TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hugo...doing it again.
Pages (21): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz Advocates of socialism generally have their hearts in the right place. Like everyone, they want the best for their society.. and enact policies which are supposed to lift the lowest common denominator. Problem is, is that most socialist policies produce outcomes that are the exact opposite of what they set out to achieve. Their take-from-the-rich-give-to-the-poor mentality does nothing but hold back an entire country while giving a few people a couple of bucks extra per week to spend on rations.

That's a more sensible comment on socialism!

But perhaps you mean communism or marxism (pure socialism)? All countries have elements of socialism and capitalism but it is striking the right balance that is the key to success

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt ...

There seems little point in discussing ideology with someone who doesn't understand the ideologies they refer to, so I'll stick to an analysis of Chavez on this thread instead of taking part in your ideological debate (unless you want to start a new thread? Perhaps titled "Anarcho-Capitalism vs Keynesianism" which I think should refer to our two preferred economical ideologies?)

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Some people like governments running their lives. Sad really.

this kind of disingenuous bollocks is beneath you jeff.

as smiley has already asked- why are you and some of the others so happy with corporations that run your life? where does this intrinsic trust in private interests come from?

i love the libertarian ideology, just as i like the marxist stuff too. i have always bounced between the two as long as i've been politically interested. but fuck, anyone that thinks the market should have an unfettered existence is kidding themselves.

im with you venomx. that bollocks being espoused by capitaizt a few pages back is as convincing and romantic as the same balls the left trot out about socialism

there are plenty of nations in the world capitalizt that have fewer economic freedoms than those in the US, and a lot of people are happier/safer/wealthier for it.

if its all the same to you and your ilk, i want someone there to keep an eye on the private sector, just as the private sector can act as a buffer against the state. a balancing act. anyone on the left or the right who doesn't see the necessity of this symbiotic relationship, is profoundly stupid imo.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN if its all the same to you and your ilk, i want someone there to keep an eye on the private sector, just as the private sector can act as a buffer against the state. a balancing act. anyone on the left or the right who doesn't see the necessity of this symbiotic relationship, is profoundly stupid imo.

Agreed 100%!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN this kind of disingenuous bollocks is beneath you jeff. as smiley has already asked- why are you and some of the others so happy with corporations that run your life? where does this intrinsic trust in private interests come from?

Funny, I've never mentioned corporations running my life?
As a fellow libertarian I would have thought that the individual would have more control than that?

quote:

if its all the same to you and your ilk, i want someone there to keep an eye on the private sector, just as the private sector can act as a buffer against the state. a balancing act. anyone on the left or the right who doesn't see the necessity of this symbiotic relationship, is profoundly stupid imo.

No one has mentioned private sector 'running amok'.
It's one thing having government protecting it's citizens, it's quite another to be running it for them.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN this kind of disingenuous bollocks is beneath you jeff.

It's not bollocks though.
I can literally go down the street and there's a whole region here in Toronto called Regent Park filled with generations of welfare cases.
Why?
It's not like they don't have a choice. In fact, I have a good friends from Regent Park, who grew up there, and chose to leave that sucking pit of human grief.
Yet socialist politicians (the NDP - New Democrat Party) that have entrenched in this area, continue to foster welfare to ensure their own existence and stranglehold on voter support (especially among new immigrants since over 50% are 1st generation).
There no need to be on the government dole unless between jobs.
That's my opinion though, take it or leave it, but for the record, it's definitely not fostered out of ignorance as some of you seem to think...

Is that all you think the Welfare state means? The dole?!

I seem to recall reading something that said unemployment benefits were only a small part of social security, and the vast majority goes on the pension fund.

But what about universal free health care? Is that not something you support?

And if you don't think libertarianism = rule by corporations then you're even more deluded than the Marxists and Anarchists who think their ideologies will actually work. Extremes tend not to work, and no matter how great libertarianism may seem, it will be nothing more than anarcho-capitalism and did you ever wonder why libertarianism is so popular amongst the rich and well to do? Because that's the ONLY group in society it would benefit...

was gonna make a post, but smiley pretty much covered what i was gonna say

quote:

Funny, I've never mentioned corporations running my life? As a fellow libertarian I would have thought that the individual would have more control than that?

not by my reckoning. the "big" or "macro" decisions made in a libertarian society would all be made by the richest and most powerful individuals/corporations. with little input from the lower classes.

im not denying some welfare initiatives have created dependancy, but i also dont think you can take those particular initiatives and extrapolate them arbitrarily across all "welfare" state programs.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r It's not bollocks though. I can literally go down the street and there's a whole region here in Toronto called Regent Park filled with generations of welfare cases. Why? It's not like they don't have a choice. In fact, I have a good friends from Regent Park, who grew up there, and chose to leave that sucking pit of human grief. Yet socialist politicians (the NDP - New Democrat Party) that have entrenched in this area, continue to foster welfare to ensure their own existence and stranglehold on voter support (especially among new immigrants since over 50% are 1st generation). There no need to be on the government dole unless between jobs. That's my opinion though, take it or leave it, but for the record, it's definitely not fostered out of ignorance as some of you seem to think...

You can't really believe us people arguing for policies based on social ideology think that there have not been wrongful implementations of them? Obviously it is one thing to say that there should be policies that help people manage some of their problems, and it is very different to say that the policies that have been implemented have been successful. Truth is, many socialist derived policies have been utter failures. It's mostly been because their implementations have been half assed because of people like yourself how proclaim their failure before they start. Truth be told, most of these policies require a deep commitment and plenty of money initially. They do get to a point where one can start retracting. The benefits they usually derive are immense. For example, the initial massive investment northern European countries made in education. I think it is fair to say that it has payed off. They have a well educated population that is cranking out ideas and pumping out money at high rates. Another example, albeit with plenty of qualifications, is China. Communist China's massive investment in education is now paying off as they take over many of the world markets with cheap QUALIFIED labour. Examples abound of good and bad implementations of socialist policies. I think I made a decent argument for one socialist bourne policy I think is important in terms of the support it brings to poor families, a national day care system.

I think some of my arguments in that thread cover a good portion of what your post implies, ie. that people can get out of the projects if they are determined enough. I'm not going to repeat all my arguments as they are more thourougly developed in the thread above. But basically, ghetto life is cyclic in nature. Being poor leads to poor development which in turn, if lifestyle or circumstances are not altered in early years, leads to being poor.

Smiley's putting on a good show here. Interesting information, folks! Though I still find it fishy as the direction where Chavez is heading to ... what if he doesn't stop and goes on further ...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Is that all you think the Welfare state means? The dole?!

Partialy, yes.

quote:

I seem to recall reading something that said unemployment benefits were only a small part of social security, and the vast majority goes on the pension fund.

Depends which country you're in I suppose.

quote:

But what about universal free health care? Is that not something you support?

True, and while you're trying to paint me into a corner you might want to realize that while I live under the umbrella of universal health care, it's not that I didn't appreciate it when I needed it for my broken leg.
Does that make me an automatic hypocrite?
No, because universal health care, as a policy, doesn't force changes or dictate what I can or can't do in my financial life; which by the way, is my whole point against Socialism if you haven't caught on by now.

quote:

And if you don't think libertarianism = rule by corporations then you're even more deluded than the Marxists and Anarchists who think their ideologies will actually work.

Convenient that all the small and medium size businesses that actually make up most of a capitalist society would be missing...

Are there large 'evil' corporations out there? Probably. (Enron any one?).
But that's what Watch Dogs and laws are for...

quote:

Extremes tend not to work, and no matter how great libertarianism may seem, it will be nothing more than anarcho-capitalism and did you ever wonder why libertarianism is so popular amongst the rich and well to do? Because that's the ONLY group in society it would benefit...

That's a lie.
Average people have the choice to start their own small business, live a comfortable lifestyle and not necessarily be 'well-to-do' or even 'rich' for that matter, all without government assistance!
These are the people that make up the backbone of what a capitalist society and libertarian yet you want to fall back on large, corporate entities, why?

Anyways, let's get back to Hugo shall we?
As entertaining as this is...

Hugo doesn't represent all that is Socialism anyways since he seems to be edging towards a more authoritarian, Communist society anyways...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r But that's what Watch Dogs and laws are for...

in libertarian society there would be no watch dogs

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Anyways, let's get back to Hugo shall we? As entertaining as this is... Hugo doesn't represent all that is Socialism anyways since he seems to be edging towards a more authoritarian, Communist society anyways...

I agree Hugo is making rather bad decisions lately. I do not agree however with you coupling socialism as whole with the image of populism and authoritarianism. Hugo sadly has lost his north. I think we can all agree that has blown a good chance to make things right in his country.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That's a lie. Average people have the choice to start their own small business, live a comfortable lifestyle and not necessarily be 'well-to-do' or even 'rich' for that matter, all without government assistance! These are the people that make up the backbone of what a capitalist society and libertarian yet you want to fall back on large, corporate entities, why?

I guess thats why theres so many poor people then. It fits perfectly with your theory. This is why libertarianism fails. It's an easy cop out. Premise 1, in a libertarian society you can always make it if you try hard enough. Premise 2, if you don't make it, you're not trying hard enough. Thats seems pretty circular to me, not to mention quite a simplistic view of the thousands of variables that can affect the outcome of a human life.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I agree Hugo is making rather bad decisions lately. I do not agree however with you coupling socialism as whole with the image of populism and authoritarianism. Hugo sadly has lost his north. I think we can all agree that has blown a good chance to make things right in his country.

Well, that what he keeps telling everybody in his, 'It's for their own good' speeches...

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I guess thats why theres so many poor people then.

Poor people where though specifically?
Every country / style of government is different.
If the government doesn't allow personal property or wealth then it's quite obvious that there will be a lot of poor people!

quote:

It fits perfectly with your theory. This is why libertarianism fails. It's an easy cop out. Premise 1, in a libertarian society you can always make it if you try hard enough. Premise 2, if you don't make it, you're not trying hard enough. Thats seems pretty circular to me, not to mention quite a simplistic view of the thousands of variables that can affect the outcome of a human life.

Close.
Success is built on repeat failure and learning from them.
And there is a difference between working just hard and working hard AND smart (usually through experience of a previous failure).
Circular sure, but that's how life is lived; one fails (maybe several times) before they succeed.

The benefits of capitalism are not equally shared...true.
Everyone does not have the same skills and will not succeed equally in the free market...true.

But the failure of one person to succeed does NOT grant them a claim over the life of another person! This is what socialism basically says...When people fail, they have a claim on the time/energy/labor of those who have not failed. They have a moral justification to partially enslave those who succeed via confiscation of their earnings and property. Slavery is a strong word, but it is entirely accurate here. If you were forced to work an entire year without any compensation, by definition, you would be a slave. In the all-caring welfare states of Europe, the most productive successful people are "only" enslaved 5-7 months of the year once all taxes are factored in.

The main principle of libertarianism is non-aggression...the banishing of coercion and FORCE from all relationships in life. The fact that the "rich" are better off even after getting the shit taxed out of them is irrelevant. Libertarians do not oppose socialism because they are shilling for the rich are big corporations. They do it it because they oppose coercion...the FORCE that socialism requires by it's nature. The act of POINTING A GUN AT SOMEONE'S HEAD and demanding they work without pay is simply immoral according to libertarianism. It has nothing to do with greed...loving the rich, or hating the poor. It's about respecting individual freedom.

I realize this is getting into bigger philosophical issues...which is why I stopped trying to debate it. I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed here.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt The benefits of capitalism are not equally shared...true. Everyone does not have the same skills and will not succeed equally in the free market...true. But the failure of one person to succeed does NOT grant them a claim over the life of another person! This is what socialism basically says...When people fail, they have a claim on the time/energy/labor of those who have not failed. They have a moral justification to partially enslave those who succeed via confiscation of their earnings and property. Slavery is a strong word, but it is entirely accurate here. If you were forced to work an entire year without any compensation, by definition, you would be a slave. In the all-caring welfare states of Europe, the most productive successful people are "only" enslaved 5-7 months of the year once all taxes are factored in. The main principle of libertarianism is non-aggression...the banishing of coercion and FORCE from all relationships in life. The fact that the "rich" are better off even after getting the shit taxed out of them is irrelevant. Libertarians do not oppose socialism because they are shilling for the rich are big corporations. They do it it because they oppose coercion...the FORCE that socialism requires by it's nature. The act of POINTING A GUN AT SOMEONE'S HEAD and demanding they work without pay is simply immoral according to libertarianism. It has nothing to do with greed...loving the rich, or hating the poor. It's about respecting individual freedom. I realize this is getting into bigger philosophical issues...which is why I stopped trying to debate it. I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed here.

like we've already stated, this kind of nonsense is no better than the romantic idealism espoused by socialists.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN like we've already stated, this kind of nonsense is no better than the romantic idealism espoused by socialists.

Idealism is what all politics boils down to isn't it?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Hugo sadly has lost his north. I think we can all agree that has blown a good chance to make things right in his country.

wait a second, you're basically accusing him of some sort of incompetence. no. not a chance.

everything he does is calculated to what end he probably only knows.

he's shrewd, arrogant and calculating. basically everything you claim Bush is but somehow you give Hugo an innocuous pass. says a lot about you but thats another topic.

no. Hugo hasn't "lost his North". it's that North no longer suits Hugo.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Close. Success is built on repeat failure and learning from them. And there is a difference between working just hard and working hard AND smart (usually through experience of a previous failure). Circular sure, but that's how life is lived; one fails (maybe several times) before they succeed.

Well then, you might want to answer my prior question to Capitalizt. How does that pregnant girl learn from her harsh expirience, ie. growing a child on her own while trying to earn a wage? Also, how does that child benefit from his harsh experience, ie. having poor development from bad education, bad food and poor nurturance.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo wait a second, you're basically accusing him of some sort of incompetence. no. not a chance. everything he does is calculated to what end he probably only knows. he's shrewd, arrogant and calculating. basically everything you claim Bush is but somehow you give Hugo an innocuous pass. says a lot about you but thats another topic. no. Hugo hasn't "lost his North". it's that North no longer suits Hugo.

Incompetence in what refers to him helping his nation develop. Regardless of his incompetence being deliberate or not. None of us know if Hugo embarked on this journey with all this in mind. Maybe he had part of this planned out and later developed more ambitious plans. Who knows. We certainly don't. Personally, I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt, that principle you americans so dearly hold. I think what happened to him is what has happened to many people. Power corrupts, and our friend Hugo has been corrupted.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Idealism is what all politics boils down to isn't it?

Indeed, but the most useful of all ideologies is pragmatism. Everything else is dust in the wind. If a libertarian derived policy works best for one situation so be it. If a socialist one is the glove the fits, well that's how it should go down. What I have a problem with is how you and some others argue that libertarianism is the one size fits all of political ideologies. That's what I really find hard to stomach.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r No, because universal health care, as a policy, doesn't force changes or dictate what I can or can't do in my financial life; which by the way, is my whole point against Socialism if you haven't caught on by now.

Ah but you're taking universal health care for granted! Because if you didn't have it, if you had to pay for it yourself, then it would dictate what you can or cannot do in your financial life, because a big chunk of your wages will have to be spent on helth insurance - something you may be able to afford, but something a hell of a lot of the poor wouldn't be able to afford (and no medicare in libertarianism)

quote:

Convenient that all the small and medium size businesses that actually make up most of a capitalist society would be missing...

Without protection from the multinational corps (libertariansism will equal complete freedom) then small/medium businesses that try to compete will go bust. The market will regulate itself with the nominal government only dealing with crime etc (altho in an anarcho-capitalist society, even that and the military will be privatised). I envision monopolies with a severe lack of competition with the only small businesses left being those in the service industry.

quote:

That's a lie. Average people have the choice to start their own small business, live a comfortable lifestyle and not necessarily be 'well-to-do' or even 'rich' for that matter, all without government assistance! These are the people that make up the backbone of what a capitalist society and libertarian yet you want to fall back on large, corporate entities, why?

No. You are completely wrong. Your suggesting that everyone can own a small business and make a tidy sum for themselves. But capitalism needs a proportion of people to do the lowest paid jobs (ie min wage jobs). This proportion is well higher than half the population. This is what capitalism is reliant on, without it, it cannot survive, and that is why in a pure capitalist society there will always be poor people - and the welfare state is needed to counter balance this phenonenon

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.