Socialism. your thoughts?

[winoman]

if u read my posts right u would see i have been talking about a democratic socialist state this whole time. not once did i say i wanted a totalitarian socialistic government.

He is saying that there is no difference - basically. He just wants to be king aparently.

[ArmenianKid]

lol so ur saying there is no diffreance between canada and nazi germany?

thats the dumbest thing i ever heard.

[Anonymouse]

Mouse - I know that you live in LA...la la land it seems...your critique "political systems" yet you offer us the views of one who champions Monarchy over Democracy? Isn't Monarchy a political system? You call for individual liberty over collectivism - yet I fail to understand how such can be achieved in a Monarchy - where the poeple are at the complete mercy of the (wims of) Monarch (seems like much more of a crapshoot then a state based upon Democratic principles and laws designed to protect the rights of all - etc)...and if in fact you are not calling for Monarchy - then just what is your alternative to Democracy or to "political systems" etc

I knew you wouldn't understand anything I wrote since it is beyond your capabilities. I did not offer the book touting it as an alternative to democracy can be found in monarchy, nor is the author, an economics professor, offering it as such. Without having read the book you jump spurious conclusions, highlighting a limited mind. He is simply using economics, and time preference, to show that monarchy, while still bad, is far more preferrable in terms of its causing destruction, and quality, versus that of a democracy, because in a monarchy it is still a private order, as opposed to a public form. You apparently have no idea of what a monarchy is, nor how it works if you equate it with totalitarianism.

Politics and economics go hand in hand. Again please propose to us your Capitalist system wthout Democracy....are there laws? How do we get them? Or are you advocating no laws - and no system for people to have a say? Do you propose that the market alone - market forces suffice? Again I fail to see your alternative...anarcho-capitalism - yeah sounds fun - but I'm waiting to see the proposal concerning how it will work (that won't result in slavery for humanity to the unbridled corporate elite).

This is a contradiction. Politics and economics are different fields of study and ideas. While we see them crossing paths in society just like anything else, the two are not the same and to claim so is only reflecting your bias in an attempt to have some point to argue with. Politics is government, economics is human action. Politics is based on coercion and violence, economics is the study of human action, what Mises termed "Praxeology". Political systems do not provide wealth, they only steal it, capitalism creates wealth. As far as laws, there are bona fide laws and mere statute laws - the State promotes the latter. Laws have become a monopoly of the State. As far as law, law should be privatized, not a monopoly of the State. So when you say, "Without the State, how could we have law?" Private law would be flourishing today, if the State did not attempt to stamp it out wherever it arises. The American west provides an example of a place where the State did not exist to impose its monopoly of laws, where people were left to themselves, and many established riches that they would never have done so with state regulation. Thus, the State cannot tolerate competition from less coercive and less expensive private legal arrangements hence it must coerce individuals with violence to make sure it receives its support. Eventually we come to the paradox of who watches the watchers? We criminalize individuals for the same thing we approve the State to engage in. Apparently this contradiction does not pierce you since you do not think analytically or normatively, as it is an ethical matter. "Anarchy" is not something that cannot exist, for we are constantly in a state of anarchy one can argue. It is the State that tries to impose an artificial order from above in a world of complexity. America experimented with anarchy in the "wild" west. Only when the State expanded and monopolized law was everything taken under its sphere. After all, as I said, one can argue that we never really get out of anarchy, certainly if you study complexities or chaos theory.

As Stephen Kinsella once wrote:

Libertarian opponents of anarchy are attacking a straw man. Their arguments are usually utilitarian in nature and amount to "but anarchy won’t work" or "we need the (things provided by the) state." But these attacks are confused at best, if not disingenuous. To be an anarchist does not mean you think anarchy will "work" (whatever that means); nor that you predict it will or "can" be achieved. It is possible to be a pessimistic anarchist, after all. To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified. It’s quite simple, really. It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.

Accordingly, anyone who is not an anarchist must maintain either: (a) aggression is justified; or (b) states (in particular, minimal states) do not necessarily employ aggression.

Proposition (b) is plainly false. States always tax their citizens, which is a form of aggression. They always outlaw competing defense agencies, which also amounts to aggression. (Not to mention the countless victimless crime laws that they inevitably, and without a single exception in history, enforce on the populace. Why minarchists think minarchy is even possible boggles the mind.)

As for (a), well, socialists and criminals also feel aggression is justified. This does not make it so. Criminals, socialists, and anti-anarchists have yet to show how aggression – the initiation of force against innocent victims – is justified. No surprise; it is not possible to show this. But criminals don’t feel compelled to justify aggression; why should advocates of the state feel compelled to do so?

And I have read and totally reject Hayaks comparsion of Nazi Germany and Britian (as being no different). And I am no fan of the socialist state and draconian central planning (and you claim that politics and economics are two different things? It is you who are claiming to critique political systems - Democracy in particualr - and you provide an attack against socialistic economics!) - Hayak is another of these typical narrow viewed separated from reality types who rail against one particualr evil yet propose something that is even more half baked and undoable. And Hayak has been proven wrong! Social Democracies - for all of their issues - have not turned into the (toltalitarian) Third Reich!

First of all you have not read Hayek's book if you are going to mutate what he says to fit your argument here. He does not state or argue that democratic socialist Britain is the same on par with national socialist Germany. He makes the argument that the differences are in degrees, not in kinds, and that the Democratic Germany is as socialistic as Germany in many areas such as central economic planning, but with more benevolent laws regarding private property. You attack Hayek simply because you don't agree with him, yet the man was a Nobel Prize in economics, and a fellow of Mises. Hayek has not been proven wrong, he did not attempt to say that all socialistic democracies lead inevitably to tyranny. He said that the differences are in degrees and not in kinds, and that there is always the chance that they will become tyrannical. He certainly argued that once you lose some rights you cannot gain them back from the State. You need to read his book more closely. That because some socialistic democracies have not turned into Third Reichs does not mean that they are any more moral, or legitimate or that their economics makes sense. Look at Sweden. Socialists around the world tout it as some "proof" of a socialist success, yet once you study its unemployment and lack of capital creation one wonders on "socialist" efficiency.

Again - though I share the libertarian ideal - and ideal is what it is - in practical terms one of the necessary functions of government (even if imperfect) is to protect citizens (and if farsighted enough our environment) from exploitation from short sighted - profits are the pinnacle of life types like Hayak and his ilk and the others you love so well. For instance - I have worked with industry and government (and in many ways they are not so different - but that is another discussion) - I have acted as an agent of the US Congress overseeing (checking on) the EPA and State Health/Environmental organizations - and I have spent much time with coporate Environmental types - and not only have I witnessed catching these guys for serious polution and such - I've had them tell me that its there job to circumvent the laws wherever possible and that if they could get away with unbridled pollution they would! So who you gonna call?

Government cannot protect its citizens. After all, it showed what a miserable failure it is in protecting its citizens in 9/11. In fact, governments have actually try to murder their own citizens in genocides, politically induced famines, and fomenting of wars. This own government has practiced biological warfare on its own population, and lied more than once and got it into unconstitutional and unholy wars. It fails because like all monopolies it cannot achieve its task because of lowered quality, what Hans Herman Hoppe argues in his book. If you know anything about economics, which you don't, you would know that monopolies produce lack of quality, laziness, and lower efficiency. You citing personal experiences is nothing more than personal experiences. I have no doubt that many companies try dirty tactics and cheating, but the market itself is a self regulating mechanism and has a way of dealing with these companies. There are always alternatives and they always run the risk of going out of business. The State has produced far more pollution and destruction than companies have. And let's not even get into the fuzzy science of "global warming" which is another bandwagon of Marxists and Socialists hiding under a new euphemism.

You say you don't provide solutions - yeah I agree. Critiques are easy. The world isn't perfect - we do the bast we can. You have no appreciation of this.

I never claimed I do not provide a solution. Anyone reading can see I am a libertarian/anarchist and I believe in little/no government, and private order. I simply stated I was not providing solutions merely commenting on the thread. Love of State is eventually what atheists aspire to, to control individuals, to restrict, to regulate, and to classify.

All contributions have been by the individual you say. Well yes and no. We do not exist independent of our sorroundings nor can anyone just go it alone - discoveries and innovation are built upon foundations - and often more then one person has been responsible. Funny how individual achievement has managed all these millenia with all these negative collectivist forces that you rage against. Most of what you claim is just pure fiction - it has no bearing on the real world - on how things work and on how things have proceeded and funtioned throughout time. Your (objectionist school) arguments are largely strawman arguments that sound good - echo wonderful utopian ideal (like Marx) but are not relevant for any solution as they fail to consider the totality of society - they (critiscims and observations and cautionary warnings) are only valid in a narrow sense or against some very worst case offenses. Again - I'm not at all convinced that any alternative is really provided - you explicitly fail to do so and claim that you are just minding your own business - well OK - do so then!

How are my arguments strawman arguments? You state so without proving how they are so. But that's typical winoman, he simply rails and rails with the same thing about how this or that has "no bearing in reality" to comfort himself that he doesn't or can't refute the content. Your contention that the environment makes us is precisely the core of Marxism. You finally admit that you have Marxist leanings, since environment, society, and surroundings make our consciousness, we as individuals do not. I've always known that all collectivists share one thing in common - a hatred for the individual, and for individual liberty. They do not like the fact that some individuals are better than others (or them), and some can achieve things others cannot, and some are more creative than others, and because of this some individuals will be rewarded and others will not. Such is usually by collectivist types engaging in socialism/democracy/marxism, all are the politics of envy. Despite your adamance, everything is a result of individuals. No one denies influence or being built on the shoulders of giants, but individuals think and create, masses only follow. As I said, collectivism is not bad if it is voluntary, but how many times has history shown people voluntarily wanting to give up their personal self, their personal property and liberty for the collectivity wthout being forced? That is what politics is. All political systems are based on violence and are socialistic to the degree that they coerce individuals to abide by collectivist means, and you seem to believe that it is okay to coerce and kill individuals for the collective good.

So Hitler came about under a Democratic system -Stalin under a totalitarian - I fail to see your point - and in fact you have no point - as my point - these leaders and the environment that allowe them to rise up and to florish were the result of tremendous societal stress and upheaval. And this is the pattern. You obviously fail to truly appreciate the dynamics of history. Why the Vikings began to raid, what spurred the Crusades, even the Turks and later the Mongols to sweep out of the East...and in Modern times - the Genocide of the Armenians can all be accuratly portrayed using this model.

Stalin was also heir to a system that came to power supposedly through "democratic" means. Remember the provincial government was still democratic, supposedly, but it only proves that democracy led to tyranny - again. You focusing on the environment to sum up history, is weak and only shows your lack of knowledge of history. There were more important and powerful forces aside from "environment" that prompted these historic shifts, and any history student knows that. The only one that doesn't appreciate history is you, because you don't grasp it, it is too complex and diverse, and you want to reduce it to one simple meaningless thing - environment. In fact, quite the contrary, I appreciate its beauty and textures, and I see in it what Marxists like you cannot, a world of complexity and diversity that results from individuals engaging in human action.

[Anonymouse]

He is saying that there is no difference - basically. He just wants to be king aparently.

That is untrue, but I don't expect anything else other than the twisting of statements when one cannot grasp the basics.

[Anonymouse]

if u read my posts right u would see i have been talking about a democratic socialist state this whole time. not once did i say i wanted a totalitarian socialistic government.

lol so ur saying there is no diffreance between canada and nazi germany?

thats the dumbest thing i ever heard.

The dumbest thing I have ever heard is peoples love of the State to establish their earthly utopias. If you read anything I said, you would not make such erroneous statements. I never state they are the same. Read carefully little boy, you have a long way to go and much to learn and hopefully you do not take the path of ignorance winoman took.

[ArmoBarbi]

Take the one Anonymouse took instead.

[Anonymouse]

Take the one Anonymouse took instead.

Wow, how kind of you.

[winoman]

A lot of text to say nothing Mouse. Funny that you would call me a socialist and anti-individual - you are barking up the wrong tree - any who know me would laugh at these contentions of yours.

I speak with both a fair understanding of history and historic events as well as with a practical foundation in observing (and participating in) government (at all levels), academics and industry in action. While I have a great deal of intelectual sympathy for the anti-government stance (more so against athoritarian government - to include Monarchy) then being against Democracy per se) - but I fail to see any practical alternative given our social and technological level (and density of populations) and the complexity and interdependence of most human life/existance today. So you believe in no government - but still really have no solution to offer - and saying that the American "wild" west is the example to strive for - well - and then saying it is I who am the advocate of violence? Just what idealic west are you refering too? Certianly not the one where a campaign of cultural extermination of the competition (the indians) was occuring - or where "law" was whoever owned the most guns - where theft and murder most often went unpunished - and so on and so forth. And can you really think that such would make our urban environments better - safer - etc? Again - you and your views are so very far from reality - you really need to get out more - you know...again your contentions that states are responsible for all ills and that the market will take care of such - like pollution and the like - well just have to say you are off base and have no grasp of reality - of what occurs - what it is like in the real world. I can give practical actual examples from experience - you can quote (unproven/hypothetical/narrow/unapplicable) dogma from books - and who is sounding more like (a) Marx here - ha!

And I reject your categorization of economics (essentially good) and politics (essentally evil) - in fact they are for the most part two sides of the same coin. One of my degrees is in Political Anthropology. I really do feel I have some understanding of culture, politics and economics - certainly at this level - and with a perspective that is perhaps somewhat more inclusive then most...and certainly (and obviously) then yours...

[Anonymouse]

A lot of text to say nothing Mouse. Funny that you would call me a socialist and anti-individual - you are barking up the wrong tree - any who know me would laugh at these contentions of yours.

I speak with both a fair understanding of history and historic events as well as with a practical foundation in observing (and participating in) government (at all levels), academics and industry in action. While I have a great deal of intelectual sympathy for the anti-government stance (more so against athoritarian government - to include Monarchy) then being against Democracy per se) - but I fail to see any practical alternative given our social and technological level (and density of populations) and the complexity and interdependence of most human life/existance today. So you believe in no government - but still really have no solution to offer - and saying that the American "wild" west is the example to strive for - well - and then saying it is I who am the advocate of violence? Just what idealic west are you refering too? Certianly not the one where a campaign of cultural extermination of the competition (the indians) was occuring - or where "law" was whoever owned the most guns - where theft and murder most often went unpunished - and so on and so forth. And can you really think that such would make our urban environments better - safer - etc? Again - you and your views are so very far from reality - you really need to get out more - you know...again your contentions that states are responsible for all ills and that the market will take care of such - like pollution and the like - well just have to say you are off base and have no grasp of reality - of what occurs - what it is like in the real world. I can give practical actual examples from experience - you can quote (unproven/hypothetical/narrow/unapplicable) dogma from books - and who is sounding more like (a) Marx here - ha!

You begin with the typical cliche of "not much to say" and then develop it with a "I fail to see an alternative", to all the points I raise becuase you have not much to argue with, as is typical in your position when your argument has been shot down. Your observations rely entirely on your subjective whims that merely suit this discussion and have no bearing on history or reality, and its funny you use that against me. Trying to reduce history to nothing more than the simplicity of environmental cataclysms you now run away from your previous mantra and repeat the claim that the world is one of complexity instead, realizing your previous blunder. It is precisely one of complexity that we are in a constant state of anarchy. It is precisely a world of complexity which is why history cannot be reduced to the rigid function of environment. But my guess is in making your post you ignored all the points I raised and what better way to ignore them than to say "alot of text with nothing" and "I fail to see any practical alternative" and your most favorite "you have no base in raelity" as opposed to discussing or arguing any of the points I raised. The alternatives are there and I've already shown that. The typical cliche of "you have no base in reality" is another desperate attempt by you when you realize you are done for in an argument you must compensate for it by simplicity and ad hominems. That has been your tactic all along. In fact it is in this last post where you are the one that has alot of text with not much aside from whining in a desperate attempt to circumvent your lack of knowledge. If you actually read what I wrote I offered solutions and there are solutions, but one must be able to see things with an open mind, challenge ones dearly held views of government love. You can't do that due to your myopic vision of the world and instead must reinforce your view as psychologists would say, by attacking others.

As far as the old west you clearly know nothing about the old west. What is wrong with owning guns? You are of the typical lefty liberal that believes guns kill people, people don't kill people. You instead believe only the benevolent government ought to own guns, which is why the Communists, Nazis, and Young Turks were so successful. I suggest you read these articles which refute the nonsense notion that the West was some wild savage place that had nothing but chaos and deaths. In fact the West is a clearly successful example of anarcho-capitalism.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1449

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

But knowing how limited your views are you will not even consider reading those much less clicking on them and it is a wasted effort like water poured on sands with you. You are not here to discuss, nor are you willing to expose your dearly held fallacies to criticisms, but you are interested in dogma.

And I reject your categorization of economics (essentially good) and politics (essentally evil) - in fact they are for the most part two sides of the same coin. One of my degrees is in Political Anthropology. I really do feel I have some understanding of culture, politics and economics - certainly at this level - and with a perspective that is perhaps somewhat more inclusive then most...and certainly (and obviously) then yours...

Well what do you know? Apparently winoman rejects "my" definition of politics and economics. I'll have you know that this isn't "my" definition my ignorant friend, it is simply the way the two are distinguished as different sciences. Politics is the study of government, economics is about production and consumption. Anyone with a basic knowledge of the dictionary can look it up, not to mention anyone with a basic knowledge of history can understand this. As far as you citing your worthless anthropology degree it means nothing here.

[ArmenianKid]

The dumbest thing I have ever heard is peoples love of the State to establish their earthly utopias. If you read anything I said, you would not make such erroneous statements. I never state they are the same. Read carefully little boy, you have a long way to go and much to learn and hopefully you do not take the path of ignorance winoman took.

well we can argue here till its 900 pages long. the fact remains that i, as someone who knows his share on political ideals, im a socialist, not a communist or a facist.

and the other fact is i could put forward ANY sort of proof saying a socialist government can but u will still instist it is impossible.

end of arguement.