invite response« First « Previous Comments 60 - 65 of 65 Search these comments
60
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 24, 1:08pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Aug 24, 1:08pm
Dan8267 says
hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahwhoooohoooohooohooohooohooohooo
Only a top tier Democratic Nominee - both in 2016 AND in 2020!
www.youtube.com/embed/QThknQs-gIc
(and most of the rest are calling for UBI, Open Borders, and Nationalized Health Care)
tatupu70 says2015 Jul 25, 12:00am
Is there anyone arguing in favor of socialism?
hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahwhoooohoooohooohooohooohooohooo
Only a top tier Democratic Nominee - both in 2016 AND in 2020!
www.youtube.com/embed/QThknQs-gIc
(and most of the rest are calling for UBI, Open Borders, and Nationalized Health Care)
62
Reality
2019 Aug 25, 1:01pm
bob2356 says
Close, very close; one word change would illustrate the difference between Capitalism vs. Socialism/Slavery much more clearly: "privately owned" => "Competitively Owned." An absolute monarch or an all-powerful dictator "privately owns" the entire country but that is not Capitalism. The Kim family and the Castro family have de facto private ownership (but not "Competitive Ownership") of their respective countries, despite their "Socialism" labels. Competitive Ownership (and letting the public make choices individually instead collectively, and letting the individuals bear the result/fruit of their own choices) is what makes Capitalism work.
Capitalism is defined as when trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned.
Close, very close; one word change would illustrate the difference between Capitalism vs. Socialism/Slavery much more clearly: "privately owned" => "Competitively Owned." An absolute monarch or an all-powerful dictator "privately owns" the entire country but that is not Capitalism. The Kim family and the Castro family have de facto private ownership (but not "Competitive Ownership") of their respective countries, despite their "Socialism" labels. Competitive Ownership (and letting the public make choices individually instead collectively, and letting the individuals bear the result/fruit of their own choices) is what makes Capitalism work.
63
Reality
2019 Aug 25, 1:27pm
Dan8267 says
First of all, Dan, aren't you supposed to be an atheist? God/gods (and including Jesus Christ) in religions can theoretically be successful central planners because the thesis is usually/always based on the axiom that God/gods (and including Jesus Christ) is/are all-knowing (Omniscient). When we can find someone who is Omniscient (and Omnipotent), I'd gladly embrace socialism managed by him; however, as far as we know, all living human beings make mistakes, so socialism (i.e. central planning monopoly) will always fail miserably after a while. Socialistic central planning can seem to work for a short time period (lasting a few years to 2-3 decades) in a backwards country precisely because their central planning agent already has the template of more advanced economies laid out in front of them. That's precisely why Japan could develop rapidly in the 1950's through 1970's, and China from 1970's to early 2000's, by making goods and services according to American consumer demands (the out-sourcing corporations translating those consumer demands to feasible work-orders). As soon as they have mostly caught up technologically (in hardware), they lost their ways and wasted their accumulated capital on capital destruction such as extreme luxury cars and real estate speculation.
Military, in the absence of breakthrough technology, faces the N-squared law (which drastically penalizes individualism). What fundamentally transpires in military action is not socialism as you think of it, but slavery: to the subjugated first and ultimately also to the population that furnishes the all-conquering military in the long run (as the manager/owner of such a military would have no use for its domestic population when it can enslave foreign populations for higher profit). However, given human nature bowing to that which is more powerful, not having a military powerful enough to defend oneself (and beat down rising threat overseas if one is already in a dominant position) would be suicidal! The post-WWII condition of one country having the most powerful military at least theoretically embracing the ideals of liberty and individual self-ownership, and incurring huge domestic political cost when waging wars overseas, is about as good as it has ever been for humanity. The usual condition in human history was a country that could not internally feed itself (due to despotism) fanning out and looting and destroying all the wealthier neighbors that had manged to find a workable economic system (getting rich, but facing demographic programs due to girls raised in wealth tend to be more reluctant to reproduce, and boys raised in wealth tend to avoid fighting).
Anyone who says the military should be funded is arguing in favor of socialism. As is anyone who likes Social Security, the most popular policy in the United States.
Oh, and there is Jesus Christ, the mother of all socialists.
First of all, Dan, aren't you supposed to be an atheist? God/gods (and including Jesus Christ) in religions can theoretically be successful central planners because the thesis is usually/always based on the axiom that God/gods (and including Jesus Christ) is/are all-knowing (Omniscient). When we can find someone who is Omniscient (and Omnipotent), I'd gladly embrace socialism managed by him; however, as far as we know, all living human beings make mistakes, so socialism (i.e. central planning monopoly) will always fail miserably after a while. Socialistic central planning can seem to work for a short time period (lasting a few years to 2-3 decades) in a backwards country precisely because their central planning agent already has the template of more advanced economies laid out in front of them. That's precisely why Japan could develop rapidly in the 1950's through 1970's, and China from 1970's to early 2000's, by making goods and services according to American consumer demands (the out-sourcing corporations translating those consumer demands to feasible work-orders). As soon as they have mostly caught up technologically (in hardware), they lost their ways and wasted their accumulated capital on capital destruction such as extreme luxury cars and real estate speculation.
Military, in the absence of breakthrough technology, faces the N-squared law (which drastically penalizes individualism). What fundamentally transpires in military action is not socialism as you think of it, but slavery: to the subjugated first and ultimately also to the population that furnishes the all-conquering military in the long run (as the manager/owner of such a military would have no use for its domestic population when it can enslave foreign populations for higher profit). However, given human nature bowing to that which is more powerful, not having a military powerful enough to defend oneself (and beat down rising threat overseas if one is already in a dominant position) would be suicidal! The post-WWII condition of one country having the most powerful military at least theoretically embracing the ideals of liberty and individual self-ownership, and incurring huge domestic political cost when waging wars overseas, is about as good as it has ever been for humanity. The usual condition in human history was a country that could not internally feed itself (due to despotism) fanning out and looting and destroying all the wealthier neighbors that had manged to find a workable economic system (getting rich, but facing demographic programs due to girls raised in wealth tend to be more reluctant to reproduce, and boys raised in wealth tend to avoid fighting).
64
GNL
2019 Aug 25, 1:37pm
GNL
2019 Aug 25, 1:37pm
Reality says
Bingo bango
Competitive Ownership (and letting the public make choices individually instead collectively, and letting the individuals bear the result/fruit of their own choices) is what makes Capitalism work.
Bingo bango
65
Reality
2019 Aug 25, 1:39pm
theoakman says
Private charities competing against each other to get funds from individual third-party donors is not socialism.
Socialist "orphanages" funded by governments all over the world may well be engaged in the business of harvesting organs and tissue from lost children and adults. Many refugee agencies in Europe funded by governments and NGO's most likely do (may well be the real reason behind the promotion of the refugee waves). Planned Parenthood getting government funding and NGO funding also do the harvesting.
Just because someone works for a "non-profit" or even the government doesn't mean he/she stops being selfish or stop having self-interest or even stop having ever-growing greed. It's only consumer choice switching to some other vendor that can keep greed in check. That requires Decentralization and Competitive Ownership, not centralized government-sponsored agencies monopolizing aspects of the economy.
Is taking care of orphans socialism?
Private charities competing against each other to get funds from individual third-party donors is not socialism.
Socialist "orphanages" funded by governments all over the world may well be engaged in the business of harvesting organs and tissue from lost children and adults. Many refugee agencies in Europe funded by governments and NGO's most likely do (may well be the real reason behind the promotion of the refugee waves). Planned Parenthood getting government funding and NGO funding also do the harvesting.
Just because someone works for a "non-profit" or even the government doesn't mean he/she stops being selfish or stop having self-interest or even stop having ever-growing greed. It's only consumer choice switching to some other vendor that can keep greed in check. That requires Decentralization and Competitive Ownership, not centralized government-sponsored agencies monopolizing aspects of the economy.
« First « Previous Comments 60 - 65 of 65 Search these comments
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun