When Lefties pitch Socialism do they realize what decent people hear?

[ph3iron]

Please. It’s clear from your posts that you despise your fellow countrymen.

Negative…I respect all good, decent people. I hate, hate, hate illegal wetbacks and lowlife pieces of shit. Just like anybody else who’s decent and expects better of Americans.

So I guess you support American Muslims who have lower crime rates, have better Ed and earn more than uneducated white rubes like you?

Negative...their core belief system for Americans

The big religions have the same core beliefs.

I know you tend to struggle to understand super basic shit…Are you telling me you don’t know the difference between Islamic and Christian beliefs?

Christians believe in hang drawn and quartering?
Worried about the 1 in 125000 Muslims here?
Who are better educated and earn more than our native rubes?

 

[MisterBeale]

They both follow the laws of economics. When you establish a monopoly, the price goes up and the service goes down.

Enjoy your red herring.
That has nothing to do with society determining its socioeconomic reality.

I said "the laws of economics." I have no idea what your conception of "socioeconomic reality" is. It has no scientific meaning. the bottom line is that the laws of economics aren't affected by what people believe or what laws they pass. They are as immutable as the laws of gravity.

The laws of economics say government run healthcare is a disaster.

I'm not here to dispute your laws of economics in this thread, nor to discuss science. If you wish to engage me in a discussion on what I actually said that would be great.
Let me try to simplify the big words for you.

Definition of SOCIOECONOMIC
: of, relating to, or involving a combination of social and economic factors

My point was that the economy serves a social function and that different societies organize it in different ways.

Whatever way they organize it, the result is subject to the laws of economics. If they organize it in ways fly in the face of the laws of economics, then the results will be negative. If they organized it in a way that is cognizant of the laws of economics, then the result will be positive. Socialism is a means of organizing society that ignores the laws of economics and destined to cause a society to swirl down the toilet bowl.

Okay, I wasn't arguing in favor of any particular type of organization and if I was capitalist laws would not apply. I just said that I had little choice but to participate in the way we are socially organized.

I do think that is the crux here, I think there SHOULD be some choice for those who wish to opt out. Americans have always been about choice. We have been bullshitted by the corporate owners of the media that the corporate state there is only one choice. But there really is more than one way to live. The native Americans aren't materialists, they have completely different values, each other, their families, the environment, etc. They have no use for big houses, shiny cars and gadgets.

All you need is a little space for choice. Say, for every three counties in the states, one county should be unincorporated (unorganized) or in Louisiana, an organized parish. This would be for those who wish to go there and do their own thing. In Alaska, if someone wants to go and found their own socialist community, I believe they are free to do so, as there is an unorganized Borough. They call them boroughs in Alaska.

This would definitely leave the door open to those who desire socialism and wish to organize living and working cooperatively. We have cooperative groceries, cooperative energy providers, credit unions, and a host of other cooperative industries, why not cities, counties and towns? The fact is, they just aren't incentivized here. Why would they be? They are for people, not profit.

The point here, is in AMERICAN, we do things voluntarily, or at least, that is the intent according to the will of the people. Any time you try to force folks, it will be a nightmare.

Right now, with the incorporated organization, it is forced the other way. There SHOULD be some room for competition of organization. That is TRUE capitalism, letting the people and the market decide, not the ruling elites.

 

[dblack]

Truth.

The fascists use the power of the state to control industry to meet national objectives.

Here the corporations use the power of the state to increase private profits.

It's both.

It just seems like it is both because here the power of the State is not truly centralized.

LOL

So, it's better to have food, drugs, and pollution etc. as unregulated?

Yes.

I think it is a false dichotomy. I don't think it is necessary for us to go to extremes.

The problem is all the equivocation around "regulation". Saying that the government shouldn't be regulating something isn't the same as saying there should be no laws. We can make it illegal to poison people, sell bad drugs or pollute the environment without "regulation". It's fine, for example, to have a law saying companies, or individuals, can't dump their waste in the river. It becomes "regulation" when you tell them that they must dispose of their waste via government approved methods.

Agreed.

Regulation vs. Litigation: Perspectives from Economics and Law

I can't follow that link for some reason, but if it's suggesting that litigation can replace regulation, that's not what I'm suggesting. Many libertarians propose litigation as a viable solution for pollution, for example, and I don't necessarily agree with that. We need consistent rules. But those rules should ban unacceptable behavior, rather than telling us how to live. It's the difference between "thou shalt not" and "thou shalt".

 

[MisterBeale]

Truth.

The fascists use the power of the state to control industry to meet national objectives.

Here the corporations use the power of the state to increase private profits.

It's both.

It just seems like it is both because here the power of the State is not truly centralized.

LOL

So, it's better to have food, drugs, and pollution etc. as unregulated?

Yes.

I think it is a false dichotomy. I don't think it is necessary for us to go to extremes.

The problem is all the equivocation around "regulation". Saying that the government shouldn't be regulating something isn't the same as saying there should be no laws. We can make it illegal to poison people, sell bad drugs or pollute the environment without "regulation". It's fine, for example, to have a law saying companies, or individuals, can't dump their waste in the river. It becomes "regulation" when you tell them that they must dispose of their waste via government approved methods.

Agreed.

Regulation vs. Litigation: Perspectives from Economics and Law

I can't follow that link for some reason, but if it's suggesting that litigation can replace regulation, that's not what I'm suggesting. Many libertarians propose litigation as a viable solution for pollution, for example, and I don't necessarily agree with that. We need consistent rules. But those rules should ban unacceptable behavior, rather than telling us how to live. It's the difference between "thou shalt not" and "thou shalt".

No. What it is suggesting is that in some cases market forces can do a better job, and in some cases regulation is better. For example;


"My analysis is normative; the question I address is what the better method—litigation or (administrative) regulation—would be, from the standpoint of economic efficiency, for regulating a particular activity. I leave to other work (some in this volume) positive questions about the choice between litigation and regulation, such as the political and cultural forces (including legalistic and individualistic traditions, and the influence of the legal profession, which has been said to be the American counterpart of European aristocracy and elite bureaucracy) that shape American government. No competent student of regulation thinks that the line between common law and regulation has been drawn primarily on the basis of comparative economic advantage.

From a normative economic standpoint the goal of regulation, whether by courts or by agencies, is to solve economic problems that cannot be left to the market to solve—such as problems created by positive or negative large externalities that market forces cannot internalize because transaction costs are too great for the Coase theorem to apply. Even so, it is still necessary to consider whether public control is justified, because the costs may exceed the benefits from internalizing the externalities, or because an intermediate form of regulation between pure market forces and public control may be superior to both; I refer to industry self- regulation, illustrated by board certification of physicians, hazing- type medical education to instill norms and create a Regulation (Agencies) vs. Litigation (Courts): An Analytical Framework 13 “high commitment” environment (“professionalism”), contracts between patients and physicians and between consumers and producers, rule making and standards- setting by trade or professional associations, and arbitration or mediation to resolve disputes. If public control is not superior to private ordering, the next question—the positive one—is why the private alternative has been rejected."

As far as why the forum won't allow us to hyperlink this PDF? Maybe I goofed the first time?

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11956.pdf

 

[Tehon]

Enjoy your red herring.
That has nothing to do with society determining its socioeconomic reality.

I said "the laws of economics." I have no idea what your conception of "socioeconomic reality" is. It has no scientific meaning. the bottom line is that the laws of economics aren't affected by what people believe or what laws they pass. They are as immutable as the laws of gravity.

The laws of economics say government run healthcare is a disaster.

I'm not here to dispute your laws of economics in this thread, nor to discuss science. If you wish to engage me in a discussion on what I actually said that would be great.
Let me try to simplify the big words for you.

Definition of SOCIOECONOMIC
: of, relating to, or involving a combination of social and economic factors

My point was that the economy serves a social function and that different societies organize it in different ways.

Whatever way they organize it, the result is subject to the laws of economics. If they organize it in ways fly in the face of the laws of economics, then the results will be negative. If they organized it in a way that is cognizant of the laws of economics, then the result will be positive. Socialism is a means of organizing society that ignores the laws of economics and destined to cause a society to swirl down the toilet bowl.

Okay, I wasn't arguing in favor of any particular type of organization and if I was capitalist laws would not apply. I just said that I had little choice but to participate in the way we are socially organized.

I do think that is the crux here, I think there SHOULD be some choice for those who wish to opt out. Americans have always been about choice. We have been bullshitted by the corporate owners of the media that the corporate state there is only one choice. But there really is more than one way to live. The native Americans aren't materialists, they have completely different values, each other, their families, the environment, etc. They have no use for big houses, shiny cars and gadgets.

All you need is a little space for choice. Say, for every three counties in the states, one county should be unincorporated (unorganized) or in Louisiana, an organized parish. This would be for those who wish to go there and do their own thing. In Alaska, if someone wants to go and found their own socialist community, I believe they are free to do so, as there is an unorganized Borough. They call them boroughs in Alaska.

This would definitely leave the door open to those who desire socialism and wish to organize living and working cooperatively. We have cooperative groceries, cooperative energy providers, credit unions, and a host of other cooperative industries, why not cities, counties and towns? The fact is, they just aren't incentivized here. Why would they be? They are for people, not profit.

The point here, is in AMERICAN, we do things voluntarily, or at least, that is the intent according to the will of the people. Any time you try to force folks, it will be a nightmare.

Right now, with the incorporated organization, it is forced the other way. There SHOULD be some room for competition of organization. That is TRUE capitalism, letting the people and the market decide, not the ruling elites.

I never understood the infatuation people have with conflating capitalism with a free market. It is a concept that appears to be at odds as you correctly identify when you say "They are for people, not profit".

The market is for people, capital(ism) is for profit. It follows from that, capital would naturally be at odds with a free market. To think otherwise, as all proponents of capitalism do, is idealist.

 

[Tehon]

Truth.

The fascists use the power of the state to control industry to meet national objectives.

Here the corporations use the power of the state to increase private profits.

It's both.

It just seems like it is both because here the power of the State is not truly centralized.

LOL

Following the overthrow of the Monarchy in revolutionary America, a constitution was written that secured the right of the propertied class to rule government. This was the liberal idea that people (of a certain class as it turned out) could rule themselves without the need for power to be centralized in a figurehead. Power was decentralized in America.
In a feudal system the king's power is centralized and a hierarchy formed that is akin to a fascist system.

Figurehead
Nobles or capitalist industry leaders
Knights or military the arm of government (police state)
peasants or working class proletarians

The revolution in America removed the figure head and vested the nobles with power to rule the government run police state. It is decentralized power, with competing interests which affect the size of the police state as each interest seeks to undermine all other interests. It's only natural that the government would grow as industries developed and capital grew.

 

[Timmy]

Negative…I respect all good, decent people. I hate, hate, hate illegal wetbacks and lowlife pieces of shit. Just like anybody else who’s decent and expects better of Americans.

So I guess you support American Muslims who have lower crime rates, have better Ed and earn more than uneducated white rubes like you?

Negative...their core belief system for Americans

The big religions have the same core beliefs.

I know you tend to struggle to understand super basic shit…Are you telling me you don’t know the difference between Islamic and Christian beliefs?

Christians believe in hang drawn and quartering?
Worried about the 1 in 125000 Muslims here?
Who are better educated and earn more than our native rubes?

Christians have done such things . The last recorded lynching in the US was in the 1970s .

Their core beliefs are pretty much the same.