Obama Not a Socialist

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I didn’t even have a point in this thread other than to goad you, guy. Then all of the sudden you attributed “talking points” and all sorts of other motivations to me that don’t exist. Honestly I have absolutely zero interest in engaging you in one of your silly snipe hunts.

If you’ve got nothing but unhurt feelings and little insulting jibes for me, though, feel free to completely ignore me. We’re both Level 4’s, after all, and have each paid our dues and should have the right to speak as we please. :)[/quote]

It was you who paid your dues, it was his mommy that paid his.

62

So, you simply wish to goad me, yet I’m somehow a bully?

You have no interest in engaging me in “my silly snipe hunts?” Allow me to recapitulate this thread:

the first post was yours:

“It appears you have discovered PWI’s resident Young Marxist’s true identity. Isn’t that so, Ryan P. McWharton?”

Cryptic, yet harmless. I did not immediately respond to you, but did post this:

“Obama is not a socialist, no. That’s obvious. But neither is Bill Wharton. All the Democratic Socialists want is a tightly regulated market and a generous welfare state, ala western Europe.”

I didn’t think it was offensive, or “sniping,” but you responded with:

“Have you ever defined Socialism, other than stating who isn’t socialist? One would think you’d held sole proprietorship of it. Har har”

I then responded that I had and pointed you in the direction of another thread in which I had discussed the issue at some length (thus attempting, despite your claim in another thread, to avoid derailing the discussion).

At which point you speculated that I would insist that there was a “vast political difference” between the two types of socialists (which there is, and this is factual: the two schools disagree on practically everything of importance, moreso than Austrians vs Keynesians, who are always portrayed as bitter rivals) and calling me a sophist.

Now, I apologize for this tedious post. But the point is, your claim that “you have no interest in engaging me” is clearly false, or at least is very confusing in light of the posts you have made. So don’t accuse me of ruining threads or starting fights when you’re the one that has done these things.

63

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

I didn’t even have a point in this thread other than to goad you, guy. Then all of the sudden you attributed “talking points” and all sorts of other motivations to me that don’t exist. Honestly I have absolutely zero interest in engaging you in one of your silly snipe hunts.

If you’ve got nothing but unhurt feelings and little insulting jibes for me, though, feel free to completely ignore me. We’re both Level 4’s, after all, and have each paid our dues and should have the right to speak as we please. :)[/quote]

It was you who paid your dues, it was his mommy that paid his.[/quote]

Acutally, I have paid for everything I have purchased, but I would like to highlight the fact that yet again, it is the conservative attempting to insult his opponent. I don’t know how you take yourself seriously claiming to debate in earnest, while lambasting the always tenuous “left” for your own faults.

64

I accept your apology for your tedious post.

65

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Acutally, I have paid for everything I have purchased, but I would like to highlight the fact that yet again, it is the conservative attempting to insult his opponent. I don’t know how you take yourself seriously claiming to debate in earnest, while lambasting the always tenuous “left” for your own faults.[/quote]

I just make fun of you, I am also a libertarian. Don’t try and act all innocent after all the other shit you have posted. I am not doubting you paid for everything, I am just saying that the money came from mommy.

66

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Acutally, I have paid for everything I have purchased, but I would like to highlight the fact that yet again, it is the conservative attempting to insult his opponent. I don’t know how you take yourself seriously claiming to debate in earnest, while lambasting the always tenuous “left” for your own faults.[/quote]

I just make fun of you, I am also a libertarian. Don’t try and act all innocent after all the other shit you have posted. I am not doubting you paid for everything, I am just saying that the money came from mommy.[/quote]

Which, like all your other assertions, is false. At least you’re consistent.

But again, the intellectual right-winger, disinterestedly pursuing the truth, is using petty insults. Rationalize away.

Go.

67

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But I suspect here that, realizing your historical error…[/quote]

Hahahahahahahaha!

No, you are the one in error and we all laugh at you for the entertainment you bring us.

68

Care to make a point? Or, like John S., do you simply wish to pretend that you’re right?

69

Anyone who busts their ass for their own money is not so quick or comfortable to let someone else take it from them.

70

Who’s taking it?

71

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Care to make a point? Or, like John S., do you simply wish to pretend that you’re right?[/quote]

Logic is wasted on you.

You want to appeal to history but do not even know how to properly analyze it.

My definition of the market is quite adequate and the inferences drawn from it are apodictically certain. Not to mention this definition has been vindicated by those whom have used the theoretical understanding of it to make economic predictions.

You waste your time on the meaning of words instead of looking at the actions they are supposed to describe. The market predates written history as it exists only in the actions of man.

You either agree or disagree with this definition but you cannot appeal to history to deny it. Your understanding of history is flawed anyway…

72

What are you talking about? I never challenged your definition of the market, but I did note that you know nothing about history, since your claims are flatly contradicted by mountains of research.

And who’s wasting time on the meaning of words? Last time I checked, I wasn’t the one splitting hairs over whether an economy is capitalist if it has a government, or a central bank, or a fiat currency, or regulation or…any of the minutia that are so important to you.

And again, I would love for you to show me how how my understanding of history is flawed. It seems like you don’t even know any history. How could you know that my understanding of it flawed when you can’t even get basic facts straight?

In other words, I know it’s less appealing to your ego, but how about pointing some specifics, instead of just doubling down on dogma?

Here’s just a small hint: if Mises or Rothbard are the only authors in the entire world that you can go to to support the conclusion you wish to draw, you’re probably wrong.

73

[quote]florelius wrote:
gadrian you say that as long someone trades you have a marked, ok thats not wrong I suppose. still the nature of the marked today and that of the pre-industrial era are different. In the feudal society much of production was for the producer himself, not for sale. Today all production is for the markedplace, so you can say that the marked is everywhere as opposed to the feudal society. That is a big difference.[/quote]

The word is spelled ‘market’, I see you are from Norway so no hard feelings.

The feudal market was filled with a forced trades, where people went hungry, &C. The market we have today in America is being slowly pushed in that direction.

74

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It is too bad RWM believes the market is a real physical thing that can be pointed to.

He should know better. It is just like trying to point to an electromagnetic field.

Any definition that a physicist could give for an EM field could only be theoretical. It is the same with the market when talking to economists.

The market is nothing more than a field of influence where individuals make exchanges. Just as with an EM field, for example, the market influences people who make exchanges and is also influenced by it.

And theoretically, it is not just physical goods that get exchanged but ideas as well.[/quote]

It is easier to say what is, then what it is not in this case. The market is a process.

75

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It is too bad RWM believes the market is a real physical thing that can be pointed to.

He should know better. It is just like trying to point to an electromagnetic field.

Any definition that a physicist could give for an EM field could only be theoretical. It is the same with the market when talking to economists.

The market is nothing more than a field of influence where individuals make exchanges. Just as with an EM field, for example, the market influences people who make exchanges and is also influenced by it.

And theoretically, it is not just physical goods that get exchanged but ideas as well.[/quote]

It is easier to say what is, then what it is not in this case. The market is a process.[/quote]

Yes. And the process of the market is characterized by exchange – in other words it is purely catallactic.

76

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote

Here’s just a small hint: if Mises or Rothbard are the only authors in the entire world that you can go to to support the conclusion you wish to draw, you’re probably wrong.[/quote]

The people who express ideas do not matter. The ideas I agree with are philosophically consistent. Until you read their ideas you have no business trying to disprove them.

The problem is you do not even know what is relevant. Heck, you are not even sophisticated enough to argue correctly – otherwise you would do more than just bash those intelligent philosophers who you cannot even hold a candle to intellectually.

You say what is not and never say what is. Not once have you done so. You have been called out more than once on this matter.

You are just a chicken shit little kid who is too afraid to tell people what he believes and only deride those more ingenuous souls than you that do.

That is all I need to know about someone like you.

77

Are you finished throwing your temper tantrum? If not, I can come back later, but eventually I would like you to point out where I’m wrong, and not just so that you can be consistent with your principles.

78

But when the entire methodology is very obviously flawed, it undermines any conclusions derived from that methodology.

79

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

But when the entire methodology is very obviously flawed, it undermines any conclusions derived from that methodology.[/quote]

This is exactly what I am talking about. You provide a negative assertion without providing an affirmative one to bring anything useful to light. This is just circular argumentation.

The “methodology is flawed”? How so? Please provide a real argument. Also, please provide a method you think is better – haha, I know you’re a positivist, so yes, we can talk about flawed methodology all day long…

My feeling is you do not even know what the method the Austrians use is called. You are in over your head if you want to argue this with me because I am pretty well versed in the philosophy of positivism as well as the Austrian method.

You’re a physicist, correct? I can relate to why you might be skeptical of the Austrian method but you need to understand the inherent differences between economics and science before you can begin to reach any correct understanding of economics.

80

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

But when the entire methodology is very obviously flawed, it undermines any conclusions derived from that methodology.[/quote]

This is exactly what I am talking about. You provide a negative assertion without providing an affirmative one to bring anything useful to light. This is just circular argumentation.

The “methodology is flawed”? How so? Please provide a real argument. Also, please provide a method you think is better – haha, I know you’re a positivist, so yes, we can talk about flawed methodology all day long…

My feeling is you do not even know what the method the Austrians use is called. You are in over your head if you want to argue this with me because I am pretty well versed in the philosophy of positivism as well as the Austrian method.

You’re a physicist, correct? I can relate to why you might be skeptical of the Austrian method but you need to understand the inherent differences between economics and science before you can begin to reach any correct understanding of economics.[/quote]

Are you saying that economics is not a form of science? If so, does that meen that it is bogus?