5/05/2012 2:21pm, #51
The only possible affirmation that someone can take from that sentence is that you believe any kind of wealth distribution is dangerous and harmful.
Say goodbye to the 'socialised' military
Hell, why not just go back to the Roman system of every rich man having his own army, conquering what the **** ever they want with impunity. I suppose that sounds wonderful to you.
5/05/2012 2:54pm, #52
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
It's not the wealth distribution that I am wary of it is centralizing control of the economy and planning the economy. I don't like "targeted" tax cuts either which is not a socialist idea but reeks of trying to decide how people should spend their money.
Schools police and military in my humble opinion should not be a way to generate wealth so I definitely do not want them privatized. (nor do I want parasitic private enterprises leaching off them)
My point is free market has a proven record of wealth generation and should be the starting point and then regulate from their as little as possible to produce an equitable society.
5/05/2012 7:56pm, #53
5/07/2012 5:47pm, #54
**** politics..this thread's about foitin' !
Can outsiders come and make money fighting over there ? I need to make some quick cash to pay for a new fence." If one wants to have a friend one must also want to wage war for him: and to wage war one must be capable of being an enemy." - Fr. Nietzsche 'On The Friend' Thus Spake Zarathustra
5/07/2012 5:54pm, #55
As for Limbaughean levels of hyperbole, the post of yours I replied to asserted that my grandchildren "will barely be human as you use the word". When it comes to bizarre, alarmist and absurd statements I think the notion that my own grandchildren would be unrecognisable to me as human beings makes things that clown Limbaugh say seem comparatively sane.
You want to define 'free market capitalism' by the negatives you perceive to be a result of capitalism. For you capitalism is children in sweatshops, robber barons and Tiny Tim. Its a bizarre, childish caricature.
I was messing about when I asked you how social democracy was working out in North Korea. Clearly that didn't come across. However, you did your own Limbaugh by picking up my free market-capitalist baton, running to your own blackboard, drawing curvy lines all the way to the work house and then stomped your foot.
My point is this, and you can feel free to go and Limbaugh this again by claiming I want 4 year olds to work in factories 24 hours a day if you like.
Economic freedom is intrinsically tied to personal freedom. Economic freedom is what creates wealth. As economic freedom has been advanced we have all become richer. In 1930 telephones, cars and televisions were the preserve of millionaires. In 2012 even the poorest in society have a mobile telephone, a colour television and access to a car.
Free markets and capitalism create immensely wealthy people, but unless corrupted by governmental interference leading to corporatism. It raises the wealth of all in society, your average Briton and American is infinitely richer than your average Briton or American 50 or 100 years ago.
5/07/2012 7:05pm, #56
Sure, every powerful man having his own loyal legion led to the unpleasantness between Caesar, Pompey, Anthony, and Caesar Jr., but there's a reason the time period after Rome fell was called "The Dark Ages".
5/07/2012 7:10pm, #57
The difference between Stalin's Russia and the robber baron era is that Stalin's russia was actually an impure example of communism, while the robber-baron era was very pure strain capitalism.
The notion that any -ism is a perfect solution to every problem is simplistic, as is the notion that economic freedom builds wealth.
By your logic, the entire united states should have been millionaires by 1920, but unbridled capitalism ate itself.
It's more correct to say it's an environmental factor that can feed wealth.
Sunlight feeds plants, so why isn't the gobi a jungle?
5/07/2012 7:17pm, #58
Of what use is definition of a thing that ignores its negatives? Sweatshops, child labor company stores, etc, those things really did happen and really were produced by unregulated markets.
It's not a case of opponents defining by flaws, it's a case of proponents ignoring them.
5/07/2012 7:45pm, #59
As I see it, where Communism keeps going wrong is that the state has to become really powerful in order to end the exploitation of the working class by the non producing rich. After it has seized all this power and ended said exploitation, it then withers away and we all live in True Communism, with all the attendant unicorns, rainbows, and good will to our fellow man.
Problem is, every state that has so empowered itself has refused to wither away, with most of the leadership so adamant on NOT withering away that they have to be dragged out of their seats of power at gunpoint and hung in the streets to get the reins of power out of their grasp. (Romania, Cuba, etc.)
5/07/2012 11:00pm, #60
- Join Date
- Sep 2007