Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - US Census worker murdered, "fed" written on his bo

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

US Census worker murdered, "fed" written on his bo
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

ubermenzch

Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:18 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

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 Crying or Very sad

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.

Yes, I am saying we can only guess. Trends can certainly help us in making a guess, but in the fields of economics, politics, and the social sciences, "experts" are more often than not wrong in their forecasts, narratives etc. These are not exact sciences. They are especially prone to human error in analysis.
Please understand I was disagreeing with the specific post I quoted. What he wrote made very little sense. As to whether "socialism is a failure, and free market economics is far more successful and favorable", I leave for you to judge. I've made no claim to knowing the answer to that question.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:19 pm Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

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.

Yes

they

could.

There was absolutely nothing stopping them. There was no coercive government. All the land wasn't parcelled out, forcing them to play ball. The only limiting factor was their own desires. Often, Natives chose to pool resources with one another, but this isn't Socialism because there was no government forcibly coercing them into doing it. They did it for the same reason people do it in private enterprise: it produces better results.

You're misconstruing this situation in a disingenuous fashion in attempt to defend your unrealist ideology. They didn't fail because they couldn't own private property; they could do whatever they like.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:25 pm Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

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.

Yes, they steam rolled into town using superior technology and parcelled out land in the manner of a people accustomed to having every scrap of land around them all ready accounted for.

And it's important to point out that the environment which taught these settlers to behave this way was far less free and more Socialistic (by your definition) than the one the Natives lived in.

Libertarian Native Americans were outcompeted by European Socialists (based, again, on your definition of the word Socialist). That's really all there is to it.

ontheway wrote:

Socialism is always evil.
Socialism always fails.

There you go misusing the word failure again. The fact that you and your cronies need to redefine so many words just to write what you want to really says a lot about how related to reality this all is in the first place. By your definition of Socialism, every society ever has been Socialist. That means every society ever is an evil failure. Wonderful.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:11 am Post subject:

Fox wrote:

ontheway wrote:

Since you didn't understand what I wrote, I will repost it here:

Quote:

Yes

they

could.

Brilliant retort, followed by nothing but prattle.

The fact is that no Indian tribe in North America recognized property rights execept some limited personal property rights and occupancy rights to dwellings by a few tribes.

Any member of a tribe who wished to try his luck actually claiming ownership of any piece of land would have faced opposition from members of his own tribe, and would have been forced to leave. They would have refused to recognize his ownership. He would have to move far enough away to be effectively exiled. He also would have faced the opposition of every other tribe. There was no place worth settling that was isolated enough to be beyond the claim of some tribe as a socialistic common tribal hunting ground and therefore off limits to be held as private property.

Native American Indians are actually boastful of their record of opposing ownership of property in their history. It's surprising that anyone would be unaware of this.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:33 am 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 Ponzi Econmists, the Keynesian-Socialist "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 Ponzi Econmists, the Keynesian-Socialist "experts" in these fields trying to analyze what could have happened if so and so had been the case. .

Fixed your quote.

The dismal record of the Ponzi Economists is similar to the efforts of dogma bound church science "experts" trying to predict movements of the planets and stars when burdened by their religious belief that the cosmos was Earth centric. Belief in the religious dogma of socialism in its various forms blinds their followers to truth and reason. You can be a rabid, mad-dog socialist follower of socialist dogma with no effort and no study. You can rail at the moon, worship the socialist ideology and the socialist gods. Socialists even deny the existence of the socialist government debt. They deny the actions their government has undertaken. They deny all reality.

All of the failed predictions and failed analyses have been undertaken by your own failed socialist experts. They fail because they have no real education in economics, finance and accounting with which to begin to understand the world.

All forms of government control and government programs are socialistic and all have been proven to fail.

Likewise, socialist "experts" are blinded by dogma, they too always fail.

Reggie

Joined: 21 Sep 2009

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:39 am Post subject:

I'm hoping American Police Force gets a government contract to patrol eastern Kentucky.

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:41 am Post subject:

Here on Dave's alone, in hundreds of threads, we have seen that the free market economists have accurately predicted and correctly analyzed the past, present and future. The track record for free market economists of the Austrian school is even better. We predicted, years in advance: this depression and the previous recession, the runup in gold, the fall of the dollar and the demise of the USSR (accurately predicted in 1976), as to when, how and why.

ubermenzch

Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:01 am Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

Here on Dave's alone, in hundreds of threads, we have seen that the free market economists have accurately predicted and correctly analyzed the past, present and future.

The track record for free market economists of the Austrian school is even better. We predicted, years in advance: this depression and the previous recession, the runup in gold, the fall of the dollar and the demise of the USSR (accurately predicted in 1976), as to when, how and why.

So it is your contention that the Austrian school has reduced economics down to an exact science?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:27 pm Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

The fact is that no Indian tribe in North America recognized property rights execept some limited personal property rights and occupancy rights to dwellings by a few tribes.

You keep saying this, and it keeps being false. You say "limited personal property rights," but what is it you want them to be able to own that they couldn't? What is it that, if only they had said, "This is mine and only mine," would have skyrocketted them into your wonderland of moon colonies? You say land, but no one was stopping them from "owning" as much land as they wanted; it was in virtually unlimited supply. And land is the only thing that's even remotely arguable: all their other possessions were privately owned. They just didn't have many, because their barely-governed society was never particularly productive.

ontheway wrote:

Any member of a tribe who wished to try his luck actually claiming ownership of any piece of land would have faced opposition from members of his own tribe, and would have been forced to leave.

No, they wouldn't have. If an individual man said, "I will farm this land and only this land, and its results are mine, and I make no claim against the farming the rest of you do," then he might at worst be considered strange and selfish. The reason people didn't do this is because it would have been stupid: you get better results when you pool your efforts. There was no coercive government forcing them to pool their efforts, they just saw the benefits and did it. Part of your "Liberty" is the right to do just that if you want, and so long as they can leave the arrangement if they wish (and they could), there is no problem.

No one got thrown in jail or fined for refusing to pool their farming efforts. There was just no incentive to do so.

ontheway wrote:

There was no place worth settling that was isolated enough to be beyond the claim of some tribe as a socialistic common tribal hunting ground and therefore off limits to be held as private property.

This is a total lie, there was more than enough room in North America to do whatever you wanted. Even today there are quite a few places of worth that you could vanish into if you wanted to, especially in Canada.

And, again, land is the only thing you can make a remote argument for. They still very clearly had property rights regarding their possessions; an individual can make what he wants and keep what he makes. Calling the Native Americans Socialist because they often willingly chose to pool their labour regarding farming is like calling a privately owned corporate farm Socialist because the workers willingly choose to pool their labour regarding farming, and it's equally ridiculous. Until or unless the government coerces you, it's not Socialism, it's just pooling labour for increased benefit. In fact, had the Native Americans not been free to do this, they wouldn't have been very free at all.

Keep going on about how every government ever has been an evil Socialist monstrosity, and keep talking about how society of a form you claim has never existed would be a wonderful land filled with moon colonies and be totally pollution free. Just don't expect anyone who isn't all ready a dedicated proponent of your unrealist ideology to be convinced.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:29 pm Post subject:

ontheway wrote:

All forms of government control and government programs are socialistic and all have been proven to fail.

Only by some weird definition of fail that the vast majority of us don't use or recognize.

Old Gil

Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Location: Got out! olleh!

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

ontheway wrote:

All forms of government control and government programs are socialistic and all have been proven to fail.

Only by some weird definition of fail that the vast majority of us don't use or recognize.

Bingo

staticdelusion

Joined: 21 Jul 2009

Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:29 pm Post subject:

Agree

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Page 7 of 7

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe