|
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 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:42 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I've got BBC World on in the background. A guy said something along the lines of "....it proves that the economy can't get along on its own without these huge boosts from government".
This was with reference to Greece.
Greece's budget deficit as a percentage of GDP? 13%. Economic freedom in Greece? Rank 73rd
Of course, we wouldn't expect the BBC to think that government might actually be responsible for the problems it's "boosting". After all, the BBC is completely withdrawn from competitive market forces (funded, as it is, by coercive taxation - the comically, shamefully-named TV Licence. That's right, freedom-lovers - the British pay a tax for the privilege of being forced to have the BBC amongst their channels!). It comes as no surprise that it would make reports of such wretched quality. Surprise surprise eh? A news entity funded by socialism churning out socialist propaganda disguised as news!
It's enough to make a cat laugh.
There's a blog specifically-dedicated to exposing the obscene folly the BBC churns out: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| None of it sufficient to prove a Libertarian-style society workable |
Come on, Fox. You can't wriggle your way out of this one. Dan Mitchell proved, actually proved that the price of gigantic governments is economic growth. Millions lie in poverty, and are kept in poverty, by this condition. The entire liberal-left worldview lies in tatters at this point, I'm afraid. |
Look at what you just said, though. The price of gigantic governments. You're doing exactly what Senior was doing, creating a false dichotomy. There's a middle ground between gigantic governments and bare-bones Libertarian style governments. Again, you're just mirroring out the actions of the Communists here, who felt the only true recourse against tyranny and excessive inequality was extreme equality. There was a middle ground they could have pursued, they went ahead with their ideologically driven ambitions instead, and they inflicted immense suffering as a result. Why do intelligent people need to keep getting sucked in by the lure of extremist ideology? Why is moderation so hard to champion? Probably because it doesn't lend itself to easy, smug answers and principle-driven arguments; moderation is too complex for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Yes, this is a standard liberal position on Libertarianism. They argue: If it were to exist today, it would be racist and discriminatory and all the evils of the past would be repeated. |
I didn't say that (though I'm not saying it's not true either). I didn't say anything except that if 19th century America is your Libertarianism, I and most of us want no part of it. And if you keep mindlessly repeating, "19th century America is our Libertarianism," I'll keep repeating, "19th century America is not a society most of us would want to live in." And the fact that you keep focusing on the racism while ignoring the fact that government actively and readily tampered in the market place during the time period in question just shows how bankrupt your case really is. Not only was there no racial equality, civil rights, or freedom of movement for minorities, there wasn't even a market place free of governmental subsidy and intervention. 19th century America was not socially Libertarian and not economically Libertarian by any standard I've seen presented.
If Libertarians want to construe Libertarianism as socially liberal and economically conservative, then a time period devoid of social liberalism and in which government engaged in policies which were not economically conservative is not a good example of Libertarianism. The fact that you keep trying to bull this invalid point through is just perplexing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
All I know about libertarians is that they aren't allowed to play with my toys. My toys, my rules. I name the game. That is insufferable for libertarians.
Now Tories... They're great playmates. They'll do anything I tell them to when playing with my toys.
And, frankly, none of you commies can play with my toys. Nothing personal. They're mine. Except for Boxie. She's cool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Yes, this is a standard liberal position on Libertarianism. They argue: If it were to exist today, it would be racist and discriminatory and all the evils of the past would be repeated. |
I didn't say that (though I'm not saying it's not true either). I didn't say anything except that if 19th century America is your Libertarianism, I and most of us want no part of it. And if you keep mindlessly repeating, "19th century America is our Libertarianism," I'll keep repeating, "19th century America is not a society most of us would want to live in." And the fact that you keep focusing on the racism while ignoring the fact that government actively and readily tampered in the market place during the time period in question just shows how bankrupt your case really is. Not only was there no racial equality, civil rights, or freedom of movement for minorities, there wasn't even a market place free of governmental subsidy and intervention. 19th century America was not socially Libertarian and not economically Libertarian by any standard I've seen presented.
If Libertarians want to construe Libertarianism as socially liberal and economically conservative, then a time period devoid of social liberalism and in which government engaged in policies which were not economically conservative is not a good example of Libertarianism. The fact that you keep trying to bull this invalid point through is just perplexing. |
Actually, Fox, now we're getting somewhere. We've put aside this nonsense about how Libertarianism today would be a return to slavery and racism and all the parade of racist evils some liberals like to conjure to tar opposing ideologies.
The structure of the US gov't during the 19th Century was Libertarian. The policies implemented were not always Libertarian. As I've said, the key point is the administrative decentralization and governmental centralization. The governmental centralization appears to go against Libertarianism, but its an important superstructure on which to preserve the state. There is no contradiction in US 19th Century expansionism anymore than it was a contradiction that President Jefferson would choose to accept the Louisiana Purchase.
As it was, the Federal gov't largely did not tamper in intrastate commerce, although there were significant exceptions. The US gov't is not a perfect example and yet I admit there could not be a perfect example of a Libertarian society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Actually, Fox, now we're getting somewhere. We've put aside this nonsense about how Libertarianism today would be a return to slavery and racism and all the parade of racist evils some liberals like to conjure to tar opposing ideologies. |
That was a straw man you created, nothing more. All I did was properly describe 19th century America to dispel any illusion that it matched up with the Libertarian ideals presented by Libertarians themselves. You're the one who decided to start inferring things from that.
I'm totally uninterested in your attempts at justification beyond that. Fact: 19th Century America wasn't socially liberal. Fact: 19th Century America wasn't economically conservative. If Libertarianism requires these aspects -- and plenty of Libertarians here say it does -- then 19th Century America wasn't Libertarian. And if you continue to insist that 19th Century America was Libertarian in any sense of the word, then I'm going to again repeat that most of us don't want it. We all see what happened in 19th Century America. I don't care why you think it happened, but it happened, and it happened under that governmental system.
You can go on and on about how you're just talking about governmental structure, but society isn't like legos. Discrete pieces simply can't be plucked out in isolation while leaving what you don't like behind. The inability to understand this seems to be a primary feature in those who practice the Libertarian faith. It's like Sergio saying, "Somalia has facts that flatter Libertarianism," while insisting that 100% of the bad not be associated with Libertarianism. That might sound real nice when he's preaching to the converted, but even a moderately intelligent person viewing his arguments with proper intellectual skepticism won't be taken in by that. The same goes for your case.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| The US gov't is not a perfect example and yet I admit there could not be a perfect example of a Libertarian society. |
It not only isn't a perfect example, it's barely an example at all, assuming the Libertarianism you are talking about is even remotely compatible with the type that has been advanced by other Libertarians in this thread. After all, one of Sergio's attempts at disqualifying Somalia was that he considered it to not be sufficiently socially liberal. Regardless of whether that's true or not, he still put it forward as a strike against Somalia as part of an argument you supported. And yet here you are, trying to defend 19th Century United States -- which was also clearly not socially liberal -- as an acceptable representation of Libertarianism. That's just plain hypocritical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| false dichotomy |
Such a false dichotomy certainly isn't my position. Reducing the size of government, on the other hand, is.
Try this for starters...
| Quote: |
UK, 1950: number of people on means-tested benefits? 3.4%
May 2009? 29%
Why did this happen? I think it's like a mouse coming across a piece of stale cheese in a trap. The cheese isn't very nice, it doesn't look very good, but it's free...and it's there.
Before 1920, when the benefits got high in Britain (often politically-motivated and not just with good intentions), there was no such thing as permanent mass unemployment. Since 1920, Britain has rarely been without it.
http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/ |
Just because I don't seek to abolish welfare - impossible - doesn't mean I I'm not entitled to find fault with it. Likewise, just because I don't seek to reduce the size of government to three or four bare essentials - also impossible - doesn't mean I'm not entitled to want to reduce it, somehow, anyhow. Government has become comedy, or it would be comedy, were it not such a human calamity. This forms the basis of modern libertarianism, not the false dichotomy to which you refer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
The protests/riots that are taking place in Dresden reminded me of an obvious though repeatable truth: Naziism is nothing more or less than the complete negation of libertarianism - wildly socially-unliberal / economically-socialist (though admitedly not quite as economically-socialist as other 20th century forms of extreme statism).
Socially unliberal:
| Quote: |
Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood
We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
Common national criminals. . .are to be punished with death |
Economically-socialist:
| Quote: |
We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program
Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich |
And the economically-socialist, the socially-unliberal (and religion!) occupying the same sentence:
| Quote: |
| The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit |
Nazi Party Platform, 1920 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aboxofchocolates
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Location: on your mind
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tree falls in the wood
I will call it sergio
do you hear it fall? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
Tree falls in the wood
I will call it sergio
do you hear it fall? |
Sigh. You might have started this thread, but you've contributed exactly 0 intelligent remarks to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| aboxofchocolates wrote: |
Tree falls in the wood
I will call it sergio
do you hear it fall? |
Sigh. You might have started this thread, but you've contributed exactly 0 intelligent remarks to it. |
The witty quips are worth it. And, to be fair, most experienced debaters know better than to play the Nazi card without great discretion. It is the platitude of all exaggerated platitudes in argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Merely discussing Naziism is not "playing the Nazi card".
We've had quite a good, productive debate here. Please don't spoil it with total crap like this. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
.38 Special
Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Merely discussing Naziism is not "playing the Nazi card".
We've had quite a good, productive debate here. Please don't spoil it with total crap like this. Thanks. |
Alas, I am far too infantile of mind to honor your heartfelt plea! O woe!
Nazi invoker!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Just because I don't seek to abolish welfare - impossible - doesn't mean I I'm not entitled to find fault with it. |
I support anyone attempting to constructively criticize governmental programs based on real-world data and impliciations. It's only the ideological material that I find dangerous. I also just don't happen to consider said criticism Libertarian in nature. A constructive thinker will suggest ways to improve or increase the efficiency of a social program. A Libertarian's first response is to abolish it. This is an important difference.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| Likewise, just because I don't seek to reduce the size of government to three or four bare essentials - also impossible - doesn't mean I'm not entitled to want to reduce it, somehow, anyhow. |
Again, I agree. If you make the case, "We need to reduce the government in certain regards for very specific reasons based on real-world results," I think you have the makings of a strong case. It's only when one starts talking in a purely ideology-driven fashion and doing things like comparing the government to a thief, or condemning all taxation as "a form of violence," that we start driving into Libertarian lala land. Anyone who has read a substantial number of my posts knows that I myself support the reduction of government in a number of ways. I just happen to do so in a purely non-ideological way. All that matters to me is results.
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| This forms the basis of modern libertarianism, not the false dichotomy to which you refer. |
Everything about the methodology you just described would, in my estimation, not lead to Libertarian ultra-capitalism, but rather to a moderate mixed-economy with socialization of key services and limited, reasonable regulation of the market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| The protests/riots that are taking place in Dresden reminded me of an obvious though repeatable truth: Naziism is nothing more or less than the complete negation of libertarianism - wildly socially-unliberal / economically-socialist (though admitedly not quite as economically-socialist as other 20th century forms of extreme statism). |
As an aside to the overall case I'm making, I agree with this. More generally, I think it bears admitting that big government has the potential to be incredibly damaging, both to the citizens of a nation, and to neighboring nations. Government, like any other social tool, needs to be used wisely and in moderation to have good results. |
|
| 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
