. It was also pretty much begun in the US as a way to Protestantize the Catholics. Just a little history lesson for you.



This isn't a debatable thing.
Yes, it is.


Lets say a poor person was under the lowest tax braket. Before they were paying £0 to use roads,
They were? What about the costs of auto registration? What about the costs of getting a drivers license? What about the huge tax on gas?

Remember: you have to look beyond the surface to that which you don't see.


roads are privitised and now s/he has to pay £5 each day to use the same road. That WILL hit him/her harder. You can disagree that its worth it to give people opportunities and help but you can't disagree that the poor will suffer or are hit harder with debt with no help.
I can certainly disagree that it will cost that much and that it will hurt the person.


Okay my fault. I agree not every business caters to the rich I phrased it baddly. However with the police your wealth is irrellivent you need it and it takes a large workforce to control law and order.
Not necessarily. It only is large currently because of bullshit laws, like those against drug use and prostitution.


It'll be priced in the middle range especially as the middle class and richer individuals have more need for police. The poor people will either settle for no law and order or poor quality law and order.
False dichotomy.


Okay sure I wasn't alive in the 60's nor do I pay much attention to anarchism to have noticed the trend. But why do you value "popular support" for an idea when you're so agains't democracy and you'd say it means nothing (not even that its a good idea) if communism for example suddenly because increasingly popular.
I value popular support insofar as certain things require such support, like the existence of morality. It requires the hypothetico-actual agreements among individuals to refrain from doing certain things, i.e. popular support, in a sense.

Again, you keep thinking in terms of NOW. Now is when we have government interference causing a resource-shift, which impacts prices upward.
.

Even if prices lowered dramatically private education will still cost more than the (almost) nothing that the poor contribute now.


And again, you keep thinking in terms of now, when the government impacts prices upwardly.
.

You're thinking in an idealist manner. Just because V.A.T or other taxes may disapear this done mean everyone will be able to afford all the things they need.


Compulsory education is a great way for the state to brainwash children. It was also pretty much begun in the US as a way to Protestantize the Catholics. Just a little history lesson for you.
.

Keep religion away from the state. Have independent boards set the agenda and criteria for the subjects and its fine.



They were? What about the costs of auto registration? What about the costs of getting a drivers license? What about the huge tax on gas?

Remember: you have to look beyond the surface to that which you don't see.
.

Okay well than its an extra cost on a load they can already struggle to handle. With can't just accept a market free for all.


I can certainly disagree that it will cost that much and that it will hurt the person.
.

Congestion charge in London is £10 a day.


Not necessarily. It only is large currently because of bullshit laws, like those against drug use and prostitution.
.

I agree those laws are bullshit and I support getting rid of them.


I value popular support insofar as certain things require such support, like the existence of morality. It requires the hypothetico-actual agreements among individuals to refrain from doing certain things, i.e. popular support, in a sense.

Nicely said.

Even if prices lowered dramatically private education will still cost more than the (almost) nothing that the poor contribute now.
Except for school fees and other manners of taxes.


You're thinking in an idealist manner.
No, just in a proper manner.


Keep religion away from the state. Have independent boards set the agenda and criteria for the subjects and its fine.
A better way is to have the whole system private.


Okay well than its an extra cost on a load they can already struggle to handle. With can't just accept a market free for all.
Why can't we? You keep making that assertion without ever providing any VALID reason for it.


Congestion charge in London is £10 a day.
Charged by whom, one asks.

Lets see....lets compare the socialist and communist records on human rights, economic power, individual liberty, and freedom to make the most of ones self to that of capitalism. If capitalism does not seem to be the clear winner to you I think a few history classes or a lot of medication are in order ( or both). Lets see......Marx, Hitler, and Stalin......or Adam Smith, Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan. hehe. wow.

Let's analyze what each person really stands for.

Karl Marx Purely an idealist, never really did anything besides write why capitalism is bad. No people dead to his name. Was genuinely disgusted at the treatment of common people by industrial capitalists. Virulently anit-authoritarian, probably rolled over in his grave when Stalin came to power.

Adolf Hitler Not a socialist! Though he is a genuinely evil man, the ideology he followed incorporated elements of fascism, tribalism and statism to created a very destructive force. He violently persecuted socialists, and called socialism part of "the vast Jewish conspiracy."

Josef Stalin A man who used socialist ideologies to mask his own selfish ends. He is perhaps the single most hated figure among modern socialists, his doctrines completely destroyed the socialist ideal.

Adam Smith Very much like Karl Marx, just an idealist. Wrote much on the subject of laissez faire doctrine. Genuinely despised oppression made by feudal forces of the day.

Ronald Reagan Nearly brought the world to nuclear armageddon with his Star Wars missile defense program and accompanying saber rattling. Supporter of many Third World dictators, including Saddam Hussein and Augusto Pinochet. Not to mention the Iran-Contra scandal.

Alan Greenspan Served as chairman of the federal Reserve. Big fricking deal.

The balance of history is not as in favor of capitalism as you would think.

The balance of history is not as in favor of capitalism as you would think.

Well, given that almost all of the Communist states are dead and capitalism is bringing 2.3 billion people out of poverty I would say the balance of history is on the side of capitalism.

However, the Hilter/Stalin Barygoldwater mentioned are not examples of true socialists by any stretch of the term...hell, Hitler actually loathed Communism.

Lets throw Corporatism's three models in there for comparison. I'm tired of these debates being painted like theres a grand total of two possible economic models.

Francisco Franco: "The Spanish Miracle". Drove communism out of spain. Created the highest standard of living his country had ever seen and ensured stable government after his death out what was once an "ungovernable" country. Probably did more to win the cold war than Ronald Regan even came close to.

Park Chung-Hee: "Miracle on the Han River". Funny fact about corporatist regimes, just about anywhere they go you here about the "[their country] miracle". Took a country that under capitalism had a GDP per capita comparable to most africa states. A state under constant threat of warfare, with immense historical instability, and non-existant industrial capacity not to mention a country split in half.

Antonio De Oliviera Salazar: Franco Mark I. Second fastest growing economy in western europe right behind, you guessed it, Francisco Franco. Took a country out of semi-feudelism into the 20th century under his guidance.

If I could trust the legal system to deter all activities that harm others than violent crime wouldn't exist and guns wouldn't be an issue.
In a free society, there will always be some crime. If we're free to choose, some of us will choose to harm others. The job of the legal system is to make that alternative less attractive. Apparently you don't think it's doing a very good job.

The fact is an angry guy with a gun is more of a threat than an angry guy with a less lethal wepon.
Yes. As a lethal weapon, firearms make every user more of a danger to himself and others than he would otherwise be (assuming he has equal skill will all weapons). But is that a good enough reason to prohibit something?

And if it is, where do you stop? Once there are no guns, are knives too dangerous? I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument - I'm asking what criterion you're using to determine how dangerous something needs to be before you want to prohibit it.

Guns make it easyer for people to kill or injure someone. That's what guns are designed to do. Even assuming crime remains at the same level more people will die.
Nice supposition. Do you have any data?

Hunting?
Or target shooting. There are olympic sports based around firearms (including my favourite, the modern pentathlon).

If because of bows and arrows 77 people lost their lives and 207 people were injured in the USA each day I would argue the benefits of having bows and arrows outweighs the cons.
Bows require some level of skill. Perhaps they would cause that many deaths in the absence of guns. I refer to my previous question about levels of danger.

Lets throw Corporatism's three models in there for comparison. I'm tired of these debates being painted like theres a grand total of two possible economic models/
Corporatism = fascism = socialism.

Oooh ooh, I can play "vast generalizations" too!

Capitalism = Materialism = Communism

Lets throw Corporatism's three models in there for comparison. I'm tired of these debates being painted like theres a grand total of two possible economic models.

Francisco Franco: "The Spanish Miracle". Drove communism out of spain. Created the highest standard of living his country had ever seen and ensured stable government after his death out what was once an "ungovernable" country. Probably did more to win the cold war than Ronald Regan even came close to.

He was also a brutal fascist dictator, and was a supporter of Adolf Hitler. Spain would have entered the Axis alliance in WWII if Spain had anything to offer to it. He ordered thousands of summary executions of political dissidents.

Saying that his "Spanish Miracle" compensates for his crimes against humanity would be the same as saying that Stalin's Five Year Plan's outcomes outweighed the terrible human cost.

Park Chung-Hee: "Miracle on the Han River". Funny fact about corporatist regimes, just about anywhere they go you here about the "[their country] miracle". Took a country that under capitalism had a GDP per capita comparable to most africa states. A state under constant threat of warfare, with immense historical instability, and non-existant industrial capacity not to mention a country split in half.

Another brutal, autocratic dictator. Commited wide spread human rights abuses through out his regime in South Korea. He was the single greatest obstacle to democracy in South Korea. His regime was perhaps the most repressive in a long line of repressive regimes in South Korea prior to the end of the Cold War.

Antonio De Oliviera Salazar: Franco Mark I. Second fastest growing economy in western europe right behind, you guessed it, Francisco Franco. Took a country out of semi-feudelism into the 20th century under his guidance.

Another brutal, repressive dictator. His policies greatly helped the wealthy in his corporatist regime, while grinding the poor in Portugal into dust. How great this man be if he murder's and represses his people?

He was also a brutal fascist dictator, and was a supporter of Adolf Hitler. Spain would have entered the Axis alliance in WWII if Spain had anything to offer to it. He ordered thousands of summary executions of political dissidents.

Saying that his "Spanish Miracle" compensates for his crimes against humanity would be the same as saying that Stalin's Five Year Plan's outcomes outweighed the terrible human cost.
Ah the typical communist line. Hey, you guys killed a few people in war, so thats just like our massive extermination system. He actually did more to stop the crimes of the Axis then either the communist or democratic nations by allowing in Jewish immigrants, unlike the soviets or the Americans.

Another brutal, autocratic dictator. Commited wide spread human rights abuses through out his regime in South Korea. He was the single greatest obstacle to democracy in South Korea. His regime was perhaps the most repressive in a long line of repressive regimes in South Korea prior to the end of the Cold War.
It would be irresponsible and immoral for an effective government to give way to an innefective and immoral one, such as the Juche-Happy regime they have now.

Another brutal, repressive dictator. His policies greatly helped the wealthy in his corporatist regime, while grinding the poor in Portugal into dust. How great this man be if he murder's and represses his people?
Because he was the one who brought human dignity to Portugals poor. You know why Portugal is a normal functional member of Europe today? Salazar. Its always been the logic of communists and capitalists that its a better deal to get 100% of 60 then 70% of one hundred. The standard of living for people throughout portugal exploded throughout his reign, but the communists still whine that some people got more then others. Yeah, but the poor got more then they would under a socialist regime. But a raise in the standard of living of the rich and the poor is heresy to 19th century scarcity based economic theory! Therefor the poor must have suffered.

Oooh ooh, I can play "vast generalizations" too!
Trouble is: it's not a vast generalization. It's quite correct.

Why Nazism is Socialism and why Socialism is Totalitarian (http://www.mises.org/story/1937) by George Reisman.

Now Nazism was just German-style fascism, but the Italian style differed only in that there were no gas chambers for the jews.

Proclamations by an opposing figure that "you are alike" does not make it so. You have only the vaguest understandings of Nazi and even less of Fascist theory.

You also have not rebutted my claim that
Capitalism = Materialism = Communism

When the free market has been proven throughout history to provide the most prosperity to the most people. And generally free markets= free people and elected governments. So how can anyone honestly want socialism or communism?
They are fraught with self-denial and delusions, that is why. Hayek and Mises saw the legs right beneath their doomed propositions. True anarchy can only come about with an elimination of scarcity, if this can be done, and even then anarchy may not ensue or persist.

You also have not rebutted my claim that
Capitalism = Materialism = Communism
On what bases? Both systems have materialism inherent within.

On what bases? Both systems have materialism inherent within.
Right, and I'm defending a third position. If hes going to make the wild claim that all centralized systems are the same, then why not also accept the wild claim that all materialist systems are the same?

Right, and I'm defending a third position. If hes going to make the wild claim that all centralized systems are the same, then why not also accept the wild claim that all materialist systems are the same?
Again, what is the logic behind this? Capitalists are well aware that capitalism has inherently materialist tendencies; it leaves it to the individual to act upon them though. The former point is true of all economic systems, the latter peculiar to the free market. Centralised systems are similar, on differing levels.

We seem to be using different definitions of Materialistic.
I don't mean in a sense that they value Material things, but that they see history as primarilly played out by economic rather then national factors as a Fascist does. To lump Fascism in with Socialism works as well as lumping it with Capitalism I.E. Not very well.

We seem to be using different definitions of Materialistic.
I don't mean in a sense that they value Material things, but that they see history as primarilly played out by economic rather then national factors as a Fascist does. To lump Fascism in with Socialism works as well as lumping it with Capitalism I.E. Not very well.
Do you realise why socialism is lumped with Fascism? Have you read the Road to Serfdom by Hayek?

Proclamations by an opposing figure that "you are alike" does not make it so. You have only the vaguest understandings of Nazi and even less of Fascist theory.
*laughs*

If you say so, shnookums.

We seem to be using different definitions of Materialistic.
I don't mean in a sense that they value Material things, but that they see history as primarilly played out by economic rather then national factors as a Fascist does. To lump Fascism in with Socialism works as well as lumping it with Capitalism I.E. Not very well.
So you didn't read the article. Tis ok; persist in your ignorance if you like. But fascism truly is just dishonest communism, which, of course, is a type of socialism.

No, because I leave the art of defining an Ideology largely on those who expound it. If I am interested in learning about capitalism I would read Adam Smith, If I was to read about Marxism I would Read Karl Marx. It would be stupid for me to get my working definition of capitalism (or fascism) from Josef Stalin. Instead I trust it to writers like Gentile, Mussolini, Spirito and Dennis to define fascism. They make quite a compelling case that its a third system of economics. In a three polar system, the other two always seem similar, and thus get lumped together by there opponents.
Socialism is classist in its definition of society, while Fascism is inherently nationalists. All economics are tied directly to the nationstate and structure that socialism opposes. Fascism does not embrace a command economy for the same reasons as socialism at all. Fascism clings to command economy structures only so much as they are usefull to strengthening the nations economy. When the free market can do that, Fascism supports the free market, as it did throughout the 1920s. However if a Command economy can do better, the Fascist uses that instead.
Socialism, however has entirely different economic goals, the restructuring of wealth, regardless of the economic efficiency. They are entirely dependent on the command economy for there redistributive needs, which far overtake any desire for economic efficiency, same as desire for personal freedom overtakes the need for economic efficiency in the capitalist state. If I had to summarize this view it would be as such

Capitalism is Economic Freedom
Communism is Economic Fairness
Corporatism is Economic Efficiency (Gotta think of something that starts with F):p

No, because I leave the art of defining an Ideology largely on those who expound it. If I am interested in learning about capitalism I would read Adam Smith,
No, you wouldn't.


If I was to read about Marxism I would Read Karl Marx. It would be stupid for me to get my working definition of capitalism (or fascism) from Josef Stalin. Instead I trust it to writers like Gentile, Mussolini, Spirito and Dennis to define fascism. They make quite a compelling case that its a third system of economics.
And "intelligent design" advocates like to say that they aren't trying to get creationism taught in schools. But they are. Similarly, for all of the cries of the fascists against socialism, fascism is socialism.

So you didn't read the article. Tis ok; persist in your ignorance if you like. But fascism truly is just dishonest communism, which, of course, is a type of socialism.
Actually I did read the article. It basicly ammounts to, "Hey theres some vague similarities between naziism and socialism" and then you took that and added "Hey theres even some vaguer similarities between naziism and fascism" and then pronounced "Fascism is the Same as communism".
But since you seem to be so knowledgable about Fascist theory, why do you need me to spell it out for you in this thread. Surely you read Lawrence Dennis, or Ugo Spirito or in the very least Gentile.

Jesus, I thought this thread died two weeks ago.

Kids, if you feel so strongly about this, go make a change. Go gather up a few thousand of your friends and start a lobbying group, or run for a public office. You're not going to change the world, nor anybody's mind, by bitching on an internet forum. That's traditionally how stuff gets done, if you're too squeamish to start a bloody revolution.

Further, assuming that any government's stance on anything is really a determining factor in a global corporation's management is quite wrong. Corporations are more or less landless nations of their own these days. They make their own laws, they have their own leaders, they pay off politicians. Deal with it.

Lastly, while it's all well and good to point to America as a capitalist country, it's very shortsighted to assume that America's financial problems are all due to that fact, instead of assuming that it's the vast lack of any kind of consistency or concern on the part of the government as to the government's own budget. America's a lot more than just "an example of capitalism."

That is your answer? You disregard the works of potentially greater minds than either Smith or Marx because they did not come up with the original theory? Smith did not invent capitalism...Fascism is a form of collectivism in that, like socialism, to attain certain ends it uses certain means...it imposes uniformity of taste and tries to create a certain class unity. It discriminates against those who would oppose its ends, be they the rich, the Jews, whatever. Fascist thought evolved from socialist thought, incidentally. Proto-fascism was the product of German intellectuals who were avowed Marxists or even socialists, yet who realised what it would take to bring about the ends they sought.

Do you honestly think that a society which relies on coercion will ever allow a free market to grow? To allow the very thing that could undermine its foundations? Keep in mind, monopolies are easy to control, hence fascism does support them. Even Marx did...he referred to them as the "concentration of the industries." Monopolies are the enemy of the free-market. I also disagree with your statement that Communism is fairness...fairness by what definition?

No, you wouldn't.



And "intelligent design" advocates like to say that they aren't trying to get creationism taught in schools. But they are. Similarly, for all of the cries of the fascists against socialism, fascism is socialism.
And you have offered little ideological examples of this, other then your own pronouncement and vague corralations to an entirely different arguement.

Communism is supposed to have equality. You get the same as everyone else, whether you deserve it or not, which isn't fairness.

Actually I did read the article. It basicly ammounts to, "Hey theres some vague similarities between naziism and socialism"
Meaning that you lied when you said you read the article. Quelle suprise.

That is your answer? You disregard the works of potentially greater minds than either Smith or Marx because they did not come up with the original theory? Smith did not invent capitalism...Fascism is a form of collectivism in that, like socialism, to attain certain ends it uses certain means...it imposes uniformity of taste and tries to create a certain class unity. It discriminates against those who would oppose its ends, be they the rich, the Jews, whatever. Fascist thought evolved from socialist thought, incidentally. Proto-fascism was the product of German intellectuals who were avowed Marxists or even socialists, yet who realised what it would take to bring about the ends they sought.
Congratulations, a stunning display that you haven't even the slightest clue what Fascism is, where it started, or its economic theory.

Do you honestly think that a society which relies on coercion will ever allow a free market to grow?
So we should ignore ten years of Fascist government in order to appease your theory?

Communism is supposed to have equality. You get the same as everyone else, whether you deserve it or not, which isn't fairness.
Not quite. It is more complex than that. And it is most certainly not fairness. It is the arbitrary decision of the party elite, the worker's councils, whomever governs the given society.

And you have offered little ideological examples of this, other then your own pronouncement and vague corralations to an entirely different arguement.
No, I offered a speech/article. Which you didn't read. And then you lied about reading it.

You're not impressing me.

Congratulations, a stunning display that you haven't even the slightest clue what Fascism is, where it started, or its economic theory.
Then prove me wrong. Prove Hayek wrong.

So we should ignore ten years of Fascist government in order to appease your theory?
Not theory. Reality.

Meaning that you lied when you said you read the article. Quelle suprise.
It amounts to
Naziism and Socialism both used command economys therefor must be the same thing.

Not quite. It is more complex than that. And it is most certainly not fairness. It is the arbitrary decision of the party elite, the worker's councils, whomever governs the given society.

Wait, so you're telling me that the people in charge tend to not only make the decisions, but also tend to be biased based upon their position in society? Jesus, this is revolutionary!

It amounts to
Naziism and Socialism both used command economys therefor must be the same thing.
Meaning: you didn't read the article, and then you lied and said you did. Quelle suprise.

Wait, so you're telling me that the people in charge tend to not only make the decisions, but also tend to be biased based upon their position in society? Jesus, this is revolutionary!
...

I am clarifying misconceptions based on how communism works. Save the sad attempt at sarcasm.

Then prove me wrong. Prove Hayek wrong.
I don't have to, I have 22 years of Fascist Government to prove him wrong. I have every legitimate scholar on the study of Fascism wrong. Considering he doesn't even talk about Fascism in the article, he talks about Naziism, I don't see what I'm supposed to rebut.

Not theory. Reality.
Then tell me, what happened for the first ten years of Fascist Government. It is theory, because its an Idea about the way things should work, but a briefest knowledge of Italian history is all that is required to realize why it falls flat.

I don't have to, I have 22 years of Fascist Government to prove him wrong. I have every legitimate scholar on the study of Fascism wrong. Considering he doesn't even talk about Fascism in the article, he talks about Naziism, I don't see what I'm supposed to rebut.
Read the Road to Serfdom, then we speak. Nazism is a form of fascism, incidentally.

Then tell me, what happened for the first ten years of Fascist Government. It is theory, because its an Idea about the way things should work, but a briefest knowledge of Italian history is all that is required to realize why it falls flat.
What fascism promoted was crony-capitalism, not the free market in any true sense of the word. Libertarians make a sharp distinction between a monopolistic free market and a true one. Monopolistic free markets are regarded collectivist.

I don't have to, I have 22 years of Fascist Government to prove him wrong. I have every legitimate scholar on the study of Fascism wrong. Considering he doesn't even talk about Fascism in the article, he talks about Naziism, I don't see what I'm supposed to rebut.
The author of the article wasn't Friedrick Hayek. Again, this proves you didn't read the article and that you're lying your ass off.

Read the Road to Serfdom, then we speak.
I don't see why thats a requirement for debate. Have you read "The coming american Fascism"? Or howbout a nice brief one, 14 pages "The Philosophical Doctrine of Fascism". Have you read any fascist literature before reaching your conclusion.

Nazism is a form of fascism, incidentally.
Thats a whole nother, extremely stupid, can of worms.


What fascism promoted was crony-capitalism, not the free market in any true sense of the word. Libertarians make a sharp distinction between a monopolistic free market and a true one.
Which shows that no, you don't have a working knowledge of Fascist theory, or even basic Italian History. The Freemarket boom of the 20s was built around small business owners, merchants, artisans etc. The reason why Command economy was required was because Monopoly's were slow to form throughout the twenties. Like I said, try learning the background information of the subject before you try getting into theories you don't understand. Your going at it with a high-school text books paragraph long understanding of Italian History.

The author of the article wasn't Friedrick Hayek. Again, this proves you didn't read the article and that you're lying your ass off.
No it proves I read the content of the article, rather then the whole website first like a putz. Either way the article is very stupid, with limited understanding of Nazi History, Less understanding of Nazi theory, and then combined with your less then subpar understanding of Fascist theory.

*snip*
All right then. Go on. Explain fascist theory. Or shut it.

No it proves I read the content of the article,
Not when you get the author wrong, and I even told you who the author was.

You. Lied.

And now you're just crying because your pet piece of bullshit has been exposed for nothing more than totalitarianism. Tough shit.

Read the Road to Serfdom, then we speak.
That should be a worldwide requirement for suffrage.

That should be a worldwide requirement for suffrage.
Sad that Hayek wasn't one of the popular mainstream economists...were he so, perhaps he would possess the prestige Keynes undeservedly holds today.

Fair enough. Fascist theory, before we can get to Economic theory must first go into Sociological Theory. Fascist thinkers were quick to pick up on the science of Sociology (Which is incidently what distinguishes in from Naziism). Fascism sees the individual as wholy shaped by the nation. You would not be able to hold capitalist theories without
A) The language you learned (Language plays a large part of shaping our view of reality)
B) The values that were imprinted on you by your nation
and
C) The physical realities of your nation, I.E. the fact that whatever books you read were available, and your not in China where such would be unnavailable.

Second, Nation is defined as the primary social group. Here is where it divides starkly with Marxist sociological theory. Marx defined the major organization of humans by their economic class. A German worker was fundementally the same as an Italian worker. Fascist theory was correct to see that Nation is what defines people, mostly for reasons ABC. There is only a small river that seperates Korea from China, yet the people there are fundementally different. You mentioned "class unity" here is what it means to fascist theory. Class, is fundementally a secondary loyalty to Nation. An American steel worker is fundementally the same as an American Factory owner, but they play different economic roles.

Nation is also the primary predictor of human behavior. Take for example the second world war. How American Citizens were traitors to the Axis cause. A handful maybe? I doubt you could name more then ten Americans who defected to the Germans. Certainly if class was the deciding behavioral factor, Japanese workers would strike and not have worked such difficult hours and would have revolted, and if self-interest were the key factor they would surrender at the first site of the Americans, or whoever would offer them the best personal advantage. But loyalty dispite class ties, religious ties, racial ties, and personal interest could be tied to national homeland almost without exception.

Ah you say, there were traitors in that war? But here again Fascist theory shows why, the vast majority were Ukrainians and Baltic staters, and therefor even the act of treason was one of national interest. Same goes for the South East Asians.

So we've established, in the very least in fascist theory, that people of the same cultural setting will congregate into Nationstates. Since this is going to be the primary means of social structure, it must be defended. This is also where Marxism and Fascism break sociologically, Marxism is part of the Conflict theory, that a society is composed of combative factions each seeking control. Fascism is functionalist theory, that all parts of society must work harmoniously (Religion, Education, Military, Economy) etc. in order for anyone to survive, hence the totalitarian state.

So now we've got this Nationstate that is the primary direction of human behavior. So fascist theory declares that a fascist economy is one that brings the nations economy, and ultimately the nation into highest performance.

But now we can get into the details. Marxism is a scarcity based economic theory. There is almost so much that can be done with resources. Therefor they have this imaginary cap on how much money there is, and therefor reach the stupid conclusion that in order for someone to have more money, it can only happen by taking it from somebody else. Hence redistributive policy.

Fascism on the other hand came along a bit later, Several decades after Marx. Fascism saw that economic efficiency has no feasable ceiling. Thats the Economics of Plenty, that there is fundementally, enough money to provide for everyone. Money is a representation of productive ability, so as productive ability goes up (better organization, more equipment and better technology) so does wealth. Therefor the goal is always to raise productive ability. Socialism just kind of ignores that and thinks the best way to feed the people is to rob from the rich.

Now those two words "raise production" trump all in fascist theory. Anything that doesn't do that is not strictly neccesary and anything that goes against that is patently absurd. This means that Fascism does not endorse command economys or market economys because they are lovely or free or fair. They endorse them because they work. A saw which is dull is not to be used.

I could go further into theories on why capitalism and particularly socialism, do not reach peak economic efficiency's but I think you've got the basic understanding of Fascist theory.

And now you're just crying because your pet piece of bullshit has been exposed for nothing more than totalitarianism. Tough shit.
Who ever said it wasn't totalitarianism? You know we invented that word right? Again you show a stunning lack of knowledge of history, or in the very least the etymology. I thought they taught this stuff at school.

So essentially you are collectivist, in that the nation comes before the individual (something many socialists realised that to foster the class unity they required the nation had to come before the individual), and you base yourselves on Keynesian economics, ie that productivity and output must constantly rise. The version of capitalism you support is hence mixed with a hefty dose of regulation, as it is needed. Thus, you are linked to socialism as socialism is linked to Keynesian economics...the individual is the least significant unit in the equation. The fact that you do not necessarily use a command economy does not somehow conceptually divorce you from collectivist theory.

Fair enough. Fascist theory, before we can get to Economic theory must first go into Sociological Theory. Fascist thinkers were quick to pick up on the science of Sociology (Which is incidently what distinguishes in from Naziism). Fascism sees the individual as wholy shaped by the nation.
Which, interestingly enough, is part of socialism and nazism. Hegel's Geist. And of course "Ein volk, ein reich, ein Fuhrer".


You would not be able to hold capitalist theories without
A) The language you learned (Language plays a large part of shaping our view of reality)
B) The values that were imprinted on you by your nation
and
C) The physical realities of your nation, I.E. the fact that whatever books you read were available, and your not in China where such would be unnavailable.

Second, Nation is defined as the primary social group. Here is where it divides starkly with Marxist sociological theory. Marx defined the major organization of humans by their economic class. A German worker was fundementally the same as an Italian worker. Fascist theory was correct to see that Nation is what defines people, mostly for reasons ABC. There is only a small river that seperates Korea from China, yet the people there are fundementally different. You mentioned "class unity" here is what it means to fascist theory. Class, is fundementally a secondary loyalty to Nation. An American steel worker is fundementally the same as an American Factory owner, but they play different economic roles.
However, we are individuals, not just cogs of a nation. Which is what socialism/fascism/communism say.


Nation is also the primary predictor of human behavior.
That, of course, is a load of crap.


Take for example the second world war. How American Citizens were traitors to the Axis cause. A handful maybe? I doubt you could name more then ten Americans who defected to the Germans. Certainly if class was the deciding behavioral factor, Japanese workers would strike and not have worked such difficult hours and would have revolted, and if self-interest were the key factor they would surrender at the first site of the Americans, or whoever would offer them the best personal advantage. But loyalty dispite class ties, religious ties, racial ties, and personal interest could be tied to national homeland almost without exception.
Not necessarily.


Ah you say, there were traitors in that war? But here again Fascist theory shows why, the vast majority were Ukrainians and Baltic staters, and therefor even the act of treason was one of national interest. Same goes for the South East Asians.
And we're waiting for some major differences between socialism and fascism.


So we've established, in the very least in fascist theory, that people of the same cultural setting will congregate into Nationstates.
Same thing in socialism/communism.


Since this is going to be the primary means of social structure, it must be defended. This is also where Marxism and Fascism break sociologically, Marxism is part of the Conflict theory, that a society is composed of combative factions each seeking control. Fascism is functionalist theory, that all parts of society must work harmoniously (Religion, Education, Military, Economy) etc. in order for anyone to survive, hence the totalitarian state.
Marxism requires that all parts must work harmoniously, too.


So now we've got this Nationstate that is the primary direction of human behavior. So fascist theory declares that a fascist economy is one that brings the nations economy, and ultimately the nation into highest performance.
Replace "fascism" with "socialism" and it works.


But now we can get into the details. Marxism is a scarcity based economic theory. There is almost so much that can be done with resources. Therefor they have this imaginary cap on how much money there is, and therefor reach the stupid conclusion that in order for someone to have more money, it can only happen by taking it from somebody else. Hence redistributive policy.
Fascism has the silly notion of redistribution as well, but it involves redistributing work.


Fascism on the other hand came along a bit later, Several decades after Marx. Fascism saw that economic efficiency has no feasable ceiling. Thats the Economics of Plenty, that there is fundementally, enough money to provide for everyone. Money is a representation of productive ability, so as productive ability goes up (better organization, more equipment and better technology) so does wealth. Therefor the goal is always to raise productive ability. Socialism just kind of ignores that and thinks the best way to feed the people is to rob from the rich.

Now those two words "raise production" trump all in fascist theory. Anything that doesn't do that is not strictly neccesary and anything that goes against that is patently absurd. This means that Fascism does not endorse command economys or market economys because they are lovely or free or fair. They endorse them because they work. A saw which is dull is not to be used.

I could go further into theories on why capitalism and particularly socialism, do not reach peak economic efficiency's but I think you've got the basic understanding of Fascist theory.
On the contrary: we've seen that you don't understand it. You're just regurgitating what you've read. But you don't understand it.

True, I don't deny that. My point is that by saying because we have command economy elements we are the same and socialism, your no different then when Joseph Stalin says Fascism is the Highest Form of Capitalism I.E. Your taking broad apparent similarities and then lumping it together, much the same way a bear and a horse are the same because they use four legs to get around.

True, I don't deny that. My point is that by saying because we have command economy elements we are the same and socialism, your no different then when Joseph Stalin says Fascism is the Highest Form of Capitalism I.E. Your taking broad apparent similarities and then lumping it together, much the same way a bear and a horse are the same because they use four legs to get around.
That has never been my argument...nor that of any proponent of the theory that Socialism and Fascism (and even Social Democracy) share the same roots. Social Democracy doesn't use a command economy either you see, it simply puts the individual behind the needs of a certain majority. That is the link we are trying to draw to collectivism, not whether this system or that chooses to use a command economy or a capitalist economy.

Who ever said it wasn't totalitarianism? You know we invented that word right? Again you show a stunning lack of knowledge of history, or in the very least the etymology. I thought they taught this stuff at school.
Again, you show a stunning lack of knowledge of history. Inventing a word isn't the same as inventing the general concept. I thought they taught this stuff at school.

Yes you can make a claim of Historical connections, but shit, then youd have to make the claim that all economic theory is the same because they all have the same roots. Yes it is both collectivist, but the point is collectivism is not synonomous with socialism. You keep stretching definitions so wide that yes, they stretch from the Kremlin to the Pallazio Venizzia.

Again, you show a stunning lack of knowledge of history. Inventing a word isn't the same as inventing the general concept. I thought they taught this stuff at school.
Yes, but again you miss the point, you cant expose my doctrine as totalitarian. Its been openly totalitarian from the start. We use the term with pride to describe our views. What did you expose? Thats like me going HA YOUR DOCTRINE IS CAPITALISM, and claiming victory :rolleyes:

Yes you can make a claim of Historical connections, but shit, then youd have to make the claim that all economic theory is the same because they all have the same roots. Yes it is both collectivist, but the point is collectivism is not synonomous with socialism. You keep stretching definitions so wide that yes, they stretch from the Kremlin to the Pallazio Venizzia.
It doesn't require much of a stretch really...it's easy to pin-point the common aspects of each collectivist system once a general definition has been established. Economic theory is the same...the positions advanced towards it are not (I'm being generous here, because there is much conflict even in theory).

Yes you can make a claim of Historical connections, but shit, then youd have to make the claim that all economic theory is the same because they all have the same roots. Yes it is both collectivist, but the point is collectivism is not synonomous with socialism. You keep stretching definitions so wide that yes, they stretch from the Kremlin to the Pallazio Venizzia.
Only if you don't know anything about economics. Which, clearly, you don't.

You've still yet to read the article I linked to.

Yes, but again you miss the point, you cant expose my doctrine as totalitarian. Its been openly totalitarian from the start. We use the term with pride to describe our views. What did you expose? Thats like me going HA YOUR DOCTRINE IS CAPITALISM, and claiming victory :rolleyes:
No, you have missed the point: totalitarianism isn't something to be proud of. That's like being proud of being a mass-murderer or a serial rapist.

Which, interestingly enough, is part of socialism and nazism. Hegel's Geist. And of course "Ein volk, ein reich, ein Fuhrer".
You've not familiarized yourself with the basic concepts of Naziism either? While Fascism revolves around sociological explanations, National Socialism uses Biology as its springboard. The very concept that a Jew is shaped by his German surroundings is antithetical to National Socialist theory. Nazi theory dictates that germanic people are defined by there racial heritage, and thus a German no matter where he is raised is essentially german, and an untermensch born and Raised in Germany is not German. Again, your vague understanding of the theories makes it easier for your mind to stretch the definition. Now You also claim that socialism claims the nation as the defining shaper of the person. So I guess you never read Marx or Lenin either. See this is why I said before if I wanted a definition on a system, I would go to the source. Marx claimed class was the defining characteristic in shaping a man. That a French factory worker and a German Factory worker had more in common and were more closely shaped then German's of different class.


However, we are individuals, not just cogs of a nation. Which is what socialism/fascism/communism say.
Right but the point I'm getting at is Fascism and Communism are working on two very very different machines.

That, of course, is a load of crap.
Not necessarily.
Fair enough, I challenge you off the top of your head, to name 10 people who jump shipped in the war from America to Germany. Surely out of a nation of millions you can name ten people? If after all, national origin was such a "crapp[y]" determining factor of which side they fought on.

Same thing in socialism/communism.
Erm, no, are you even reading it? Or do you really have that bad of an understanding of the socialism you hate so much. Socialism/communism believes people will eventually congregate along class lines, with the rich looking out for the rich, and the poor looking out for the poor. Which is it your not reading, this post, or socialist theory, because I'd really hate to have to teach you that too.

Marxism requires that all parts must work harmoniously, too.
You've never taken sociology have you? Or read the content of the post. Marx created what is called the conflict theory, that is still used by some sociologists today (most today, non-marxists) that all factors in a society are working against each other in a brutal battle for domination. Harmony has no part. Its comparing a hurricane to a Pianno Sonnata.

Replace "fascism" with "socialism" and it works.
No it doesn't. Socialism wants to tear down the nationstate because its an impediment to distribution of the bourgeoisie wealth to the workers.

Fascism has the silly notion of redistribution as well, but it involves redistributing work.
Which is, as any astute reader could tell by reading your comparison, apples and oranges.

On the contrary: we've seen that you don't understand it. You're just regurgitating what you've read. But you don't understand it.
You've demonstrated that not only do you not understand Fascist theory, you don't understand socialist theory. You've demonstrated that you've taken everything your narrow source of literature has said on faith alone and have failed to educate yourself on a broad array of topics.

No, you have missed the point: totalitarianism isn't something to be proud of. That's like being proud of being a mass-murderer or a serial rapist.
No, you still dont get it. We started using the word to describe ourself. The fundemental meaning hasn't changed, so why in all the world would I be ashamed to believe in my own doctrine.

Only if you don't know anything about economics. Which, clearly, you don't.

You've still yet to read the article I linked to.
Because It doesn't even discuss fascism. ;)

You've not familiarized yourself with the basic concepts of Naziism either?
I have.


While Fascism revolves around sociological explanations, National Socialism uses Biology as its springboard.
And the major differences between fascism and nazism are....?


Right but the point I'm getting at is Fascism and Communism are working on two very very different machines.
Fascism is just dishonest communism.


Fair enough, I challenge you off the top of your head, to name 10 people who jump shipped in the war from America to Germany.
I never claimed anyone did. So please--try to find some major differences between socialism and fascism.


Erm, no, are you even reading it?
Erm, yes, I read it.


Or do you really have that bad of an understanding of the socialism you hate so much.
I know more about it than you.


Socialism/communism believes people will eventually congregate along class lines,
Which isn't much different from national lines.

Sheesh, I'd hate to have to school you in socialist and fascist ideology.


You've never taken sociology have you?
I have. I'm still waiting for major differences between socialism and fascism.


Or read the content of the post. Marx created what is called the conflict theory, that is still used by some sociologists today (most today, non-marxists) that all factors in a society are working against each other in a brutal battle for domination. Harmony has no part. Its comparing a hurricane to a Pianno Sonnata.
Actually, it's totally unlike that. For Marxism to work, everyone must play their part. It must be harmonious.


No it doesn't. Socialism wants to tear down the nationstate because its an impediment to distribution of the bourgeoisie wealth to the workers.
No, socialism requires the nationstate because it allows for the redistribution of wealth.


Which is, as any astute reader could tell by reading your comparison, apples and oranges.
Not really, no.


You've demonstrated that not only do you not understand Fascist theory, you don't understand socialist theory.
Except that I've demonstrated that I understand fascist theory and socialist theory.

Look, you've not provided any major differences between fascism and socialism. You're just like every other fascist, shaking his fist at the mirror called socialism. You hate so much that fascism is socialist that you will deny it in the face of reality. Fine. That's normal. But don't try to fool the people who actually know that fascism is socialism. You can go peddle your snake-oil to the bimbii.

No, you still dont get it.
No, you don't get it. Totalitarianism is bad. Doesn't matter if you are proud of it. Again: that's like being proud of being a child molestor. For you to be proud of espousing totalitarianism shows that you do desire to be a dictator. That you want to have a plan for everyone. That, in the end, there's no real difference between fascism and socialism.

Because It doesn't even discuss fascism. ;)
But it does. Nazism is fascism. So please, don't try some No True Scotsman fallacy.

I have.



And the major differences between fascism and nazism are....?
Exactly what I stated there. Do I need to explain the difference between sociology and Biology?

Fascism is just dishonest communism.
Ad Naseum is not a good argument, for someone who talks about regurgitation you have oddly pendantic, repetative language


I never claimed anyone did. So please--try to find some major differences between socialism and fascism.
No you claimed its a crappy determinator for human behavior. And yet you can not find ten men who did not follow this determinator of human behavior, out of millions.

I know more about it than you.



Which isn't much different from national lines.
Your claiming Nation and class are the same thing? Your argument basicly amounts to looking at two radically different things (nation/class) and saying "eh, there basically the same". If I inform you that you will meet my friend, he is chinese, and he is caucasian and raised in brooklyn, and say "Oh yeah, I meant lower class" youd agree at that point that there "Isn't much different". Tell me If I was to draw a map based on National boundaries, and one based on social classes, do you think they would look at all similar?

Sheesh, I'd hate to have to school you in socialist and fascist ideology.



I have. I'm still waiting for major differences between socialism and fascism.
*sigh* It seems I do. Marxism is for the destruction of the Nationstate, which it sees as a tool of the Upper class.



Actually, it's totally unlike that. For Marxism to work, everyone must play their part. It must be harmonious.
Except for the Clergy, The Rich, The bankers, the merchants, the military, the academics and everyone who is not a member of the working class yeah. But working class is not society. Marxism not only says that things do not need to be harmonious, but that they will not be harmonious, should not be harmonious, and CANNOT be harmonious, because the nature of society is the struggle of the workers against the upper and middle class.



No, socialism requires the nationstate because it allows for the redistribution of wealth.
"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.
Vladimir Lenin
"State and Revolution", 1919"
The state he refers to of course is not the state as in government, but state as in the nationstate. Are you unfamiliar with the term "worldwide revolution" are you curious as to why The major communist organizations were called "Internationals"? Because its an anti-nationalist movement, this is basic middle school stuff.

Not really, no.
Fair enough, if as you claim employment and property is the same thing, and I am free to choose what is my proffesion in capitalism, I am free to choose what is my property, in which case I may have to choose that your computer is mine so you can stop polluting the internet with your rehashed theories. I now begin to see how fuzzy a mind is required to claim fascism and communism are the same thing, the same kind of logic that requires property and labor to be the same thing.


Except that I've demonstrated that I understand fascist theory and socialist theory.
Which you required me to explain to you step by step. You complain that I haven't read your books, but I'm going to ask you for if I recall correctly the third time. Have you read any Marxist or Fascist literature? If you understand Fascist economic theory so well, fill in the next step, why does fascism claim a market is always a requirement?

Look, you've not provided any major differences between fascism and socialism. You're just like every other fascist, shaking his fist at the mirror called socialism. You hate so much that fascism is socialist that you will deny it in the face of reality. Fine. That's normal. But don't try to fool the people who actually know that fascism is socialism. You can go peddle your snake-oil to the bimbii.
Tell you what. Find me a legitimate scholar outside the capitalist school of thought, just one, who believes this crackpot theory of yours. Find me one major historian who believes that Fascist Italy was a communist state.

Exactly what I stated there. Do I need to explain the difference between sociology and Biology?
But those aren't major differences. What you're calling a major difference is like the differences between Methodists and Baptists: just some small doctrinal differences. But they are still xers. Similarly, while fascism and socialism have some small doctrinal differences, they are essentially the same.


Ad Naseum is not a good argument,
Then stop it.


No you claimed its a crappy determinator for human behavior. And yet you can not find ten men who did not follow this determinator of human behavior, out of millions.
I never claimed anything about that.


Your claiming Nation and class are the same thing?
I'm claiming that it's a small doctrinal difference--nothing major.



*sigh* It seems I do. Marxism is for the destruction of the Nationstate, which it sees as a tool of the Upper class.
Seems you don't, because Marxism requires the nationstate, despite the protestations of the Marxists to the contrary.



Except for the Clergy, The Rich, The bankers, the merchants, the military, the academics and everyone who is not a member of the working class yeah.
No, it requires everyone to work in harmony. Notice how you're talking about the struggle to get to the Marxist ideal, and I'm talking about the Marxist ideal. You're shifting the goalpost. Dishonest.



"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.
Vladimir Lenin
"State and Revolution", 1919"
And Marx ripped on Hegel, all the while using every shred of Hegel he could. Par for the course.


Fair enough, if as you claim employment and property is the same thing,
I claimed that? Where?


Which you required me to explain to you step by step.
I have done no such thing, liar.

Tell you what: demonstrate to me that you've read the article I linked you to. Then I will give you some measure of intellectual respect. Until then, you're nothing but a scared child.

Seems you don't, because Marxism requires the nationstate, despite the protestations of the Marxists to the contrary.

Some have come to admit it though. They have realised that to realise their "ideals" they need to use the power of the state...and how this ends is a foregone conclusion.

Some have come to admit it though. They have realised that to realise their "ideals" they need to use the power of the state...and how this ends is a foregone conclusion.
It's also perfectly hardline Hegelian with "everything is a contradiction".

Some have come to admit it though. They have realised that to realise their "ideals" they need to use the power of the state...and how this ends is a foregone conclusion.
Oh no doubt they require the state, but not the nationstate. That is, the fusion of nation and state. They are perfectly content to form completely anational entities such as the soviet union (which admitedly was russian dominated) and most notably Yugoslovia. The point isn't that Communists were anti-statists, but that they were internationalists, something that is completely incompatible with Fascist Ideology.

But those aren't major differences. What you're calling a major difference is like the differences between Methodists and Baptists: just some small doctrinal differences. But they are still xers. Similarly, while fascism and socialism have some small doctrinal differences, they are essentially the same.
Just like socialism has even less ideological difference with capitalism. Still Xers right



Then stop it.
Your repeating yourself word for word, your chanting mantras, do you even know what ad naseum means?


I never claimed anything about that.
Would you like me to show you the quote where you did?



I'm claiming that it's a small doctrinal difference--nothing major.
So much as there is nothing major between capitalism and socialism.



Seems you don't, because Marxism requires the nationstate, despite the protestations of the Marxists to the contrary.
What nationstate was Yugoslovia? What nationship was Mao basing things on when he wanted to split china between russia and Japan. What national history was the Soviet Union based upon?


No, it requires everyone to work in harmony. Notice how you're talking about the struggle to get to the Marxist ideal, and I'm talking about the Marxist ideal. You're shifting the goalpost. Dishonest.
If you want to talk goals we get even more different. A classless, stateless dictatorship of the proletariat or a constantly evolving field of competition between nationstates attempting to build up there industrial to higher and higher levels.

And Marx ripped on Hegel, all the while using every shred of Hegel he could. Par for the course.
Its not a matter of ripping off. The point is that Your saying Socialism is something it isnt, then saying Fascism is something it isn't and then proclaiming them to be the same.

Tell you what: demonstrate to me that you've read the article I linked you to. Then I will give you some measure of intellectual respect. Until then, you're nothing but a scared child.
BOOHOO! Why wont you read my psuedo-intellectual blogging trash :( You wont be my friend until you regergitate my rhetoric blindly. Why wont you read Marx, Gentile or Rosenburg before commenting on their ideologies?

But it does. Nazism is fascism. So please, don't try some No True Scotsman fallacy.
Your allready loosing an argument about Fascism being Communism, do I need to show you again that you need to read up on the material before making a comment on them.

No, you don't get it. Totalitarianism is bad. Doesn't matter if you are proud of it. Again: that's like being proud of being a child molestor. For you to be proud of espousing totalitarianism shows that you do desire to be a dictator. That you want to have a plan for everyone. That, in the end, there's no real difference between fascism and socialism.
Where did I ever claimed I had the ability, capacity or desire to be a dictator? Also Note, the death toll for capitalist countries far outweighs the Fascist nations.

The reason I would like socialism and communism utterly destroyed is that they are incompatible with individual liberty.

Oh no doubt they require the state, but not the nationstate. That is, the fusion of nation and state. They are perfectly content to form completely anational entities such as the soviet union (which admitedly was russian dominated) and most notably Yugoslovia. The point isn't that Communists were anti-statists, but that they were internationalists, something that is completely incompatible with Fascist Ideology.
All right, then we agree.

Just like socialism has even less ideological difference with capitalism. Still Xers right
Actually, socialism and capitalism are antithetical, whereas fascism is just a sect of socialism.

Your repeating yourself word for word, your chanting mantras, do you even know what ad naseum means?
Yes: precisely what you're doing: repeating the same refuted-to-death nonsense.


Would you like me to show you the quote where you did?
Sure, because you will look like a fool trying to find it.


So much as there is nothing major between capitalism and socialism.
But there is.


What nationstate was Yugoslovia?
Yugoslavia.


What nationship was Mao basing things on when he wanted to split china between russia and Japan.
China.


What national history was the Soviet Union based upon?
Russian.

If you want to talk goals
No, I don't. I said "goalpost". Please stop being dishonest.


we get even more different. A classless, stateless dictatorship of the proletariat or a constantly evolving field of competition between nationstates attempting to build up there industrial to higher and higher levels.
Actually, the goal of socialism is totalitarian--same as fascism.


Its not a matter of ripping off. The point is that Your saying Socialism is something it isnt, then saying Fascism is something it isn't and then proclaiming them to be the same.
But I'm saying that socialism is something that is is, fascism is something that it is, and that fascism is just a variant on socialism. And if you'd bother to read the article instead of being so craven, you'd understand that.


BOOHOO! Why wont you read my psuedo-intellectual blogging trash
Ah, so your cowardice again rears its head.

Please read up on the material before posting again.


Where did I ever claimed I had the ability, capacity or desire to be a dictator?
It's implicit in the advocacy of fascism.


Also Note, the death toll for capitalist countries far outweighs the Fascist nations.
What capitalist countries? There have been mercantilist/interventionist ones. Perhaps you're conflating the terms.

Actually, socialism and capitalism are antithetical, whereas fascism is just a sect of socialism.
Both are:
Internationalist
Materialist interperatation of Human behavior
Believe in historic innevitability
Place ideological goals above economic efficiency

I at least can point to specific doctrines where they are the same, rather then some vague generality of "collectivist"

Sure, because you will look like a fool trying to find it.
You:Fascism has the silly notion of redistribution as well, but it involves redistributing work.
Me: Which is, as any astute reader could tell by reading your comparison, apples and oranges.
You:Not really, no.

There you go, claming labor and wealth are the same thing. You've also claimed class and Nation are the same thing in the thread.

Yugoslavia.
See what I mean, failure to educate yourself. Education is one of your duties to the state you know, it improves you as an individual and as an asset to the nation. You have benefitted neither. F-- on Balkan History.

China.
And at what point in Chinese history was China a province of Russia and Japan?

Russian.
Actually no, It did a very good job of destroying Russian culture. A key feature of Communism wherever it went.

Actually, the goal of socialism is totalitarian--same as fascism.
I said "dictatorship of the proletariat". Theres that remarkable ability to lock on to the one thing thats similar about two totally disimilar ideologies.

But I'm saying that socialism is something that is is, fascism is something that it is, and that fascism is just a variant on socialism. And if you'd bother to read the article instead of being so craven, you'd understand that.
Remember that bit about rebutted logic? Read Gentile, Rosenburg and Marx and maybe you'll have an understanding of the subject.

Ah, so your cowardice again rears its head.
Please read up on the material before posting again.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/index.htm
http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/dennis/fascism_index.html
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0911038477/102-2026319-9649718?v=glance&n=283155
Read.


It's implicit in the advocacy of fascism.
No its not. Thats like saying advocacy of democracy implicitly means you want to be president.



What capitalist countries? There have been mercantilist/interventionist ones. Perhaps you're conflating the terms.
Still capitalist. Aint that a bitch. Like you can talk about Conflating, cant back out of that now, you've been spending the entire argument insisting theres only two possible ideologies.:rolleyes:

Both are:
Internationalist
Materialist interperatation of Human behavior
Believe in historic innevitability
Place ideological goals above economic efficiency

I at least can point to specific doctrines where they are the same, rather then some vague generality of "collectivist"
I never pointed to some vague generality. Which just shows that you won't read anything that doesn't conform to your little view. How shallow.


You:Fascism has the silly notion of redistribution as well, but it involves redistributing work.
And what does that have to do with you saying that I said something about people leaving the US to join Germany? You can't even keep track of your own claims about me! How stupid are you?



There you go, claming labor and wealth are the same thing. You've also claimed class and Nation are the same thing in the thread.
I've done no such thing for either of your statements. You clearly do not comprehend English.


See what I mean, failure to educate yourself.
Poor you. You failed to educate yourself. Yugoslavia existed because of the aftermath of WW1, and it wasn't until Marshal Tito and his gang that it became a soviet (socialist) satellite.

You get an F.

And at what point in Chinese history was China a province of Russia and Japan?
At what point did Mao actually advocate what you said he did?


Actually no, It did a very good job of destroying Russian culture. A key feature of Communism wherever it went.
Actually, it kept a lot of Russian culture. You get an F.


I said "dictatorship of the proletariat".
What you said and what is are two different things. Poor you. You get an F.


Remember that bit about rebutted logic?
Remember that bit about you not having provided any major differences between socialism and fascism?


No its not.
Yes, advocating fascism implies that you want to be a dictator. Fascism, as with all forms of socialism, is the statement "I believe the world could be better if only people followed exactly what I say".


Thats like saying advocacy of democracy implicitly means you want to be president.
No, it means you want to be part of a mob.


Still capitalist.
Only if you don't know anything about words.

Please do some research so you'll stop looking like an idiot.

I never pointed to some vague generality. Which just shows that you won't read anything that doesn't conform to your little view. How shallow.
Notice how you never rebutted the numerous similarities between Capitalism and Communism.
And what does that have to do with you saying that I said something about people leaving the US to join Germany? You can't even keep track of your own claims about me! How stupid are you?
No those are two seperate claims. One is that you said national origin is a poor determinator of actions (which you haven't backed up). It has to do with you claiming work and money are the same thing.
Poor you. You failed to educate yourself. Yugoslavia existed because of the aftermath of WW1, and it wasn't until Marshal Tito and his gang that it became a soviet (socialist) satellite.
Okay kids how many things can you spot in this claim that a falicious?
1) Yugoslavia existed after WWI as a serbian dominion. It had a Serbic King. Its like claiming that The United Kingdom was an equal union.
2) Tito didn't lead a satellite state
3) Even under the Serbian Tsars, it was based upon no historic reality, never have the Balkans been united, they represent distinct and unique national characters.
4) If you payed attention to the news for the past 15 years you've noticed Fascist National theory seems to have pwned Socialist/capitalist class theory.
At what point did Mao actually advocate what you said he did?
About 1939. So how bout it, wheres that strong history of Soviet dominion over China influencing Mao's decisions.
Actually, it kept a lot of Russian culture. You get an F.
Some obviously, a Nation is indestructable. They did however burn cathedrals, tear down national icons and until Stalin came allong did everything in there power to destroy Russian culture, and every communist regime to follow would immitate this.
Yes, advocating fascism implies that you want to be a dictator.
And it doesn't bother you that no one else in the world believes this bizzare Idea of yours. You know its a sign of mental illness when you believe you can decipher thoughts from someone completelly contradictory to what they claim.
Only if you don't know anything about words.
Vagueness is the rule in your style of debate.
"I want to make money" is a motivation in the practitioners. Good enough for me, lets lump em together!
Ergo, they are entirely identical, without any possible variation in dogma.

w00t for dictatorships!

Notice how you never rebutted the numerous similarities between Capitalism and Communism.
Notice how you just used a red herring.


No those are two seperate claims. One is that you said national origin is a poor determinator of actions
I didn't say that.


It has to do with you claiming work and money are the same thing.
I didn't say that either. Why are you lying?


Okay kids how many things can you spot in this claim that a falicious?
None.


1) Yugoslavia existed after WWI as a serbian dominion. It had a Serbic King. Its like claiming that The United Kingdom was an equal union.
I never claimed it wasn't serb-dominated. Again with your lying ways.


2) Tito didn't lead a satellite state
Yeah, he did.


3) Even under the Serbian Tsars, it was based upon no historic reality, never have the Balkans been united, they represent distinct and unique national characters.
And?


4) If you payed attention to the news for the past 15 years you've noticed Fascist National theory seems to have pwned Socialist/capitalist class theory.
Only if you've taken heavy doses of LSD. And capitalism doesn't have class theory. So you've lied yet again.

You don't impress me.


About 1939.
And the evidence for that is?


Some obviously, a Nation is indestructable. They did however burn cathedrals, tear down national icons and until Stalin came allong did everything in there power to destroy Russian culture, and every communist regime to follow would immitate this.
But the Russian people got pissed, and Stalin eventually relented some. He knew that brutal repression could only get him so far.


And it doesn't bother you that no one else in the world believes this bizzare Idea of yours.
Oh many do. Doesn't it bother you that you lie your ass off all the time?


Vagueness is the rule in your style of debate.
Lying is yours.

Now stop lying and start debating. Otherwise, you concede. That's it.

Okay, enough already. Let's look at what Fascism, and Socialism are defined as.

Fascism
Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Socialism
Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to social control. [1] As an economic system, socialism is usually associated with state or collective ownership of the means of production. This control, according to socialists, may be either direct, exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils, or it may be indirect, exercised on behalf of the people by the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

I don't see any real correlation between Fascism and Socialism. Fascism is an authoritarian philosophy, while socialism is usually an anti-authoritarian philosophy. Fascism is based on ultra-nationalism and militarism, while socialism is based on internationalism and cooperation.

I don't see any real correlation between Fascism and Socialism. Fascism is an authoritarian philosophy, while socialism is usually an anti-authoritarian philosophy. Fascism is based on ultra-nationalism and militarism, while socialism is based on internationalism and cooperation.

- Fascism and Socialism both reject the principle that man should live for his self interest.
- Particuarly fascism but socialism as well reject the principle that we gain freedom from acting as an individual.
- Both ideologies restrict individual choice to do as you wish. In socialism this is particuarly on economics - fascism pushes more to unquestioning submission
- Both want the common good before the private good. Fascism does embrase the community, collectivism and common ownership traditionally socialist ideas.
- Fascism wants a totalitarian dictatorship as an ends. Communism seeks dictatorship as a means and social democracy support the use of a strong (top down) state.
- Capitalism idealistically does not work well in Fascism as this breeds materialism and self interest.

These similarities mean both ideologies have common means and history has shown socialism can subtly switch to fascism. Hayek does illustrate this well. It is fair to say socialist experiments have a large danger of turing fascist but to give a balanced argument here is where they differ.

- Fasicsm is anti democratic. Socialism and post revolutionary communism seek a democratic society.
- Fascism has been said to support social darwinism and struggle as a means of dividing the weak from the strong (hence how leaders are picked) this is basically as far away from communism as you can get.
- Fasicsm historically has worked within the capitalist system to gain national/collective goals.
- Hitler and Mussolini both anti-communist. With communists being the Nazis first victems. Fasicsm sees race/nationality as the divider not class.
- Fascism puts the nation ahead of all political concerns socialism/communism values equality primerily.

Both horrid as far as I see it.

Thats a seperate debate, but to horrid things are not neccessarily the same thing.

Trotskylvania will probably tell you that Capitalism and Fascism look the same to him. I can tell you Socialism and Capitalism look the same to me. Does this tell you that maybe, just maybe its that you are an idiot BAAWAKnights, who cannot pull his head out of his ass long enough to bother educating yourself about the ideologies you hate so much.

Thats a seperate debate, but to horrid things are not neccessarily the same thing.

Trotskylvania will probably tell you that Capitalism and Fascism look the same to him. I can tell you Socialism and Capitalism look the same to me. Does this tell you that maybe, just maybe its that you are an idiot BAAWAKnights, who cannot pull his head out of his ass long enough to bother educating yourself about the ideologies you hate so much.
But I have educated myself, long before you got here. You, OTOH, have so far refused to read the article I linked to. You have refused to educate yourself.

And given that you feel that "antipodes" are the same, I question your intellectual acumen.

Trotskylvania will probably tell you that Capitalism and Fascism look the same to him. .

He wouldn't be able to justify this. I think I made a good 5-6 points on why fascism and socialism are very similar, and that fascism often starts out under socialist principles to gain support and moves towards totalitarianism.


I can tell you Socialism and Capitalism look the same to me..

You could also say I know what I'm talking about. But you'd be wrong on both accounts.


BAAWAKnights, who cannot pull his head out of his ass long enough to bother educating yourself about the ideologies you hate so much.

Neither of you were wrong and both had valid points. Yes socialism and fascism are similar and in the past have switched between the two easily. And its fair to say they are different (insomuch that conservitism and libertarianism are different).

To me, trying to take two seperate ideologies and make them appear to be one ideology in order to gain the upper hand in a debate is shaky logical territory. It evades the real issue. We should be discussing the comparative merits of each ideology, which is the only way to objectively determine the merit of an ideology.

I can say "Fascism is the same as Capitalism," but it wouldn't mean anything. Capitalism may share certain elements with Fascism (capitalism is often argued to be the economic equivalent of fascism), but that doesn't mean that they are the same ideology.

As much as I hate to say it, some forms of socialism do share traits with fascism. That doesn't mean that socialism should be a priori dismissed, as BAAWAKnights would suggest. I think the problem here with this argument is that we're talking too much and not listening enough to what the other side is saying.

As much as I hate to say it, some forms of socialism do share traits with fascism. That doesn't mean that socialism should be a priori dismissed, as BAAWAKnights would suggest.
Actually, I say it should be dismissed because the system starts with faulty premises.

Actually, I say it should be dismissed because the system starts with faulty premises.

I was trying to be nice, and lead everyone to middle ground, but you just ruined my naive internationalist feelings.

Just because you believe that socialism should be a priori dismissed doesn't mean that it should be. Last I checked, you were not god, so you can just rule what reality is by fiat. You are taking the same fallacious road that Ludwig von Mises and all of the Austrian school took in their assertion that there will never be an alternative to capitalism.

For every time you quote Mises or any neo-classical/Austrian school economist about how socialism is bad, and there is no alternative to capitalism, I can find at least two quotes refuting that.

But debating isn't a numbers game. However, mainstream economics in all of its forms has betrayed its scientific foundations by asserting that its theories are, and always will be correct, and that reality must be changed to suit the theory.

If a physicist suggests something like that, he loses his reputation and his career. But an economist can make any rediculous claim they want so long as it doesn't go against the interests of the powers that be.

You need to seriously reconsider how self-serving and un-scientific your pantheon of economic gods are.

I was trying to be nice, and lead everyone to middle ground, but you just ruined my naive internationalist feelings.

Just because you believe that socialism should be a priori dismissed doesn't mean that it should be.
People say the same thing about god. I, however, reject that a priori as well, given the lack of a coherent definition for god. Similarly, I reject anything but capitalism a priori because all other "options" start with faulty premises.

So kindly find something else to bitch about.

Also, you might want to learn that there's a huge difference between the a priori sciences of mathematics, logic, and praxeology (of which economics is a branch), and the a posteriori (hard) sciences, such as chemistry and physics.

Also, you might want to learn that there's a huge difference between the a priori sciences of mathematics, logic, and praxeology (of which economics is a branch), and the a posteriori (hard) sciences, such as chemistry and physics.

Although we can be 100% certain of mathmatic truths. Economics becomes flawed with the introduction of unpredictable human behaviour and other events that cannot always be taken into account. For this reason it is dangerous to blindly follow an ideological path in economics unflexible to changing circumstances.

Although we can be 100% certain of mathmatic truths. Economics becomes flawed with the introduction of unpredictable human behaviour and other events that cannot always be taken into account. For this reason it is dangerous to blindly follow an ideological path in economics unflexible to changing circumstances.
Ah, so you believe the laws of economics can be overturned. Riiiiiight. That somehow, all things being equal, a person would prefer less of something to more. That a person gives up something of greater value in a trade for something of lesser value. Riiiiiight.

Do me a favor and do just a smidge of research on praxeology.

Ah, so you believe the laws of economics can be overturned. Riiiiiight. That somehow, all things being equal, a person would prefer less of something to more. That a person gives up something of greater value in a trade for something of lesser value. Riiiiiight.

Do me a favor and do just a smidge of research on praxeology.

I'm just saying no economist can factor in one theory to suit every nation at every moment in time and history and stick to it unquestionably. Secoundly there often is a difference between moral economics and economic efficiency.

I'm just saying no economist can factor in one theory to suit every nation at every moment in time and history and stick to it unquestionably.
You are, however, wrong. Economics is a priori. The rules hold regardless of time and place.


Secoundly there often is a difference between moral economics and economic efficiency.
What precisely are you meaning by that?

You are, however, wrong. Economics is a priori. The rules hold regardless of time and place.


Marx claimed people would work harder and more efficiently for the "greater good" or "benefit of the community" while this is not true for the vast majority of people but if a group of like minded individuals formed together to make such a collective it may work better.

The point is that not every human is the same and as we evolve and issues of scarsity and distribution become different theorys of economics should change and reflect this.


What precisely are you meaning by that?

There is more than one valid economic theory.

I'm just saying no economist can factor in one theory to suit every nation at every moment in time and history and stick to it unquestionably. Secoundly there often is a difference between moral economics and economic efficiency.

If by this you mean: there is a difference between the most moral economic system, and the most efficient one, you would likely be correct.

If by this you mean: there is a difference between the most moral economic system, and the most efficient one, you would likely be correct.

Thats all I'm saying. In a sense one blind view of economics will never be the best judgement to have, and changing the balance to suit what the nation needs to the individual is something that should be constantly updated.

Marx claimed people would work harder and more efficiently for the "greater good" or "benefit of the community" while this is not true for the vast majority of people but if a group of like minded individuals formed together to make such a collective it may work better.
Marx started with faulty premises, and then continued with faulty reasoning, leading to faulty conclusion.

Economics properly deals in the a priori. Such statements as "You cannot consume the very same thing today that you consumed yesterday" cannot be assailed (and just so you understand, it deals with consuming that same thing, not another of the thing you consumed). Thus, there is but one valid economic theory.

Marx started with faulty premises, and then continued with faulty reasoning, leading to faulty conclusion.

What were his faulty premises, what was his faulty reasoning, and what was his faulty conclusion? You can't just state that Marx used faulty logic or premises, you have to explain first what his premises or reasonings were, and explain how they were flawed.

Economics properly deals in the a priori. Such statements as "You cannot consume the very same thing today that you consumed yesterday" cannot be assailed (and just so you understand, it deals with consuming that same thing, not another of the thing you consumed). Thus, there is but one valid economic theory.

That does not follow. Just becasue some statements cannot be assailed doesn't mean that there is only one valid economic theory. What you are asking us to do is take the leap of faith that your view of economics is the correct and only view of economics without supporting it with any evidence or reasoning. You are asking everyone to take the "one true economic theory" the same way a religous prophet asks people to follow his "one true god." :headbang:

Your logic is transforming economics from where it should be (a science of reasoning based on evidence and logic), and turning it into a religious faith that demands absolute obedience. Instead of demanding we pay homage to some invisible man, you ask us to revere your "holy" economic theories which yet remain unproven by empirical data.

What were his faulty premises,
Labor theory of value.


what was his faulty reasoning,
The whole of Das Kapital.


and what was his faulty conclusion?
All sorts of bullshit conclusions, like profits are stealing money from workers.


You can't just state that Marx used faulty logic or premises, you have to explain first what his premises or reasonings were, and explain how they were flawed.
Actually, I don't.



That does not follow.
Yes, it does.


Just becasue some statements cannot be assailed doesn't mean that there is only one valid economic theory.
Yes it does.


Your logic is transforming economics from where it should be (a science of reasoning based on evidence and logic), and turning it into a religious faith that demands absolute obedience.
Except I'm not.

Please do some research before you spout off again. Thanks.

One more thing: one does not need much empirical data for economics. That's why it's an a priori science, just like math and logic. One starts with just a minimal bit of empiricism (that we are human, exist, act) and it all follows from there.