|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 20, 2011 20:19:55 GMT -5
"And so he crafted his dinner plate using a knife, a piece of wood, and a ceramic dinner plate."
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 21, 2011 3:26:14 GMT -5
Laissez-fair means leave-it-alone, ie the government should let everyone do whatever they like. But the actual policies advocated by laissez-faire liberals (and put in practice by actually existing laissez-fair governments) wouldn't have the government leave people alone. Police would still exist, for instance. So Laissez-fair isn't. It's a marginally less regulated capitalist system (that, objectively, doesn't work as well as a more regulated system). So it isn't capitalist, but it is? Laissez faire is capitalist. But it's not really laissez faire. The government still has police to stop you from breaking the law. The government still sets the interest rate. The government still regulates contracts. Instead of providing services on it's own, a government-regulated artificial creation called a corporation does it . That's only superficially more 'laissez faire'. Socialism is like pregnancy. Either you're a socialist economy or you're not. If you have a market, you're not socialist. There's no such measure for an economy as 'purity' of capitalism. Or rather, Sweden is no less capitalist than the US. All developed market economies are capitalist. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 21, 2011 4:18:05 GMT -5
Laissez faire is capitalist. But it's not really laissez faire. The government still has police to stop you from breaking the law. The government still sets the interest rate. The government still regulates contracts. Instead of providing services on it's own, a government-regulated artificial creation called a corporation does it . That's only superficially more 'laissez faire'. You do realize that we are taking about economic systems right? No ltfred, we have been through this. Systems can be mixed, and they can be so in various degrees. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 21, 2011 6:27:47 GMT -5
Laissez faire is capitalist. But it's not really laissez faire. The government still has police to stop you from breaking the law. The government still sets the interest rate. The government still regulates contracts. Instead of providing services on it's own, a government-regulated artificial creation called a corporation does it . That's only superficially more 'laissez faire'. You do realize that we are taking about economic systems right? An economic system that claims to have almost no government involvement in your life. Which is completely bullshit. The government still does things like set up corporations, set the interest rate, arrest people and enforce all contracts in that economy. You never proved anything. You created various unfounded assertions. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 21, 2011 7:10:38 GMT -5
An economic system that claims to have almost no government involvement in your life. Which is completely bullshit. The government still does things like set up corporations, set the interest rate, arrest people and enforce all contracts in that economy. No, there is nothing that says a government has to set up corporations, or set interest rates. Arresting people and enforcing contracts (not regulating what can be in them) is just upholding laws, not regulating or interfering with the economy. You never proved anything. You created various unfounded assertions. *pats ltfred on the head* OK, just remember to tell all those educated people they are wrong when they start talking about Social Democracy, the Nordic Model, or Market Socialism. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 21, 2011 18:09:18 GMT -5
An economic system that claims to have almost no government involvement in your life. Which is completely bullshit. The government still does things like set up corporations, set the interest rate, arrest people and enforce all contracts in that economy. No, there is nothing that says a government has to set up corporations, or set interest rates. But, in practice, that is actually what an ostensibly 'laissez-faire' government does, as advocated by it's proponents. A 'laissez-faire' government doesn't just leave people alone- no government can. It just interferes in a different way. Blatant false dichotomy. What about laws against fraud? Of course, the government also decides what can be in contracts. You're not allowed to contract outside the law. Trollolololol! |
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jun 22, 2011 0:09:41 GMT -5
Socialism is like pregnancy. Either you're a socialist economy or you're not. If you have a market, you're not socialist. No, Lt. Fred, you're wrong, and we've been over this before. What you're talking about is communism, not socialism. To quote Wordnet: Communism:
‣ A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership;
‣ A political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society.
…
Socialism:
‣ A political theory advocating state ownership of industry;
‣ An economic system based on state ownership of capital. Socialism has an economy, with money exchanging hands for goods and services and used to pay wages, which can very easily include capitalism. Capitalism
‣ An economic system based on private ownership of capital. This is why many countries that use socialism still have very strong capitalist markets. They just have more regulations and the government is more involved in their economy. After all, the Euro could not exist if socialism was the antithesis of capitalism. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 22, 2011 2:21:12 GMT -5
Socialism is like pregnancy. Either you're a socialist economy or you're not. If you have a market, you're not socialist. No, Lt. Fred, you're wrong, and we've been over this before. What you're talking about is communism, not socialism. To quote Wordnet: Communism:
‣ A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership;
‣ A political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society.
…
Socialism:
‣ A political theory advocating state ownership of industry;
‣ An economic system based on state ownership of capital. Socialism has an economy, with money exchanging hands for goods and services and used to pay wages, which can very easily include capitalism. Capitalism
‣ An economic system based on private ownership of capital. This is why many countries that use socialism still have very strong capitalist markets. They just have more regulations and the government is more involved in their economy. After all, the Euro could not exist if socialism was the antithesis of capitalism. I would like to kiss you for that ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Jun 22, 2011 2:23:17 GMT -5
On the note of libertarians: Watching Ron Paul's response to a question about the child of an illegal immigrant receiving health care in an ER was amusing. Can't come across as a complete sociopath but you can't back down on your principles...
|
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Jun 22, 2011 6:24:26 GMT -5
Socialism is like pregnancy. Either you're a socialist economy or you're not. If you have a market, you're not socialist. No, Lt. Fred, you're wrong, and we've been over this before. What you're talking about- Let's cut even more to the point: where does Fred think all this political spectrum business comes from? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 22, 2011 7:18:04 GMT -5
Socialism is like pregnancy. Either you're a socialist economy or you're not. If you have a market, you're not socialist. No, Lt. Fred, you're wrong, and we've been over this before. What you're talking about is communism, not socialism. To quote Wordnet: Communism:
‣ A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership;
‣ A political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society.
…
Socialism:
‣ A political theory advocating state ownership of industry;
‣ An economic system based on state ownership of capital. Socialism has an economy, with money exchanging hands for goods and services and used to pay wages, which can very easily include capitalism. Communists also have an economy. Money exchanges hands. But, by definition, it is not capitalist. Socialist-Anarchist communes sometimes have money (and no government). That doesn't make them capitalist This definition of socialism is clearly problematic. I think a more helpful definition would have communism as the final state- ie total equality, no government, no classes, no authority. Socialism is halfway through the attempt to get there- after ending capitalism, but there's still a government. That's definately how Marx, the inventor of the ideology, saw it. It's also how socialist governments see it. The USSR never called itself communist. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, not of communist republics. But the USSR was not capitalist (black market aside). The promise was to achieve communism at some time in future, but to at least have socialism (ie, no capitalism, no private ownership of capital) right now. Not one, by definition. China didn't have private ownership of capital when it was socialist. The USSR didn't have private ownership of capital when it was socialist, nor socialist Spain, ect. Nonsense. There are no socialist economies in the Eurozone, not one. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 22, 2011 7:22:22 GMT -5
No, Lt. Fred, you're wrong, and we've been over this before. What you're talking about- Let's cut even more to the point: where does Fred think all this political spectrum business comes from? Well, I think the so called 'political spectrum' greatly oversimplifies an already oversimplified theory- that people believe certain hermetically-sealed sets of ideas called ideologies. Sure, it's an easy way to group people together (and a useful way) but it's hardly accurate. What the idea of a 'political spectrum' does is pretend that conservatism is just moderate fascism, and liberalism moderate communism. Which is just wrong. Fascism and conservatism are opposites. Communism and liberalism are opposites. Fascism is no more like conservatism than liberalism. But, sure, people believe different things about what the economy should be. Was that your point? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 22, 2011 7:29:44 GMT -5
This definition of socialism is clearly problematic. No, it is your understanding, or lack there of, that is problematic. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 22, 2011 7:35:20 GMT -5
This definition of socialism is clearly problematic. No, it is your understanding, or lack there of, that is problematic. You haven't read your Marx. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jun 22, 2011 10:35:22 GMT -5
Because someone who wrote The Communist Manifesto and became the leading figure of The Communist League is the defining leader of Socialism. Right.  |
|
