One Good Democrat?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, I have noticed that. Having your fundamental beliefs shredded gets uncomfortable after three or four posts. Notice for instance how orion retreats after being shown the idiocy of one of his statements.

And yes, keep telling yourself you are right. I’m sure you’ve really thought about things, and it’s just a coincidence that you started out with all the correct opinions.[/quote]

You have noticed that truth kicked you in the Jimmy and you did not notice it? Is there something you need to tell us Ryan? Are you actually a woman, or do you not have a Jimmy?

Sorry but you walked into that one.

142

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]gunsaregood wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Yes I knew that. But you probably didn’t know that it was the raising of taxes and decrease in spending (because of, surprise, deficit hawks’ constant whining–where have I seen that before?) that caused the economy to relapse.
[/quote]

Yes, the raising of taxes, which contributes to people having less money, which leads to what you mentioned less spending, because of the socialistic policies of FDR. Thanks for reinforcing our point.[/quote]

You miss the point: the market already made sure no one had any money. That’s why the government must spend: the upper classes who have it are unwilling to spend it, and no one else has any.[/quote]

No, the government already seen to it people did not have money with income taxes in 1913, in order to pay for socialistic programs. Besides that, if you care to explain how “the market already made sure no one had any money,” I will listen. Otherwise, it does not make sense.

143

[quote]gunsaregood wrote:No, the government already seen to it people did not have money with income taxes in 1913, in order to pay for socialistic programs. Besides that, if you care to explain how “the market already made sure no one had any money,” I will listen. Otherwise, it does not make sense.
[/quote]

The normal operation of the economy had produced such a wide gap in incomes that the population was rendered unable to purchase the goods they produced. Aggregate demand collapse, and with it production. This is why high graduated taxes usually produce economic stability (in the absence of any other destabilizing tendencies, of course).

Think about it: if “socialistic” policies were to blame, wouldn’t people blame them, especially in the pro-capitalist USA? Why did the Depression produce such a widespread contempt of laissez-faire if socialism was to blame?

144

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I think the bottom line is that capitalist nations can be dictatorships, but socialist nations must be dictatorships.

The socialisation of the means of production hardly leaves room for anything else.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Bolivia is both a democracy and a socialist state. The Socialist party that’s currently in power (Movement for Socialism), was voted in with 64 percent of the votes in 2009.

The party has been in power since 2005, and winning another election with such solid numbers is very rare for any country, especially Bolivia which historically has been ruled by a lot of coalition governments. Which Means they probably are doing something right…

[quote]
Really?

Where, Zimbawbe?

Because they exported food like cracy before Mugabe decided to redistribute land to farmers that did not have the CAPITAL to realize solid yields.

The fact that they also believed that being a capitalist is so easy that everyone can do it by comitee did not helo either. [/quote]
In Niger, for instance (no I did not drop the N-bomb, the country of Niger). Where capitalism directly contributed to making things a lot worse than it had to be. The poor could not afford the food that was being produced so a lot was exported to neighbouring countries.

The market is random. It’s such a naive notion to believe that the market always magically sorts things out. It doesn’t work like that in the real world.[/quote]

Socialist democracies are still dictatorships.

It is just a tyranny of the majority, a dictatorship of the proletariate if you will.

As for Niger, I have no idea, but I doubt that the market has failed them. Unless of course you define “failed” as any result you do not like, then it might have.[/quote]
Dictatorships = Countries that are ruled by one powerful dictator. Bolivia is really far from being a dictatorship. It’s a very democratic nation. Maybe you don’t like the political system over there, but that doesn’t mean labelling them as dictatorships is appropriate when it so obviously isn’t the case.

145

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Yes.

See? This is what I was talking about. It may be fascism, but it is the inevitable result of capitalism.[/quote]

No. It was a result of government intervening in capitalism on behalf of big business.

By definition as soon as government intervenes it can no longer be capitalism. These businesses are no more capitalistic than the mafia. Quit trying to change the definition of capitalism to fit your flawed dogma.[/quote]

Then by your definition (not the definition), capitalism is even more antiquated and useless than we find it at present under the usual definition.
[/quote]

Capitalism makes reference to human action only and not to ethics. In so far as humans are free to exchange their property, that is capitalism. Furthermore, capitalism makes reference to a special category of human action called exchange (what economists refer to as catallactics).

What governments impose on their citizens cannot be capitalism – it is socialism and all of its variants, because by definition, government regulation can only restrict exchange.

Tell me exactly how this is an antiquated notion of capitalism. Moreover, it is quite telling that you consider definitions useless. That is a typical subversive trick – but then again, you actually believe utility can be measured objectively…so yeah, wutevr!!

You’re no communist! just a confused teenager with bad case of insufficient real world experience.

146

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, I have noticed that. Having your fundamental beliefs shredded gets uncomfortable after three or four posts.[/quote]

You haven’t figured out by now that anything you say just resolidifies our beliefs…?

I wish there were an award for those posters who type the most with the least relevant/coherent/meaningful content – because that is the only win! you’d ever receive.

I mean really, at this point, you’re just serving as an exercise to help Orion practice his English language skills – and from what I can read and comprehend he doesn’t need that as much as you need practice with logic.

147

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I think the bottom line is that capitalist nations can be dictatorships, but socialist nations must be dictatorships.

The socialisation of the means of production hardly leaves room for anything else.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Bolivia is both a democracy and a socialist state. The Socialist party that’s currently in power (Movement for Socialism), was voted in with 64 percent of the votes in 2009.

The party has been in power since 2005, and winning another election with such solid numbers is very rare for any country, especially Bolivia which historically has been ruled by a lot of coalition governments. Which Means they probably are doing something right…

[quote]
Really?

Where, Zimbawbe?

Because they exported food like cracy before Mugabe decided to redistribute land to farmers that did not have the CAPITAL to realize solid yields.

The fact that they also believed that being a capitalist is so easy that everyone can do it by comitee did not helo either. [/quote]
In Niger, for instance (no I did not drop the N-bomb, the country of Niger). Where capitalism directly contributed to making things a lot worse than it had to be. The poor could not afford the food that was being produced so a lot was exported to neighbouring countries.

The market is random. It’s such a naive notion to believe that the market always magically sorts things out. It doesn’t work like that in the real world.[/quote]

Proof. And Capitalism was not in Niger sorry.

148

Such a process [as capitalism] cannot be adopted by a government, for it is not an artificial construct. Capital accumulation, exchange and investment are all naturally occurring. Although these actions are oftentimes grouped under the title of “capitalism,” it is important to note that capitalism is nothing but the mechanisms of a voluntary society and a web of individual human actions.

So, far from being something a government can adopt, it is a concept the government must respect. It is something innate in all societies, and so governments can only become burdens upon this web of naturally occurring human actions.

Read more: Thank Goodness for Capitalism - Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan - Mises Institute Thank Goodness for Capitalism | Mises Institute

149

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I think the bottom line is that capitalist nations can be dictatorships, but socialist nations must be dictatorships.

The socialisation of the means of production hardly leaves room for anything else.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Bolivia is both a democracy and a socialist state. The Socialist party that’s currently in power (Movement for Socialism), was voted in with 64 percent of the votes in 2009.

The party has been in power since 2005, and winning another election with such solid numbers is very rare for any country, especially Bolivia which historically has been ruled by a lot of coalition governments. Which Means they probably are doing something right…

[quote]
Really?

Where, Zimbawbe?

Because they exported food like cracy before Mugabe decided to redistribute land to farmers that did not have the CAPITAL to realize solid yields.

The fact that they also believed that being a capitalist is so easy that everyone can do it by comitee did not helo either. [/quote]
In Niger, for instance (no I did not drop the N-bomb, the country of Niger). Where capitalism directly contributed to making things a lot worse than it had to be. The poor could not afford the food that was being produced so a lot was exported to neighbouring countries.

The market is random. It’s such a naive notion to believe that the market always magically sorts things out. It doesn’t work like that in the real world.[/quote]

Proof. And Capitalism was not in Niger sorry.[/quote]
At the time it was one of the most capitalistic countries in the world (like many other poor countries). If your argument is that there are no capitalist countries, then you can also say that there are no socialist countries. It doesn’t get you anywhere.

[quote]
You haven’t figured out by now that anything you say just resolidifies our beliefs…? [/quote]
This is true on all sides of all debates on the entire internet (and other places) it seems.

150

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I think the bottom line is that capitalist nations can be dictatorships, but socialist nations must be dictatorships.

The socialisation of the means of production hardly leaves room for anything else.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Bolivia is both a democracy and a socialist state. The Socialist party that’s currently in power (Movement for Socialism), was voted in with 64 percent of the votes in 2009.

The party has been in power since 2005, and winning another election with such solid numbers is very rare for any country, especially Bolivia which historically has been ruled by a lot of coalition governments. Which Means they probably are doing something right…

[quote]
Really?

Where, Zimbawbe?

Because they exported food like cracy before Mugabe decided to redistribute land to farmers that did not have the CAPITAL to realize solid yields.

The fact that they also believed that being a capitalist is so easy that everyone can do it by comitee did not helo either. [/quote]
In Niger, for instance (no I did not drop the N-bomb, the country of Niger). Where capitalism directly contributed to making things a lot worse than it had to be. The poor could not afford the food that was being produced so a lot was exported to neighbouring countries.

The market is random. It’s such a naive notion to believe that the market always magically sorts things out. It doesn’t work like that in the real world.[/quote]

Proof. And Capitalism was not in Niger sorry.[/quote]
At the time it was one of the most capitalistic countries in the world (like many other poor countries). If your argument is that there are no capitalist countries, then you can also say that there are no socialist countries. It doesn’t get you anywhere.

[quote]
You haven’t figured out by now that anything you say just resolidifies our beliefs…? [/quote]
This is true on all sides of all debates on the entire internet (and other places) it seems. [/quote]

I never said any of those things, I do not follow Niger politics, so I wanted to see the proof that Niger was Capitalist.

151

Here now, don’t do the same thing you rebuke me for. Regardless of how you feel about government or its actions in the economy, what you have described is certainly not socialism. There is nothing social about the private ownership of society’s resources, whether the owner is a private citizen or a “private” government.

The definition of capitalism you offer is contrary to that definition used by the vast majority of capitalists throughout history. Adam Smith was certainly a capitalist, yet he did not dismiss government action or consider it necessarily detrimental to capitalism. Capitalism is based on private ownership and control of capital and the free exchange of commodities.

A system in which this occurs in the absence of a government is simply one subset of capitalism, not a different system. Moreover, it is antiquated because not only does it not exist anywhere, but is unable to exist. The historical conditions requisite for its existence and operation have disappeared. This is why, depending on your definition of “capitalism,” I say you can either be wrong or irrelevant.

As far as definitions in general, I’m not sure why you think that I believe them to be useless. I will say that I think language is the source of many problems, and I tend to be dismissive of specific words if it seems to me that the person using them does not have a grasp on the concepts which it is supposed to represent. In other words, they are too often forms without content.

With respect to your comment on utility, it is incorrect. The labor theory of value does not assert that utility can be objectively measured, only that it is a precondition of value (I doubt you would disagree). It does assert that the proportions between socially necessary labor time provide the ultimate standard of value.

Ah, this should not be held against me, for you’ve already dismissed the real world as being unable to provide us with any knowledge (which was necessary to protect your system from the brutal intrusion of Fact).

152

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yes, I have noticed that. Having your fundamental beliefs shredded gets uncomfortable after three or four posts.[/quote]

You haven’t figured out by now that anything you say just resolidifies our beliefs…?[/quote]

Of course I have. That is how ideology works. Its insufficiencies generally only reinforce it.

Simply because you deflect all criticism does not mean it is not meaningful. On the contrary, the failure of your doctrines makes a substitute all the more important.

Whatever you need to feel better about the continued inadequacies of your arguments.

153

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I think the bottom line is that capitalist nations can be dictatorships, but socialist nations must be dictatorships.

The socialisation of the means of production hardly leaves room for anything else.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Bolivia is both a democracy and a socialist state. The Socialist party that’s currently in power (Movement for Socialism), was voted in with 64 percent of the votes in 2009.

The party has been in power since 2005, and winning another election with such solid numbers is very rare for any country, especially Bolivia which historically has been ruled by a lot of coalition governments. Which Means they probably are doing something right…

[quote]
Really?

Where, Zimbawbe?

Because they exported food like cracy before Mugabe decided to redistribute land to farmers that did not have the CAPITAL to realize solid yields.

The fact that they also believed that being a capitalist is so easy that everyone can do it by comitee did not helo either. [/quote]
In Niger, for instance (no I did not drop the N-bomb, the country of Niger). Where capitalism directly contributed to making things a lot worse than it had to be. The poor could not afford the food that was being produced so a lot was exported to neighbouring countries.

The market is random. It’s such a naive notion to believe that the market always magically sorts things out. It doesn’t work like that in the real world.[/quote]

Socialist democracies are still dictatorships.

It is just a tyranny of the majority, a dictatorship of the proletariate if you will.

As for Niger, I have no idea, but I doubt that the market has failed them. Unless of course you define “failed” as any result you do not like, then it might have.[/quote]
Dictatorships = Countries that are ruled by one powerful dictator. Bolivia is really far from being a dictatorship. It’s a very democratic nation. Maybe you don’t like the political system over there, but that doesn’t mean labelling them as dictatorships is appropriate when it so obviously isn’t the case. [/quote]

You can call it whatever you like, but when someone takes my money at gunpoint and tells me how to live my life I know what it is.

154

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
I think the bottom line is that capitalist nations can be dictatorships, but socialist nations must be dictatorships.

The socialisation of the means of production hardly leaves room for anything else.
[/quote]
Wrong again. Bolivia is both a democracy and a socialist state. The Socialist party that’s currently in power (Movement for Socialism), was voted in with 64 percent of the votes in 2009.

The party has been in power since 2005, and winning another election with such solid numbers is very rare for any country, especially Bolivia which historically has been ruled by a lot of coalition governments. Which Means they probably are doing something right…

They don’t tell you how to live your life any more than any other country, all countries have taxes. If that’s your definition of dictatorship then all countries are dictatorships.

155

[quote]molnes wrote:
They don’t tell you how to live your life any more than any other country, all countries have taxes. If that’s your definition of dictatorship then all countries are dictatorships. [/quote]

By telling us what we cannot do they are effectively telling us HOW we can live our lives. It’s the same thing.

And yes, all governments are dictatorships.

Someone give this man a cookie!

156

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]gunsaregood wrote:No, the government already seen to it people did not have money with income taxes in 1913, in order to pay for socialistic programs. Besides that, if you care to explain how “the market already made sure no one had any money,” I will listen. Otherwise, it does not make sense.
[/quote]

The normal operation of the economy had produced such a wide gap in incomes that the population was rendered unable to purchase the goods they produced. Aggregate demand collapse, and with it production. This is why high graduated taxes usually produce economic stability (in the absence of any other destabilizing tendencies, of course).

Think about it: if “socialistic” policies were to blame, wouldn’t people blame them, especially in the pro-capitalist USA? Why did the Depression produce such a widespread contempt of laissez-faire if socialism was to blame?[/quote]

It was not the markets that rendered people unable to purchase, it was the FED(government, because afterall the FED and government are inseperable) who contracted the money supply, which resulted in a regular cyclical downturn becoming the Great Depression.

The Depression did not cause such a widespread contempt of Laissez-faire among people. I caused widespread contempt of laissze-fair for the progressives and their movement, which they used as a tool as propganda to then pursuade the people.

Your view, of the uneven distribution of wealth, is based upon the fact that government has to step in and redistribute the wealth, as Obama has said he will do. Those weak peope of then and those now, who like and want a nanny state are going to believe your view.

157

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]gunsaregood wrote:No, the government already seen to it people did not have money with income taxes in 1913, in order to pay for socialistic programs. Besides that, if you care to explain how “the market already made sure no one had any money,” I will listen. Otherwise, it does not make sense.
[/quote]

The normal operation of the economy had produced such a wide gap in incomes that the population was rendered unable to purchase the goods they produced. Aggregate demand collapse, and with it production. This is why high graduated taxes usually produce economic stability (in the absence of any other destabilizing tendencies, of course).

Think about it: if “socialistic” policies were to blame, wouldn’t people blame them, especially in the pro-capitalist USA? Why did the Depression produce such a widespread contempt of laissez-faire if socialism was to blame?[/quote]

Because people like you do not understand what mercantilism, the Federal Reserve is not a capitalist tool, it is a mercantile tool, just like full employment is.

158

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:
They don’t tell you how to live your life any more than any other country, all countries have taxes. If that’s your definition of dictatorship then all countries are dictatorships. [/quote]

By telling us what we cannot do they are effectively telling us HOW we can live our lives. It’s the same thing.

And yes, all governments are dictatorships.

Someone give this man a cookie![/quote]
I don’t think the system of government that we have today is optimal either (although it doesn’t fit the definition of dictatorship). But this applies to capitalistic governments as much as socialistic ones.

159

The definition of “dictatorship” needs to be revised to fit current reality.

Obama is most definitely a dictator…an elected one, just like Hitler was.

160

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:
They don’t tell you how to live your life any more than any other country, all countries have taxes. If that’s your definition of dictatorship then all countries are dictatorships. [/quote]

By telling us what we cannot do they are effectively telling us HOW we can live our lives. It’s the same thing.

And yes, all governments are dictatorships.

Someone give this man a cookie![/quote]
I don’t think the system of government that we have today is optimal either (although it doesn’t fit the definition of dictatorship). But this applies to capitalistic governments as much as socialistic ones.[/quote]

Capitalistic governments is an oxymoron.