Father-daughter talk.... the truth about liberalism

Post Reply New Topic

Mattshizzle, the same criticism of "fascist financial system funded courses" would apply to any academic across the system from literary studies to engineering to sociology. Shall we fear any intellectual because of the supposed evils in our system? What can we then trust? Just your intuitions about the workings of the world and little else?

"Against the wall"? I don't know what that means, but it probably would scare me.

In any case, I don't see the benefits of such a rigid rule of 10 times, it would likely only have negative impacts upon employment, as lower wage workers become replaced by higher skilled workers and capital based substitutes with much greater ease.

Ok, the issue is the analytical definition of exploitation, and then the cost-benefit analysis of exploitation. A major issue I see is that exploitation is usually ill-defined with some things defined as exploitation actually carrying benefits for the system.

It refers to execution by firing squad.

The Reign of Terror model of reform has some very serious drawbacks. Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry, was executed in the French Revolution, mostly because he had annoyed Marat. The French government decided that he'd been falsely convicted only 1 and a half years later.

I never said the world was fair. Just objected to the idea that it's so inherently unfair that hard work never produces success.


Exactly.


Then who, without inheriting money, makes a lot by just sitting on their butt?

It was a very stupid post, but is bring up a very important concept the concept of “earning” something or entitlement.

It is not necessarily as it seems. Anything you earn monetarily, is floating on an entirely inflated, make believe economy. The concept of your worth is very subjective and essentially meaningless. Banks can only survive with the laws that enable them to operate as they do. Corporations are the most inefficient businesses there are but are able to thrive with protectionist law. They are also able to monopolise ideas they didn't come up with patent laws for an indefinite period.

Most likely your standard of life is inflated, and unsustainable.

Some of the hardest working people are the poorest paid.

There is no question Republican or Democrat that goverment is going to need to generate revenue form its citizens, one way or another.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 08 May 2009, 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's what I thought but I would not want to put something so horrifying into the mouth of another person.

Em, I think you have socialism and communism confused. Communism is extreme socialism and socialism is doing quite well for the European Union.

I think you are confused. There is not a real difference between communism and socialism despite what people have strived to invent. Capitalism with a welfare state is doing quite well for the European Union, but that isn't socialism.

so-cial-ism (sosh-lizm)n. 1. A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community. The theory or practice of those who support such a social system. 2. The building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Definition 1 isn't what is happening in Europe, as the means of production and distributing goods are private in Europe. Definition 1 is closer to the USSR in some manners than to Europe so long as we dismiss the democratic connotations in the given definition.

Definition 2 is completely unlike what is happening in Europe, and most Marxists would deny that there ever has been a socialist society based upon that definition.

Your definition on the other hand does not add much, as it is too easily confused with definitions 1 & 2, and thus seems like an ideological attempt to obfuscate the issue(although perhaps not one that you personally invented), as other terms exist, other terms are more rigorous, and other terms do not confuse these issues.

There are many types of socialism, like market socialism, or social capitalism.

Arguing about the definition of socialism is akin to arguing about the definition of capitalism. Neither matches up to reality.

McCarthyism is main the reason why in the US, people may have views of modern socialism but would never use the word itself. There is a simply a different political language in the Europe compared to the US.

It has taken some people a while to realise that capitalism doesn’t exist either.

And its not that I even have a problem defining those terms - its just completely inefficient to do so when they get thrown around often enough in such a way that the extended meaning is becoming politically ubiquitous. I suppose I could preface my posts with a glossary but I enjoy actually having them read.

Matt, you got the right idea, but it's not capitalism that is the problem, it is money itself. As long as we have money, we should strive for a truly free market. Most of the corruption you witness has it's roots in government intervention of one sort or another. In a truly free market, with the necessary transparency and sharing of knowledge, corrupt companies would be put out of business.

In wanting to spread the wealth, you are toying with an alternative version of fascism.

We should fight for social mobility and freedom in trade, but spreading the wealth is a temporary, reactionary solution that ultimately makes things worse for everyone.

Exactly. Republican and Democrats are two sides of the same coin.

Why do you think that getting government uninvolved will lead to greater transparency?? Is there evidence that this usually happens?

Government done right can be a countervailing power that reduces the tendencies of corporations to do things that are greedy or callous. It seems utopian to me to suggest that merely scaling back government will some how reduce bad behavior on the part of anyone .... to extend that idea, maybe if we eliminated the criminal code, murder and robbery would go down?? I don't see it happening. Whether we are talking about individuals or groups of individuals, unethical, predatory behavior has always been quite common ... virtually every view of human nature expects that some will always take the easy way instead of the right way. If we remove reasonable sanctions on actions we consider wrong, it will only make things worse. It is my experience in the environmental consulting world that many people are not so caring about the environment, but will follow the letter of the law to avoid fines, jail time and bad publicity. Eliminating the laws that protect wetlands or prohibit dumping will not make such people suddenly enlightened; they would not do more if government regulation was abolished - they would do much less.

I didn't say that. What I am saying is that IF we intend to get government uninvolved, which would be my goal, we must implement our own oversight. The public must demand transparency, and many public and private consumer groups are necessary. Without these things in place, removing government intervention, may actually cause greater harm.

That kind of sounds like they just need a new badge of approval to be flashed out there - something like an ISO9000 or Six Sigma for financial accuracy which lets your clients know that your in the elite of accounting accuracy, SOX 404 compliance, etc.. When it gets to be like that and becomes a market advantage its more like they're trading the costs for goodwill at least rather than just throwing the money in and having no market advantage out of it.