|
Post by millring on Apr 23, 2015 14:26:21 GMT -5
50 years ago, and even longer than that, liberal policies WERE decried as socialist, even outright Communist. Exactly. The difference is that that charge used to be argued against, denied, even vehemently so. Now the philosophical similarities are accepted -- even embraced --by everyone who knows politics and sees our trajectory.........with the one exception of admitting or embracing it during elections. It is socialist's rhetoric that drives the Democratic Party's campaigning -- without using the word "socialism". Why?
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 23, 2015 14:33:04 GMT -5
Um, maybe the difference between "Do you support gay marriage?" and "Do you support state-sanctioned buggery?"
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Apr 23, 2015 14:54:40 GMT -5
Exactly. The difference is that that charge used to be argued against, denied, even vehemently so. Now the philosophical similarities are accepted -- even embraced --by everyone who knows politics and sees our trajectory... No they're not. By whom? Present some evidence to defend this statement. What I see is that the Democratic Party has actually retreated from the populism of the 1950's - 1960's. The argument simply gets repeated obsessively by the right, with no real understanding of the difference between liberalism, socialism, progressivism, or communism. Glen Beck would be an excellent example of this.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 23, 2015 14:59:48 GMT -5
Um, maybe the difference between "Do you support gay marriage?" and "Do you support state-sanctioned buggery?" Real Democrats, the leaders, know they can't trust anyone they can't control and they can't control anyone who doesn't owe them. It was that way in the '60s and nothing has changed but the names they call themselves and the names they call non-believers. The followers still don't even realize that their leaders are all rich people who made their money fleecing poor people. They're getting what they think they want, the financial destruction of the U.S.A. so why would they change?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 23, 2015 15:17:45 GMT -5
Exactly. The difference is that that charge used to be argued against, denied, even vehemently so. Now the philosophical similarities are accepted -- even embraced --by everyone who knows politics and sees our trajectory... No they're not. By whom? Present some evidence to defend this statement. What I see is that the Democratic Party has actually retreated from the populism of the 1950's - 1960's. The argument simply gets repeated obsessively by the right, with no real understanding of the difference between liberalism, socialism, progressivism, or communism. Glen Beck would be an excellent example of this. And I'm asking from the reverse. That's what I'm asking. What of socialism do you not embrace?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 23, 2015 15:18:43 GMT -5
Um, maybe the difference between "Do you support gay marriage?" and "Do you support state-sanctioned buggery?" I don't get the connection to the current conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 23, 2015 15:40:03 GMT -5
Exactly. The difference is that that charge used to be argued against, denied, even vehemently so. Now the philosophical similarities are accepted -- even embraced --by everyone who knows politics and sees our trajectory... No they're not. By whom? Present some evidence to defend this statement. What I see is that the Democratic Party has actually retreated from the populism of the 1950's - 1960's. The argument simply gets repeated obsessively by the right, with no real understanding of the difference between liberalism, socialism, progressivism, or communism. Glen Beck would be an excellent example of this. difference between liberalism, socialism, progressivism, or communism. Isn't a difference just different levels of totalitarianism. Two things that would fix the country are getting rid of the illegal standing army. And getting rid of limited liability corporations. The only purpose of a standing army is aggression/imperialism. ( To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;) The only purpose of limited liability corporations is to make government a partner in every business. People who own a company or a part of a company should be responsible for what the company does.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Apr 23, 2015 15:47:35 GMT -5
On the other hand, how about asking any Republican candidate if he/she would go back to the days of the 1890's and get rid of child labor laws, and all labor protections, and all environmental protections. See what they answer. I would. The problem with that sort of thinking is that it gets the cart in front of the horse. Our environment is cleaner today than it was in England in 1500 not because of laws, but because of capitalism. Our children are free to do things like go to school because their parents (again, thanks to capitalism) have the money to support them in what the peasants of 1500 would consider a life of luxury. This gets to the central fact that John is digging at: Some people are inclined to the view of the ever-virtuous government. They paint history as a continuous triumph of government. They consider every proposed expansion of government as an inherently good thing, simply because they are more inclined to trust government decision making than any other alternative. They are demonstrably wrong WRT history, but more importantly, what is the principled limiting factor under which they operate? I see none. Put another way, in the US today, government (at all levels, and not considering the economic cost of various non-economic regulations) controls just under 50% of all GDP. The way I would phrase John's question is this: "If government can't do all the things government needs to do while controlling 50% of GDP, how much more will it take?" The answer, inevitably and always, is "just a bit more". It was "just a bit more" when government controlled 20%. It was "just a bit more" when government controlled 30%. It was "just a bit more" when government controlled 40%. And (again, reading John's mind a bit) I believe what he is suggesting is that if someone had said, back when government controlled 20% something like "You guys keep going like this, and then someday you'll end up controlling 50%!!!", the liberal response would have been something like "What nonsensical fear-mongering it that?!?!? We're only talking 23%!!! How dare you suggest such a thing!" Just a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 23, 2015 15:54:21 GMT -5
I think 50% is way under counted. Every business that is incorporated is controlled by government. I'd guess closer to 90%, how many not incorporated businesses are there?
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Apr 23, 2015 16:28:30 GMT -5
What of socialism do you not embrace? Wikipedia defines socialism as: Which pretty much proves my earlier point that the term "socialism" is now so broad as to be meaningless. When Koch Enterprises and its operations can be comfortably subsumed in the definition of socialism, the word is pretty meaningless. What definition do I NOT embrace? I would not welcome large-scale, outright ownership of production in competition with a legitimate private enterprise, absent a compelling government interest. Those areas in which the government currently operates large "commercial" enterprises, e.g., Amtrak or the postal system, are those in which the private sector has failed to provide a needed solution. So, what of the unfettered unregulated free market system do you not embrace?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 23, 2015 17:00:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 23, 2015 17:36:17 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 18:43:45 GMT -5
Some thinly veiled neo-McCarthyism here.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Apr 23, 2015 18:51:26 GMT -5
Some thinly veiled neo-McCarthyism here. "Thinly veiled." Heh.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 23, 2015 19:10:41 GMT -5
So, what of the unfettered unregulated free market system do you not embrace? Hey, you start your own darn thread.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 23, 2015 19:13:11 GMT -5
Some thinly veiled neo-McCarthyism here. Really? How so? You mean there is a name for asking friend's opinions on economic philosophy? Is it wrong to ask ANYONE for clarification of their economic philosophy, or is the ban limited only to asking those who lean leftward. I need to know your rules so's I don't offend your tender sensibilities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 19:18:50 GMT -5
I'm not more than vaguely curious why you rarely address me with less than disdain. I'm not going to answer questions that reek of it.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 23, 2015 19:29:11 GMT -5
The Webster definition so's you don't have to take the time to look to understand James anti-Irish comment and can get past the socialist definition of socialism:
socialism utopian socialism
socialism noun so·cial·ism \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
: a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies Full Definition of SOCIALISM 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 23, 2015 19:31:41 GMT -5
Maybe it's because you break into discussions with accusations like "Some thinly veiled neo-McCarthyism here.".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 19:54:38 GMT -5
You are personally insulting and disdainful to me here. It seems for a long time now to have gone uncomfortably beyond issues.
|
|