Why not post your political lean?

[Mensch]

Similarly, funny how 90% of people who love to identify as "Libertarian" tend to never once disagree with the Republican platform.

I personally don't see the point though. I'll admit I'm liberal, even though I'm probably more conservative on guns than most conservatives.

Probably one of the founding fathers of American libertarianism was Barry Goldwater. Look at how he went from militant conservative to pacifist, gay-loving, drug-legalizing libertarian (I am exaggerating). But, do you get my point? I've heard a quote that said, "libertarians are just drug-using, gay-loving republicans" but I don't consider that quote to be an accurate reflection of either belief system. Libertarians are probably the most diverse political platform. We are truly fiscally responsible and socially tolerant. There are even "left-libertarians" who don't believe in property rights. I'm baffled that you could still consider yourself a libertarian after condemning property rights! It would be like that Jews for Jesus group.

Libertarians simply agree with conservatives on (generally) economic freedom issues, while they agree with liberals on (generally) personal freedom issues. Some might say those two freedoms are the same, but in this day and age, you actually have to distinguish that there is, in fact, a right to free trade. Conservatives think we're just as nuts as liberals, if not more crazy. Ron Paul attracted the most mindful of economists, and the most drunken college students. Go figure.

 

[justabubba]

I'm having trouble believing that such grand assumptions could be all that inaccurate. Everyone seems to support a little mix of socialism here and there. You're painted as a conniving, Mr. Potter, Mr. Scrooge, evil, corrupt, greedy, selfish corporatist who wants to do away with social security and medicare in order to throw granny out on the street. If I say let's privatize SS and medicare, what would be your reaction? What would the common reaction be? That I'm a ruthless tyrant who just wants to throw granny out on the street. I don't give change to beggers. I must be a senseless miser. This is the reaction I get from most people. And most people don't think socialism, or "social democrat" is such a bad term.

i would say this indicates your ignorance of the intent of those social programs

 

[Mensch]

i would say this indicates your ignorance of the intent of those social programs

Read my signature.

 

[obvious Child]

I'm having trouble believing that such grand assumptions could be all that inaccurate. Everyone seems to support a little mix of socialism here and there.

That depends how you define socialism. Far too many people have a working definition of socialism as anything they don't like. For instance, we have some users who defend Bush's socialist drug program at the same time saying all Socialism is a disease. Really. And the way roads, schools, fire departments and police function (not to mention the military) is socialistic. But those are generally okay to these people. We have total idiots who think that China is Communist as well. Proper usage of political and economic terms is a rarity here. In terms of objective socialism, you're correct. But objective use of the term isn't seen often. Or at all.

You're painted as a conniving, Mr. Potter, Mr. Scrooge, evil, corrupt, greedy, selfish corporatist who wants to do away with social security and medicare in order to throw granny out on the street.

Depends how you go about arguing it.

If I say let's privatize SS and medicare, what would be your reaction?

Parts of SS should be. But entirely is a bad idea considering how badly Americans save. As for medicare, that needs serious slashing if purely for financial health.

What would the common reaction be? That I'm a ruthless tyrant who just wants to throw granny out on the street. I don't give change to beggers. I must be a senseless miser. This is the reaction I get from most people. And most people don't think socialism, or "social democrat" is such a bad term.

We'll see if you still think that a year from now.

 

[Mensch]

That depends how you define socialism. Far too many people have a working definition of socialism as anything they don't like. For instance, we have some users who defend Bush's socialist drug program at the same time saying all Socialism is a disease. Really. And the way roads, schools, fire departments and police function (not to mention the military) is socialistic. But those are generally okay to these people. We have total idiots who think that China is Communist as well. Proper usage of political and economic terms is a rarity here. In terms of objective socialism, you're correct. But objective use of the term isn't seen often. Or at all.


Depends how you go about arguing it.



Parts of SS should be. But entirely is a bad idea considering how badly Americans save. As for medicare, that needs serious slashing if purely for financial health.



We'll see if you still think that a year from now.

I define pure socialism as the complete and total control of all resources and all property by the state (or collective). Usually, in practice, most forms of socialism emerge as totalitarian states, and this structure is typical of the ideology. There are milder forms of socialism. Mixed economies are an example of this. Most of the developed world, including the U.S. operates with a little mix of socialism. Conservatives support socialism as a means to instill morals and virtues and to punish those they deem as scandalous (ie drug users and prostitutes). I also strongly believe that fascism is a form of socialism, though not in the true Marxist fashion. I believe theocracies are a form of socialism. Basically, any system that demands the good of the colony over the liberty of the individual.

We agree on medicare. I don't agree that government should force us to save money. I also don't believe I will feel any different about the term "social democrat" in a year from now.

 

[justabubba]

Read my signature.

yep. confirms it

 

[obvious Child]

I define pure socialism as the complete and total control of all resources and all property by the state (or collective).

Which is super different from how most partisans here do.

Usually, in practice, most forms of socialism emerge as totalitarian states, and this structure is typical of the ideology.

Not really. In totaliterian states called socialist, such as the USSR, the people had no voice on actual economic decisions. China considers it socialist yet the worker has no say over property. Actual total control over property by the people has only existed in African Pgymie communities and small clusters of people in the Andes.

There are milder forms of socialism. Mixed economies are an example of this. Most of the developed world, including the U.S. operates with a little mix of socialism. Conservatives support socialism as a means to instill morals and virtues and to punish those they deem as scandalous (ie drug users and prostitutes).

Which is amusing considering their other views. But you make an excellent point there. They want that but don't consider it socialism.

I also strongly believe that fascism is a form of socialism, though not in the true Marxist fashion. I believe theocracies are a form of socialism. Basically, any system that demands the good of the colony over the liberty of the individual.

How are theocracies socialism? That's a rather broad assertion there considering the varying religions and their views on the world. I'm not saying that theocracies can't, especially considering Jesus's views on economics, but compared to Buddhism, that's quite different.

We agree on medicare. I don't agree that government should force us to save money.

If people were responsible and saved on their own, that would be fine. But they don't. I see SS as a better alternative then welfare.

I also don't believe I will feel any different about the term "social democrat" in a year from now.

Well, hang out with some of the partisans here and we'll see.

 

[Mensch]

Which is super different from how most partisans here do.



Not really. In totaliterian states called socialist, such as the USSR, the people had no voice on actual economic decisions. China considers it socialist yet the worker has no say over property. Actual total control over property by the people has only existed in African Pgymie communities and small clusters of people in the Andes.



Which is amusing considering their other views. But you make an excellent point there. They want that but don't consider it socialism.



How are theocracies socialism? That's a rather broad assertion there considering the varying religions and their views on the world. I'm not saying that theocracies can't, especially considering Jesus's views on economics, but compared to Buddhism, that's quite different.



If people were responsible and saved on their own, that would be fine. But they don't. I see SS as a better alternative then welfare.



Well, hang out with some of the partisans here and we'll see.

The people have no voice? It's populism. Your house belongs to the people of Russia. They follow a totalitarian structure that ensures the good of the colony will always be protected.

Perhaps the government should force us to purchase only the most comprehensive medical insurance and only the most comprehensive homeowners insurance, auto insurance, etc.

 

[obvious Child]

The people have no voice? It's populism. Your house belongs to the people of Russia. They follow a totalitarian structure that ensures the good of the colony will always be protected.

Me thinks you have not studied the USSR well. The USSR hardly protected the good of the people. The USSR was a bigger threat to its people then the West.

Perhaps the government should force us to purchase only the most comprehensive medical insurance and only the most comprehensive homeowners insurance, auto insurance, etc.

Because? Why must it be comprehensive?

 

[samsmart]

Basically, any system that demands the good of the colony over the liberty of the individual.

Actually, that's wrong. That's authoritarianism, which is quite different from socialism.

 

[samsmart]

The people have no voice? It's populism. Your house belongs to the people of Russia. They follow a totalitarian structure that ensures the good of the colony will always be protected.

Perhaps the government should force us to purchase only the most comprehensive medical insurance and only the most comprehensive homeowners insurance, auto insurance, etc.

Populism isn't necessarily socialism.

 

[Mensch]

Me thinks you have not studied the USSR well. The USSR hardly protected the good of the people. The USSR was a bigger threat to its people then the West.



Because? Why must it be comprehensive?

So, in order to be socialist, you have to be good to your people? On a technical level, socialism simply means public ownership of production and property. It is always done with the MO of protecting the masses, but the actual result is a different story.

And 2, if you think Americans are horrible at saving money and therefore they should be forced to save money, then it's not a total stretch to consider forcing them to buy a level of insurance that you deem appropriate.

 

[Mensch]

Populism isn't necessarily socialism.

IMHO, Populism is socialism "done right." Has it ever existed? I don't see it. Huey Long was considered a populist as well as an authoritarian socialist.

 

[Mensch]

Actually, that's wrong. That's authoritarianism, which is quite different from socialism.

No. You're wrong again. Authoritarianism is despotism. It's the supreme control over the populace by a single entity. Socialism, in practice, has always been carried out on a state level through authoritarian means.

 

[samsmart]

IMHO, Populism is socialism "done right." Has it ever existed? I don't see it. Huey Long was considered a populist as well as an authoritarian socialist.

Socialism is state control of resources. Populism is a political movement that provides for the agendas of the working people, especially agrarians but can include laborers as well. There's a world of difference between those two movements.

No. You're wrong again. Authoritarianism is despotism. It's the supreme control over the populace by a single entity. Socialism, in practice, has always been carried out on a state level through authoritarian means.

No, you're still wrong. Authoritarianism is a type of despotism, yes, but it is not supreme control over the populace by a single entity. That is totalitarianism.

And while socialism, in practice, has always been carried out on a state level through authoritarian means, so has fascism, which calls for government endorsement of businesses and corporations, and which socialism opposes.

 

[Mensch]

Socialism is state control of resources. Populism is a political movement that provides for the agendas of the working people, especially agrarians but can include laborers as well. There's a world of difference between those two movements.



No, you're still wrong. Authoritarianism is a type of despotism, yes, but it is not supreme control over the populace by a single entity. That is totalitarianism.

And while socialism, in practice, has always been carried out on a state level through authoritarian means, so has fascism, which calls for government endorsement of businesses and corporations, and which socialism opposes.

These terms are very similar in their usage and meaning. Socialism and populism are deeply interconnected, even though there are very subtle differences in the definitions. And please look up the definition of authoritarianism. It is very much supreme control of a single entity over the populace. There is no accountability to the populace. Totalitarianism is a character or quality of authoritarianism.

The last part is a debate I always enjoy. Socialism and fascism had a lot in common. Comparing socialist regimes to fascist regimes has produced outstanding similarities. Just reflect on Mussolini's economic policies in the Battle of the Southern Problem, the Battle of Wheat, Battle for Land, and the Battle for Lira. The common theme among both socialists and fascists is their attempts to nationalize every industry in order to secure control over individual economic decisions and resources.

 

[samsmart]

And please look up the definition of authoritarianism.

Okay.

Authoritarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is very much supreme control of a single entity over the populace. There is no accountability to the populace. Totalitarianism is a character or quality of authoritarianism.

That's not what the definition, which you asked me to look up, says.

Thus, compared to totalitarian systems, authoritarian systems may also leave a larger sphere for private life, lack a guiding ideology, tolerate some pluralism in social organization, lack the power to mobilize the whole population in pursuit of national goals, and exercise their power within relatively predictable limits.

So wow. I'm still right and you're still wrong.

These terms are very similar in their usage and meaning. Socialism and populism are deeply interconnected, even though there are very subtle differences in the definitions.

Yes there is. Just like there are very subtle differences between Catholics and Southern Baptists, and between Christians and Jews and Muslims, despite the interconnectedness of those ideologies.

So if you're going to say that being a Quaker is just like being a Shi'ite you are being very disingenuous to those subtleties that are key differences between them.

The last part is a debate I always enjoy. Socialism and fascism had a lot in common. Comparing socialist regimes to fascist regimes has produced outstanding similarities. Just reflect on Mussolini's economic policies in the Battle of the Southern Problem, the Battle of Wheat, Battle for Land, and the Battle for Lira. The common theme among both socialists and fascists is their attempts to nationalize every industry in order to secure control over individual economic decisions and resources.

Just because something has similarities does not mean they are the same. I agree there are similarities. However, fascist regimes generally favor businessmen and corporations, and socialist regimes generally favor laborers and union organizers. During violent revolutions to force one system or the other, you being a businessman or you being a laborer can be the difference between life and death.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

When people choose "undisclosed" as their political lean....why? Do they just not know? They don't want to be stereotyped by it?

There isn't a label which fits my particular world view.

ETA: Or rather, if there is, I'm completely unaware of it.

 

[Compatibilist]

if you think Americans are horrible at saving money and therefore they should be forced to save money, then it's not a total stretch to consider forcing them to buy a level of insurance that you deem appropriate.

We're forced to save money- social security
We're forced to buy insurance- obamacare
We're forced to support needy- welfare

Coming soon:

Forced to embrace criminal illegal aliens as fellow US citizens
Forced to turn over our firearms and depend totally on Govt for protection

 

[samsmart]

We're forced to save money- social security
We're forced to buy insurance- obamacare
We're forced to support needy- welfare

Coming soon:

Forced to embrace criminal illegal aliens as fellow US citizens
Forced to turn over our firearms and depend totally on Govt for protection

We're forced to support corporations - no-bid contracts
We're forced to support weapons manufacturers - defense contracts
We're forced to support plantation owners - farm subsidies

Coming soon:

Forced to embrace rises in physical illness because of lack of environmental regulations
Forced to suffer unsafe working conditions and depend totally on businesses to decide safety conditions

 

[Mensch]

Okay.

Authoritarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



That's not what the definition, which you asked me to look up, says.



So wow. I'm still right and you're still wrong.



Yes there is. Just like there are very subtle differences between Catholics and Southern Baptists, and between Christians and Jews and Muslims, despite the interconnectedness of those ideologies.

So if you're going to say that being a Quaker is just like being a Shi'ite you are being very disingenuous to those subtleties that are key differences between them.



Just because something has similarities does not mean they are the same. I agree there are similarities. However, fascist regimes generally favor businessmen and corporations, and socialist regimes generally favor laborers and union organizers. During violent revolutions to force one system or the other, you being a businessman or you being a laborer can be the difference between life and death.

1) From Dictionary.com:

au·thor·i·tar·i·an   /əˌθɔrɪˈtɛəriən, əˌθɒr-/ Show Spelled[uh-thawr-i-tair-ee-uhn, uh-thor-] Show IPA
–adjective
1. favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom: authoritarian principles; authoritarian attitudes.
2. of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
3. exercising complete or almost complete control over the will of another or of others: an authoritarian parent.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism   /toʊˌtælɪˈtɛəriəˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled[toh-tal-i-tair-ee-uh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. the practices and principles of a totalitarian regime.
2. absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.
3. the character or quality of an autocratic or authoritarian individual, group, or government: the totalitarianism of the father.

WOW! Those terms are SO different, it's like comparing black and white!

It's not at all like comparing quakers to Shi'ites. It's more like comparing orthodox Jews to Hasidic Jews.

2) When you say fascists "favor" business and socialists "favor" labor, you're looking at a cosmetic difference. Fascists favor business insofar as their ability to control business. They favor labor in the same fashion. In reality, the same situation exists within Marxist regimes. The only real difference is in the symbolic rhetoric used to rally the people. For a long time, socialism was the dominant force that promised everything to everyone in exchange for freedom. Fascism was a reaction to socialism in a symbolic sense. They stood to prioritize nationalism and paganism instead of worldwide revolution and worldwide Marxist spirit. But when it came to implementing state fiscal policy, notice the massive similarities. Both nationalized business and controlled business. Both were protectionists and imperialistic. Both developed a cult personality. Both were totalitarian. Both were corporatist regimes. In terms of the grand political spectrum, it would be like comparing anarcho-capitalists to libertarians.

 

[Mensch]

We're forced to support corporations - no-bid contracts
We're forced to support weapons manufacturers - defense contracts
We're forced to support plantation owners - farm subsidies

Coming soon:

Forced to embrace rises in physical illness because of lack of environmental regulations
Forced to suffer unsafe working conditions and depend totally on businesses to decide safety conditions

Yes, the government does tend to force everyone to swallow the values of certain special interest groups. But I don't think you have a problem with this issue, so long as the values are of your interest group.

 

[obvious Child]

So, in order to be socialist, you have to be good to your people?

No, in order to be socialist, you can't have a dictatorship of the few. How can that be communal ownership when the community has no say in its ownership? Can you own something if you have absolutely no say, no way to get say and no power at all over the property?

On a technical level, socialism simply means public ownership of production and property.

Hence why the USSR was not Socialist.

[quote[And 2, if you think Americans are horrible at saving money and therefore they should be forced to save money, then it's not a total stretch to consider forcing them to buy a level of insurance that you deem appropriate.[/QUOTE]

Think? Americans are horrible at saying money. Our savings rate was negative for years. I'd rather force people to save money then tax everyone else to provide welfare benefits because people never saved.

 

[Mensch]

No, in order to be socialist, you can't have a dictatorship of the few. How can that be communal ownership when the community has no say in its ownership? Can you own something if you have absolutely no say, no way to get say and no power at all over the property?



Hence why the USSR was not Socialist.

[quote[And 2, if you think Americans are horrible at saving money and therefore they should be forced to save money, then it's not a total stretch to consider forcing them to buy a level of insurance that you deem appropriate.

Think? Americans are horrible at saying money. Our savings rate was negative for years. I'd rather force people to save money then tax everyone else to provide welfare benefits because people never saved.[/QUOTE]

1) You're a purist, and you have yet to realize that pure communism, like pure anything else in this world, has not and never will exist. The only examples we have to judge the implementation of Marx-Engels framework is to judge the historical examples. Otherwise, we can't talk about anything because it never existed.

2) Lenin proclaimed Russia a socialist state in the early 1920s. Stalin proclaimed it to be a communist state in later years. The world accepted this self-termed label. You're the only one denying the USSR was ever socialist, because they do not stand up to your socialist standards.

3) I don't get it. SS is a welfare benefits program. It is not a real insurance plan as the government always paints it out to be. Baby boomers will receive more in benefits than my generation will ever see, and my generation will be paying higher taxes, higher inflation, and higher wage deductions for SS payments when it comes time to take care of all the elderly baby boombers. There will eventually be 3 retired individuals for every 1 working individual, and no system can sustain such a disparity in population rates. The end result will have to be a combination of higher taxes and spending cuts. That's generational theft, and that's ok with you?

 

[obvious Child]

1) You're a purist, and you have yet to realize that pure communism, like pure anything else in this world, has not and never will exist.

You should read my posts before asserting that. I have stated that state based Communism has never existed several times here. That does not mean we redefine words to suit our arguments.

2) Lenin proclaimed Russia a socialist state in the early 1920s. Stalin proclaimed it to be a communist state in later years. The world accepted this self-termed label. You're the only one denying the USSR was ever socialist, because they do not stand up to your socialist standards.

So you are using the definition of Communism as anything a self proclaimed Communist has done. That's pretty much the absolute worse definition of Communism out there. It effectively makes the United States Communist.

3) I don't get it. SS is a welfare benefits program. It is not a real insurance plan as the government always paints it out to be. Baby boomers will receive more in benefits than my generation will ever see, and my generation will be paying higher taxes, higher inflation, and higher wage deductions for SS payments when it comes time to take care of all the elderly baby boombers. There will eventually be 3 retired individuals for every 1 working individual, and no system can sustain such a disparity in population rates. The end result will have to be a combination of higher taxes and spending cuts. That's generational theft, and that's ok with you?

Merely because SS is totally screwed now, partially due to decades of theft by Presidents and Congresses does not make the concept a bad idea. And my generation won't get anything. At all. But the alternative is functionally the same. The working class in a decade will be taxed to provide welfare benefits to the elderly who failed to save. At least with SS, we force those who will be outflows to burden some of the cost.

Both sides suck no question, but at least SS mandates the beneficiaries share some of the burden. Basically, your alternative is higher taxes on the working for more welfare with no burden on the beneficiaries for failing to save. That's rewarding bad behavior.