What would some choose here? Capitalism or Socialism?

[aboutime]

I know this has been here before. Some need to see it for the first time.


http://youtu.be/sCg9E0Pxu80

[pete311]

No economy is one or the other. It's not black and white.

[aboutime]

No economy is one or the other. It's not black and white.


Petey. I see you haven't graduated from PRE-SCHOOL yet. Let us know when you do.

[Elessar]

Socialism I totally refute.

It makes the masses fully dependent on the government and gives them
no incentive to better themselves unless by rioting, looting, stealing, or
illegal drug sales.

Look at Chicago....LA...Seattle....

Wake up and smell the coffee, and I don't mean Starbucks

[pete311]

Socialism I totally refute.

It makes the masses fully dependent on the government and gives them
no incentive to better themselves unless by rioting, looting, stealing, or
illegal drug sales.

Look at Chicago....LA...Seattle....

Wake up and smell the coffee, and I don't mean Starbucks

Yeah!!! Just look at the lazy unhappy savages that are the Scandinavians. Total barbarians living off the gov teet.

[Elessar]

Yeah!!! Just look at the lazy unhappy savages that are the Scandinavians. Total barbarians living off the gov teet.

And where are they? Idiotic statement even for you Pete.

I thought you liberals were all for tolerance, according to your definition.
Where are these 'Scandinavians'? In the USA? We're talking about this nation, not Sweden,
Norway, Finland. or Denmark.

You are such a one-liner fool.

[Balu]

Very interesting thread!
Usually, prior to debating, it is necessary to agree upon terms and definitions enabling conduct a substantive discussion and see the primary difference between socialism and capitalism first and then to consider all the advantages and disadvantages of every formation.
It is a matter of fact that there are different "socialisms" - Cuban, Korean, Chinese, Scandinavian, as well as "capitalisms" - Syrian, Indian, German, Russian, American etc.

[Drummond]

Very interesting thread!
Usually, prior to debating, it is necessary to agree upon terms and definitions enabling conduct a substantive discussion and see the primary difference between socialism and capitalism first and then to consider all the advantages and disadvantages of every formation.
It is a matter of fact that there are different "socialisms" - Cuban, Korean, Chinese, Scandinavian, as well as "capitalisms" - Syrian, Indian, German, Russian, American etc.

Oh, I'm sure that the rest of us on this forum understand the terms sufficiently well to offer an opinion as they stand, Balu.

I choose but one fate for Socialism: ITS EXTINCTION.

Capitalism speaks to human nature. It works well with it.

Socialism, by total contrast, is dictatorial at its heart -- be it overtly, as in Socialist dictatorships (Cuba, China, the old USSR led by Russia, etc) or covertly for the most part (e.g the form of it we see in the UK, where our Lefties profess to be democratic, but will defy democratic opportunities to the People when they think they'll lose).

Socialists operate socialism as a blueprint for control. Its overt form is clearly a form of dictatorship. Its less overt form relies upon propagandist effort to shape minds according to its preferences. Political correctness invariably stems from the Left, and exists to limit thinking according to preference.

So I choose .. CAPITALISM. I am my own person, I know my nature and what serves it, so, Capitalism is the clear and obvious choice for me.

Besides ... Socialism leads to social vandalism. I've seen enough of that already in my own society .. enough to last me several lifetimes.

[pete311]

And where are they? Idiotic statement even for you Pete.

I thought you liberals were all for tolerance, according to your definition.
Where are these 'Scandinavians'? In the USA? We're talking about this nation, not Sweden,
Norway, Finland. or Denmark.

You are such a one-liner fool.

Show me where it says anything about the US in the original post or thread title? This is posted in International News. Nice try asshole.

[NightTrain]

Yeah!!! Just look at the lazy unhappy savages that are the Scandinavians. Total barbarians living off the gov teet.

Then let's take a peek at Venezuela and Greece.

That's ultimately where socialism ends up. You can only have so many parasites before it kills the host.

[Noir]

Any heathy society needs aspects of both, if one *had* to be chosen, then capitalism would proved the 'best world' for a short time before failing, while socialism would fail from the offset.

[Elessar]

Show me where it says anything about the US in the original post or thread title? This is posted in International News. Nice try asshole.

It did not indeed, but the apparent notion was to choose what fits right for the USA. We just
got over a socialistic administration.

Nice try asshole. You can be so stupid at times. Some people's children....:laugh:

[Gunny]

It did not indeed, but the apparent notion was to choose what fits right for the USA. We just
got over a socialistic administration.

Nice try asshole. You can be so stupid at times. Some people's children....:laugh:

Is this an actual question? I choose leave me the Hell alone. I don't like OUR government. I'm sure as Hell not going to like someone else's.

There is no such thing as socialism. It's an idea. But the goofballs that promote it are elitists like all other elitists. Above the law. Look at the crook who rn for the DNC. Proven criminal running for President. That's when this whole thing finally capsized the ship with me. Nixon was told to put in his papers for less.

[jimnyc]

Show me where it says anything about the US in the original post or thread title? This is posted in International News. Nice try asshole.

AND current events, and the video seems to be SOLELY about the USA.

[Elessar]

AND current events, and the video seems to be SOLELY about the USA.

Oh, talking to Pete is like talking to a knot in a 2 x 6....Might get a smarter response from the knot.

The title referred to What Would People Choose Here, Here meaning the USA.

[pete311]

Oh, talking to Pete is like talking to a knot in a 2 x 6....Might get a smarter response from the knot.

The title referred to What Would People Choose Here, Here meaning the USA.

I read it here as in DP. Stop being suck a fucking dick. God damn. You got a loser fuck life where all you have time for is to insult me here. Fuck that is sad. Who the fuck actually works here. All you fucks talk shit and yet have all the time in the world to fuck around here. Go travel, go work, go volunteer.

[Elessar]

I read it here as in DP. Stop being suck a fucking dick. God damn. You got a loser fuck life where all you have time for is to insult me here. Fuck that is sad. Who the fuck actually works here. All you fucks talk shit and yet have all the time in the world to fuck around here. Go travel, go work, go volunteer.

:lame2:
Put the cork back in the bottle, you weak shit. You're the King of personal insults.

Every time you get excited you become abusive. When will you ever grow up?

I am a physically disabled Vet, you shitbag. What exactly the hell are you?

[aboutime]

I read it here as in DP. Stop being suck a fucking dick. God damn. You got a loser fuck life where all you have time for is to insult me here. Fuck that is sad. Who the fuck actually works here. All you fucks talk shit and yet have all the time in the world to fuck around here. Go travel, go work, go volunteer.


petey boy. I'll use your favorite, most educated word here, and tell you to GO F YOURSELF, not a hard task for you, since you speak from your anal cavity anyhow.
As for having time to insult you. That's an honor, and right I have earned after serving your Douchebag Butt for 30 years in the Navy...despite your abuse of everyone who proves you are a Douchebag.

As for talking Shit. We are only following your lead, trying to emulate you as the MASTER SHIT TALKER of DP. By the way. Someday, when you grow up. You may work hard, and get to retire after living an HONEST LIFE.
So. When you scold us for being F dicks. We are just trying to be JUST LIKE YOU.

[fj1200]

Socialism I totally refute.

It makes the masses fully dependent on the government and gives them
no incentive to better themselves unless by rioting, looting, stealing, or
illegal drug sales.

Look at Chicago....LA...Seattle....

Wake up and smell the coffee, and I don't mean Starbucks

That isn't socialism.

[fj1200]

Any heathy society needs aspects of both, if one *had* to be chosen, then capitalism would proved the 'best world' for a short time before failing, while socialism would fail from the offset.

The latter is true, the former not so much. Usually any "failure" of capitalism has its roots in attempting to interject socialist ideas.

[Noir]

The latter is true, the former not so much. Usually any "failure" of capitalism has its roots in attempting to interject socialist ideas.

A failure to support those who are struggling will result in the society breaking down.

[Gunny]

[QUOTE=Elessar;856578]:lame2:
Put the cork back in the bottle, you weak shit. You're the King of personal insults.

Every time you get excited you become abusive. When will you ever grow up?

I am a physically disabled Vet, you shitbag. What exactly the hell are you?[/QUO


F-N A. I got to spread it around. I'd rep you twice if could. I get up in the morning and have to remember who the f*ck I am. The daughter thinks I'm Achmed and creepy when I walk down the stairs. She still sees me as the monster daddy I always was.

I'm hurt from a lifetime of serving my country. That's who I am and what I do. Fuck some cherry-ass pussy who never got out of mommy's basement. Wah. Mommy didn't make my Cap'n Crunch this morning. I might have to pour the milk on my own. Heaven forbid you have to lift that 1 gallon on on your own. Wouldn't want THAT. Hell, you might strain something.

And anyone that can't feel the contempt dripping off this statement needs to get the clue card.

[Elessar]

[QUOTE=Elessar;856578]:lame2:
Put the cork back in the bottle, you weak shit. You're the King of personal insults.

Every time you get excited you become abusive. When will you ever grow up?

I am a physically disabled Vet, you shitbag. What exactly the hell are you?[/QUO


F-N A. I got to spread it around. I'd rep you twice if could. I get up in the morning and have to remember who the f*ck I am. The daughter thinks I'm Achmed and creepy when I walk down the stairs. She still sees me as the monster daddy I always was.

I'm hurt from a lifetime of serving my country. That's who I am and what I do. Fuck some cherry-ass pussy who never got out of mommy's basement. Wah. Mommy didn't make my Cap'n Crunch this morning. I might have to pour the milk on my own. Heaven forbid you have to lift that 1 gallon on on your own. Wouldn't want THAT. Hell, you might strain something.

And anyone that can't feel the contempt dripping off this statement needs to get the clue card.

Some people's children....need to get out of the playpen, walk outside, and smell the non-diaper fresh air.

[aboutime]

A failure to support those who are struggling will result in the society breaking down.


Noir. That failure only comes for those who can't help themselves. But in Socialistic societies, like yours, and our Democrat form of govt. dependency...Govt. has caused more to look for constant support because...Politicians made it more rewarding NOT TO WORK, or SUPPORT ONE'S-SELF.

Who would want to go to work for any reason if Govt. Decides YOU should stay home, and live off of fellow citizens who DO WORK, and take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their lives?

Socialism is the WELFARE STATE, but the problem finally hit's...WHEN THE DEPENDENT run out of other people's money.


Margaret Thatcher on Socialism - Snopes.com
www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/thatcher.asp
Did Margaret Thatcher once say that 'The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money'? ... Claim: Margaret Thatcher once said that “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”.

[fj1200]

A failure to support those who are struggling will result in the society breaking down.

An incorrect assumption is that only socialism allows for supporting those who are struggling. I also disagree with your point as stated; I think plenty of societies where struggling people have not been supported have not broken down. I was talking with my friend who grew up in Haiti and he stated that "people expect misery" which forces people to make do. Now I wouldn't call Haiti capitalist or socialist but it's certainly not prosperous and it's likely similar to what most people in the world live like. Thankfully though due to the embrace of capitalism over the last 40 or so years fewer people in the world live like that.


How encouraging, then, for me to learn that Bono now understands that, too. One of my students sent me a video clip (http://www.youtube.comwatch/?v=gAjKyEGDIXA), showing Bono addressing an audience of students at Georgetown University (http://www.forbes.com/colleges/georgetown-university/), in which he states, “Aid is just a stop-gap. Commerce—entrepreneurial capitalism—takes more people out of poverty than aid.”

Bravo! Here is a man who has kept searching for answers rather than taking the lazy (and popular) approach of publicizing a worthy cause without learning what policies actually work. Bono then has the courage to go into the ideological lion’s den of an American university to challenge the academic orthodoxy by declaring that capitalism is the answer. God bless Bono! There’s hope for us yet.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/11/08/u2s-bono-courageously-embraces-capitalism/2/#1cfe01225acf

[fj1200]

:lame2:
Put the cork back in the bottle, you weak shit. You're the King of personal insults.

Every time you get excited you become abusive. When will you ever grow up?

I am a physically disabled Vet, you shitbag. What exactly the hell are you?

Do you really miss the irony in your posts?

[tailfins]

Then let's take a peek at Venezuela and Greece.

That's ultimately where socialism ends up. You can only have so many parasites before it kills the host.

Unfortunately, it CAN be done. It requires breaking the spirit of the society. If a people are beaten up long enough and hard enough, they give up and accept being slaves.

[Abbey Marie]

A failure to support those who are struggling will result in the society breaking down.

Well, India for one example to say this is not always true.

[Gunny]

@pete311 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1821) Boy, to quote Yamamoto "I fear we have awaken a sleeping giant." I just saw your post you slipped in. You have got to be the most miserable person I've ever heard. Life's short. You want to spend it being a shithead?

Your candy ass doesn't know a damned thing about misery. Try watching someone bleed out in your arms and nothing can do will fix it. Then you can go back to the world and explain to their wives and kids how you made the decision that got daddy killed. You ain't got the balls.

You cry like a little bitch. I'd trust elessar with my life. I wouldn't trust a leftwingnut on this board to piss on me if I caught fire. Says a lot about character, don't it?

I sit around here on this board because I can't work. Too much damage from serving others and ideas. Like freedom. So don't you come one here telling us what we're about. You wouldn't have the right to run your suck if it wasn't for us.

[Elessar]

Do you really miss the irony in your posts?

No. But was I addressing you?

[Elessar]

@pete311 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1821) Boy, to quote Yamamoto "I fear we have awaken a sleeping giant." I just saw your post you slipped in. You have got to be the most miserable person I've ever heard. Life's short. You want to spend it being a shithead?

Your candy ass doesn't know a damned thing about misery. Try watching someone bleed out in your arms and nothing can do will fix it. Then you can go back to the world and explain to their wives and kids how you made the decision that got daddy killed. You ain't got the balls.

You cry like a little bitch. I'd trust elessar with my life. I wouldn't trust a leftwingnut on this board to piss on me if I caught fire. Says a lot about character, don't it?

I sit around here on this board because I can't work. Too much damage from serving others and ideas. Like freedom. So don't you come one here telling us what we're about. You wouldn't have the right to run your suck if it wasn't for us.

Try pulling a drowning victim on your boat, Pete.
Try attempting to get assistance to a sinking boat, Pete.
Try getting shore parties to a boat on the rock with inured people. Pete.

You don't know JACK SHIT!

[fj1200]

No. But was I addressing you?

:whew:

[pete311]

Try pulling a drowning victim on your boat, Pete.
Try attempting to get assistance to a sinking boat, Pete.
Try getting shore parties to a boat on the rock with inured people. Pete.

You don't know JACK SHIT!

Great, what does this have to do with anything?

[Gunny]

Great, what does this have to do with anything?

A whole lot of heartache. THAT is what is has to do with.

[NightTrain]

Great, what does this have to do with anything?

It shows a Man who has risked his own life to save the lives of complete strangers during his patriotic service to this country.

Comparatively, what have you done other than denigrate veterans who have put their ass on the line?

Oh, sure, you've faithfully served George Soros for quite a while now, but that doesn't really show any admirable qualities to your character, does it?


You're not a man, Petey. You're an anti-American punk living in your liberal bubble who automatically hates anyone that loves this country. Being measured against a man such as Elessar probably stings because you know in your heart that you aren't worthy to shine his shoes.

[aboutime]

I think I found a video of petey, showing how he risks his life for his country....
http://youtu.be/KMCvjLfvvsk

Careful...might make you laugh, or cry for petey.

[fj1200]

It shows ...

Nothing as it relates to the thread.

[Gunny]

Nothing as it relates to the thread.


You don't want to go here.

[Black Diamond]

I read it here as in DP. Stop being suck a fucking dick. God damn. You got a loser fuck life where all you have time for is to insult me here. Fuck that is sad. Who the fuck actually works here. All you fucks talk shit and yet have all the time in the world to fuck around here. Go travel, go work, go volunteer.
He already volunteered. You're a worthless piece of crap.

[Gunny]

He already volunteered. You're a worthless piece of crap.
I'm trying to stop pete311 You are going to take this guy on? I want to watch this shit. Y0u just go right the f*ck ahead. I'm going to sell tickets fro this beatdown.

[fj1200]

You don't want to go here.

It already isn't going anywhere.

[Balu]

Then let's take a peek at Venezuela and Greece.

That's ultimately where socialism ends up. You can only have so many parasites before it kills the host.

What would you say about Chinese or Swedish versions of Socialism?

[fj1200]

What would you say about Chinese or Swedish versions of Socialism?

As I think you said before, socialism must be defined. There is very little socialism in the world today according to its strict definition.

[Balu]

As I think you said before, socialism must be defined. There is very little socialism in the world today according to its strict definition.

OK. Let us consider the simple case and define, whether China, a State with a one Party political system, has built Socialism, being ruled by the Communist Party?

[fj1200]

OK. Let us consider the simple case and define, whether China, a State with a one Party political system, has built Socialism, being ruled by the Communist Party?

No. They abandoned their version of socialism a long time ago.

Another boogeyman: Venezuela. An awful example of whatever their version is, and it gets close, but I read an article awhile back that compared Venezuela with Ecuador?, two countries with similar economic policies but with two wildly different outcomes. The difference? Monetary policy that essentially devalued by rule in Venezuela but dollarized in Ecuador.


It can be explained by the U.S. dollar. Ecuador uses the greenback as its official currency — like Panama and El Salvador — and Venezuela uses the battered bolívar. Prior to 2000, Ecuador was like Venezuela; it used its own currency, the sucre. But, Ecuador (like Venezuela) was incapable of imposing the rule of law and discipline in its monetary and fiscal spheres.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/venezuela-vs-ecuador-chavismo-vs-chavismo-dollarized

[Balu]

No. They abandoned their version of socialism a long time ago.



Really? You must be joking. http://s14.rimg.info/48c25cad0a17b28850165c4f8a1a47ab.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-876451815.html)
Do you know, that China is led by the Communist Party and according to the Communist theory Socialism is the first stage of Communism? Or you want to tell me that Chinese Communist Party is not building Communism in China and that you know the Marxism-Leninism theory better than I do? http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

[fj1200]

Really? You must be joking. http://s14.rimg.info/48c25cad0a17b28850165c4f8a1a47ab.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-876451815.html)
Do you know, that China is led by the Communist Party and according to the Communist theory Socialism is the first stage of Communism? Or you want to tell me that Chinese Communist Party is not building Communism in China and that you know the Marxism-Leninism theory better than I do? http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

Your grasp of history seems to be sketchy. Their version of today is not the same as their version of decades ago and is not the classical definition that most begin with. There are far more different definitions of "socialism" as there are countries in the world.

[Balu]

Your grasp of history seems to be sketchy. Their version of today is not the same as their version of decades ago and is not the classical definition that most begin with. There are far more different definitions of "socialism" as there are countries in the world.

I have to repeat that I have NO AIM to convince anybody in anything, so no need to say "Your grasp of history seems to be sketchy." I didn't learn it by CNN, NYT and WP. I learned it by primary sources. For a example the period of GPW by the doctoral thesis of my father in law - "The relations between the USSR and Germany in the period 1933-1941," which was written on the classified documents with the hand written resolutions of Comrade Stalin. So, as you can guess I hope, I am aware better that you and the rest of you in the board are. Sorry.
And as far as you start speaking that "Their version of today is not the same as their version of decades ago" shows that you have the most superficial idea of socialism on the level of your propaganda. Sorry again.

[fj1200]

I have to repeat that I have NO AIM to convince anybody in anything, so no need to say "Your grasp of history seems to be sketchy." I didn't learn it by CNN, NYT and WP. I learned it by primary sources. For a example the period of GPW by the doctoral thesis of my father in law - "The relations between the USSR and Germany in the period 1933-1941," which was written on the classified documents with the hand written resolutions of Comrade Stalin. So, as you can guess I hope, I am aware better that you and the rest of you in the board are. Sorry.
And as far as you start speaking that "Their version of today is not the same as their version of decades ago" shows that you have the most superficial idea of socialism on the level of your propaganda. Sorry again.

I made a true statement unless it's your contention that the socialism of the Great Leap Forward is the same socialism as today. Or you can just be sad that you're so much more aware than the rest of us capitalist dogs.

[tailfins]

Really? You must be joking. http://s14.rimg.info/48c25cad0a17b28850165c4f8a1a47ab.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-876451815.html)
Do you know, that China is led by the Communist Party and according to the Communist theory Socialism is the first stage of Communism? Or you want to tell me that Chinese Communist Party is not building Communism in China and that you know the Marxism-Leninism theory better than I do? http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

Your post is challenging a premise that too many blindly accept: The false idea that life in Red China is a pleasant experience. The common thread that I see in Communist countries is repression. I admire the patience and gentleness that people learn from being repressed. It is for that reason that those people deserve better.

[Gunny]

It already isn't going anywhere.

I will repeat for your edification .... There are things I cannot or will not talk about. You're always so damned smart -- look at the other side of the coin. You think it is not frustrating on this end? I could slam dunk you so high and hard with facts you'd be looking for which end your ass blew out. And I've seen things that would have you crying like a toddler.

And it's all staying right up in the brain housing group where it belongs and is the only place it's authorized to be.

If you want to play with me, it's on a level field or I'm walking. You want to have a lovefest with a commie you go right ahead. I wouldn't tell him which boot I laced up first. Predictable habits make you nothing but a target. Think about that. On more than one level,

[tailfins]

I have to repeat that I have NO AIM to convince anybody in anything, so no need to say "Your grasp of history seems to be sketchy." I didn't learn it by CNN, NYT and WP. I learned it by primary sources. For a example the period of GPW by the doctoral thesis of my father in law - "The relations between the USSR and Germany in the period 1933-1941," which was written on the classified documents with the hand written resolutions of Comrade Stalin. So, as you can guess I hope, I am aware better that you and the rest of you in the board are. Sorry.
And as far as you start speaking that "Their version of today is not the same as their version of decades ago" shows that you have the most superficial idea of socialism on the level of your propaganda. Sorry again.

Do you think that the Red Chinese are less harsh with their people than in the past?

[Balu]

Do you think that the Red Chinese are less harsh with their people than in the past?

This is a different question. We are speaking about Socialism. So, 'flies separately, cutlets separately' (c) To my mind to live under a burden of permanent credits is a kind of slavery.

[tailfins]

This is a different question. We are speaking about Socialism. So, 'flies separately, cutlets separately' (c) To my mind to live under a burden of permanent credits is a kind of slavery.

I understand your need to argue the disadvantages of freedom. It helps you sleep at night. I understand; I really do. I met a substantial number of people with that need.

[Balu]

I understand your need to argue the disadvantages of freedom. It helps you sleep at night. I understand; I really do. I met a substantial number of people with that need.

It sounds funny, taking into consideration which meaning you put in the word 'freedom', as Freedom is a relative term and is restricted by the frames of a Society Laws.
Absolute Freedom is Chaos. Hope you are aware what Brownian motion is. http://s19.rimg.info/aee19e2775457d135efdf745e7d94e15.gif (http://smayliki.ru/smilie-1224821991.html)

[fj1200]

I will repeat for your edification ....

You can save your valuable interweb credits. I don't need you to repeat anything. :)


Absolute Freedom is Chaos.

Fallacy alert. Nobody is arguing absolution freedom.

[tailfins]

Fallacy alert. Nobody is arguing absolution freedom.

You are challenging a coping mechanism of repressed people. Don't expect logical responses.

[Abbey Marie]

What constitutes absolute freedom?

[Balu]

Fallacy alert. Nobody is arguing absolution freedom.
Fine!
So, when speaking about Freedom we mean the personal possibility to act and behave in a frame of Laws, Rules and Regulations of a certain particular State. And they differ from country to country. Thus there is no reason to puff out this Freedom as a constant unique value, as nowadays it appeared to become the worn out label for ideological speculations.

[fj1200]

You are challenging a coping mechanism of repressed people. Don't expect logical responses.

Well, that explains Balu, but... :scared:


Fine!
So, when speaking about Freedom we mean the personal possibility to act and behave in a frame of Laws, Rules and Regulations of a certain particular State. And they differ from country to country. Thus there is no reason to puff out this Freedom as a constant unique value, as nowadays it appeared to become the worn out label for ideological speculations.

Of course it differs from country to country just like socialism differs from country to country just as they both differ within the same country over time. Having said that there are obviously countries on this planet that have greater freedoms than others and the those countries with more freedoms are entitled to "puff" a little bit IMO.

[Balu]

Well, that explains Balu, but... :scared:



Of course it differs from country to country just like socialism differs from country to country just as they both differ within the same country over time. Having said that there are obviously countries on this planet that have greater freedoms than others and the those countries with more freedoms are entitled to "puff" a little bit IMO.
Hope you won't argue that everything depends on certain conditions in any particular period in any particular area even within the same country, and the excess of Freedom may cause a harm as well as its lack.
So the concept of freedom can not be the basic and the defining notion of what is good and what is bad.

[fj1200]

Hope you won't argue that everything depends on certain conditions in any particular period in any particular area even within the same country, and the excess of Freedom may cause a harm as well as its lack.
So the concept of freedom can not be the basic and the defining notion of what is good and what is bad.

Umm, freedom is good, more freedom is better. But as you say everything is in the context of laws, rules, and regulations not to mention the concept of personal responsibility. I don't have the freedom to shoot you without consequence. Having said that there are different measures of freedom; economic freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices

[Black Diamond]

Umm, freedom is good, more freedom is better. But as you say everything is in the context of laws, rules, and regulations not to mention the concept of personal responsibility. I don't have the freedom to shoot you without consequence. Having said that there are different measures of freedom; economic freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices
Sometimes anarchy sounds better

[fj1200]

Sometimes anarchy sounds better

Anarchism: Pick your flavor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchist_schools_of_thought

[Abbey Marie]

Since my question about absolute freedom was apparently a stumper, how about this one:

Is marriage per se a restriction on absolute freedom? Can we ever have even close to absolute freedom without destroying our traditional institutions?

[Balu]

Umm, freedom is good, more freedom is better (1). But as you say everything is in the context of laws, rules, and regulations not to mention the concept of personal responsibility. I don't have the freedom to shoot you without consequence. Having said that there are different measures of freedom; economic freedom, freedom of the press, freedom of religion(2), etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices

1. It is not obvious. Everything depends, as I've already mentioned;
2. Everything you've enumerated ends up on the brink of a fist of legitimate interests of any other.
a) economic freedom - to cultivate and distribute drugs?
b) freedom of press - CNN and other false news?
c) freedom of religion - pray and slaughter sheep in the squares as is customary for Muslims as it is common in countries where this Religion prevails?

So, you see, there is no universal criteria for Freedom even in these points.

[aboutime]

1. It is not obvious. Everything depends, as I've already mentioned;
2. Everything you've enumerated ends up on the brink of a fist of legitimate interests of any other.
a) economic freedom - to cultivate and distribute drugs?
b) freedom of press - CNN and other false news?
c) freedom of religion - pray and slaughter sheep in the squares as is customary for Muslims as it is common in countries where this Religion prevails?

So, you see, there is no universal criteria for Freedom even in these points.


Oh, but there really is a universal criteria Balu. For anyone who enjoys the Freedoms we do, here in the USA. We know what it's like to lose our FREEDOM, at least some of us do.
And, since you have no FREEDOMS like we do here. You have no other criteria to compare your Lack of Freedoms, to our Freedoms...we have to work hard to keep.
Example: At least I know, with other American Veterans here. FREEDOM is not free, and we have given our Lives, to preserve, and keep it for EVERY AMERICAN.
Does Putin want you to enjoy the same freedoms we have here?
If so. Please tell us...in detail...How Putin wants you to enjoy being American?

[Elessar]

Sometimes anarchy sounds better

Anarchy is something the libs turn aside from openly, but secretly support.
Not a good remedy!

[aboutime]

Anarchy is something the libs turn aside from openly, but secretly support.
Not a good remedy!


Elessar. Anarchy comes from A PURE DEMOCRACY....better known as MOB RULE.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/8/740125/-
Constitution
Federalist10
Madison
puredemocracy
Republic
Share this article

In Federalist 10, James Madison tells us why the Framers chose a representative democracy, a republic, rather than a pure, direct, democracy as the form of government for our new nation. He defined a "pure democracy" as "a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person." He defined a "republic" as "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place." These were the only two choices. By definition the "pure democracy" was disqualified. The new nation was too large in geographical area and in population for the citizens to "assemble and administer the government in person." But there was one more difficulty with pure democracies. Mr. Madison said:

[tailfins]

Anarchism: Pick your flavor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism#Anarchist_schools_of_thought

Anarchy can be a tool for totalitarianism. Consider Maduro withdrawing police protection after 7PM to bring about a defacto curfew in Venezuela.

[fj1200]

1. It is not obvious. Everything depends, as I've already mentioned;
2. Everything you've enumerated ends up on the brink of a fist of legitimate interests of any other.
a) economic freedom - to cultivate and distribute drugs?
b) freedom of press - CNN and other false news?
c) freedom of religion - pray and slaughter sheep in the squares as is customary for Muslims as it is common in countries where this Religion prevails?

So, you see, there is no universal criteria for Freedom even in these points.

And I never claimed there were.


But as you say everything is in the context of laws, rules, and regulations not to mention the concept of personal responsibility. I don't have the freedom to shoot you without consequence.

Any freedom that I hold ends when it is about to infringe on any of your Natural Rights, life/liberty/property, IMO.

[fj1200]

Anarchy is something the libs turn aside from openly, but secretly support.
Not a good remedy!

Not really but I'm sure you'll keep believing it.


Anarchy can be a tool for totalitarianism. Consider Maduro withdrawing police protection after 7PM to bring about a defacto curfew in Venezuela.

I referenced various Anarchisms not Anarchy. But I take your point.

[fj1200]

What constitutes absolute freedom?

It's a nonexistent concept. Unless your the last individual on earth.


Since my question about absolute freedom was apparently a stumper, how about this one:

Is marriage per se a restriction on absolute freedom? Can we ever have even close to absolute freedom without destroying our traditional institutions?

An example of a self-imposed restriction.

[Drummond]

1. It is not obvious. Everything depends, as I've already mentioned;
2. Everything you've enumerated ends up on the brink of a fist of legitimate interests of any other.
a) economic freedom - to cultivate and distribute drugs?
b) freedom of press - CNN and other false news?
c) freedom of religion - pray and slaughter sheep in the squares as is customary for Muslims as it is common in countries where this Religion prevails?

So, you see, there is no universal criteria for Freedom even in these points.

I'd suggest this as a yardstick measure for the correct experience of freedom: that freedoms should exist and be enjoyed whenever and wherever those freedoms are consistent with compatibility with the human condition.

We live in our various societies. Freedoms consistent with the wellbeing of the society in question are also consistent with the best experience of freedom any citizen OF that society could hope for.

The USSR was a good example of the exact opposite. Decades, generations even, of force-fed propaganda, coupled with a Police State repression, the likes of which this world has seldom seen. Needless to say, this was the product of an extreme form of 'Socialism' called Communism ... and this Communism was applied in the only way it could be, to be sustained .. through force and misery.

Allow people to follow their human natures, subject to the demands of social cohesion demanded of any social structure, and you have the blueprint for the truest freedom possible.

Socialism is its enemy. Socialism is about mass control. Not mass freedom !

[Elessar]

I'd suggest this as a yardstick measure for the correct experience of freedom: that freedoms should exist and be enjoyed whenever and wherever those freedoms are consistent with compatibility with the human condition.

Socialism is its enemy. Socialism is about mass control. Not mass freedom !

Name a handful of Socialist countries that are successful on the global scale. All
I can think of is China.

[Drummond]

Name a handful of Socialist countries that are successful on the global scale. All
I can think of is China.

A Socialist country, taken as its own entity ... well, they survive on the world stage through forms of repression meted out to the citizens of the country in question.

Some do it through swingeing tax hikes, done through force of law, underpinned by a mindset forced upon people which makes them think it's their duty to pay up without complaint ..

Some do it through more direct repression, depending on the country.

But however indirect the method, some form of repression is invariably involved. Force-fed propaganda. Nationalism. A lack of awareness that there are better systems out there where people are happier.

China ... DOES it qualify as Socialist these days ? It might call itself that, and repressions might be in force consistent with Socialism. BUT ... to succeed as they have, in reality, they've had to abandon that model in favour of applying Capitalistic methodology.

Human dynamism ... it comes from people being free enough to follow their natures. This is why Capitalism is such a successful model ... because it allows for growth, the entrepreneurial spirit, wealth generation. Capitalist societies don't possess the ideological limitations which repress such a desire to seek profit. So, such societies grow, thrive, and the people within them are much the happier for it.

[Balu]

Name a handful of Socialist countries that are successful on the global scale. All I can think of is China.

Everything depends on the scale of values you apply and the results you achieved. Some values traditional for someone happen to appear false. Not everything is measured by money and a personal income which somewhere is considered as the criteria of success. And this criteria is not universal on the 'global scale'. Those, who once come close to deadly dash understand it for the rest of their life, the others only on deathbed. And the 'society of consumption' may hardly be considered as a better society. I would like to understand this without going to extremes.
There is one Russian saying the meaning of which you will hardly be able to understand - 'Money is the evil'.
As to China, I am not sure, that you may not know that there is no such thing as a retirement age.

[Drummond]

Everything depends on the scale of values you apply and the results you achieved. Some values traditional for someone happen to appear false. Not everything is measured by money and a personal income which somewhere is considered as the criteria of success. And this criteria is not universal on the 'global scale'. Those, who once come close to deadly dash understand it for the rest of their life, the others only on deathbed. And the 'society of consumption' may hardly be considered as a better society. I would like to understand this without going to extremes.
There is one Russian saying the meaning of which you will hardly be able to understand - 'Money is the evil'.
As to China, I am not sure, that you may not know that there is no such thing as a retirement age.

We have essentially the same saying: 'Money is the root of all evil'.

Nonetheless .. however it precisely works out in detail, Balu, money IS the lowest common denominator in society. Try living without it ! Try feeding, clothing, looking after yourself, without any money to manage it.

You may say ... a responsible and caring society would fund those who are the poorest, and see to their needs. But EVERYTHING costs money. Welfare benefits are only made possible through the use of someone else's money, collected through taxation .. taxation from money EARNED by others.

A fully viable economy is one which thrives through trade. Through goods and services, worked for. From profit generated from the labours of others.

Only a fully viable economy can afford any sizeable welfare bill.

China, I'm sure, 'practices' Communism for its controlling effect. Nonetheless, to survive in today's world, even China has to trade, and has to be a part of the Capitalistic infrastructure the world runs on. These days, it pursues capitalistic methodology quite aggressively. Therefore, I'd argue that the biggest single example of ideological hypocrisy to be found today can be seen to come from China and its rulers.

Ultimately, Communism just DOESN'T WORK. On a sliding scale, its softer Socialist counterpart is made increasingly viable only because the Captalistic element added to the mix becomes that much stronger.

I say: why not do away with Socialism altogether ? It only acts as a brake against entrepreneurial spirit. It therefore is a progress-killer.

Balu, a question (two, actually) ...

Why DID Communism fail in the USSR, leading to the demise of that empire ? How do YOU explain it ?

Could it be that it rotted from within, because Communism is totally incompatible with human aspiration, and it could only exist through repression and misery ??

YOU tell ME, Balu ....