Socialism, Capitalism,Corpratism...?

[mstrmac1]

After many years of trying to understand how the system works I think it comes down to these words. I believe if these three words were defined to the American people clearly, they would see what they really want! If RP could clearly define these words to the American people he would garner the majority of votes.

Imho..

The left want to be free too! ( I know, not ALL. Some are proud socialist) Problem is they define Capitalism as the root of the problem and think that Socialism is the only way to combat it to truly be free. Most of us know this is false.. If they only could define Corporatism as Government scratching the back of the rich by leaking money to their crony friends the word Capitalism wouldn't offend them. Capitalism, is a free market where any one of us can become prosperous if we choose. The neighbor next store starting a coffee shop and working his ass off is Capitalism. This, I'm sure not all, but most of the left could handle or deem this to be right!

The right confuses Corporatism with the word Corporation that many small business owner form. Problem is these small business Corporation don't get the free hand outs that large one gets. Or bailouts from tax dollars! They DO know.. they dont like bailouts. Which is why we see the formation of the modern day tea party. You never see DOWN WITH CORPORATISM at rally's. If you did see these sign's...the left would start to think, wow they get it.

Fact: AND THE PROBLEM...

#1 If you polled The LEFT to pick two of the three words that are the closest to each other... they would choose CORPORATISM AND CAPITALISM!

#2 If you polled The RIGHT they would pick CORPORATISM AND CAPITALISM!

#3 IF YOU POLLED RPF THEY WOULD PICK SOCALISM AND CORPORATISM!




I know I'm rambling but I think this is what would bring us together... Defining these three words.

[Cabal]

It's not really a matter of defining words. It's a matter of curing willful ignorance. These terms have been well-defined for some time.

[mstrmac1]

It's not really a matter of defining words. It's a matter of curing willful ignorance. These terms have been well-defined for some time.

Yes, I know they have.... But to cure willful ignorance people must be slapped across the face with definition!

[Conza88]

The overwhelming majority of state supporters are not philosophical statists, i.e., because they have thought about the matter. Most people do not think much about anything philosophical. They go about their daily lives, and that is it. So most support stems from the mere fact that a state exists, and has always existed as far as one can remember (and that is typically not farther away than one’s own lifetime). That is, the greatest achievement of the statist intellectuals is the fact that they have cultivated the masses’ natural intellectual laziness (or incapacity) and never allowed for the subject to come up for serious discussion. The state is considered as an unquestionable part of the social fabric.

The first and foremost task of the intellectual anti-intellectuals, then, is to counter this dogmatic slumber of the masses by offering a precise definition of the state, as I have done at the outset, and then to ask if there is not something truly remarkable, odd, strange, awkward, ridiculous, indeed ludicrous about an institution such as this. I am confident that such simple, definitional work will produce some serious doubt regarding an institution that one previously had been taken for granted.

— Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State, Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

The overwhelming majority of state supporters are not philosophical statists, i.e., because they have thought about the matter. Most people do not think much about anything philosophical. They go about their daily lives, and that is it. So most support stems from the mere fact that a state exists, and has always existed as far as one can remember (and that is typically not farther away than one’s own lifetime). That is, the greatest achievement of the statist intellectuals is the fact that they have cultivated the masses’ natural intellectual laziness (or incapacity) and never allowed for the subject to come up for serious discussion. The state is considered as an unquestionable part of the social fabric.

The first and foremost task of the intellectual anti-intellectuals, then, is to counter this dogmatic slumber of the masses by offering a precise definition of the state, as I have done at the outset, and then to ask if there is not something truly remarkable, odd, strange, awkward, ridiculous, indeed ludicrous about an institution such as this. I am confident that such simple, definitional work will produce some serious doubt regarding an institution that one previously had been taken for granted.

— Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State, Hans-Hermann Hoppe

+rep. From a philosopher.

[mstrmac1]

The overwhelming majority of state supporters are not philosophical statists, i.e., because they have thought about the matter. Most people do not think much about anything philosophical. They go about their daily lives, and that is it. So most support stems from the mere fact that a state exists, and has always existed as far as one can remember (and that is typically not farther away than one’s own lifetime). That is, the greatest achievement of the statist intellectuals is the fact that they have cultivated the masses’ natural intellectual laziness (or incapacity) and never allowed for the subject to come up for serious discussion. The state is considered as an unquestionable part of the social fabric.



The first and foremost task of the intellectual anti-intellectuals, then, is to counter this dogmatic slumber of the masses by offering a precise definition of the state, as I have done at the outset, and then to ask if there is not something truly remarkable, odd, strange, awkward, ridiculous, indeed ludicrous about an institution such as this. I am confident that such simple, definitional work will produce some serious doubt regarding an institution that one previously had been taken for granted.

— Reflections on the Origin and the Stability of the State, Hans-Hermann Hoppe


This is better than my post! Definition will win the election.

[king_nothing_]

The most succinct way to define socialism is: "force" and "theft". Using force to violate natural law (theft) is not something a moral person should endorse.

"Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions." - Milton Friedman