Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Choice libertarian quotes
I Read This
July 19, 2018, 22:50:56 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 64
  Print  
Author Topic: Choice libertarian quotes  (Read 84165 times)
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2008, 13:31:24 EDT »

Communism is more like one of those non-competitive educational games, very boring for adults and something that no one really enjoys playing after the newness wears off. 

Communism is self-destructive, it is obvious and well-documented that the USSR collapsed because of it.  People do not care to work hard or "try" when there is no incentive.  What is not so obvious, in part because it has not happened recently enough, is that Capitalism is self-destructive as well. 
Yet the USSR was not like that, there was a power struggle shortly after the second Russian revolution.  The side that won was the bureaucratic side represented by Stalin that represented the interests of managers then workers, that also meant the USSR was still had a class system.  The USSR failed because workers couldn't make a significant difference thus had no incentive yet unlike the average capitalist workers they didn't have the fear of unemployment.

If workers collectively run workplaces there would be incentive as they could see changes come out of their efforts.

Logged
Nerrin
Will Eat Children for Food
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


Envision whirled peas


« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2008, 13:32:13 EDT »

I will tell you the perfect economic system is a game of capitalism that re-sets every generation but somehow keeps anyone from realizing that it resets so they try and strive just as hard every time.  I'll tell you how to achieve it shortly after you give me a unified field theory, a flying car, and my unicorn named Sparkles who devours the souls of my enemies. 

I'm saying it's impossible, or at least unbelievably improbable, in case you're tired of metaphors. 

If I recall correctly, at least one of the Founding Fathers (Jefferson, I think, but I don't have the book out that names who it is specifically; the book is a political graphic novel called "We the People," by Thom Hartmann) proposed making it law that corporations have a limited life span. Because of the power of "corporate personhood" we endow to them, the necessity of a life span after which a corporation would die becomes necessary to restrain their strength. Essentially, each major corporation would be forced to shut down, sell itself off, and could have its role taken over later by another company -- just not one that has all the same assets, people, and contracts, but a different name. That would be a step towards forcing the game of capitalism to reset, not in literally restarting the game but forcing the longest-playing (and, given the nature of the game, most powerful) players out to let someone else in.
Logged

Never hate an enemy when you can pity them.
-Ho Chi Ho Chi Zen, Paradigm Assault Squad

"No absolute truth can exist in a conscious mind, because every single thought is submitted to an individual and arbitrary judgment."

"It makes no difference if you throw your coins into the wishing well, or save your prayers inside a marvelous church filled of gold. All that matters is the faith inside you! If there is a God, He has no home; He is everywhere!"
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2008, 14:23:33 EDT »

While these ideas are cute and all, the truth remains that Communism and Capitalism have yet to be implemented in any real world government, in part because its impossible to do so.  Attempts to implement the systems without thinking first have had similar results.  Both lead to the formation of a ruling class that controls the means of production and is able to dominate everyone else, whether its a circle of plutocrats or a tinpot dictator and his thought police.

Working systems involve concepts like compromise, checks, and balances.  Like the US government, which is designed to be contradictory and unreliable specifically so it CAN'T become an extreme government like the examples above.  Its designed to be the lesser of evils, a government that works poorly rather than not working at all.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Gizensha
Campaign Management Staff
Free Speech Advocate
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10053


Dragon Winged Fox


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2008, 19:55:26 EDT »

(just look at Psy)

But please don't emulate. Circular arguements are both boring and annoying.
Logged

Quote from: Tim Guest
Interactive Fiction is computer gaming's best parallel with poetry: complex, subtle, and these days absolutely unsaleable.

Quote from: Raph Koster
Art and entertainment are not terms of type - they are terms of intensity
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2008, 21:10:25 EDT »

Speak of the devil... we've triggered one of Psy's key words.

Anyone get the feeling he's a bot?
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2008, 21:31:14 EDT »

Speak of the devil... we've triggered one of Psy's key words.

Anyone get the feeling he's a bot?

while he may or may not uses a context bot to alert him to topics, but based on my understanding of the state of AI research his posts do not lend their that he is a bot himself
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2008, 21:36:42 EDT »

He's made 2332 posts, and not of the bot-ish kind.  Maybe he's a super AI from the future.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Gizensha
Campaign Management Staff
Free Speech Advocate
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10053


Dragon Winged Fox


WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2008, 21:47:02 EDT »

Speak of the devil... we've triggered one of Psy's key words.

Anyone get the feeling he's a bot?

while he may or may not uses a context bot to alert him to topics, but based on my understanding of the state of AI research his posts do not lend their that he is a bot himself

a) Define 'AI' (Not being funny, just checking what sorts of 'AI' we're talking about here.
b) While Elizah was highly primative, simply manipulating input rather than understanding it, there was an AI system that was a contemporary of it, SHRDLU I think it was called (named after the keyboard it was programmed on, iirc, forget which row of keys), which was capable capable of communicating clearly with a human including processing instructions, responding to questions, and detecting deception, within the domain of a set of building blocks. It also had memory. (So, "Clean the triangular red brick that was on top of the green brick" would be a valid statement) It's for this reason that the alleged "English language parsing exercise" reason for Adventure is ludicrous, even by the standards of the time Adventure (verb [noun] (where [] is optional); I believe, although frankly SHRDLU apparently had superior parsing and comprehension to modern IF standard of verb <adjectives> [noun] [preposition] <adjectives> [noun] (where <> and [] is optional, but you need every [] before a [] and <> requires the following []) was highly restricted (Although the modern verb adjectives noun preposition adjectives noun is an artificial choice as much as anything - The hatred of guess-the-verb puzzles is great enough that no-one dares risk introducing guess-the-adverb ones, and most V N P N P N concepts can be broken down into two steps which is conceptually easier to work with for the user, aparantly... The designer has also stated that the motivation was to bring the joys of programming to non-programmers.
Logged

Quote from: Tim Guest
Interactive Fiction is computer gaming's best parallel with poetry: complex, subtle, and these days absolutely unsaleable.

Quote from: Raph Koster
Art and entertainment are not terms of type - they are terms of intensity
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2008, 22:04:58 EDT »

AI, Artificial Intelligence, the goal is a creative reasoning Intelligence, artificial because it was created by us (humans).

as for your B yes I'm aware of all this, it part of the reason I stated Psy posts have showed he was beyound that
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #24 on: September 01, 2008, 06:52:46 EDT »

Joshbreton,

On this forum I think it's quite reasonable to make new posts to start debates about pieces of news.  And also it's reasonable to reply to other peoples posts pointing out the problems with their thinking.  However, if we talk too much about libertarianism then we're likely to annoy the rest of the forum.

This is why I haven't replied to the pile of arguments we all had regarding libertarianism about three weeks ago.  If anyone feels like they have had enough of religion and wants to return to politics for a bit then I'll reply to those arguments.


While these ideas are cute and all, the truth remains that Communism and Capitalism have yet to be implemented in any real world government, in part because its impossible to do so.  Attempts to implement the systems without thinking first have had similar results.  Both lead to the formation of a ruling class that controls the means of production and is able to dominate everyone else, whether its a circle of plutocrats or a tinpot dictator and his thought police.

Working systems involve concepts like compromise, checks, and balances.  Like the US government, which is designed to be contradictory and unreliable specifically so it CAN'T become an extreme government like the examples above.  Its designed to be the lesser of evils, a government that works poorly rather than not working at all.
But, neither "communism" or "capitalism" were conceived of as extremes.  Even Marx thought that private ownership of personal property was reasonable so long as that property was not "means of production".  No defender of libertarianism suggests the elimination of the law, or of institutions to perform the law related functions of government even if those suggested are not the same as those we have today.  Considering them like this is almost a strawman argument.

How "extreme" a government can be is not a simple issue.  Certainly all possible forms of government are more or less collectivist or individualist.  That is that in one case most actions do not involve government intervention and in the other most do.  However, that doesn't necessarily mean that there are two extreme points and a line connecting them, clearly there isn't the problems are more complicated.  Nor does it mean that the sort of governments and societies that we have now are necessarily the best ones.

I agree with you in dismissing the idea that their should be "no government".  But I don't agree that the sort of government we have now is the best.


boring7, I'll come back to your post in while, but first a comment on communism....
Quote from: boring7
Communism is more like one of those non-competitive educational games, very boring for adults and something that no one really enjoys playing after the newness wears off. 

Communism is self-destructive, it is obvious and well-documented that the USSR collapsed because of it.  People do not care to work hard or "try" when there is no incentive.  What is not so obvious, in part because it has not happened recently enough, is that Capitalism is self-destructive as well. 

With non-competitive games, it collapses because everyone loses interest and stops trying, just like the gears of the communist machine grind to a halt after the rush of red revolution collapse.
Originally Marx conceived of communism as you describe.  However, communism in practice was never like this, it was not "non-competitive".  For example in Russia what happened after the revolution was that a dictatorship based on communist principles was established within about four years.  The situation in China was similar.  These dictatorships did not have the issues with "incentives" that many people suppose.  There were great incentives for a person to become one of the ruling elite.  It wasn't so unusual for this to happen, though technocrats would often hand out positions to their friends and family so it wasn't so usual either.

The larger problems the communist states had was that they quickly drifted to dictatorship and they had no way to organize their economies.  Individual rights were left in tatters in all of them and none had long lasting economic success.

The reasons for this are not difficult to understand.  Firstly, the government control necessary to create a communist state is larger than what a democratic government can effectively wield.  Secondly, any who descent from obeying government must be treated as criminals, so a communist state must be based on coercion much more than a capitalist one.  Thirdly, the government control of industry is necessarily a decision about ends as well as means.  That is government must decide what is made and therefore what people should value.  On these three issues Hayek wrote:
Quote from: Frederich Hayek
The goal of the planning will be described by some such vague term as "the general welfare." There will be no real agreement as to the ends to be attained, and the effect of the people's agreeing that there must be central planning, without agreeing on the ends, will be rather as if a group of people were to commit themselves to take a journey together without agreeing where they want to go: with the result that they may all have to make a journey which most of them do not want at all.

Democratic assemblies cannot function as planning agencies. They cannot produce agreement on everything — the whole direction of the resources of the nation-for the number of possible courses of action will be legion. Even if a congress could, by proceeding step by step and compromising at each point, agree on some scheme, it would certainly in the end satisfy nobody.

To draw up an economic plan in this fashion is even less possible than, for instance, successfully to plan a military campaign by democratic procedure. As in strategy it would become inevitable to delegate the task to experts. And even if, by this expedient, a democracy should succeed in planning every sector of economic activity, it would still have to face the problem of integrating these separate plans into a unitary whole. There will be a stronger and stronger demand that some board or some single individual should be given power to act on their own responsibility. The cry for an economic dictator is a characteristic stage in the movement toward planning. Thus the legislative body will be reduced to choosing the persons who are to have practically absolute power. The whole system will tend toward that kind of dictatorship in which the head of the government is position by popular vote, but where he has all the powers at his command to make certain that the vote will go in the direction he desires. Planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of coercion and, as such, essential if central planning on a large scale is to be possible. There is no justification for the widespread belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; it is not the source of power which prevents it from being arbitrary; to be free from dictatorial qualities, the power must also be limited. A true "dictatorship of the proletariat," even if democratic in form, if it undertook centrally to direct the economic system, would probably destroy personal freedom as completely as any autocracy has ever done.

Lastly, the price system of the free market provides a means of communication that cannot be replicated by central planning even if that planning utilizes decentralization.  Each price is a synthesis of supply and demand in each market.
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #25 on: September 01, 2008, 12:25:05 EDT »

However, just as Communism fails to work in practice, so does Capitalism.  In either system, once someone consolidates enough power, they are able to break the rules of the system.

Also, I said that the government of the US is currently (or at least was before 2000) the lesser evil, but not the least evil.  However, one should be very careful in finding it, as its far easier to trend towards a more evil government, and one should acknowledge that the US government is surprisingly good for one that has to manage 300 million people, many of whom are vastly different from each other.

No defender of libertarianism suggests the elimination of the law, or of institutions to perform the law related functions of government even if those suggested are not the same as those we have today.
Go read the official libertarian party platform again, the one that was brought up by the Blog.  By the time they are down shredding  government, there won't be enough left over to defend the rights of anything.

Originally Marx conceived of communism as you describe.  However, communism in practice was never like this, it was not "non-competitive".  For example in Russia what happened after the revolution was that a dictatorship based on communist principles was established within about four years.  The situation in China was similar.  These dictatorships did not have the issues with "incentives" that many people suppose.  There were great incentives for a person to become one of the ruling elite.  It wasn't so unusual for this to happen, though technocrats would often hand out positions to their friends and family so it wasn't so usual either.

The larger problems the communist states had was that they quickly drifted to dictatorship and they had no way to organize their economies.  Individual rights were left in tatters in all of them and none had long lasting economic success.

The reasons for this are not difficult to understand.  Firstly, the government control necessary to create a communist state is larger than what a democratic government can effectively wield.  Secondly, any who descent from obeying government must be treated as criminals, so a communist state must be based on coercion much more than a capitalist one.  Thirdly, the government control of industry is necessarily a decision about ends as well as means.  That is government must decide what is made and therefore what people should value.  On these three issues Hayek wrote:
Drifted?  Communism starts out as a dictatorship, which is then somehow supposed to magically transform into a worker's utopia.  It doesn't.

Economic Stuff
Socialist-lite people like me have never wanted the government to OWN the means of production, but merely able to exert INFLUENCE over it, specifically, to counter the consolidation of wealth and power that normally occurs in a capitalist environment, which ultimately destroys the possibility of fair competition and causes the market to be less efficient.

Also, in regards to welfare, welfare should be constructed to keep people alive, but unhappy, while providing additional encouragement and motivation to move off of welfare.  For example, most things supplied by welfare should not be exchangeable for luxury items, and that luxury items shouldn't be supplied period unless the person in question is old/disabled, and genuinely has no ability to earn them him/herself.  Lastly, these benefits would either go away slowly when you get a job, in such a way that getting a job results in consistently higher net wealth.  The possibility of the benefits remaining constant with jobs existing solely a source of money for luxuries would be optimal, but I recognize that in practice such a system is unlikely to work.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #26 on: September 01, 2008, 13:01:46 EDT »

However, just as Communism fails to work in practice, so does Capitalism.  In either system, once someone consolidates enough power, they are able to break the rules of the system.
My point is though that when you are arguing against "Capitalism" you are arguing against a strawman.  Libertarians are not suggesting removing the justice system for example.  They propose mechanisms to avoid the consolidation of power that you discuss.

Also, I said that the government of the US is currently (or at least was before 2000) the lesser evil, but not the least evil.  However, one should be very careful in finding it, as its far easier to trend towards a more evil government, and one should acknowledge that the US government is surprisingly good for one that has to manage 300 million people, many of whom are vastly different from each other.
Well, it is hard to judge governments against each other since the nations in question are so vastly different.

No defender of libertarianism suggests the elimination of the law, or of institutions to perform the law related functions of government even if those suggested are not the same as those we have today.
Go read the official libertarian party platform again, the one that was brought up by the Blog.  By the time they are down shredding  government, there won't be enough left over to defend the rights of anything.
I fail to see why.  I don't particularly agree with all the views of that party.  But, which part of the platform do you see problems with?

Originally Marx conceived of communism as you describe.  However, communism in practice was never like this, it was not "non-competitive".  For example in Russia what happened after the revolution was that a dictatorship based on communist principles was established within about four years.  The situation in China was similar.  These dictatorships did not have the issues with "incentives" that many people suppose.  There were great incentives for a person to become one of the ruling elite.  It wasn't so unusual for this to happen, though technocrats would often hand out positions to their friends and family so it wasn't so usual either.

The larger problems the communist states had was that they quickly drifted to dictatorship and they had no way to organize their economies.  Individual rights were left in tatters in all of them and none had long lasting economic success.

The reasons for this are not difficult to understand.  Firstly, the government control necessary to create a communist state is larger than what a democratic government can effectively wield.  Secondly, any who descent from obeying government must be treated as criminals, so a communist state must be based on coercion much more than a capitalist one.  Thirdly, the government control of industry is necessarily a decision about ends as well as means.  That is government must decide what is made and therefore what people should value.  On these three issues Hayek wrote:
Drifted?  Communism starts out as a dictatorship, which is then somehow supposed to magically transform into a worker's utopia.  It doesn't.
At the beginning in Russia and China it started out as a genuine attempt to implement the society Marx had described.  Both very quickly became dictatorships.

Economic Stuff
Socialist-lite people like me have never wanted the government to OWN the means of production, but merely able to exert INFLUENCE over it, specifically, to counter the consolidation of wealth and power that normally occurs in a capitalist environment, which ultimately destroys the possibility of fair competition and causes the market to be less efficient.

Also, in regards to welfare, welfare should be constructed to keep people alive, but unhappy, while providing additional encouragement and motivation to move off of welfare.  For example, most things supplied by welfare should not be exchangeable for luxury items, and that luxury items shouldn't be supplied period unless the person in question is old/disabled, and genuinely has no ability to earn them him/herself.  Lastly, these benefits would either go away slowly when you get a job, in such a way that getting a job results in consistently higher net wealth.  The possibility of the benefits remaining constant with jobs existing solely a source of money for luxuries would be optimal, but I recognize that in practice such a system is unlikely to work.
Well, I would fairly much agree with that sort of thing as a model for government.  Though it could hardly be called "Socialism".

It is also mostly not what "Socialist-lite" people do when in government.  What is supported in practice is systems of control that give government power and also a set of businesses power.  The Federal Reserve system for example gives the government control over the circulation of currencies.  It also gives extra power to issue money to those banks which become members who in exchange for that power must cooperate with the government.  The FCC, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are similar, so are most international trade tariffs and the operation of the patent system in the US.
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #27 on: September 01, 2008, 14:07:04 EDT »

My point is though that when you are arguing against "Capitalism" you are arguing against a strawman.  Libertarians are not suggesting removing the justice system for example.  They propose mechanisms to avoid the consolidation of power that you discuss.
No Justice System in existence is strong enough to defend against the plutocracy that libertarian policy would create.  Also, what exactly is going to pay for Law Enforcement after the libertarians are done repealing taxes?  Magic fairy dust?

Well, it is hard to judge governments against each other since the nations in question are so vastly different.
You can judge the results.  How much freedom a nation has, how economically successful it is, and so on, are regularly measured by a variety of groups in a variety of ways.

I fail to see why.  I don't particularly agree with all the views of that party.  But, which part of the platform do you see problems with?
You claim that I was attacking straw men, but the official libertarian party platform does indeed do away with government, by taking away all forms of welfare, along with the taxes needed to finance law enforcement, along with the removal of most of the laws that would be enforced anyway outside of basic don't kill people stuff.

At the beginning in Russia and China it started out as a genuine attempt to implement the society Marx had described.  Both very quickly became dictatorships.
Communist governments are supposed to have a transitional dictatorship before magically advancing to a worker's utopia

Well, I would fairly much agree with that sort of thing as a model for government.  Though it could hardly be called "Socialism".
It is to me.  It seems that we disagree mainly on definitions, not actual lines of thought.

It is also mostly not what "Socialist-lite" people do when in government.  What is supported in practice is systems of control that give government power and also a set of businesses power.  The Federal Reserve system for example gives the government control over the circulation of currencies.  It also gives extra power to issue money to those banks which become members who in exchange for that power must cooperate with the government.  The FCC, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are similar, so are most international trade tariffs and the operation of the patent system in the US.
Those all fall under the "government able to exert influence over corporations/economy" clause.  In this case, such would be attempts by the government to prevent capitalist induced economic disaster.  Take the Great Depression.  It shows exactly what unconstrained capitalism is capable of causing, and it showed exactly why having welfare systems is needed.

Of course, such systems aren't going to be perfect.  However, unlike capitalism, you can vote to move them closer to the ideal state.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #28 on: September 01, 2008, 14:42:33 EDT »

My point is though that when you are arguing against "Capitalism" you are arguing against a strawman.  Libertarians are not suggesting removing the justice system for example.  They propose mechanisms to avoid the consolidation of power that you discuss.
No Justice System in existence is strong enough to defend against the plutocracy that libertarian policy would create.  Also, what exactly is going to pay for Law Enforcement after the libertarians are done repealing taxes?  Magic fairy dust?
They don't propose to repeal taxes though.  Income tax sure.

Well, it is hard to judge governments against each other since the nations in question are so vastly different.
You can judge the results.  How much freedom a nation has, how economically successful it is, and so on, are regularly measured by a variety of groups in a variety of ways.
Sure some are better than others my point is that the places they govern are very different.  How do you compare the government of Ireland (a country of 4million people) to that of the US for example?

I fail to see why.  I don't particularly agree with all the views of that party.  But, which part of the platform do you see problems with?
You claim that I was attacking straw men, but the official libertarian party platform does indeed do away with government, by taking away all forms of welfare, along with the taxes needed to finance law enforcement, along with the removal of most of the laws that would be enforced anyway outside of basic don't kill people stuff.
Well, whatever you're opinion on welfare is I don't really see how it's relevant here.  Regarding taxes, as I said above they don't propose to dispense with all taxes.  Lastly, which laws do you think must be retained to prevent plutocracy?

At the beginning in Russia and China it started out as a genuine attempt to implement the society Marx had described.  Both very quickly became dictatorships.
Communist governments are supposed to have a transitional dictatorship before magically advancing to a worker's utopia
Yes, the "dictatorship of the proletariat".  It isn't though very clear what this phrase is supposed to mean, Marx was hazy.

Well, I would fairly much agree with that sort of thing as a model for government.  Though it could hardly be called "Socialism".
It is to me.  It seems that we disagree mainly on definitions, not actual lines of thought.
I think we do to some extent.  I think possibly this is because I come from a more overtly statist society.  I don't think that the US today is really that much different than Britain, but it is less overt.

The US government expands its influence by things that are not so visible to the normal voter like regulations that affect businesses and like foreign military intervention.  European governments tend to do things more by law and by government agencies.

It is also mostly not what "Socialist-lite" people do when in government.  What is supported in practice is systems of control that give government power and also a set of businesses power.  The Federal Reserve system for example gives the government control over the circulation of currencies.  It also gives extra power to issue money to those banks which become members who in exchange for that power must cooperate with the government.  The FCC, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are similar, so are most international trade tariffs and the operation of the patent system in the US.
Those all fall under the "government able to exert influence over corporations/economy" clause.  In this case, such would be attempts by the government to prevent capitalist induced economic disaster.  Take the Great Depression.  It shows exactly what unconstrained capitalism is capable of causing, and it showed exactly why having welfare systems is needed.

Of course, such systems aren't going to be perfect.  However, unlike capitalism, you can vote to move them closer to the ideal state.
Well, this gets us into the discussion about whether or not the great depression was in fact caused by capitalism, personally I think the Federal Reserve caused it.  We can talk about that if you like.  But still, that only concerns the Federal Reserve.  What is the point of Freddie and Fannie for example?
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #29 on: September 01, 2008, 17:05:11 EDT »

They don't propose to repeal taxes though.  Income tax sure.
That's the biggest one.

Sure some are better than others my point is that the places they govern are very different.  How do you compare the government of Ireland (a country of 4million people) to that of the US for example?
They have an easier job to manage, but that doesn't factor into economic or social wellbeing.  You seem to be arguing my point for me.  I think that the US government is so impressive in part because it IS managing 300 million people of widely differing mentalities, and is able to do so with a pretty good modicum of success.

Well, whatever you're opinion on welfare is I don't really see how it's relevant here.  Regarding taxes, as I said above they don't propose to dispense with all taxes.  Lastly, which laws do you think must be retained to prevent plutocracy?
The same regulations that Libertarians want to get rid of, mainly.

I think we do to some extent.  I think possibly this is because I come from a more overtly statist society.  I don't think that the US today is really that much different than Britain, but it is less overt.

The US government expands its influence by things that are not so visible to the normal voter like regulations that affect businesses and like foreign military intervention.  European governments tend to do things more by law and by government agencies.
I don't support foreign military intervention except under highly unusual circumstances (WWII).  I think the rest of what you said is a comment, not an argument, so yeah.

Well, this gets us into the discussion about whether or not the great depression was in fact caused by capitalism, personally I think the Federal Reserve caused it.  We can talk about that if you like.  But still, that only concerns the Federal Reserve.  What is the point of Freddie and Fannie for example?
Overconfidence in the market caused it.  Its always the same cycle, people over-invest far more than they should, inflate markets beyond stability via too much speculation, and overall just put too much trust in the invisible hand, and then it bites their ass.  The exact causes are unclear and probably have a billion books written on the subject, but all I can say is that the mess was cleaned up via socialist policies, not capitalist ones.
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 64
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!