PDA

View Full Version : How would you respond to this intelligent socialist?




gb13
05-24-2011, 02:40 PM
He's very intelligent, but he seems to have a very one-sided view of american history. I agree with much of what he is saying, but his view of problem/solution is very socialist and I believe very wrong. Here is a written manifesto of his blaming a weak central government for our woes. He seems to blame corporations for our global problems, but seems to believe that too much economic liberty, laissez faire, and a weakness in the federal government (caused by a constitution he believes allows for too much economic liberty serving special interests) have caused these problems.

It's sort of long, but I want to get your input:


i would much rather take the word of the well-appointed government man, whose will and ambition are tempered and shaped by the millions who voted him in, over the word of the corporate man, whose unbridled will and ambition are only tempered by the depth of his wallet.

[I respect] the politicians that give a damn about the will and ambition of the people; whichever ones pass the laws that regulate and restrict the abilities of companies to lie and take advantage of us... such as requiring warnings and full disclosure of ingredients, mandating truth in advertising, requiring medications and drugs to be tested before being approved, etc... without an organization holding companies liable, they would be able to sell whatever they want under whatever label they want to whoever they want without having any regard for the outcome or effect for those using their products. it still happens, but to a lesser extent than if no rules and regulations were developed. i like how government allocates tax money for public safety/conveniences like sidewalks, street lights, how they mandate interchangeable parts on utilities so that no companies can make their services like water and electric proprietary, therefore allowing an integrated, comprehensive and socially-oriented approach to getting people the services they need. whoever developed speed limits and traffic lights. i feel we need a government to appropriate the funds and pass the laws necessary to keep our communities cohesive and accesible to as many as possible. i feel the public interest is far more important than the private interest. but i do see the importance of limiting such governmental influence. lately the government's been going way too far in some issues, and far too lightly on others. a major overhaul and restructuring is needed, for sure. will it happen? fat chance. but there are still some good representatives, fighting the good fight for the right reasons. unfortunately there's just far too many crooked politicians interfering with that process. oh, well. life goes on.

I believe complete dissolution of government would lead to very very bad things. there are people intent on weakening the government more than it already is, but i find a restructuring would be a far better option. the government has gotten stronger, perhaps a little too strong, is some areas, but has remained very weak in others, particularly in it's lack of regulating and reigning-in multi-nationalist organizations and corporations that operate outside of most governments' jurisdictions, allowing tragic abuse of labor laws and child slavery and spiraling of their country's economies into the newly-paved gravel. And despite a resounding effort which failed miserably in the late 90's early 2000's to severely limit the amount of private donation $ allowed from any one corporate entity or private donor, the poll choices are still ridgidly locked-in to candidates who are rampantly stroking the wallets of special interests. And i feel these rich entities were able to dig-in and saturate the "new world" with their imperialistic world-changing policies because of an integrally weak central government far too stunted by the original constitution to have any shot of reinging in said terror. luckily we've amended and restructured enough to allow SOME anti-monopoly control and secure retirement benefits for america's hard-working labor force, but essentially the relative weakness in our government has allowed unbridled growth and consumption, and while this has afforded americans a relatively brief period of success, our starving country is literally starting to eat it's own stomach. And the depraved destitution our lavish lifestyles have caused to other countries who used to get by fine without air conditioners and computers and iphones and all these luxuries which we consider "rights", is disgusting, inhumane, and unacceptable. these countries are literally being sucked dry by the sponge that is consumer america. and those 10-year olds working for walmart nicaragua 100 hours a week for cents a day don't have a bed to go home to, let-alone an xbox, iphone, food, or air conditioners.... And a lot of people say screw other countries, we should worry about our own.... well we weren't singing that tune when we were infiltrating these countries with our corporate agendas, decimating their local economies, and pressuring their governments to restructure themselves around our own thirst for capital. But these issues are all completely different from the ones you raised. Your issues are a perfect example of some of the bad things strong government creates. however, i feel these other issues require immediate attention in the interest of the humanity, and are integral in "preserving the trust." I find the political landscape to be changing, it's much less about "red vs. blue", and much more about several sets of complex views that can't be classified into to any two distinct dichotomies. It's refreshing that so many people have so many different views. Hopefully we can restructure the government in the near future to have a least 5 to 10 "major" political parties, as opposed to the 2 that currently force us to choose one and pit us against the other.

ChaosControl
05-24-2011, 02:52 PM
I can agree with a lot of his concerns.

But it is hard to take him too seriously when he talks about government being to weak. The problem isn't that government is too weak, it is far too strong, the problem is, at least in his view if he was being more honest, is that government focuses its excessive bloated weight on issues other than the corporatocracy of the world. The issue though, even if it did put more emphasis on that, is that generally government regulations are actually written by the people they are supposed to protect us from, the mega corporations. So in the end the only effect of these regulations is preventing competition for the big guys by keeping out potential new challenges due to regulations. I'm pretty anti-corporate, I'd imagine more so than most people on this board, but I think the best way to fight corporate America is by decreasing government influence so that corporate America doesn't have such a significant power over the people. Now, it isn't just as easy as say abolishing government or decreasing its role in the economy alone, the current degree of government involvement, not just US but all nations really, has allowed these corporations to grow to obscene extents, they will still remain with an unfair advantage even if we end the government involvement. I don't really know the solution to this.

Now you could have a government that existed to protect from the corporations, you could potentially have an honest government that was truly for the people, but the chances of that are just as small as having a corporation that is mostly concerned about the community rather than its own profit and growth. Basically, almost zero.

NewRightLibertarian
05-24-2011, 03:02 PM
i would much rather take the word of the well-appointed government man, whose will and ambition are tempered and shaped by the millions who voted him in, over the word of the corporate man, whose unbridled will and ambition are only tempered by the depth of his wallet.

All those virtuous public servants (LMFAO) are often just as paid as the corporate CEOs.




[I respect] the politicians that give a damn about the will and ambition of the people; whichever ones pass the laws that regulate and restrict the abilities of companies to lie and take advantage of us... such as requiring warnings and full disclosure of ingredients, mandating truth in advertising, requiring medications and drugs to be tested before being approved, etc... without an organization holding companies liable, they would be able to sell whatever they want under whatever label they want to whoever they want without having any regard for the outcome or effect for those using their products.

Regulation should be done constitutionally at the state and local levels, the alphabet soup regulation agencies that make up much of the Federal Government are undemocratic and used to push through public policy under the guise of keeping the people safe. Most of the laws and regulations written by the government are written to enrich the corporate goons and placate special interests. Generally, businesspeople aren't going to want to screw over their customers because they depend on them to stay in business. It doesn't always work this way, and I agree that states to a certain degree should have the right to regulate and tax as they see fit. The current atmosphere encourages the corporations to fuck people over because they know they'll get a big government welfare check to prop their operation up when the jig is up.


i like how government allocates tax money for public safety/conveniences like sidewalks, street lights, how they mandate interchangeable parts on utilities so that no companies can make their services like water and electric proprietary, therefore allowing an integrated, comprehensive and socially-oriented approach to getting people the services they need.

all of this can be done at the state and local levels better than having a colossal centralized power


i feel the public interest is far more important than the private interest. but i do see the importance of limiting such governmental influence. lately the government's been going way too far in some issues, and far too lightly on others. a major overhaul and restructuring is needed, for sure. will it happen? fat chance. but there are still some good representatives, fighting the good fight for the right reasons. unfortunately there's just far too many crooked politicians interfering with that process. oh, well. life goes on.

at least he agrees that there's problems with the system. the 'public interest' is a fictional construct made up to sell big totalitarian government to well-meaning people like your colleague here


I believe complete dissolution of government would lead to very very bad things. there are people intent on weakening the government more than it already is, but i find a restructuring would be a far better option. the government has gotten stronger, perhaps a little too strong, is some areas, but has remained very weak in others, particularly in it's lack of regulating and reigning-in multi-nationalist organizations and corporations that operate outside of most governments' jurisdictions, allowing tragic abuse of labor laws and child slavery and spiraling of their country's economies into the newly-paved gravel. And despite a resounding effort which failed miserably in the late 90's early 2000's to severely limit the amount of private donation $ allowed from any one corporate entity or private donor

It already regulates the shit out of these corporations, and the regulations are there to enable the corporate fraud and crime. Big money in politics isn't the problem, the Democrat and Republican establishment are the problem. Destroy these parties for real reform. Will curtailing big money really make Nancy Pelosi and Lindsay Graham into virtuous, competent public servants on the up and up? Cmon now.


the poll choices are still ridgidly locked-in to candidates who are rampantly stroking the wallets of special interests. And i feel these rich entities were able to dig-in and saturate the "new world" with their imperialistic world-changing policies because of an integrally weak central government far too stunted by the original constitution to have any shot of reinging in said terror.

This is enragingly, outrageously false. Don't even know what to say to this. The constitution they don't follow is holding D.C. back from being able to have the amount of power they need? WTF world is this guy living in?


luckily we've amended and restructured enough to allow SOME anti-monopoly control and secure retirement benefits for america's hard-working labor force

These 'benefits' are causing dependency and national bankruptcy and desperately need to be reformed. Where is this anti-monopoly control? The government is trying to monopolize everything so they along with their corporate partners (who they write regulations to enable) can dominate every aspect of society.


but essentially the relative weakness in our government has allowed unbridled growth and consumption

No, the incredibly powerful government subsidizes the unbridled growth (a bad thing?) and consumption.


And the depraved destitution our lavish lifestyles have caused to other countries who used to get by fine without air conditioners and computers and iphones and all these luxuries which we consider "rights", is disgusting, inhumane, and unacceptable. these countries are literally being sucked dry by the sponge that is consumer america. and those 10-year olds working for walmart nicaragua 100 hours a week for cents a day don't have a bed to go home to, let-alone an xbox, iphone, food, or air conditioners

This is a touchy issue. What jobs would those immigrants have if they weren't employed by Wal Mart. I agree that ruthless corporate practices are a problem, but this should be handled by consumers making choices not to shop at retailers who engage in these terrible practices. You can facilitate this by educating everyone in your community to do this.


And a lot of people say screw other countries, we should worry about our own.... well we weren't singing that tune when we were infiltrating these countries with our corporate agendas, decimating their local economies, and pressuring their governments to restructure themselves around our own thirst for capital.

"We" didn't do this. Big banks (the same ones that control the printing press) have. Crippling the easy money system is the first step to real reform, that will hit the predatory ruling class where they hurt.


I find the political landscape to be changing, it's much less about "red vs. blue", and much more about several sets of complex views that can't be classified into to any two distinct dichotomies. It's refreshing that so many people have so many different views. Hopefully we can restructure the government in the near future to have a least 5 to 10 "major" political parties, as opposed to the 2 that currently force us to choose one and pit us against the other.

I agree with this.

That's how I respond. Hope it helps you responding to him and getting him to understand the freedom P.O.V! Seems like a thoughtful guy but he's terribly off base on many key issues.

fisharmor
05-24-2011, 03:15 PM
Just skimmed, but I don't see a single case study, observable fact, or reasoned deduction.... and an awful lot of "I like" and "I believe".
Intelligent? Jury's still out.
Logical? Not so much.

I like how in his world sidewalks wouldn't exist if the state didn't put them there.
I also like how in his world humanity can't figure out how to hook up differently sized water pipes without the state telling them how.
Look, the jury just came back, and guess what the verdict is.

gb13
05-24-2011, 03:36 PM
Sgt, I was kinda thinking along the lines that you went with for a lot of the points he brought up. Thanks a lot for the point-by-point response! I'm really overwhelmed by responsibilities today, so I was having a difficult time organizing my thoughts and breaking down his run-on paragraphs into addressable topics. Seeing it the way you had it dissected helped a lot.

fisharmor, I see him as well-intentioned and intelligent, but thoroughly misinformed....probably by the public school system. Wouldn't be at all surprised.

affa
05-24-2011, 03:36 PM
the core issue:

He'd be more likely to be correct if gov't wasn't corruptible, but this isn't the case. Elections don't guarantee moral men/woman in any way, shape, or form. Corporations often write the laws that govern them, and we end up with thoughtful sounding laws/policies/groups that are actually corporate shills.

Bodhi
05-24-2011, 03:48 PM
Better yet, have a benevolent dictatorship, that was taught to me in college as being the best form of governement, not kidding that was taught.

Elwar
05-24-2011, 03:48 PM
He is not intelligent.

Get back to us when he addresses human nature which seeks reward and avoids work.

gb13
05-24-2011, 03:49 PM
the core issue:

He'd be more likely to be correct if gov't wasn't corruptible, but this isn't the case. Elections don't guarantee moral men/woman in any way, shape, or form. Corporations often write the laws that govern them, and we end up with thoughtful sounding laws/policies/groups that are actually corporate shills.

Very, very true. Definitely needs to be addressed with him.

pcosmar
05-24-2011, 03:53 PM
Long winded and even articulate does not equal intelligent.

There are a great many that are widely considered "intelligent", and even respected that I consider to be fools.

t0rnado
05-24-2011, 04:04 PM
"Intelligent socialist" is an oxymoron.

low preference guy
05-24-2011, 04:05 PM
"Intelligent socialist" is an oxymoron.

Not necessarily. If he wants massive destruction and enjoys seeing people suffer then socialism is the intelligence choice.

pcosmar
05-24-2011, 04:05 PM
"Intelligent socialist" is an oxymoron.

That WAS my first thought.
;)

Cutlerzzz
05-24-2011, 04:13 PM
i would much rather take the word of the well-appointed government man, whose will and ambition are tempered and shaped by the millions who voted him in, over the word of the corporate man, whose unbridled will and ambition are only tempered by the depth of his wallet.


I just read Mises The Anti Capitalistic Mentality so this mad me especially lol.

That CEO has to serve the consumers(everyone in the economy), who are made sovereign. If he does not, his corporation fails and his wallet will be empty. He cannot force anyone to buy his product, work for him, or support his business, against their will. By contrast, coercion is something inherent to government. Less than a quarter of the United States population voted for Obama, yet we are forced to now comply with his laws, regulations, and so on. Refusal to comply will result in jail time.

For that reason I trust that CEO far more than the politicians...

Acala
05-24-2011, 04:15 PM
He falls for several typical fallacies. These are the most prominent.

1. Half of his argument is based on the idea that people are too stupid or too greedy to be left to arrange their own affairs. Assuming only for the sake of argument that this is true, the idea that government intervention solves this problem rests on the fallacy that the people who control the government are somehow NOT from the same stupid and greedy class as those who populate the private sector. This is, obviously, not the case. The difference is that the stupid, greedy people in government are AUTHORIZED to use violence to interfere in the people's private affairs while the stupid, greedy people in the private sector are not.

2. Most of the rest of his argument is based on the illusion that government operates as some kind of check on corporate power when, in fact, just the opposite is true.

Obama and McCain just about had a fist fight to see who could be more supportive of giving hundreds of billions of the people's money to Goldman Sachs and other big banks. Government protecting the people from rapacious corporations?

Or how about this: our defense budget is larger than the rest of the world combined. Most of that money goes into the pocket of military contractors like Haliburton and the former Blackwater. Obama INCREASED the defense budget. Government protecting the people from rapacious corporations again?

Most of the money we send as "aid" to foreign nations is earmarked to pay interest on bank loans or to purchase goods and services from American corporations.

The first thing Obama did when enacting Obamacare was to make a back room deal with the drug companies to protect their FDA-enforced oligopolistic profits. The next thing he did was cut a deal with the insurance industry FORCING everyone to buy their product!

And on and on.

Only a blind fool can believe that government is protecting the people from racapacious corporations. Our government is the biggest corporate shill in the world. It is in the business of taking the people's freedom and wealth and handing it to Wall Street and the Banks.

Arklatex
05-24-2011, 04:34 PM
I'll add my response to all socialists. And that is: you are right!

But it must be voluntary and it must be in the right environment and this is not the right environment. This is not heaven, this is more like hell. When Jesus returns and all the "service to self" people are removed (the weeds) and we are left with all "service to others" then yes, I can't wait to live in a community that provides everything for everyone and doesn't expect anything in return. This is unconditional love, the Christ Consciousness.

We exist in the lower vibrations where socialism here = slavery. The weeds must be removed from this garden before "socialism" can be successful. my 2 cents

AceNZ
05-24-2011, 04:36 PM
One (of many) things that he fails to see is that it's not corporations that corrupt government; it's government that corrupts corporations. Government has the power of force behind it; corporations have to rely on persuasion.

The idea that the public interest is far more important than the private interest is actually evil. The "public" is not an entity that can be touched, and it's impossible to satisfy everyone at once on all issues. So what he's really saying is that some people's interests are more important than other people's. And by involving government, he also means that it's OK to use force to get his way.

He warns about drug companies being able to sell whatever they wanted. If those companies didn't have the FDA to fall back on as a scapegoat, they wouldn't survive very long after introducing drugs that were harmful. Would you buy from such a company? But think about all of the small entrepreneurs who are denied from entering the market today, because the barriers are too high. How many wonderful medications have been denied to the world as a result?

The bottom line is that he a Statist. Most of the US probably shares many of these same views.

Au-H2O
05-24-2011, 04:50 PM
If you read this article or watch this video you'll be able to refute almost everything this guy says.
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2006/11/gun-in-room.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_1nbahAts



“i would much rather take the word of the well-appointed government man, whose will and ambition are tempered and shaped by the millions who voted him in, over the word of the corporate man, whose unbridled will and ambition are only tempered by the depth of his wallet.”
I’d just say “good for him.” That’s the beauty about capitalism. You vote with every single purchase you make. If you don’t trust a business you don’t have to deal with it. If you don’t like a what a business does, then you don’t have to pay them for their goods/services. If you think a business is screwing you over, then don’t do business with them. I appreciate his right to choose who he trusts, and I would appreciate it if he would let me choose who I trust without interference."


“[I respect] the politicians that give a damn about the will and ambition of the people; whichever ones pass the laws that regulate and restrict the abilities of companies to lie and take advantage of us... such as requiring warnings and full disclosure of ingredients, mandating truth in advertising, requiring medications and drugs to be tested before being approved, etc... without an organization holding companies liable, they would be able to sell whatever they want under whatever label they want to whoever they want without having any regard for the outcome or effect for those using their products.”
They have had laws for this for a long time. They are called anti-fraud laws. If you lie to somebody about a product you sell to them, that is fraud. Plain and simple. We don’t need to have specific laws.
If he demands to know the ingredients of a product then he can refuse to deal with companies that don’t deal with products. I respect his right to do so. If he wasn’t people to only buy products that have listed ingredients then he can encourage them to do so. If the product is advertised as safe and they don’t disclose a clearly unsafe ingredient that causes harm, then this could be considered fraud (see above).
I could go on and on about drug approval, but I’ll just say I respect his right to only take approved drug. I hope he would afford the same respect to me and allow me to take unapproved drugs. Again, if a drug is advertised as safe and effective when it is not and doesn’t have studies to back this up, then that could be considered fraud (see above). Also if you go to pharmacy school or medical school, you’ll see that most treatment guidelines a choosen based on private entities like the American Diabetes Association, The American Heart Association, ALLHAT and countless other clinical trials, etc. These stricter recommendations/guidelines don’t come from the FDA. Also see recommended video below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dan1LFrzyII
You can’t try the irbetux Anna. I guess you’re just going to have to give up and die. Sucks to suck. (Irbetux was approved 4 years after she died)


“i like how government allocates tax money for public safety/conveniences like sidewalks, street lights”
I would like to keep my own money and allocate my own payments to streets, sidewalks, parks, etc. Private companies do it better. This is a common argumentative fallacy known as the “false dilemma” or “false choice fallacy.” It’s an argument where you provide only two solutions to a problem aka Government must build the sidewalks/streets or there will be no sidewalks/streets and we’d be stuck in the same place with no means to travel. See recommended videos below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyPEgIDhj5s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCMrqEVyCDo


I like how they mandate interchangeable parts on utilities so that no companies can make their services like water and electric proprietary, therefore allowing an integrated, comprehensive and socially-oriented approach to getting people the services they need.
USB ports, DVDs, Blu-Rays, 2 x 4 boards, alternating current, and countless other things with interchangeable sizes or universal ports/parts have been developed without force. We should like the individuals in society pick the parts they want. If they want things with interchangeable parts or universally accepted parts, great! I think they should go for it! I just don’t think we should have an oligarchy decide what should be “universal” or “interchangeable.” Let the individuals in society decide.


whoever developed speed limits and traffic lights.
Speed limits and intersection safety can be developed on private property. I’m not opposed to speed limits or traffic laws, but I’d prefer privately made traffic laws/speed limits on privately made roads.


i feel we need a government to appropriate the funds and pass the laws necessary to keep our communities cohesive and accesible to as many as possible. i feel the public interest is far more important than the private interest.
Another “false dilemma” fallacy. Either government provides transportation/roads or they won’t exist and we won’t be able to get around. This is not true. This makes everyone in society seem like ineffectual boobs that would never figure out how to get around without their wise overlords (paraphrased from Thomas Woods).


but i do see the importance of limiting such governmental influence. lately the government's been going way too far in some issues, and far too lightly on others. a major overhaul and restructuring is needed, for sure.
We shouldn’t restructure how the government dictates our lives. Who plans for whom? I want to make my own decisions about my life.


will it happen? fat chance. but there are still some good representatives, fighting the good fight for the right reasons. unfortunately there's just far too many crooked politicians interfering with that process. oh, well. life goes on.
This is what happens when we give businesses a stake in what comes from government. If businesses know they can’t get favors from government, we won’t have a government permeated with lobbyists. We need to take away the power of the politicians to provide these special privileges to businesses/individuals. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.



I believe complete dissolution of government would lead to very very bad things.
He provides not argument here. This is and “Abesentia” argumentative fallacy. There is no argument for a position. Plus, most libertarians believe in the rule of law. They believe in limited government not no government.


it's lack of regulating and reigning-in multi-nationalist organizations and corporations that operate outside of most governments' jurisdictions
If you think this corporations are screwing you over, then don’t do business with them. Problem solved.


allowing tragic abuse of labor laws and child slavery and spiraling of their country's economies into the newly-paved gravel.
Government mandated child slavery would be bad. Many people think we can just end child slavery in poor countries through a law or decree. The result? The children typically starve or become prostitutes. Child labor doesn’t exist just for the hell of it. Child labor exists in this countries because of necessity. This can be remedied with increased productivity. If you think a company is providing you with a bad labor environment don’t work there. Problem solved. Don’t dictate your standards of adequate labor conditions to everyone else. See recommended video below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7Qf0ey-pOo
Also note a longer version of this video that also talks about labor conditions is available on Youtube called “Applying Economics to American History”



And despite a resounding effort which failed miserably in the late 90's early 2000's to severely limit the amount of private donation $ allowed from any one corporate entity or private donor, the poll choices are still ridgidly locked-in to candidates who are rampantly stroking the wallets of special interests. And i feel these rich entities were able to dig-in and saturate the "new world" with their imperialistic world-changing policies because of an integrally weak central government far too stunted by the original constitution to have any shot of reinging in said terror.
A weak central government would not be able to reign in imperialistic world-changing policies from well financed politicians? This makes no sense, and I don’t think I even need to refute this.


luckily we've amended and restructured enough to allow SOME anti-monopoly control and secure retirement benefits for america's hard-working labor force
Another “false dilemma” argumentative fallacy. Either the government provides laws forcing a certain retirement plan/retirement benefits or Americans won’t save for retirement and will receive no benefits.


but essentially the relative weakness in our government has allowed unbridled growth and consumption, and while this has afforded americans a relatively brief period of success
Low-interest rates manipulated by the Federal Reserve and other government mandates allowed for unbridled growth and consumption. See recommended video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k


And the depraved destitution our lavish lifestyles have caused to other countries who used to get by fine without air conditioners and computers and iphones and all these luxuries which we consider "rights", is disgusting, inhumane, and unacceptable. these countries are literally being sucked dry by the sponge that is consumer america. and those 10-year olds working for walmart nicaragua 100 hours a week for cents a day don't have a bed to go home to, let-alone an xbox, iphone, food, or air conditioners.... And a lot of people say screw other countries, we should worry about our own.... well we weren't singing that tune when we were infiltrating these countries with our corporate agendas, decimating their local economies, and pressuring their governments to restructure themselves around our own thirst for capital.
These people are in destitution due to government dictators and terrible governments. Foreign aid is typically stolen by these dictators and beaurocrats, and it usually doesn’t get to the people who actually need it. See recommended videos below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaHmgoB10E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfobLjsj230

gb13
05-24-2011, 05:26 PM
"Intelligent socialist" is an oxymoron.

hahaha touché. I suppose that's a very valid point.

hugolp
05-24-2011, 05:39 PM
The politician is not tamed by the voters. Politicians can lie to get to power and once in place its very hard to take them out and can do as they please. They are dictators for 4 years.

Instead business are under constant preasure from the costumers that can choose to stop buying (voting with money) at any point.


He is not intelligent.

Exactly my thoughs. He is well educated, but not intelligent.

aGameOfThrones
05-24-2011, 05:42 PM
I stopped after reading this:


i would much rather take the word of the well-appointed government man, whose will and ambition are tempered and shaped by the millions who voted him in, over the word of the corporate man, whose unbridled will and ambition are only tempered by the depth of his wallet.

awake
05-24-2011, 05:44 PM
Once one understands that socialism is an unworkable system of societal organization, the term 'intelligent socialist' becomes an oxymoron. "If you are a socialist at 20 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist at 30 you have no brain."

What I find most curious is that socialists worry of the evil business man who will grow so big as to wield sole monopoly and exploit the rest of the human race; placing us all into slavery. In contrast, they look upon government not as any of these evils things, while willfully ignoring reality: That the state is all of these things and much worse.

Intellectual Dyslexia.

dannno
05-24-2011, 06:11 PM
I also like how in his world humanity can't figure out how to hook up differently sized water pipes without the state telling them how.


:D

I honestly thought you were referring to bongs, aka "water pipes"

Let me assure the OP's buddy that bongs are not regulated by the govt., in fact they are only questionably legal (see Feds vs. Tommy Chong) yet I can get a 14mm to 18mm conversion piece for one if I have the wrong bowl size..

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-24-2011, 06:39 PM
i would much rather take the word of the well-appointed government man, whose will and ambition are tempered and shaped by the millions who voted him in, over the word of the corporate man, whose unbridled will and ambition are only tempered by the depth of his wallet.

This person trusts public executes (lawyers) over private executives.


[I respect] the politicians that give a damn about the will and ambition of the people; whichever ones pass the laws that regulate and restrict the abilities of companies to lie and take advantage of us... such as requiring warnings and full disclosure of ingredients, mandating truth in advertising, requiring medications and drugs to be tested before being approved, etc... without an organization holding companies liable, they would be able to sell whatever they want under whatever label they want to whoever they want without having any regard for the outcome or effect for those using their products. it still happens, but to a lesser extent than if no rules and regulations were developed. i like how government allocates tax money for public safety/conveniences like sidewalks, street lights, how they mandate interchangeable parts on utilities so that no companies can make their services like water and electric proprietary, therefore allowing an integrated, comprehensive and socially-oriented approach to getting people the services they need. whoever developed speed limits and traffic lights. i feel we need a government to appropriate the funds and pass the laws necessary to keep our communities cohesive and accesible to as many as possible. i feel the public interest is far more important than the private interest. but i do see the importance of limiting such governmental influence. lately the government's been going way too far in some issues, and far too lightly on others. a major overhaul and restructuring is needed, for sure. will it happen? fat chance. but there are still some good representatives, fighting the good fight for the right reasons. unfortunately there's just far too many crooked politicians interfering with that process. oh, well. life goes on.

He believes naively that governments can govern from great distances away which means he doesn't believe in tyranny.


I believe complete dissolution of government would lead to very very bad things. there are people intent on weakening the government more than it already is, but i find a restructuring would be a far better option. the government has gotten stronger, perhaps a little too strong, is some areas, but has remained very weak in others, particularly in it's lack of regulating and reigning-in multi-nationalist organizations and corporations that operate outside of most governments' jurisdictions, allowing tragic abuse of labor laws and child slavery and spiraling of their country's economies into the newly-paved gravel. And despite a resounding effort which failed miserably in the late 90's early 2000's to severely limit the amount of private donation $ allowed from any one corporate entity or private donor, the poll choices are still ridgidly locked-in to candidates who are rampantly stroking the wallets of special interests. And i feel these rich entities were able to dig-in and saturate the "new world" with their imperialistic world-changing policies because of an integrally weak central government far too stunted by the original constitution to have any shot of reinging in said terror. luckily we've amended and restructured enough to allow SOME anti-monopoly control and secure retirement benefits for america's hard-working labor force, but essentially the relative weakness in our government has allowed unbridled growth and consumption, and while this has afforded americans a relatively brief period of success, our starving country is literally starting to eat it's own stomach. And the depraved destitution our lavish lifestyles have caused to other countries who used to get by fine without air conditioners and computers and iphones and all these luxuries which we consider "rights", is disgusting, inhumane, and unacceptable. these countries are literally being sucked dry by the sponge that is consumer america. and those 10-year olds working for walmart nicaragua 100 hours a week for cents a day don't have a bed to go home to, let-alone an xbox, iphone, food, or air conditioners.... And a lot of people say screw other countries, we should worry about our own.... well we weren't singing that tune when we were infiltrating these countries with our corporate agendas, decimating their local economies, and pressuring their governments to restructure themselves around our own thirst for capital. But these issues are all completely different from the ones you raised. Your issues are a perfect example of some of the bad things strong government creates. however, i feel these other issues require immediate attention in the interest of the humanity, and are integral in "preserving the trust." I find the political landscape to be changing, it's much less about "red vs. blue", and much more about several sets of complex views that can't be classified into to any two distinct dichotomies. It's refreshing that so many people have so many different views. Hopefully we can restructure the government in the near future to have a least 5 to 10 "major" political parties, as opposed to the 2 that currently force us to choose one and pit us against the other.

In my opinion, this person just sounds intelligent.

Vessol
05-24-2011, 06:44 PM
Point out the gun in the room.

That tactic will defeat any Statist unless they are also by chance a sociopath who has no problem with violence.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-24-2011, 06:47 PM
Once one understands that socialism is an unworkable system of societal organization, the term 'intelligent socialist' becomes an oxymoron. "If you are a socialist at 20 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist at 30 you have no brain."

What I find most curious is that socialists worry of the evil business man who will grow so big as to wield sole monopoly and exploit the rest of the human race; placing us all into slavery. In contrast, they look upon government not as any of these evils things, while willfully ignoring reality: That the state is all of these things and much worse.

Intellectual Dyslexia.

Once again, the political spectrum of "the Golden Mean" wasn't intended by Aristotle to create extremes in politics, but to bring a extremist Greece back towards moderacy. As tyranny can't solve problems, so the Federal government can't solve problems. Indeed, as it necessary for it to function, it must operate as a necessary tyranny.

Vessol
05-24-2011, 06:52 PM
Once again, the political spectrum of "the Golden Mean" wasn't intended by Aristotle to create extremes in politics, but to bring a extremist Greece back towards moderacy. As tyranny can't solve problems, so the Federal government can't solve problems. Indeed, as it necessary for it to function, it must operate as a necessary tyranny.

So you think using violence on peaceful individuals is necessary?

JCLibertarian
05-24-2011, 08:10 PM
Better yet, have a benevolent dictatorship, that was taught to me in college as being the best form of governement, not kidding that was taught.

I would rather have a corporatist dictatorship, with free market elements than a social democracy like the one mentioned by this guy talked about in the OP.

gb13
05-25-2011, 01:24 PM
Thanks for all your input, everyone. It's been helpful to hear a myriad of widely differing opinions. I like that "against me" argument...pointing out the gun in the room. Might try it on for size, rather than arguing point-by-point ad infinitum with his long-winded digressions.