The difference between capitalism and socialism in a nutshell

[sealybobo]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

In every country and every economy the government is the referee. There is no such thing as unregulated free market capitalism. Corporations want the government to stay out of it so they can rig the game in their favor.

Democracy - Not The Free Market - Will Save America s Middle Class Thom Hartmann

 

[Contumacious]

HUH?

WTF?

DO NOT confuse Libertarians with left or right wing fascists.

Libertarians do not give a shit if you like being butt-fucked. To each his own.

Libertarians do not understand why two adult individuals seek the blessings of bureaucrats in order to considered themselves married. That's all.

You mean Libertarians do not understand why we need legal protections to protect the interests of spouses and children?

The only reason you guys want to get rid of "legal" marriage is because they are letting the fags do it now.

Excuse me dingle berry, we have been around since 1971.

Identify ANY literature where Libertarians supported "LEGAL" marriage.

We do not recognize legality if we do not recognize authority.

What spousal and children "interests" are you referring to?

.

 

[Contumacious]

BULLSHIT.


Paternalism, Fascism, welfarism had been practiced in Germany since the late 1800's by the Bismarck and Weimar administrations.

Then describe fascism to us....specifically. Tell us what it means. And then I'll compare it to your last definition of 'fascism'. And the historical version.

We'll see how your description matches the actual meaning.

Benito Mussolini:

What is Fascism, 1932

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."


As you see , under fascism , individuals do not have rights - the BUREAUCRATS DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS YOU NEED.


And they may allow you to be 90% free or just 10%.

But THEY decide - not you.


.

That's but one sentence in a vast description given by Mussolini.

[

The pollution continues, unchecked for decades, until regulations prevent it. As unregulated capitalism is motivated by personal gain. And if pollution is more profitable than not....many a capitalist will poison the water and air. And live themselves in a cleaner, safer area than that which their factories create.

The resolution of pollution doesn't occur without explicit regulation preventing it, regulation that is vigilantly enforced both through statutory law and civil tort actions.

Both of which libertarians insist we either abolish or make dramatically more difficult to enact. No thank you.

Shut the fuck up.

Smiling.....Cont, you know you I'll say what I like. Just as you know that there's nothing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.

Who came up with NUCLEAR ENERGY and then decided to weaponize it and use it willy nilly against other nations

1- Iran
2- North Korea
3- The United States of America


2- Which country has created a massive highway system in which many of those roads are PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER , go to the same destination and were created in order to grandstand for political parties and not actual need, ie, pork barrel spending.

1- Germany
2- South AFrica
3- The United States of America

And what relevance does any of these questions have with the issues of pollution and environmental damage we're discussing? If you can't establish relevance, then you're offering us a non-sequitur....an awkward attempt to change the topic.

And I'm quite happy with this one.

Well, that is true.


One must understand what a pollutant is before discussing environmental damage.

It appears that you have no fucking idea what a pollutant is in that case nuclear power is "irrelevant.

If you have a point to make, make it. But you're insinuating an argument you can't even articulate. Let alone factually support. Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.

Bullshit.

As a communist you will reject outright any argument where I do not support a Commissar making the ultimate decisions.

.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[

Exactly. 'Communism' is this vague boogeyman being used almost exclusively by people that have no idea what it is, or how its implemented. They talk of the 'incrementalism' of communism. Despite the fact that communism is never been implemented in such a fashion, but always suddenly through revolution. Ask them to describe communism, and they get vaguer still. "Communism' is just another pejorative to many of the folks that drop the term.

BULLSHIT.


Paternalism, Fascism, welfarism had been practiced in Germany since the late 1800's by the Bismarck and Weimar administrations.


When Hitler/the nazis were elected to power all the elements necessary to imposed tyranny had been previously adopted by previous administrations.

Now it is clear to me why you readily BLINDLY accept SCOTUS decisions concentrating power in DC - you are a communist scumbag.


BTW, Which Country went from Capitalism to Communism overnight?!?!?!?!?

STFU

Paternalism - the policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates' supposed best interest.

fascism - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

welfarism - a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The foundations for the modern welfare state in the US were laid by the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Communism - An economic and social system envisioned by the nineteenth-century German scholar Karl Marx. In theory, under communism, all means of production are owned in common, rather than by individuals.

Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Mixed Economy - An economic system that features characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system allows a level of private economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to interfere in economic activities in order to achieve social aims.

So, using google definitions we can ignore them, or use them as a starting point in a discussion on the differences between Capitalism and Communism.

We might instead define each according to our abilities and each according to our needs and thus continue to do the same thing and expect some sort of different outcome.

 

[Contumacious]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

In every country and every economy the government is the referee. There is no such thing as unregulated free market capitalism. Corporations want the government to stay out of it so they can rig the game in their favor.

Democracy - Not The Free Market - Will Save America s Middle Class Thom Hartmann

BULLSHIT.

REFEREE DENOTES NEUTRALITY.


BUT HERE IN THE US IN ORDER TO BE A REFERREE YOU DEPEND ON THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE. TO VOTE FOR YOU

WHEN YOU DEPEND ON THE MAJORITY FOR POWER THEN ONLY THE MAJORITY HAS RIGHTS.

.

 

[sealybobo]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

In every country and every economy the government is the referee. There is no such thing as unregulated free market capitalism. Corporations want the government to stay out of it so they can rig the game in their favor.

Democracy - Not The Free Market - Will Save America s Middle Class Thom Hartmann

BULLSHIT.

REFEREE DENOTES NEUTRALITY.


BUT HERE IN THE US IN ORDER TO BE A REFERREE YOU DEPEND ON THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE. TO VOTE FOR YOU

WHEN YOU DEPEND ON THE MAJORITY FOR POWER THEN ONLY THE MAJORITY HAS RIGHTS.

.

I agree they aren't neutral. They side with the corporations and the rich over us. They spend very little time working for We the People and most of the time politicians vote based on what their rich donors want them to do, not what we want them to do. So more and more policies are being written that hurt the middle class and benefit the rich. And if we complain you cry CLASS WARFARE! Class warfare has always existed and your side is winning.

In fact politicians spend less time working for us and more time raising $. Why worry about collecting from the masses when you can just make one call and get a million from the Koch brothers or Adelson?

Here is a general rule of thumb for US House incumbents. They need to raise roughly $10,000 a week started the day they are elected. The ways this money is raised at the Federal level breaks down like this (ranked from most to least time spent by the candidate):

• Call time: Literally sitting in a room with a phone and a list of past or potential donors. Almost all candidates hate call time, but it is ruthlessly efficient -- both in time and money spent. Disciplined candidates will spend 10+ hours a week on call time.
• Events: Most candidates love events and a properly planned event can bring in a lot of money in a single night. Events do take planning and staff to execute which can be costly and reduce the net money raised. Early in the cycle a candidate might have one event a month. In the last 8 months before the election this can expand to several a week.
• PAC Events: Candidates love PAC (Political Action Committee) events. A PAC consultant throws a party, handles all of the planning, invites all of the attendees and the candidate just has to show up and collect the checks. Easy and efficient, but you'll pay the PAC consultant thousands of dollars a month in retainer. This is a method only available to incumbents, since PACs are interested in buying influence and aren't going to throw money at a challenger that will likely lose.
• Direct Mail: Candidates also love direct mail. Many candidates don't even bother to read the solicitations before they are sent out. Usually you contract with a vendor that writes, edits, prints, mails and processes the incoming donations. This used to be a huge chunk of a campaign's fundraising but is decreasing every year as more people turn to...
• Online Donations: Everyone, Republican and Democrat alike, want to be like Barack Obama when it comes to online fundraising. But raising a significant amount of your campaign budget online takes a significant investment in staff to write, test and track your online solicitations. Not to mention the need to grow and expand your list. As with direct mail, the candidate often expends little to no time in dealing with online fundraising. Whether or not that is a good strategy is debatable.

 

[sealybobo]

For the enlightenment of liberals who consistently don't get this

Capitalism is economic freedom. Consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals, we make our own choices for our own interest. That drives market efficiency which benefits everyone. The primary role of government in capitalism is to provide civil courts to redress civil crimes (e.g., breach of contract) and criminal courts to redress crimes (e.g., fraud).

An informed buyer/employee is best served with complete and accurate information. I consider it a legitimate role for government to require accurate disclosures. So for example I oppose government forcing a business to hire or serve blacks. However, I am in favor of government forcing them to disclose that clearly and accurately to other potential employees or customers. I also consider it legitimate for government to enforce accurate advertising, whether products were tested or not and how thoroughly, that sort of thing. Government should not force them to do those things, but it can require them to disclose accurately what they did and didn't do to facilitate better buying decisions.

Socialism is central economic planning. Central economic planning means that consumers, producers, employers, employees, businesses, individuals must make decisions that are not in their own interest. Otherwise central planning would not be required, capitalism would yield the same result. And the only way to get people to act against their own interest is force, and only the government can use force.

Various forms of socialism are full socialism where all industry is owned by government, fascism where industry is technically in private ownership but all decisions are dictated or approved by government and crony capitalism where government helps the businesses in quid pro quo fashion where the businesses fund the politicians and the politicians write laws to assist those businesses. In all those cases, planning is central and enforced by government guns to force the people to act against their own interest. To the people, they are the same, you have the choices government gives you.

In every country and every economy the government is the referee. There is no such thing as unregulated free market capitalism. Corporations want the government to stay out of it so they can rig the game in their favor.

Democracy - Not The Free Market - Will Save America s Middle Class Thom Hartmann

BULLSHIT.

REFEREE DENOTES NEUTRALITY.


BUT HERE IN THE US IN ORDER TO BE A REFERREE YOU DEPEND ON THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE. TO VOTE FOR YOU

WHEN YOU DEPEND ON THE MAJORITY FOR POWER THEN ONLY THE MAJORITY HAS RIGHTS.

.

The rich, the top 1%, are doing amazingly well. Are they the majority? Dumb ass!

 

[Coyote]

In my opinion - a blend of the two is the best because each tends to assume that humane nature is better than it really is.

I don't believe there is any getting away from that reality.

socialism took root in places where there was never even the faintest hint of Free Market Capitalism and it has become more popular than it deserves to be.

I disagree - look at the so-called Gilded Age in America. That was the height of unfettered, unregulated capitalism and it was certainly free market capitalism. Not only was it a period of huge economic opportunity and wealth for some, it was a period of grinding poverty, abuse, and desperation for many, which made socialism and communism and easy sell.

In any case, socialism, or a form of it (social democracy seems most likely) will be the next great experiment for this Country.

And it will fail. It always has, it always will.

I'm not sure I see that. America was founded on individualism and free enterprise. It's culture is distinctly different from Europe. I can see some forms of socialism, such as health care (and I support it) making inroads as a matter of practical necessity. I can not see any large-scale socialist institutions developing. It's already quite clear that socialism as an economic model, doesn't work well and state owned industries don't perform as well as privately owned industries and socialist systems don't tend to inspire entrepeneurship which I think is a very American ideal.

But at least, maybe we can avoid the cataclysmic Wars socialism caused in the 20th Century.

Yes..... National Socialism WAS socialism. You may not think so, professorial eggheads may deny it (because they don't want the word 'socialism' attached to it) but you know what....?

The people that invented it thought it was socialism and that's what counts. What you, or anybody else, thinks of it is irrelevant..... THEY thought it was socialism.

Watch the greatest propaganda film ever made (Triumph of the will) if you don't believe me)

Well, I disagree again - National Socialism, as per Nazi's was not really socialist, it was anti-socialist/anti-comunist and more fascist in my opinion. Anyone can call themselves anything - after all, NK is the "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea.

I think there are merits to socialism that can be incorporated into a capitalist economy.

But people will continue to delude themselves as to the nature of what socialism is.... It's human nature. One of the more onerous aspects of human nature -- To deny reality in favor of what you want.

Socialism is/was the most murderous form of government/economy ever devised by Man.

Period.

end rant

Human nature makes a mockery of many well thought out systems. Socialism, Capitalism, Communism...they look good in theory, and on paper, but people refuse to behave the way they are supposed to. That's why I think taking the best from each makes sense.

 

[Kosh]

[

Exactly. 'Communism' is this vague boogeyman being used almost exclusively by people that have no idea what it is, or how its implemented. They talk of the 'incrementalism' of communism. Despite the fact that communism is never been implemented in such a fashion, but always suddenly through revolution. Ask them to describe communism, and they get vaguer still. "Communism' is just another pejorative to many of the folks that drop the term.

BULLSHIT.


Paternalism, Fascism, welfarism had been practiced in Germany since the late 1800's by the Bismarck and Weimar administrations.


When Hitler/the nazis were elected to power all the elements necessary to imposed tyranny had been previously adopted by previous administrations.

Now it is clear to me why you readily BLINDLY accept SCOTUS decisions concentrating power in DC - you are a communist scumbag.


BTW, Which Country went from Capitalism to Communism overnight?!?!?!?!?

STFU

Paternalism - the policy or practice on the part of people in positions of authority of restricting the freedom and responsibilities of those subordinate to them in the subordinates' supposed best interest.

fascism - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

welfarism - a system whereby the government undertakes to protect the health and well-being of its citizens, especially those in financial or social need, by means of grants, pensions, and other benefits. The foundations for the modern welfare state in the US were laid by the New Deal programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Communism - An economic and social system envisioned by the nineteenth-century German scholar Karl Marx. In theory, under communism, all means of production are owned in common, rather than by individuals.

Capitalism - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

Mixed Economy - An economic system that features characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system allows a level of private economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for governments to interfere in economic activities in order to achieve social aims.

So, using google definitions we can ignore them, or use them as a starting point in a discussion on the differences between Capitalism and Communism.

We might instead define each according to our abilities and each according to our needs and thus continue to do the same thing and expect some sort of different outcome.

And the far left propaganda continues..

 

[sealybobo]

In my opinion - a blend of the two is the best because each tends to assume that humane nature is better than it really is.

I don't believe there is any getting away from that reality.

socialism took root in places where there was never even the faintest hint of Free Market Capitalism and it has become more popular than it deserves to be.

I disagree - look at the so-called Gilded Age in America. That was the height of unfettered, unregulated capitalism and it was certainly free market capitalism. Not only was it a period of huge economic opportunity and wealth for some, it was a period of grinding poverty, abuse, and desperation for many, which made socialism and communism and easy sell.

In any case, socialism, or a form of it (social democracy seems most likely) will be the next great experiment for this Country.

And it will fail. It always has, it always will.

I'm not sure I see that. America was founded on individualism and free enterprise. It's culture is distinctly different from Europe. I can see some forms of socialism, such as health care (and I support it) making inroads as a matter of practical necessity. I can not see any large-scale socialist institutions developing. It's already quite clear that socialism as an economic model, doesn't work well and state owned industries don't perform as well as privately owned industries and socialist systems don't tend to inspire entrepeneurship which I think is a very American ideal.

But at least, maybe we can avoid the cataclysmic Wars socialism caused in the 20th Century.

Yes..... National Socialism WAS socialism. You may not think so, professorial eggheads may deny it (because they don't want the word 'socialism' attached to it) but you know what....?

The people that invented it thought it was socialism and that's what counts. What you, or anybody else, thinks of it is irrelevant..... THEY thought it was socialism.

Watch the greatest propaganda film ever made (Triumph of the will) if you don't believe me)

Well, I disagree again - National Socialism, as per Nazi's was not really socialist, it was anti-socialist/anti-comunist and more fascist in my opinion. Anyone can call themselves anything - after all, NK is the "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea.

I think there are merits to socialism that can be incorporated into a capitalist economy.

But people will continue to delude themselves as to the nature of what socialism is.... It's human nature. One of the more onerous aspects of human nature -- To deny reality in favor of what you want.

Socialism is/was the most murderous form of government/economy ever devised by Man.

Period.

end rant

Human nature makes a mockery of many well thought out systems. Socialism, Capitalism, Communism...they look good in theory, and on paper, but people refuse to behave the way they are supposed to. That's why I think taking the best from each makes sense.

Couldn't have said it better myself or agree more. Well said.

 

[Skylar]

Then describe fascism to us....specifically. Tell us what it means. And then I'll compare it to your last definition of 'fascism'. And the historical version.

We'll see how your description matches the actual meaning.

Benito Mussolini:

What is Fascism, 1932

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."


As you see , under fascism , individuals do not have rights - the BUREAUCRATS DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS YOU NEED.


And they may allow you to be 90% free or just 10%.

But THEY decide - not you.


.

That's but one sentence in a vast description given by Mussolini.

[

The pollution continues, unchecked for decades, until regulations prevent it. As unregulated capitalism is motivated by personal gain. And if pollution is more profitable than not....many a capitalist will poison the water and air. And live themselves in a cleaner, safer area than that which their factories create.

The resolution of pollution doesn't occur without explicit regulation preventing it, regulation that is vigilantly enforced both through statutory law and civil tort actions.

Both of which libertarians insist we either abolish or make dramatically more difficult to enact. No thank you.

Shut the fuck up.

Smiling.....Cont, you know you I'll say what I like. Just as you know that there's nothing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.

Who came up with NUCLEAR ENERGY and then decided to weaponize it and use it willy nilly against other nations

1- Iran
2- North Korea
3- The United States of America


2- Which country has created a massive highway system in which many of those roads are PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER , go to the same destination and were created in order to grandstand for political parties and not actual need, ie, pork barrel spending.

1- Germany
2- South AFrica
3- The United States of America

And what relevance does any of these questions have with the issues of pollution and environmental damage we're discussing? If you can't establish relevance, then you're offering us a non-sequitur....an awkward attempt to change the topic.

And I'm quite happy with this one.

Well, that is true.


One must understand what a pollutant is before discussing environmental damage.

It appears that you have no fucking idea what a pollutant is in that case nuclear power is "irrelevant.

If you have a point to make, make it. But you're insinuating an argument you can't even articulate. Let alone factually support. Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.

Bullshit.

As a communist you will reject outright any argument where I do not support a Commissar making the ultimate decisions.

.

You don't know what a communist is. "Communist' is simply a name you call people if you don't agree with them. Especially if they make points you can't refute, nor comprehend.

Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.

 

[sealybobo]

Benito Mussolini:

What is Fascism, 1932

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."


As you see , under fascism , individuals do not have rights - the BUREAUCRATS DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS YOU NEED.


And they may allow you to be 90% free or just 10%.

But THEY decide - not you.


.

That's but one sentence in a vast description given by Mussolini.

Shut the fuck up.

Smiling.....Cont, you know you I'll say what I like. Just as you know that there's nothing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.

Who came up with NUCLEAR ENERGY and then decided to weaponize it and use it willy nilly against other nations

1- Iran
2- North Korea
3- The United States of America


2- Which country has created a massive highway system in which many of those roads are PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER , go to the same destination and were created in order to grandstand for political parties and not actual need, ie, pork barrel spending.

1- Germany
2- South AFrica
3- The United States of America

And what relevance does any of these questions have with the issues of pollution and environmental damage we're discussing? If you can't establish relevance, then you're offering us a non-sequitur....an awkward attempt to change the topic.

And I'm quite happy with this one.

Well, that is true.


One must understand what a pollutant is before discussing environmental damage.

It appears that you have no fucking idea what a pollutant is in that case nuclear power is "irrelevant.

If you have a point to make, make it. But you're insinuating an argument you can't even articulate. Let alone factually support. Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.

Bullshit.

As a communist you will reject outright any argument where I do not support a Commissar making the ultimate decisions.

.

You don't know what a communist is. "Communist' is simply a name you call people if you don't agree with them. Especially if they make points you can't refute, nor comprehend.

Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.

You and Coyote seem like very smart people. Yes, they throw out those words to put us on the defensive. I don't think they know they are using this tactic though. I think the conservative movement has them truly believing we want socialism or communism.

They don't get it that capitalism is just another ism. The only good capitalism is a well regulated capitalism.

And we see what happened when the GOP deregulated the banks and mortgage industries. They didn't get hurt though. Ultimately they got bailed out and made a fortune. It was us that got fucked. The little people. The people who put money into savings accounts. What do they get now 1%? But the investor class is making a killing in the stock market. But you can't ask Granny to put her $10K on a stock. Too risky. You have to have money you can afford to lose to play on the stock market.

 

[Skylar]

That's but one sentence in a vast description given by Mussolini.

Smiling.....Cont, you know you I'll say what I like. Just as you know that there's nothing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.

And what relevance does any of these questions have with the issues of pollution and environmental damage we're discussing? If you can't establish relevance, then you're offering us a non-sequitur....an awkward attempt to change the topic.

And I'm quite happy with this one.

Well, that is true.


One must understand what a pollutant is before discussing environmental damage.

It appears that you have no fucking idea what a pollutant is in that case nuclear power is "irrelevant.

If you have a point to make, make it. But you're insinuating an argument you can't even articulate. Let alone factually support. Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.

Bullshit.

As a communist you will reject outright any argument where I do not support a Commissar making the ultimate decisions.

.

You don't know what a communist is. "Communist' is simply a name you call people if you don't agree with them. Especially if they make points you can't refute, nor comprehend.

Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.

You and Coyote seem like very smart people. Yes, they throw out those words to put us on the defensive. I don't think they know they are using this tactic though. I think the conservative movement has them truly believing we want socialism or communism.

They don't get it that capitalism is just another ism. The only good capitalism is a well regulated capitalism.

And we see what happened when the GOP deregulated the banks and mortgage industries. They didn't get hurt though. Ultimately they got bailed out and made a fortune. It was us that got fucked. The little people. The people who put money into savings accounts. What do they get now 1%? But the investor class is making a killing in the stock market. But you can't ask Granny to put her $10K on a stock. Too risky. You have to have money you can afford to lose to play on the stock market.

I think the issue is two fold: First, ignorance. Most of the people using the terms 'fascism' and 'communism' just don't know what they're talking about. And as Cont has demonstrated, they don't particularly care what they terms mean. This is not an isolated issue. It think many conservatives who react in this fashion are in a similar situation.

Second, they're using what I've heard called the 'Front door or the Ocean' mentality. Where if you're at your front door and turn to the left toward your car, the only possible destination you could have in mind is the pacific ocean. If you're at your front door and move straight ahead toward your mail box, your only possible designation is the north pole. And if you turn to the right toward the paper, your are going to the Altantic ocean.

They recognize the start location....and the farthest extreme you can possible go. It doesn't occur to them that you might just want to go to your car, or check the mail, or pick up the paper. That there could be any possible destination in between those two extremes.

Likewise, if you're not a lassie faire capitalist, then you must be a communist. Or a socialist. Or a fascist. As the only possible goal you could have is the most extreme possible. It never occurs to them that you may just want regulated capitalism, or some environmental protections, or some checks to private power.

And its that inability to perceive anything but the polar extremes (if you're not with us, you're against us!) that result in the type of reaction we've seen today.

 

[defcon4]

Benito Mussolini:

What is Fascism, 1932

"...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...."


As you see , under fascism , individuals do not have rights - the BUREAUCRATS DETERMINE WHAT RIGHTS YOU NEED.


And they may allow you to be 90% free or just 10%.

But THEY decide - not you.


.

That's but one sentence in a vast description given by Mussolini.

Shut the fuck up.

Smiling.....Cont, you know you I'll say what I like. Just as you know that there's nothing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.

Who came up with NUCLEAR ENERGY and then decided to weaponize it and use it willy nilly against other nations

1- Iran
2- North Korea
3- The United States of America


2- Which country has created a massive highway system in which many of those roads are PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER , go to the same destination and were created in order to grandstand for political parties and not actual need, ie, pork barrel spending.

1- Germany
2- South AFrica
3- The United States of America

And what relevance does any of these questions have with the issues of pollution and environmental damage we're discussing? If you can't establish relevance, then you're offering us a non-sequitur....an awkward attempt to change the topic.

And I'm quite happy with this one.

Well, that is true.


One must understand what a pollutant is before discussing environmental damage.

It appears that you have no fucking idea what a pollutant is in that case nuclear power is "irrelevant.

If you have a point to make, make it. But you're insinuating an argument you can't even articulate. Let alone factually support. Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.

Bullshit.

As a communist you will reject outright any argument where I do not support a Commissar making the ultimate decisions.

.

You don't know what a communist is. "Communist' is simply a name you call people if you don't agree with them. Especially if they make points you can't refute, nor comprehend.

Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.

I assume you studied Dialectical Materialism, Marxism-Leninism (yes it is called Marxism-Leninism) therefore, you know who and what a communist is.
Yes, I am sure conservatives want to breathe dirty air and drink dirty water.. are you out of your mind?

 

[Iceweasel]

I disagree - look at the so-called Gilded Age in America. That was the height of unfettered, unregulated capitalism and it was certainly free market capitalism. Not only was it a period of huge economic opportunity and wealth for some, it was a period of grinding poverty, abuse, and desperation for many, which made socialism and communism and easy sell.

Probably so. BUT it really wasn't a free market when the monopolies formed and had almost total control of the marketplace.

New technologies in transportation, communication, manufacturing, inventions, etc. caused the market to explode. Some took advantage of it and in a ruthless fashion. Unregulated capitalism is basically anarchy. Mad Max comes in, kills you and takes your shit. The problem was government was too slow and too corrupt to do much about it. Corruption was widespread in those days and they were not on the ball, too many looking out for numero uno.

The pendulum has swung too far now though and government is over regulating the marketplace and again, the Golden Rule applies, them that has the gold makes the rules. The problem isn't capitalism, it's the people at the helm. And history proves that governments will run an economy aground if given the opportunity.

 

[Iceweasel]

Likewise, if you're not a lassie faire capitalist, then you must be a communist. Or a socialist. Or a fascist. As the only possible goal you could have is the most extreme possible. It never occurs to them that you may just want regulated capitalism, or some environmental protections, or some checks to private power.

And its that inability to perceive anything but the polar extremes (if you're not with us, you're against us!) that result in the type of reaction we've seen today.

Today? What do you call all the capitalist, right wing bashing on your end? If you oppose capitalism then what system are you in favor of? Government run economies is fascism, socialism, communism. The problem is that for some reason the left doesn't want to own up to it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Likewise, if you're not a lassie faire capitalist, then you must be a communist. Or a socialist. Or a fascist. As the only possible goal you could have is the most extreme possible. It never occurs to them that you may just want regulated capitalism, or some environmental protections, or some checks to private power.

And its that inability to perceive anything but the polar extremes (if you're not with us, you're against us!) that result in the type of reaction we've seen today.

Today? What do you call all the capitalist, right wing bashing on your end? If you oppose capitalism then what system are you in favor of? Government run economies is fascism, socialism, communism. The problem is that for some reason the left doesn't want to own up to it.

No economic system exists without a government, so stop bashing it. And she doesn't oppose capitalism, she opposes its dark-sides.

 

[Skylar]

That's but one sentence in a vast description given by Mussolini.

Smiling.....Cont, you know you I'll say what I like. Just as you know that there's nothing you can do about it. Get used to the idea.

And what relevance does any of these questions have with the issues of pollution and environmental damage we're discussing? If you can't establish relevance, then you're offering us a non-sequitur....an awkward attempt to change the topic.

And I'm quite happy with this one.

Well, that is true.


One must understand what a pollutant is before discussing environmental damage.

It appears that you have no fucking idea what a pollutant is in that case nuclear power is "irrelevant.

If you have a point to make, make it. But you're insinuating an argument you can't even articulate. Let alone factually support. Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.

Bullshit.

As a communist you will reject outright any argument where I do not support a Commissar making the ultimate decisions.

.

You don't know what a communist is. "Communist' is simply a name you call people if you don't agree with them. Especially if they make points you can't refute, nor comprehend.

Unregulated capitalism results in horrendous damage to the environment, dirty air and dirty water. Its only through strict regulation and enforcement that this inevitable consequence of unchecked self interest can be mitigated.

If you disagree, tell us why. Make your argument.

I assume you studied Dialectical Materialism, Marxism-Leninism (yes it is called Marxism-Leninism) therefore, you know who and what a communist is.
Yes, I am sure conservatives want to breathe dirty air and drink dirty water.. are you out of your mind?

I never said that conservatives want to breath dirty air and water. On the contrary, I've said that the desire for clean air and water transcends political party. Which is why ideologues for unregulated capitalism so often lose the environmental debate. As such ideologues aren't interested in the outcomes. They're interested in the process. Thus, any outcome that results from their process is justified.

Most people, liberal or conservative, don't think that way. They take the outcome into account. And if the process is producing bad results, they look for a better process. If unregulated capitalism is producing filthy air and water, they regulate it. Its the same for the abuses that result from concentrations of private power and the inherent instability that unregulated capitalism produces.

 

[SwimExpert]

Probably so. BUT it really wasn't a free market when the monopolies formed and had almost total control of the marketplace.

Monopolies are very much consistent with a free market. But they do underscore the fact that reasonable limitations of the freedom of a market can be beneficial to the health of an economy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Probably so. BUT it really wasn't a free market when the monopolies formed and had almost total control of the marketplace.

Monopolies are very much consistent with a free market.

Not according to Smith. As with corporations there were a serious no-no. Now you know-know...