It is due to it being the application of political science. It does not permit failed policies to be continued fruitlessly year after year with idealistic fervour, it is next to impossible for anyone surrounded by fierce libertarian critics to continue clinging on to lies. It is a purely functional machine, lubricated with justice and fueled by free speech.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-09 14:47
>>880
Even still, that is irrelevant from the discussion. Even if you think socialism is something "bad", thinking George W. Bush is socialist is simply retarded, there is no other way to spin it.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-09 14:48
Socialism operates from the perspective of business on the labor side. That is, unlike other forms of capital (machinery, etc) labor is a living human being. Therefore, being that, laborers more than likely expect to be treated like one. And not as machinery programmed to do certain tasks.It's a very simple philosophy, and could be easily understood by just about anyone.
From an economic perspective, capitalism, when operated freely is destructive to our resources neccesary to survive. Because, well, no other species on the planet needs money to survive but humans. Sure, capitalism produces things that we need; clothes, food, cars, houses, etc... but it produces so many things that we DON'T need and really DON'T want like banks and law firms and media oligopies. Not to mention so much else.
You can't eat money, you can't breath or drink money, you can't use money as a house or shelter, money can't educate you or find you a lover. In fact, there are few things that money can do. I find it extraordinary that it was ever considered a determination of value in the first place!!
I'm a different person, George Bush is a fascist. The socialism thing I thought was relevant because a socialist would say that, whilst the reduction in the power of the state (a libertarian goal) might be a long-term aim, in the short to mid-term, the state can provide a vast array of services and policy choices that benefit a large majority of people.
>>891
Yep, socialists are stupid, I mean look at this grotesque exposure of ignorance about everything related to economics and politics, with no connection to factuality at all, making artificial claims which is ridiculous to everyone possessing a brain, but since they are so fucking stupid, they think their uneducated opinions are actually facts, like in >>875 or >>862 or >>832
>>893
By the way, samefaggotry is obvious, because there can't be two people retarded enough to think that in the same place, in the same century - that would result in the universe imploding.
If Bush, the most fascist faggot ruling a civilized country is socialist then I guess we in Finland should have achieved communist utopia or something.
...you say stuff like that, and then cry about why we think all Americans are fat and stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-10 11:13
If you socialist kiddies can stop jumping up and down and screaming for one second perhaps you would be able to entertain the fact that there are many government institutions, like the federal reserve, which have an enormous influence over the economy but are very distant from control by voters. Much of the status quo is already state socialist and a significant proportion of the economy, not involved with law enforcement, is planned.
>>898
Again, the retard still keeps on about his ignorant misconception, where he thinks STAAAYT means socialist, despite being shown countless times as wrong, where the only reply he could make was WELL ACCORDING TO MY DEFINITION IT IS SO, yet unfortunately, we aren't discussing abstract art, so that's invalid. Enjoy your binary brain, which registers every capitalist state in the universe as socialist or communist or whatever.
...and in almost a hundred posts, retardation hasn't gone down a pint. I am impressed by the abilities of libertarians in expressing opinions even though they don't know anything about the subject, and after that ignoring contradicting evidence... Which draws horrendous parallels with creationist retards indeed.
>>904
-BUSH IS SOCIALIST
-no, retard
-BAWWW PERSONAL ATTACK, HE IS SOCIALIST BECAUSE MY DEFINITION OF SOCIALIST IS LIKE THAT
-your definition is wrong, and is exclusive to you because you are an uneducated idiot.
-I HAVE DISPROVED YOU
>>905
No, if you can IMAGINE it is correct - there are no wrong ideas, you don't need to know anything, everyone should formulate ideas on nuclear physics, economics or computer science. We need your imagination, or more likely spoon-fed ideas, and if you make a definition which contradicts with everything else, what you said must be true, because... well, that's how we do it.
Libertarian way of "thinking" funnily fits the caricatures of American liberals.
>>904
so by that, you mean thinking everything about economics is STAYT and !STAYT, and therefore classifying even fucking bush as socialist (which, by the way, is the most ridiculous idea I have EVER encountered, even on the internets), despite, well everything states that you're wrong, and then you think you "disproved" things - then enjoy your willful ignorance, in addition to the aforementioned stupidity.
>>905 >>906 >>908
The thing is I haven't said anything absurd.
From >>827
1: Socialism is the belief that the economy should be run by the people, most socialists believe this ought to be done through state control of the economy. I believe this is an awful mistake because it circumvents economic freedom, is inefficient since it ignores the invisible hand of the free market and makes corruption extremely easy.
That's the definition I used, there is nothing wrong with it. Bush advocates numerous state controls over the economy in the name of helping the people he represents.
1+1=2
Discuss this when you are ready.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-12 11:56
Socialists see 'the people' as the mass of the population. So, while Bush may intervene in the economy, it isn't socialist, because he is doing it for the benefit of an elite group within society, rather than people in general. Sorry if I am feeding a troll, it can be hard to tell when the topic of socialism comes up.
>>910
Well, after hundreds of times of being told your definition was arbitrary and wrong in countless ways, it seems you still aren't getting it. Apparently your lack of knowledge stems from your lack of comprehension. Etatism =/= socialism.
Now, let's look at your stupid definition, which is held only by your retarded ass for a reason;
Socialism is statist
Bush is statist
therefore Bush is socialist
This, is a formal fallacy. You don't fail only in economics, politics, and common sense, but at simple logic too. Face this when you're ready.
>>911
If he's a troll, then he's an epic one - but I believe this to be a genuine retard.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-12 21:22
>>911
Corruption is an inevitable part of any political, social or economic system so judging systems by how they would work in a perfect world is ridiculous. The belief that things beyond the social contract should be decided collectively is the definition of socialism, in theory this is utilitarian but in practice it allows "George Bush"es to maintain and expand crony capitalism. Granted this does not apply to welfare, but it does apply to the federal reserve, regulations that lie outside law enforcement, heavy and overly complex regulation of the finance industry which resembles Qin dynasty China's legalist doctrine and an equally bizarre tax system with little logical basis.
>>912
You have made an error called the strawman fallacy.
My argument is not
Socialism is statist
Bush is statist
therefore Bush is socialist
If I gave you an apple and asked you to prove it is an apple and you said "it looks and tastes like an apple" I could just as easily say
"LOL OMG RETARD BUUUH
THE OBJECT IS APPLE-LIKE
APPLES ARE APPLE-LIKE
THE OBJECT IS AN APPLE
HAHA DUMBASS"
but it would not prove anything since there is a causal link. Since the object has all the properties of an apple then it is an apple. Bush supports policies involving the economy and not involving law enforcement and he believes he is representing the collective interests of the American people. Of course Bush does not believe the entire economy should be run collectively, but how many decisions does someone believe need to be made collectively before they are a socialist?
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-12 23:20
After reading almost 900 posts of arguments that seem to go around in circles, I honestly don't see any major benefits switching to Libertarian governmental system to make it worthwhile. Libertarianism seems to rely on the belief that the free market can do no wrong so no regulation is necessary, also everyone who works for the government is fundamentally corrupt while among the fine chaps of business world corruption would be almost unheard of in world of libertarianism.
They say the purpose of a government in a world of libertarianism would be only to protect its people, but I'm curious about how an government with virtually no power would go about doing that being that everything is privatized such as the police force. I don't see why not even go as far as to privatized the military, as how I understand things a military force control by the government by libertarian standards would be army of corrupt madmen, so it would be better to trust things like military to businesses and just have the whole US military be composed of mercenaries.
While I like some of the points of libertarianism, an purely libertarian government doesn't seem like it would be a change for the better. Why don't we just cut to the chase and give everyone guns, leather clothes, and motorcycles, and just live Mad Max style with roving gangs making the laws of the land.
Name:
Anonymous2008-03-13 0:02
>>913
That isn't the definition of socialism. Socialism would define the type of social contract, taking into account certain common goals, such as the pursuit of a free, equal society. So, take Rousseau's social contract. He talks about a general will, meaning, there are certain things everyone wants, and if they don't, they just don't know it yet and need a leader to slap some sense into them. Whilst the stuff about the leader isn't socialist, the idea of a general will has some resonance in socialist ideology. For example, socialists believe people are equal, and that under fair, equitable circumstances, everyone can succeed at something. That we would like a society in which everyone is free to exercise their full potential is surely something everyone believes in (well, you'd hope). Er it's hard to explain but there is something beyond the material that links all humans together and it can be the basis for the creation of a cooperative, progressive, productive society and this is like the general will. Sort of. No one is destined to be a failure, etc. So yeah I think you're misunderstanding socialism, because there is more to it than just the role of the state, it's the motivations behind the use of the state. So, a socialist might criticise Bush for using the state as an instrument to further the aims of what you called 'crony capitalism'. Not because he is intervening in the economy, disrupting its natural flow (a lot of mystic garbage in right-libertarian thought, imo), but because he is doing it for the benefit of an elite group, like what has been called the bourgeoisie. Republicans and democrats alike meddle with the economy, but never for the interests of the working man. A social democrat might intervene in it to even out the natural consequences of private accumulation of wealth. A socialist would intervene to drastically alter it in favour of the working class. An American democrat or republican will meddle in it to further benefit their important constituency, the uber-elite.
>>913
Your argument is exactly that, you have repeatedly claimed socialism was etatism, which is plain and simple wrong. The fact that you think like that was proved by you representing state capitalism and bush as socialist, and your fallacious definition - what you have repeated now only serves to confirm it, but you are too stupid to realize again. Your definition of socialism is wrong, not only that, but you tried to confirm your fallacy in a pathetic way, I guess again due to your ignorance. It is more like, apple is red, apple is a fruit, therefore bricks are fruits due to them being red. What was repeatedly told here was that you did not understand what socialism is (and before, that you didn't understand macroeconomics, all which you could only respond with various patters of ignoring evidence and crying). I have said this several times now, but really, this is pathetic.