|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Triban
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Location: Suwon Station
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP wrote: |
| Triban wrote: |
| morrisonhotel wrote: |
| DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP wrote: |
The right in the US have done such a good job of blinding people with their extremist polarisation of Socialism on the left and what they will tell us is 'Conservatism' (read Facism for the real nomenclature) on the right that they'll have you believe it's a choice (or a war) between one or the other, heaven or Hell... Now look at France or Switzerland or Britain and see free market capitalism alongside some 'socialist' institutions such as national healthcare, pensions (pensions not going to be so hot in the UK in future) DECENT, llivable social security, council housing etc... |
Interesting post. I think the most amusing thing about the health care debacle in the US at the moment is how unbelievably stupid the opponents are when they appear on television. They really can't tell the difference between democratic socialism (even though the proposals put forward are barely properly socialist) and communism. It's no wonder that there are people out there that think Americans are ignorant about politics. |
Take a step back, breath, and realize that there is no longer a right or a left. |
Take a step back, then a good hard look and realsie you are out of touch with reality. There are probably pills you can take. oh, sorry I guess for 'right' I should have said 'republican' or' 'neocon' and for left I should have said, oh wait a minute, I wont even bother because they're the same thing and everyone knows what I mean anyway.... |
So let's see, how much has changed since the left took control? The missile shield? Laughable, because I know you will bring that up. The majority of Bush administration politics have been continued with Obama. I guess I should take pills and REALIZE that... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Triban wrote: |
| DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP wrote: |
| Triban wrote: |
| morrisonhotel wrote: |
| DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP wrote: |
The right in the US have done such a good job of blinding people with their extremist polarisation of Socialism on the left and what they will tell us is 'Conservatism' (read Facism for the real nomenclature) on the right that they'll have you believe it's a choice (or a war) between one or the other, heaven or Hell... Now look at France or Switzerland or Britain and see free market capitalism alongside some 'socialist' institutions such as national healthcare, pensions (pensions not going to be so hot in the UK in future) DECENT, llivable social security, council housing etc... |
Interesting post. I think the most amusing thing about the health care debacle in the US at the moment is how unbelievably stupid the opponents are when they appear on television. They really can't tell the difference between democratic socialism (even though the proposals put forward are barely properly socialist) and communism. It's no wonder that there are people out there that think Americans are ignorant about politics. |
Take a step back, breath, and realize that there is no longer a right or a left. |
Take a step back, then a good hard look and realsie you are out of touch with reality. There are probably pills you can take. oh, sorry I guess for 'right' I should have said 'republican' or' 'neocon' and for left I should have said, oh wait a minute, I wont even bother because they're the same thing and everyone knows what I mean anyway.... |
So let's see, how much has changed since the left took control? The missile shield? Laughable, because I know you will bring that up. The majority of Bush administration politics have been continued with Obama. I guess I should take pills and REALIZE that... |
That doesn't mean there is no Political Right or Left. It just means Barack Obama -- a particular politician -- is continuing with many of the policies of his precedessor. The sheer fact that many Liberals are angry with him for that demonstrates quite handily there's still a difference in the hearts and minds of many people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
morrisonhotel
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As much as the Republicans would like to vilify the Democrats as the left, they really aren't. Come to Europe, there are plenty of genuine left-wing parties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Triban wrote: |
| DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP wrote: |
| Triban wrote: |
| morrisonhotel wrote: |
| DWAEJIMORIGUKBAP wrote: |
The right in the US have done such a good job of blinding people with their extremist polarisation of Socialism on the left and what they will tell us is 'Conservatism' (read Facism for the real nomenclature) on the right that they'll have you believe it's a choice (or a war) between one or the other, heaven or Hell... Now look at France or Switzerland or Britain and see free market capitalism alongside some 'socialist' institutions such as national healthcare, pensions (pensions not going to be so hot in the UK in future) DECENT, llivable social security, council housing etc... |
Interesting post. I think the most amusing thing about the health care debacle in the US at the moment is how unbelievably stupid the opponents are when they appear on television. They really can't tell the difference between democratic socialism (even though the proposals put forward are barely properly socialist) and communism. It's no wonder that there are people out there that think Americans are ignorant about politics. |
Take a step back, breath, and realize that there is no longer a right or a left. |
Take a step back, then a good hard look and realsie you are out of touch with reality. There are probably pills you can take. oh, sorry I guess for 'right' I should have said 'republican' or' 'neocon' and for left I should have said, oh wait a minute, I wont even bother because they're the same thing and everyone knows what I mean anyway.... |
So let's see, how much has changed since the left took control? The missile shield? Laughable, because I know you will bring that up. The majority of Bush administration politics have been continued with Obama. I guess I should take pills and REALIZE that... |
That doesn't mean there is no Political Right or Left. It just means Barack Obama -- a particular politician -- is continuing with many of the policies of his precedessor. The sheer fact that many Liberals are angry with him for that demonstrates quite handily there's still a difference in the hearts and minds of many people. |
The best 40 seconds summary of politics in America, ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXpdJLJqG9U |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old Gil
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Location: Got out! olleh!
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| interesting how a horrific murder has digressed to the standard libertarian-socialist argument that seems to be popping up on more and more threads on this forum. |
When the Libertarians on this board stop trying to link every single social issue that comes up to Socialism, maybe that will stop.  |
Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Before responding, let me point out to Rusty that ontheway had his chance to qualify his "Socialism is evil" ideology in the fashion you suggested, and passed on that opportunity. Quite the opposite, he directly affirms his beliefs still apply to those societies. So let's dispense with any fictions about straw mans thus forth.
Moving on...
| ontheway wrote: |
If you studied native Americans then you should have no trouble showing how they had property rights to land. Which tribes did this and where? |
So, out of the many claims you made (no private property rights, no creating buildings, no improving the land, no agriculture, etc) which I've contested, you've chosen to contest only no property rights to land. An intelligent choice from a debate perspective: there was so much unused land in North America during the time of the Native Americans that land rights barely needed to be discussed for the most part. Unlike the modern era, where all land is "taken," there was plenty of land availible during this time period. As such, it's hardly surprising Native Americans didn't deal in land-specific property all that extensively: there was so much of it.
That said, you've put forward a challenge, so I should meet it. The most obvious example are the Hopi Indians*:
| Quote: |
The Hopi house hold ran down the maternal line. The women
inherited, or owned the homes. The uncle raised her children instead of their father because their father was raising his sisters children! The men were responsible for their mothers house, and their sister's. |
The creation of buildings, private home ownership, and even estate rights. The only reason these concepts are less evident amongst many Native tribes is that they simply didn't need them. When land is so abundant, there's no point in bickering over the specifics, so they didn't. That doesn't mean that anyone who wanted to couldn't do more or less as they pleased with any given tract of land, it just means they didn't.
Where you go most astray is ignoring the reason many tribes chose to pool their farmlands. Socialism is only Socialism when the government is coercing you to pool your resources. No such thing happened among the Natives; there was no government to force them to do anything, and anyone who wanted to leave the group would have been allowed to do so. They often pooled their resources because it had benefits, not because they were coerced to. Many people owning a field, working that field, and sharing the results isn't Socialism any more than many people owning a company, working at that company, and sharing the results is. In both cases, you're pooling your labor and sharing the product of your own free will.
And of course the artificial focus you've given to my response shouldn't ignore the fact that in addition to this, Native Americans had property rights regarding material possessions as well. A person who created more had more, it didn't just vanish or get taken away from him. At worst, he might generous give some of his created wealth away, but generosity is by no means in conflict with Liberty.
Your attempt to construe these people as deficient of property rights, building construction, agriculture, and so forth is simply incorrect, and the fact that you'd say such things in attempt to defend your case says a lot about your case.
*Forgive me for the quality of the link, it was turned up with a casual internet search to show I didn't pull this out of no where. My actual source is the Book of the Hopi, which is sitting at my parent's home in America right now. Feel free to buy a copy and page through it if you like. |
Since you didn't understand what I wrote, I will repost it here:
| Quote: |
| They did not recognize property or property rights. People were not able to claim land for their personal use, improve the land, build buildings, husband animals, raise crops, earn an income, and keep all of these things for their personal benefit. |
The reasons I said you should look for a tribe that allowed land ownership, and none did, was firstly, that if you do not own the underlying land, you cannot own or transfer the improvements made upon the land. You are not the owner of the improvements and so few will be made. Sure, you can plant and harvest annual crops and have a pretty good chance of realizing some benefit therefrom, but the tribe actually would be able to claim the crops, no individual was able to claim absolute ownership to his own plantings. And long term investment and improvement that accrues over generations was precluded.
This was even true in your example of the limited right to transfer the right to occupy certain parts of shared communal dwellings among the Hopi Indians. If you look harder, you should find at least two more tribes that allowed the transfer of such occupancy rights, akin to allowing you to transfer the lease on a rented apartment. But, not being the actual owner of the building and not being the owner of the underlying land, you preclude the advancement inherent in a free market society.
Throughout history, property rights have been an essential precurser to advancement. Someone had to have property rights so as to benefit from, and therefore invest in, advancement.
In Europe this process began thousands of years ago. If you look at advancement in Europe, speed of advancement and the type of advancement correlates with rights to all kinds of property. People who can earn, improve and keep what they create are the one's who invent, invest and advance a society.
The American Indians were slow to develop the essential elements of a free society and therefore did not advance. A few tribes that I'm aware of had some limited property rights - that is, they could transfer occupancy rights in dwellings. The need for property was creating this limited foray into property rights. Eventually, if such rights had been alowed to develop without the arrival of Europeans, we could have seen advancement in the Americas similar to that in Europe. It was the lack of liberty and property rights that prevented it.
Even personal property was not protected for Native American Indians. They were only allowed limited rights to accumulate personal property. As a result, Indians in North America accumulated little wealth. Since I know it is impossible for you to show that Indians had the right to own any significant personal property, and since none did, I suggested you focus on land.
And thank you. You have confirmed what I had explained to you. The Indians had no property rights in land. You found one tribe with limited occupancy rights to housing. The American Indians were in the beginning stages of developing the needed framework for advancement when the Europeans came. (This has nothing to do with race, but just accidental timing of history.) Europeans had no "prime directive" so they didn't wait to see what the Natives might have done if left alone.
(Obviously, this discussion precludes the Myans, Azetecs etc. who developed civilizations, had significant advancement and had established systems of property rights for some members of their societies. These were not free peoples, but some people were allowed to accumulate wealth as opposed to the North American tribes that allowed no one to accumulate wealth. This is similar to the totalitarian socialists of the USSR and other communist republics. They allowed the rich and politically powerful to accumulate wealth both personally and in the hands of the state held for their benefit. ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Your argument regarding the surplus of land precluding the need for ownership is completely wrong.
To understand, we only have to look at what happened after the arrival of the Europeans.
Settlers in North America were able to establish more traditional, nearly unfettered ownership rights in land. They improved the land immediately, they built buildings, planted crops raised animals, and earned incomes that they were able to secure for their own benefit. In just a few years, many such settlers became quite wealthy from their own efforts.
So what happened. The land was still abundant and often free for the taking. The biggest difference between the settlers who became rich and the Indians who lived alongside them was that the settlers had property rights they could rely on to accumulate wealth. Their assets and incomes were theirs and not owned or shared by any tribe.
Unfettered rights to property and income are essential elements to a free society, a free market, and advancement.
Socialism must always deny the rights and liberties of the people subject to its evil laws. It always has slower, if any, growth. It always coerces and crushes at least part of the society subject to its rule.
Socialism is a large category of evil that ranges from the Fascist Socialists such as the Clintons, Kennedys and Obamas, to the Communist Socialists such as the moral majority Republicans (remember that the number one goal of the communists is to create the good "Communist Man" and therefore their primary regulation has been in the area of the war on drugs begun by the communists over a century ago, control of reproduction, and regulation of personal behavior), to the National Socialists and Totalitarian Communists. These groupings are all found in the lower quadrant of the political map.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/quiz.php
Socialism is always evil.
Socialism always fails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
From ontheway;
| Quote: |
| To understand what socialism has done, you have to anaylze not just how things are and were, but why they were the way they were, what socialism has done, what the market would have done, where we would be without socialism, where we would be with even more socialism, and where we would be had we allowed the free market to operate (since 1913 for example). |
If we are to believe your telling of what is needed for us to be able to understand the effects socialism has had on our society, then the task is quite impossible. How can we analyze where we would be without socialism? Or where we would be with an operating free market? |
The task is difficult, but not at all impossible. It requires years of work and study. If you haven't done it then you won't understand. Of course, you admit you haven't, haven't even considered it and don't know how.
This is what real economists, Free Market economists of the Austrian school, have been doing for years. I spent years working and studying economics inside the UN, the USSR, and numerous universities and other countries. Try it.
No one who has actually studied economics can remain a socialist or support fascist-socialist government such as we have today. |
Yes. The task! What ontheway feels he has defined and delineated to the extent that he is able to refer to it as "it", and "this". Do you mind if I ask you to be more specific? Surely, having worked "inside the U.N., the U.S.S.R., and numerous universities and other countries", you must be able to supply me with some specifics. I know, I know, my brain is doubtless not equipped to grasp "it". But try me! How can we analyze where we would be without socialism? How can we analyze where we would be with an operating free market? |
It's merely your lack of the proper education.
| petulant child wrote: |
Doctor, doctor, how can you know what killed someone? How can you know what treatment someone needs? How can you know that someone is sick? How can you know that eating sand will not cure cancer?
And please give me a synopsis of your entire education and experience in medicine that I completely lack, right here in a single post on an obscure website, 'cause I think I know everything about treating cancer and I'm sure eating sand will cure cancer, even though I've never studied science or medicine. After all, I vote, so my opinion about medicine is just as good as yours. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
From ontheway;
| Quote: |
| To understand what socialism has done, you have to anaylze not just how things are and were, but why they were the way they were, what socialism has done, what the market would have done, where we would be without socialism, where we would be with even more socialism, and where we would be had we allowed the free market to operate (since 1913 for example). |
If we are to believe your telling of what is needed for us to be able to understand the effects socialism has had on our society, then the task is quite impossible. How can we analyze where we would be without socialism? Or where we would be with an operating free market? |
The task is difficult, but not at all impossible. It requires years of work and study. If you haven't done it then you won't understand. Of course, you admit you haven't, haven't even considered it and don't know how.
This is what real economists, Free Market economists of the Austrian school, have been doing for years. I spent years working and studying economics inside the UN, the USSR, and numerous universities and other countries. Try it.
No one who has actually studied economics can remain a socialist or support fascist-socialist government such as we have today. |
Yes. The task! What ontheway feels he has defined and delineated to the extent that he is able to refer to it as "it", and "this". Do you mind if I ask you to be more specific? Surely, having worked "inside the U.N., the U.S.S.R., and numerous universities and other countries", you must be able to supply me with some specifics. I know, I know, my brain is doubtless not equipped to grasp "it". But try me! How can we analyze where we would be without socialism? How can we analyze where we would be with an operating free market? |
It's merely your lack of the proper education.
| petulant child wrote: |
Doctor, doctor, how can you know what killed someone? How can you know what treatment someone needs? How can you know that someone is sick? How can you know that eating sand will not cure cancer?
And please give me a synopsis of your entire education and experience in medicine that I completely lack, right here in a single post on an obscure website, 'cause I think I know everything about treating cancer and I'm sure eating sand will cure cancer, even though I've never studied science or medicine. After all, I vote, so my opinion about medicine is just as good as yours. |
|
Or maybe, just maybe, the task itself is quite impossible. Like history, politics and economics are not exact sciences. We could not be expected to analyze where we would be had Nazi Germany prevailed in WWII, now could we? So, how can we analyze where we would be without socialism? How can we analyze where we would be with an operating free market?
The answer is very simple. We can't. But as you have twice refused to answer my questions with specifics, I can assume you already know this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
From ontheway;
| Quote: |
| To understand what socialism has done, you have to anaylze not just how things are and were, but why they were the way they were, what socialism has done, what the market would have done, where we would be without socialism, where we would be with even more socialism, and where we would be had we allowed the free market to operate (since 1913 for example). |
If we are to believe your telling of what is needed for us to be able to understand the effects socialism has had on our society, then the task is quite impossible. How can we analyze where we would be without socialism? Or where we would be with an operating free market? |
The task is difficult, but not at all impossible. It requires years of work and study. If you haven't done it then you won't understand. Of course, you admit you haven't, haven't even considered it and don't know how.
This is what real economists, Free Market economists of the Austrian school, have been doing for years. I spent years working and studying economics inside the UN, the USSR, and numerous universities and other countries. Try it.
No one who has actually studied economics can remain a socialist or support fascist-socialist government such as we have today. |
Yes. The task! What ontheway feels he has defined and delineated to the extent that he is able to refer to it as "it", and "this". Do you mind if I ask you to be more specific? Surely, having worked "inside the U.N., the U.S.S.R., and numerous universities and other countries", you must be able to supply me with some specifics. I know, I know, my brain is doubtless not equipped to grasp "it". But try me! How can we analyze where we would be without socialism? How can we analyze where we would be with an operating free market? |
It's merely your lack of the proper education.
| petulant child wrote: |
Doctor, doctor, how can you know what killed someone? How can you know what treatment someone needs? How can you know that someone is sick? How can you know that eating sand will not cure cancer?
And please give me a synopsis of your entire education and experience in medicine that I completely lack, right here in a single post on an obscure website, 'cause I think I know everything about treating cancer and I'm sure eating sand will cure cancer, even though I've never studied science or medicine. After all, I vote, so my opinion about medicine is just as good as yours. |
|
Or maybe, just maybe, the task itself is quite impossible. Like history, politics and economics are not exact sciences. We could not be expected to analyze where we would be had Nazi Germany prevailed in WWII, now could we? So, how can we analyze where we would be without socialism? How can we analyze where we would be with an operating free market?
The answer is very simple. We can't. But as you have twice refused to answer my questions with specifics, I can assume you already know this. |
It's called inductive reasoning. You might want to try it sometime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| petulant child wrote: |
Doctor, doctor, how can you know what killed someone? How can you know what treatment someone needs? How can you know that someone is sick? How can you know that eating sand will not cure cancer?
And please give me a synopsis of your entire education and experience in medicine that I completely lack, right here in a single post on an obscure website, 'cause I think I know everything about treating cancer and I'm sure eating sand will cure cancer, even though I've never studied science or medicine. After all, I vote, so my opinion about medicine is just as good as yours. |
| petulant child wrote: |
| Doctor, doctor. Why don't you answer? Please. I want you to give me a 10 year education in a single post. I've said this twice now. |
Actually, if you were able to read hundreds of books and analyze years of data in 5 minutes, you would have already learned at least some of what I've been telling you.
I'll be happy to refer you to some universities, authors, and think tanks to get you started. It's unlikely you would get into the UN as I did and the USSR is gone, as is the research project that a team of Soviet government economists had underway attempting to show that socialism could work. They concluded that socialism is never as good as a free market, wrote up the studies, and laid the groundwork that Gorbechov had internalized in making his moves toward opening up and dismantling the USSR. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
Or maybe, just maybe, the task itself is quite impossible. Like history, politics and economics are not exact sciences. We could not be expected to analyze where we would be had Nazi Germany prevailed in WWII, now could we? So, how can we analyze where we would be without socialism? How can we analyze where we would be with an operating free market?
The answer is very simple. We can't. But as you have twice refused to answer my questions with specifics, I can assume you already know this. |
It's called inductive reasoning. You might want to try it sometime. |
The track record of forecasting by "experts" in the fields of economics, politics, and the social sciences, using inductive reasoning, is pathetically bad. We can assume that this would also be the case for "experts" in these fields trying to analyze what could have happened if so and so had been the case.
Humans are naturally shallow and superficial, especially when it comes to analyzing information. You have obviously not yet learned this, if you believe you possess the skills to induce where a country would be had it possessed (or not possessed) a particular governing ideology.
Simply put, your pretentions to being a new sort of oracle, calculating and analyzing and inducing your way to hitherto unavailable knowledge, are transparently ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
Or maybe, just maybe, the task itself is quite impossible. Like history, politics and economics are not exact sciences. We could not be expected to analyze where we would be had Nazi Germany prevailed in WWII, now could we? So, how can we analyze where we would be without socialism? How can we analyze where we would be with an operating free market?
The answer is very simple. We can't. But as you have twice refused to answer my questions with specifics, I can assume you already know this. |
It's called inductive reasoning. You might want to try it sometime. |
The track record of forecasting by "experts" in the fields of economics, politics, and the social sciences, using inductive reasoning, is pathetically bad. We can assume that this would also be the case for "experts" in these fields trying to analyze what could have happened if so and so had been the case. |
First, you are misquoting ontheway (it was my comment). But your reply to him is still a strawman. He's not really discussing what "might have happened without socialism", rather he's pointing out all of its shortcomings. The inductive reasoning comes into play when we consider that, with such a miserable history of failure on its part (continuing right into the present), socialism would be better replaced by a free market system which has elicited much more success in past (even if it had limitations placed on it).
ontheway has said many times that "socialism always fails". He also understands that more free market oriented systems have been very effective in the past (most notably in the US, which has been the most prosperous nation on earth ever since, the current downward slide notwithstanding). There are definite trends to consider here, we're not just making this stuff up...
| Quote: |
Humans are naturally shallow and superficial, especially when it comes to analyzing information. You have obviously not yet learned this, if you believe you possess the skills to induce where a country would be had it possessed (or not possessed) a particular governing ideology.
Simply put, your pretentions to being a new sort of oracle, calculating and analyzing and inducing your way to hitherto unavailable knowledge, are transparently ridiculous. |
Strawman + bad English + bad attitude = fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| First, you are misquoting ontheway (it was my comment) |
You're right. It was your comment. Sorry about that.
Also from visitorq;
| Quote: |
| He's not really discussing what "might have happened without socialism", rather he's pointing out all of its shortcomings. |
Here is the post which I originally responded to;
| Quote: |
| To understand what socialism has done, you have to anaylze not just how things are and were, but why they were the way they were, what socialism has done, what the market would have done, where we would be without socialism, where we would be with even more socialism, and where we would be had we allowed the free market to operate (since 1913 for example). |
My point, in case you haven't been paying attention, is that to do this is impossible.
I know that "strawman" is your new favourite word (ever since I correctly pointed out your use of the tactic in another thread) but I'm afraid it doesn't apply here  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| First, you are misquoting ontheway (it was my comment) |
You're right. It was your comment. Sorry about that.
Also from visitorq;
| Quote: |
| He's not really discussing what "might have happened without socialism", rather he's pointing out all of its shortcomings. |
Here is the post which I originally responded to;
| Quote: |
| To understand what socialism has done, you have to anaylze not just how things are and were, but why they were the way they were, what socialism has done, what the market would have done, where we would be without socialism, where we would be with even more socialism, and where we would be had we allowed the free market to operate (since 1913 for example). |
My point, in case you haven't been paying attention, is that to do this is impossible.
I know that "strawman" is your new favourite word (ever since I correctly pointed out your use of the tactic in another thread) but I'm afraid it doesn't apply here . |
The point is that there are definite trends, which we have been discussing. You're saying we can only "guess" what might have happened - which is obviously true to an extent (goes without saying, actually) - but then you go on to ignore all the historical results and case-in-point examples that would guide us to our most likely conclusion: that socialism is a failure, and free market economics is far more successful and favorable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
