quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt smiley, you are talking with certainty about hypotheticals buddy.. You don't know what would happen if there were a bit more liberty in the world because it has NEVER HAPPENED. The trend from the founding of America (and every other country) has always been towards MORE government, MORE regulation, MORE control over people's lives. It is this trend that gotten us into the mess we're in today. There is simply no way to calculate the amount of harm the monster in Washington has done to us over the years... The beauty of socialism is that its politicians can always point to a class of people that were helped directly by government, and say "See? It's working! We gave them money and look how happy they are!". Of course they never need to show you the victims of their policies. The fact is...with all government transfer programs, there are always thousands of visible beneficiaries and MILLIONS of invisible victims. You don't see the small businesses that never got off the ground or the employees that were never hired due to excessive taxation and red tape.. They are the losers under your authoritarian philosophy. The truth is, we have very limited free markets today. The few markets we have left are the only glue holding the world together, and you lefties are constantly chipping away at them in an effort to create a perfectly planned society. I'm amazed that your prescription for the poverty and despair brought on by tyrannical economic policies over the years is always MORE MORE MORE government! Mindblowing.

Why do you think that everyone can own a small business? Why is that your only argument? Why do you not provide any examples to back your arguments up?

How do you explain that in the western democracies, the more right wing their economy is the higher the crime and poverty is?

There is a definite trend that suggests that as an economy moves further to the right (which is what you're suggesting is a good thing) crime and poverty will increase in proportion - are you seriously telling me that high crime and high poverty is an acceptable price to pay for a tiny fraction of the population getting richer at everyone else's expense?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Again, the 'hatred' is towards Hugo's version of Socialism (which is obviously and quickly becoming authoritarian in nature), not Socialism in general. Having always lived in a free society, it is quite hard to fathom having the government spoon feed me everything even those we ourselves, here in Canada, have socialist policies ourselves. Do I take some of it for granted; probably considering I haven't known anything different, but I certainly don't take for the granted those that have sacrificed their lives to ensure it; a problem with in current generations where entitlement is tantamount. But, that's a whole different subject...

My point is that the media has been proven to lie and twist events in Venezuela to make people think that Chavez is a dictator. It's easy to find people in the opposition that will say Chavez is a dictator, just like Democrats in America will say Bush is a dictator (look at the way he was elected and some of the policies he's implemented that have taken away civil liberties). This view that Chavez is a dictator has been pushed by the American government that view Chavez as a threat to their interests, especially should he be successful in uniting the left-leaning states of South America. This is why I am highly suspicious of media coverage telling me that someone who was elected by 60%+ of the population is a dictator and is acting against the will of his citizens. I stand to be corrected, but right now I shall keep taking pinches of salt with the articles I read about Chavez and the current situation in Venezuela...

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Is it not human nature for parents to want a better life for their children than they had for themselves? If the woman is even a SLIGHTLY competent mother, she will be determined not to let her child make the same mistakes she did, by instilling the proper values in the child growing up that will lead him/her down a different path...towards a responsible life.

Nice and vague. I like your answer. Maybe a rough play guide of what she could do, taking into account there would not be any government support. It sounds pretty when you put in vague terms, but its harsh and inhumane when you try and actually do it. Truth is, you probably couldn't envision how she could get out of the mess by herself. Any way she does it she is prone to harm herself or the child.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby BAM, couldn't have be more well said. Fact is: the stubbornness of the division of capitalism and socialism is a result of the cold war, and is being manufactured by certain political parties for their own ends even today, after the end of the cold war. You said it best: we're already a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Our system is BEST as a dynamic, living organism. It makes it adaptable to humans. How else could democracy, a human system of government, function? Like you said: we HAVE to help the sick. We HAVE to help the elderly. We HAVE to help the veterans. It's just what's right.

Cha-ching. Someone that gets it. This argument of either or is a false dichotomy. Whatever works in that particular circumstance is what should be done/used. NO one ideology will solve all of humanities woes. No one ideology will even serve for particular cases. Most sciences and fields of study are moving towards the realization that there are right actions under particular circumstances. It's the realization that there is no one unifying theory. What do I mean by this? That there is something to be learned from each theory. So why don't we move the debate unto Hugo's particular actions instead of what ideology he says he spouses, after all the Chinese keep saying they're communist.

___________________
Poetry>Byron//Blog>TheMean

quote:

Orbax At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome

quote:

There is a definite trend that suggests that as an economy moves further to the right (which is what you're suggesting is a good thing) crime and poverty will increase in proportion - are you seriously telling me that high crime and high poverty is an acceptable price to pay for a tiny fraction of the population getting richer at everyone else's expense?

First of all...proof that free markets = greater poverty? I think the closest example of a society moving "to the right" on economic issues would be China, and it's citizens have seen a dramatic (if unequal) growth in the standard of living over the past 10 years. No other country I can think of has been instituting true free-market reforms. All "western democracies" have been moving further and further towards statism for the past 50 years.

Secondly, please explain how in a society based on mutual VOLUNTARY exchange (capitalism), one person gets rich "at another's expense"? Does a businessmen point a gun to the heads of his customers and demand their money--thereby making them poor?

No buddy. The only entity on the face of the earth with the MONOPOLY on the legal use of force is...you guessed it!...your all-caring, all-knowing, all-powerful...
Government.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Roads, courts, and defense are all legitimate functions of government. State & local governments handle the first two quite well actually. Under a truly capitalist system, there would only be two laws, both based on the libertarian principle of non-aggression: #1 No theft. #2 No violence.

you are truly deluded.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt The only entity on the face of the earth with the MONOPOLY on the legal use of force is...you guessed it!...your all-caring, all-knowing, all-powerful... Government.

tell that to all the iraqi civilians that have been killed by american private armies.

quote:

No other country I can think of has been instituting true free-market reforms

im not surprised, as an american, you dont seem to know much about other countries. australia is certainly one.

quote:

Secondly, please explain how in a society based on mutual VOLUNTARY exchange (capitalism), one person gets rich "at another's expense"? Does a businessmen point a gun to the heads of his customers and demand their money--thereby making them poor?

no, business never coerces! they dont operate in such a way as to stifle competition! they never make decisions that are good for themselves but bad for everyone else! real free market capitalism wouldnt engender very un-free monopolies! nor would it further erode diversity in media. oh, and businessmen don't do anything to manipulate the "free" market so that they control what goods are available, how much they cost and to whom they are sold.

___________________

zomg I could go on forever in this thread

but I'm going to let you lefties have the last word...Trying to enlighten you is too tiring..and obviously pointless. Goodnight

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt zomg I could go on forever in this thread but I'm going to let you lefties have the last word...Trying to enlighten you is too tiring..and obviously pointless. Goodnight

i was being enlightened by far more capable libertarians than you, before you knew what libertarianism was. night night.

___________________

You haven't been enlightened much at all prak...with your quick generalizations and wishy washy "you're wrong, because neither side is right" statements. Grow some balls, develop your philosophy, and take a stand in the future. Last word.

kthxbai

All non-free market economies fall flat on their faces. When a capitalists economy crashes, it recovers, when a socialist one collapses, everything including the government fall apart. If Hugo takes his reforms too far, which it looks already like he is well on his way to doing that, the entire system will eventually collapse.

3 possible outcomes out of this...

1. Total Hugoism - The system eventually falls apart. Like Cuba, it ends either with Hugo's death in ripe old age, or like the Soviet Union, the things stops functioning.
2. Half-Hugo / Half-Free Market - China and Vietnam eventually learned that without a free market, the country just wallows in mass poverty.
3. Anti-Hugoism - Somehow Hugo is stopped by the constitution or something crazy like a coup.

___________________