Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Corporatism/Capitalism shenanigans

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

Corporatism/Capitalism shenanigans
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 5:41 pm Post subject:

Street Magic wrote:

ontheway wrote:

The socialists defend the pollution they have created by claiming that production requires pollution just like the socialists of government defended the socialist institution of slavery by claiming that production required slavery.

lol, now are we talking about antebellum America slavery or the "I'm a slave because I'm forced to pay taxes" variety of slavery? I know how much you right wing true believers love conflating the two. Last I checked, the price of slaves in antebellum America was set by the impersonal market forces of supply and demand and the Ludwig von Mises Institute's publications consistently sympathize with the Confederate states for seceding from the fascist slavery abolishing Federal government.

How ignorant are you if you actually think he's "right wing". And how telling that that's the first you try to latch on to ("left" or "right" wing paradigm). What a narrow vision of the world you must have.

Not to mention your strawman argument and ridiculous misrepresentation of history. Slavery was only possible because the government(s) legalized it. That was ontheway's point. Simple.

Street Magic

Joined: 23 Sep 2009

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:12 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Street Magic wrote:

ontheway wrote:

Narrow like believing "socialism caused all social problems?" Or "slavery was only possible because the government(s) legalized it?" "Legalize," by the way, is a slimy term the drug war propagandists have for making it seem as though anything you decide to do is illegal until the government decides otherwise, something any decent libertarian ought to pick up on. What the government did was fail to prohibit slavery, which is almost as bad as what the Confederate rebels did in attempting to secede from the authority of the Federal government so as to preserve their slave holding "property rights."

And right wing is an acceptable synonym for libertarian, although it has other connotations, not unlike how the American Ludwig von Mises Institute releases publications with agendas other than the promotion of libertarian economics.

Last edited by Street Magic on Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:45 pm Post subject:

Street Magic wrote:

visitorq wrote:

Street Magic wrote:

ontheway wrote:

Your semantics are not important. Under the Constitution all people should be free. If the government (whether state or federal) would have act according to the Constitution, then slavery would never have existed.

Moreover, you are aware that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers did not own any slaves right? Slavery was certainly a major factor, but the rights of states was the main issue.

Quote:

And right wing is an acceptable synonym for libertarian, although it has other connotations, not unlike how the American Ludwig von Mises Institute releases publications with agendas other than the promotion of libertarian economics.

Libertarianism has NOTHING to do with any "right wing" agenda - if anything it's the opposite. You seriously have no clue what you're talking about...

Street Magic

Joined: 23 Sep 2009

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:07 pm Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Your semantics are not important. Under the Constitution all people should be free. Only active government support of the institution allowed it to continue.

The example we're using (slavery in antebellum America) had active government opposition.

visitorq wrote:

Moreover, you are aware that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers did not own any slaves right? Slavery was certainly a major factor, but the rights of states was the main issue.

Yes, although my original point of objection was that anyone would blame "socialism" for slavery. I'm certainly not blaming libertarianism for slavery nor states' rights nor property rights; I'm only pointing out the invocation of property rights to defend slavery and the American Ludwig von Mises Institute's support for the rebel government most famously associated with slavery in America to demonstrate how blatantly flawed an idea it is to see the blame for slavery as belonging to "socialism."

visitorq wrote:

Quote:

Libertarianism has NOTHING to do with any "right wing" agenda - if anything it's the opposite. You seriously have no clue what you're talking about...

"Right wing" can be defined as many different things as can "libertarian." The flexibility of ideological labels was the impetus for this thread. In my mind, "right wing" refers to those who prefer a hands off approach to economics along with conservative social values. My inspiration for choosing that term over "libertarian" when I originally wrote it was that I have too much respect for my libertarian friends to group them in with someone who believes "socialism caused all social problems." That to me isn't indicative of a progressive ideology-- progressive being how I think of libertarianism as an "across the board" ideology when applied realistically. When people abuse "libertarianism" as a label for taking the intellectually lazy way out and blaming government intervention for everything, I'm reminded more of the mainstream right wing Republicans in America. It was a judgment call and that's how and why I made it.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:38 am Post subject:

Street Magic wrote:

visitorq wrote:

Your semantics are not important. Under the Constitution all people should be free. Only active government support of the institution allowed it to continue.

The example we're using (slavery in antebellum America) had active government opposition.

No, it was supported at the state level. The states saw themselves as miniature republics unto themselves (some states like Texas were actually sovereign before joining the union). This is why the civil war was fought - so that the federal government could forcibly exercise more centralized control over the states. Fortunately the federal government abolished slavery, but many historians argue that the slavery issue was used as a excuse and that Lincoln would have let it remain if the union could have been saved without abolishing it (indeed he had even written that this was the case).

Either way, states rights are important, because centralized government control nearly always results in more government tyranny and corruption. But tyranny over people can and did exist at the state level as well. Each state has its own constitution, and slavery shouldn't belong in any of them.

Quote:

visitorq wrote:

Moreover, you are aware that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers did not own any slaves right? Slavery was certainly a major factor, but the rights of states was the main issue.

Slavery is totally a socialist institution. Socialism = control of the state over the society and the individual, going against the liberties we have granted to us under the constitution. Granted the constitution was amended to abolish slavery (which was good, but at the same time wouldn't have even been necessary if black people had just been given the same inherent liberties under the constitution as whites in the first place) - but this doesn't mean centralized federal power over the states is otherwise a good thing. The greater the centralization of power, the more corruption and loss of liberties you will see. This also applied at the state government level (which was ontheway's point).

The federal government is now bigger than ever, and we are suffering for it. We are basically bankrupt as a nation (the government is working with the criminal Fed and handing over trillions to international banks) and our liberties are under attack. Diffusing government power to the state level is a good thing, as it is then easier for the people to hold them accountable. The power is then best diffused down to the county and municipal levels where accountability is even higher.

Quote:

This is just your misuse of the term. Right wing ideology has to do with advocating strong central government (often relating to monarchies in other countries). It is reactionary and tends to have a religious bent - but the notion of having a strong centralized government is consistent.

Basically you're trying to conflate it with conservatism, when real libertarian ideas of conservatism (ie. keeping the constitution intact) have nothing to with the typical Republican party (Bush et al) views today. It's like trying to say America is a free-market capitalist country, when it has been a de facto socialist country for far longer than any of us have been alive - at least since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 (central banking being one of the main planks of the Communist Manifesto).

Quote:

My inspiration for choosing that term over "libertarian" when I originally wrote it was that I have too much respect for my libertarian friends to group them in with someone who believes "socialism caused all social problems." That to me isn't indicative of a progressive ideology-- progressive being how I think of libertarianism as an "across the board" ideology when applied realistically. When people abuse "libertarianism" as a label for taking the intellectually lazy way out and blaming government intervention for everything, I'm reminded more of the mainstream right wing Republicans in America. It was a judgment call and that's how and why I made it.

Libertarianism isn't a difficult concept. It's about limiting the role of government to that of a servant upholding the Constitution. That means guaranteeing our personal liberties. What we have today is a totally bloated, and corrupt government which impedes on our liberties more and more each day, and has bankrupted our nation.

Government intervention is the root cause of nearly all our problems. This especially true with the Federal Reserve central bank, which is a privately owned cartel (ie. outright fraud sanctioned by the government) run by offshore banks. When the government is openly working for the banking establishment against the American people, you know there's a problem...

I repeat: there is nothing whatsoever "right wing" (or "left wing" for that matter, since both are just two sides of the same coin) about libertarianism. It's not about right or left - it's about liberty against government tyranny. Socialism = government tyranny.

Street Magic

Joined: 23 Sep 2009

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:33 am Post subject:

visitorq wrote:

Street Magic wrote:

The example we're using (slavery in antebellum America) had active government opposition.

It was bad enough when you tried to accuse the 19th century American Federal government of socialism, but now you're labeling the Confederacy as socialist? I'm done arguing after this for obvious reasons.

Street Magic wrote:

visitorq wrote:

So according to you, the Civil War was fought "so that the federal government could forcibly exercise more centralized control over the states," but the rebel states were also centralized socialist powers, which is why slavery wasn't abolished. Again, no comment.

visitorq wrote:

The federal government is now bigger than ever, and we are suffering for it. We are basically bankrupt as a nation (the government is working with the criminal Fed and handing over trillions to international banks) and our liberties are under attack. Diffusing government power to the state level is a good thing, as it is then easier for the people to hold them accountable. The power is then best diffused down to the county and municipal levels where accountability is even higher.

I'm not even arguing whether the Confederate government was a bad idea. What I'm arguing is that the Confederacy wasn't a socialist government, the 19th century Federal government wasn't a socialist government, and socialism isn't responsible for slavery.

Street Magic wrote:

visitorq wrote:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/right+wing

Unless you're living under a monarchy, "those who support economic conservatism" are supporting private control of the means of production and are opposed to government intervention.

By the way, would you call Ronald Reagan right wing? Because he was one of the most economically conservative, "small government" favoring Presidents we've ever had and last I checked, everyone who's ever written anything on him calls him "right wing."

visitorq wrote:

Basically you're trying to conflate it with conservatism, when real libertarian ideas of conservatism (ie. keeping the constitution intact) have nothing to with the typical Republican party (Bush et al) views today. It's like trying to say America is a free-market capitalist country, when it has been a de facto socialist country for far longer than any of us have been alive - at least since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 (central banking being one of the main planks of the Communist Manifesto).

You were just talking about "right wing" and then you used "it" in your first sentence there, but it seems like you meant for that "it" to refer to "libertarianism." Not a criticism; just trying to clarify.

If you meant "it" to refer to "right wing:" See the definition above. "It" absolutely has everything to do with "conservatism," although one can argue over how much the Republican party in particular is violating the spirit of its professed ideological leanings.

If you meant "it" to refer to "libertarian:" several Republicans are self-labeled "libertarians" who advocate for "smaller government" and "keeping the Constitution intact." Congressman Ron Paul's a famous example. The vast majority of other Republicans who aren't self-labeled libertarians also claim to support "smaller government." You can argue whether they're not living up to their ideology, but the fact is that this is what they openly support.

Quote:

I repeat: there is nothing whatsoever "right wing" (or "left wing" for that matter, since both are just two sides of the same coin) about libertarianism. It's not about right or left - it's about liberty against government tyranny. Socialism = government tyranny.

No, "right" and "left" are terms with many different meanings and you've chosen to define them one way while dismissing every other way. There's nothing wrong with having a particular definition in mind for them, but it's pretty bizarre that you can't even acknowledge the fact that not everyone identifies those terms in the way you do, particularly when a Google search would've brought back countless examples of reputable sources which have defined said terms in exactly the way I did.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:18 am Post subject:

Street Magic wrote:

visitorq wrote:

Street Magic wrote:

The example we're using (slavery in antebellum America) had active government opposition.

Yeah, the obvious reason being that you've not done very well in this debate so far...

Anyway, I never specifically said "the Confederacy is socialist" (a bit of a strawman on your part). But the Confederacy certainly engaged in tyranny over its citizenry (the most obvious being that of slavery).

Quote:

Yes, this is basically correct. Slavery was always a secondary issue in the war. The real issue was centralization of government power - namely the federal government exercising its control over the union after the southern states seceded.

Also, this is not "according to me", this is the view shared by most historians.

Quote:

It's difficult to classify the Confederate government as socialist since it existed mainly in wartime. The Federal government was also much less socialist then than it has become today; however centralized government power was the precursor for socialist institutions to come. The US truly became socialist after the Federal Reserve was created, along with income tax and government programs like social security.

Quote:

Unless you're living under a monarchy, "those who support economic conservatism" are supporting private control of the means of production and are opposed to government intervention.

The kind of economic "conservatism" you are referring to has nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarians reject the notion of a central bank (allowing the government to borrow its way to bankruptcy and foot us the bill) and income tax.

Quote:

By the way, would you call Ronald Reagan right wing? Because he was one of the most economically conservative, "small government" favoring Presidents we've ever had and last I checked, everyone who's ever written anything on him calls him "right wing."

Neither Ronald Reagan nor the "Rockefeller Republicans" were ever about small government. That is just the rhetoric he would use to get elected. In fact Republicans always increase spending on things like the military (Reagan is famous for basically bringing down the Soviet Union by spending so much on the military that their economy went bust trying to keep up). Bush also spent obscene, ruinous amounts of money.

But the talk about "right-wing" Republicans and "left-wing" Democrats is a farce. Overall both parties are in league with each other (candidates from both are nearly all members of the CFR and/or Trilateral Commission, working for David Rockefeller) and are working for the banking establishment at our expense. This is well documented. The left/right wing paradigm is deliberately used to confuse the public (who are inundated with it by the mainstream media).

Quote:

I meant libertarianism. My point was that it gets thrown in the same corner as "right wing conservatism", when it really has nothing to do with it.

Quote:

If you meant "it" to refer to "libertarian:" several Republicans are self-labeled "libertarians" who advocate for "smaller government" and "keeping the Constitution intact." Congressman Ron Paul's a famous example. The vast majority of other Republicans who aren't self-labeled libertarians also claim to support "smaller government." You can argue whether they're not living up to their ideology, but the fact is that this is what they openly support.

Ron Paul is not "right wing". This is the problem: real libertarians like him are bundled together with other Republicans who cater to fundamentalist Christians and talk about lowering the budget etc. and then go and get us into major wars and spend us into oblivion. In short, words mean nothing - actions are what count.

Quote:

I acknowledge that people use those terms. But to say libertarianism is "right wing" is just incorrect. It is an error people make when they don't understand what libertarianism is. As I said, libertarianism is basically the opposite of both "right" and "left" wing (which are basically two sides of the same coin). Left and right wing = government tyranny (communism/socialism and fascism are nearly identical when you move past the superficial differences), libertarianism is all about liberty. In the US this means having a servant government to uphold the Constitution.

ontheway

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

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:42 am Post subject:

The fact remains that slavery is a socialistic institution. This does not mean that every other element of the US was socialistic at the time. But, Liberty, Libertarianism and Free Markets require first and foremost that every individual own his or her own life, from birth to death (or, for those so inclined, from conception to death, but let's not go there.) So, slavery is a violation of the principles of Liberty, Libertarianism and Free Markets that is so elemental and so profound that when slavery exists, then Liberty and a Free Market do not exsist and the Libertarians will not rest until the slaves are freed. Socialists, on the other hand, do not give a damn. They can live in a controlled state with various kinds of slavery from the extreme form of life-long slavery that treats humans and their children as mere cattle, to the short term slavery of the military or public service draft, to the part-time slavery of the income tax slave.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:27 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

Government fails at everything

Quote:

The US truly became socialist after the Federal Reserve was created,

Quote:

Without socialism, there'd be no pollution.

Disclaimer: I'm paraphrasing here in some cases, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting statements you've made.

Do you find your positions dogmatic?

4. Let me borrow from wiki:

Quote:

Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction.[2] Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism will, in its turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism.

visitorq

Joined: 11 Jan 2008

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:27 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

I don't follow everything he subscribes to. Overall the Fed needs to be abolished, and he is one of the few members of congress who has really stepped up to the plate on the issue. He is also not a member of the CFR or Trilateral Commission (etc.)

He usually states that all money needs to be backed by gold 100%. I don't think I agree with this, however. I think a government issued fiat currency is fine as long it is issued without any interest attached and not paid for with personal income tax. I also think private currencies must be allowed to compete (though usury should be illegal), and they must be backed by gold and silver. It is a complicated issue however, and I don't believe I have all the answers (I'm not an expert). I just know that the Fed is outright fraud on the people.

Quote:

Not sure why you're focusing in on Marx. He didn't invent the modern nation state. When we (or at least I) speak about "socialist" behavior by the government, we're not really speaking about Marxism (or "Socialism" with a capital S if you like). It's just the general term used to describe centralized control over the economy or society, above and beyond the limitations laid out in the constitution. We're talking about government socialism as the antithesis to personal liberty.

The US is far more socialist today than it was back then though. Indeed you might even call it "Socialist" par excellence. We fulfill just about all the criteria.

Quote:

5. Following on 3, when did the socialism you speak of begin?

In my opinion it began around the time the Federal Reserve was created. A banking cartel monopolizing the money supply, backed by our corrupt government (allowing it to spend as much as it wants, forcing inflation onto the public in lieu of direct taxation), is the opposite of a free market economy. Since all money has been debt-based since then, those who control its issuance effectively control the whole economy and the direction it moves in (since everyone is dependent upon the banks' willingness to issue them credit in order to do anything).

The American entrepreneurial spirit has always been real, but it has been hijacked by the monetary system, which has since been able to force it in the general direction the people who control it want it go in. I strongly believe that this amounts to tyranny.

ontheway

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

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:51 am Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

Perhaps a slightly different approach would be better for all involved.

Allow me to ask some questions.

1. Rusty, Ontheway, and visitorq, it has been mentioned that "Libertarian", especially at this point in time, can be vague. Would you describe yourselves as followers of Ron Paul?

Ron Paul describes himself as a constitutionalist. This is fairly accurate. His beliefs are also fairly libertarian, but in his public positions he tends to use this constitutionalist approach in an attempt to maintain his appeal to conservative voters.

I like Ron Paul. He's intelligent. He does what he says he will do. He's much better than any other Republican or Democrat. I know Ron personally having worked with him three decades ago in DC. Most libertarians feel he's not a pure libertarian, but on the conservative side of libertarian. Still he's in the libertarian quadrant. He should follow me, however.

To help you understand, you should be aware that Mike Gravel has joined the libertarian party, he is jointly backing candidates with Ron Paul, and he is moving into the Libertarian quadrant as well, on the liberal side.

To understand the political spectrum it is absoluely essential to use the two dimensional map. Anyone attempting to comprehend Marx, Socialism, Fascism or anything else in politics will be completely lost without it. The left-right line compared to the Nolan chart is equivalent to alchemy when compared to modern chemistry. You cannot plot geographic or political locations on a line.

Anyone NOT using this two dimensional spectrum does not understand politics and cannot discuss it intelligently:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/quiz.php

2. In addition to helping Pat Buchanan in his failed presidential bid, Ron Paul opposes Roe v. Wade, supports school prayer, and doesn't accept the theory of evolution.

Pat Buchanan is conservative. This makes him better than many Republicans who are in the statist corner of the political map. So, many people in the libertarian corner would prefer him to Bush, for example. Bush is more of a Communistic socialist (the real meaning, not that useless Marx crap.)

Abortion is very complicated for a real libertarian. The pro-life and pro-choice positions tend to ignore the valid points on the other side. We must consider the right to life of the unborn child from the point where it becomes a human being, probably conception and at the same time the absolute right of a woman to control her body and not carry a baby she doesn't want.

This subject will need a thread of its own and will go on forever, so it's best not to continue on this thread.

Whatever Ron Paul's personal belief on evolution might be, he supports religion being separate from the state and privatization of education so that this issue would be moot. Evolution is proven scientific fact as far as I'm concerned, but when all religion and education is private, it is not a matter of governmental concern and it is no longer an issue.

I understand that you (or at least some of you) disbelieve in notions of Left and Right.

Whether you do or not, all of the above seems to fit into contemporary definitions of right-wing.

What elements of your position bridge over to the left-wing?

Libertarians want the state out of all economic matters, abolition of taxation, regulation of business etc.

Libertarians want to end all laws regulating personal choice. We would legalize all drugs, prostitution, gambling, and sexual choice decisions for all adults. There is a great deal of debate over age of consent laws - just what is the appropriate age, but most agree there should be some reasonable definition of age for these things. We would abolish marriage regulation by the state. We would abolish government regulation of personal behavior.

It was the communists who started the great anti-drug crusade in the world. Regulation of personal behavior was one of the primary goals of the communist movement - the creation of the good communist man. This included regulating the use of drugs and alcohol, prohibition of religions that were not state approved and regulation of female reproductive choice. This is why many Republicans actually qualify as communist on the personal liberty side of the spectrum. This is how communists and fascists and most D and R politicans end up in the same statist quadrant.

3.

Quote:

Government fails at everything

Quote:

The US truly became socialist after the Federal Reserve was created,

Quote:

Without socialism, there'd be no pollution.

Disclaimer: I'm paraphrasing here in some cases, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting statements you've made.

Do you find your positions dogmatic?

No. These statements have all been proven to be true.

4. Let me borrow from wiki:

Quote:

Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. By 1848, the stage was set for the US Civil War. I find it highly doubtful that anyone in the US had heard of or, moreover, endeavoured to follow Marx at that time. Yet, you argue that both the North and South were, to some degree, socialist.

Does your prolific bandying about the term "socialist" really reflect the classless society Marx speaks of, or have you morphed it into something else?

You shouldn't waste your time with wiki or Karl Marx.

The fact is that everything Marx wrote about economics per se was proven absolutely false by 1876 with the proof of "supply and demand" as a determinant of market pricing. He had nothing left at that point but polemics.

Marx's polemics were illogical on their face. Communism constitutes the aggregation of power in the hands of the state and there is no way for this to result in a stateless society. The state must shrink to be stateless. Anarchists abandoned Marx long ago.

Marx recogized that he was wrong about economics and that his other rantings were nonsense. He declared that he was not a follower of his own ideas before his death.

5. Following on 3, when did the socialism you speak of begin?

Socialism is control of the individual by the state against his will. It began with the creation of the state. Socialists put "society," which is really the state, on top holding all rights, and the individual on the bottom with no rights except those allowed at the whim of the state.

6. At least one of you describes the US minimum wage as slavery. I think Marx might very well agree. Do you feel socialist in thinking so?

Marx might enjoy pizza, but that doesn't make pizza socialist. Pizza is just food. It has no politics. Marx is dead, but he already renounced Marxism. Who knows what he might think today. His writings were all disproven. They have nothing to do with these issues.

Marxism today is a religion. Marxists can believe in anything and justify it in their various bibles. It's all irrelevant.

7. If socialism is the sole cause of pollution, how could we have had the Industrial Revolution under your regime?

This has been answered repeatedly. Producers would be able to produce anything by first finding a clean way to do it. It is a silly assumption to state that you cannot produce without polluting and it does not justify taking away the rights of property owners and renters to clean air and water.

If cotton growers tell you that they cannot grow cotton without slaves, should you believe them and not end the government sanctioned enslavement of human beings? Of course not. The same holds true for pollution.

8. Let's say your (what I'm now going to label) "Utopian Privatism" society starts tomorrow. No one can pollute my air above my property, and that goes for everyone else. In other words, cars will violate my private property. Airplanes will violate my private property. Factories will violate my private property. In all cases, either mine or someone else's. Civilization, under your auspices will grind to a halt. It's very nice to envision people movers (run on electricity from a coal plant, oops) and all the other great things we'll have when "socialism" is eradicated, but this has no basis in reality.

There is no possibility of utopia. Libertarianism is based on common sense and reality.

We do have real problems today because the socialist governments have allowed the world to invest, (it's called malinvestment), trillions of dollars
in a pollution based infrastructure. This malivestment has gone on for hundreds of years. This is one of the major failures of socialist government. Had the rights of property owners been maintained, then none of these industries would have evolved as they have. Mankind would have learned to produce using clean methods.

Necessity being the mother of invention, and there being no need to invent clean production, clean energy or clean transportation and in fact, having a socialist government that encourages and subsidizes malinvestment, waste, misallocation of resources, the wrong infrastructure and pollution, it is no surprise how bad things are. The socialists failed.

It will take years to undo what the socialist have done. If the US had the sense to elect a Libertarian majority tomorrow, it would take years to reallocate the property of the state into private hands. This process would show immediate positive results, but it just isn't possible to push a magic button and undo the evils of socialism.

We would have to privatize each stream, river, lake and sea by considering all the individual factors, boundries, ownership and management. Existing pollution and polluters cannot be pretended away. This change would take years to implement. It wouldn't be possible to organize an immediate transition, just as it would take years to responsibly withdraw US forces from bases around the world and bring them all home.

Feel free to address the above, but here's my simple question:

Is a campfire socialism?

Neither a pizza nor a campfire are socialism. Socialism is a govenmental system that violates the rights of individuals created by some people to rob, rape, pillage and control the rest of mankind.

Pizza and campfires are things.

It is possible to have a campfire that does not violate the property rights of others. It is also possible that some campfires will violate the property rights of others.

9. How confident are you that you can eliminate pollution?

100% confident. The socialists have failed. Simple solutions have failed. It will take a long time to implement free market solutions. We have to educate the people and roll back the state. We have to move away from socialism, waste, pollution and government control and toward a system that recognizes individual rights, property rights and utilizes sustainable, clean energy, transportation and production.

10. How much of the above would you say Ron Paul agrees with you

Privately he would agree more than 90%. There are many issues that he would avoid in public which makes sense if you are seeking public office. It isn't possible to talk about every issue.

Ron Paul's approach and public positions make him appear more conservative than he really is. He believes in the legalization of drugs for example, but he calls for the abolition of Federal laws in this area and allowing states to decide. This allows the decriminalization states to make change now and moves us in the right direction while shrinking the Federal govenment. It moves us in the direction of liberty and yet he appears to be more conservative than he really is. He is an incrementalist libertarian.

Re: the Fed.

We need to abolish the Fed. Fiat money can never work and it always falls to zero. The US, however, is not on a pure fiat system. If we were the dollar would have already hit zero.

The US is on gradually sinking system that can shrink the dollar for decades but not collapse because of the gold reserves that are still held. This means that as the dollar falls, the government always has the option of rebacking the dollar at the whatever ratio would apply on any given day. This keeps the dollar at above zero, presently that would guarantee about a $5000 per ounce floor under the dollar, which is where we are headed in the next few years.

Going to a 100% gold backed system would be a big improvement. It ends inflation and theft by the state.

Eventually we have to go to private currencies and private banking with strict statutes against theft and fraud (inflation, for example should be illegal).

Ron Paul agrees with these positions on money.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: ...

Nowhere Man wrote:

Perhaps a slightly different approach would be better for all involved.

Allow me to ask some questions.

OK. I'll bite.

Quote:

1. Rusty, Ontheway, and visitorq, it has been mentioned that "Libertarian", especially at this point in time, can be vague. Would you describe yourselves as followers of Ron Paul?

I honestly don't know that much about the man. I agree with his views on the Fed.

Quote:

2. In addition to helping Pat Buchanan in his failed presidential bid, Ron Paul opposes Roe v. Wade, supports school prayer, and doesn't accept the theory of evolution.

See above. I agree with some of his views. I'm certainly not a "follower" of the man. Are you a follower of Obama?

Quote:

I understand that you (or at least some of you) disbelieve in notions of Left and Right. Whether you do or not, all of the above seems to fit into contemporary definitions of right-wing.

It's a worthless dichotomy. It only helps to bog down debates.

Quote:

What elements of your position bridge over to the left-wing?

Who cares?

Quote:

Government fails at everything

Quote:

The US truly became socialist after the Federal Reserve was created,

Quote:

Without socialism, there'd be no pollution.

Disclaimer: I'm paraphrasing here in some cases, but I don't think I'm misrepresenting statements you've made.

Do you find your positions dogmatic?

I'm sure I could dig up some choice quotes form your postings and accuse you of dogmatism.
4. Let me borrow from wiki:

Quote:

Socialism existed before some guy created a label for it. Physics existed before Newton. Let's change the word "socialism" to "state intervention". It's probably a less loaded term (though, not much less.)

Quote:

5. Following on 3, when did the socialism you speak of begin?

Since the day people started acting collectively. Maybe 12,000 years.

Quote:

6. At least one of you describes the US minimum wage as slavery. I think Marx might very well agree. Do you feel socialist in thinking so?

I wouldn't call the minimum wage "slavery". It destroys jobs, though.

Quote:

7. If socialism is the sole cause of pollution, how could we have had the Industrial Revolution under your regime?

I don't really buy the notion that we would have no pollution without state intervention. The losses(externalities) caused by production would be internalized naturally by the market. You would have judicial recourse if they weren't.

That judicial recourse actually evolved organically through the courts, with out govt help. For pollution courts have always ruled, since at least the middle ages that you must compensate your neighbor for damage. For instance if your neighbors cow breaks your fence and eats your corn you can keep the cow. There are cases like this dating back 1000 or so years. The first time this was codified in modern case law was the case of the coal mine in Wales that flooded and burst its tailing flooding the neighboring property. It was ruled that you have a "duty of care" to your neighbor's property. Sorry I can't remember the name of the case. It's been a while since I sat first year law.

Same goes for businesses that distribute faulty products. The first modern case was in Scotland during the industrial revolution. A woman became ill from some ginger beer that she found to contain two decomposing snails. She successfully sued the bottlers. If you have sat first year law, you probably know this stuff better than me and can name the cases, they are quite famous.

Anyway, my point is that remedies to these common situations arose independently of govt intervention.

Quote:

8. Let's say your (what I'm now going to label) "Utopian Privatism" society starts tomorrow. No one can pollute my air above my property, and that goes for everyone else. In other words, cars will violate my private property. Airplanes will violate my private property. Factories will violate my private property. In all cases, either mine or someone else's. Civilization, under your auspices will grind to a halt. It's very nice to envision people movers (run on electricity from a coal plant, oops) and all the other great things we'll have when "socialism" is eradicated, but this has no basis in reality.

Like I have said. I don't buy the notion that pollution would be eradicated. Simply, the bad effects would be borne by the person who creates them.

Quote:

Feel free to address the above, but here's my simple question:

Is a campfire socialism?

I don't understand the question.

Quote:

9. How confident are you that you can eliminate pollution?

I'm not trying to eliminate pollution. The only way you can have zero pollution, is if everyone commits suicide.

Quote:

10. How much of the above would you say Ron Paul agrees with you?

I could care less about Ron Paul. There is more to life than what some low life politician thinks.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:48 pm Post subject: Re: ...

ontheway wrote:

Eventually we have to go to private currencies and private banking with strict statutes against theft and fraud (inflation, for example should be illegal).

Why do you suggest violent governmental coercion to prevent things like inflation with regards to your private currencies? If you want to use private currencies, then anything said currency users agreed to with regards to those currencies should be legal according to your philosophy. If you use currency company X's money, and they decide to print 10 million more monetary units and devalue your currency in the process, and you didn't sign a contract with them explicitly prohibiting them from doing that, you should have thought twice about dealing with them.

According to your philosophy, any currency company that devalued its money by printing more would go out of business as its customers flocked to another company's currency anyway, so why on Earth should there be a law to prevent it? Such a law sounds like Socialism to me, ontheway. Freedom is what matters, and that includes the currency companies being free to devalue their money as they please, so long as they didn't sign that right away in whatever contract they engage in with their customers. If you need laws independent of contractual agreements to regulate private currencies, then they've all ready failed in their purpose.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:57 pm Post subject: Re: ...

Fox wrote:

ontheway wrote:

Eventually we have to go to private currencies and private banking with strict statutes against theft and fraud (inflation, for example should be illegal).

Probably true. This doesn't happen often for other goods, though, it does happen. By your reasoning, people would set up fly by night currency businesses, fleece a heap of people then devalue their currency the next day. This doesn't happen for other goods. For instance cheap Iphone rip offs are easily available but no one buys them because we know they are going to be crap. Same would likely happen for currencies.

Quote:

According to your philosophy, any currency company that devalued its money by printing more would go out of business as its customers flocked to another company's currency anyway, so why on Earth should there be a law to prevent it? Such a law sounds like Socialism to me, ontheway. Freedom is what matters, and that includes the currency companies being free to devalue their money as they please, so long as they didn't sign that right away in whatever contract they engage in with their customers. If you need laws independent of contractual agreements to regulate private currencies, then they've all ready failed in their purpose.

[/quote]

Haha, I think you might have got him on that one. Case law (at least in the Commonwealth countries) traditionally used to arbitrate this sort of stuff. The same as the examples I gave above. Now days, we are quick to legislate instead of letting case law, which is far more flexible, cover a situation.

bacasper

Joined: 26 Mar 2007

Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: ...

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

I could care less about Ron Paul. There is more to life than what some low life politician thinks.

I know you are not American, so I'll forgive you this time, but NEVER, EVER put Ron Paul in with the vast majority of low life politicians again. Ron Paul stands for freedom and is a world apart from most others.

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 Next
Page 3 of 5

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