Quote:This is a fine piece of logic that smartly skewered his argument.

Sir I salute you

Ta for the salute, but quite frankly, skewering Koolay's 'arguments' is rather like shooting fish in a barrel.

Slow, stupid fish.

Boru

(September 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote:

(September 14, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Koolay Wrote: The right wing tend to be dumb socio-paths, the left wing tend to be more intellectual exploiters. They are different breeds of the same evil family, both right wing and left wing have a burning hatred of voluntarism and the free market, the only difference is the rhetoric, in reality you still have to pay them off so you do not get thrown in a cage.

This is the kind of nonsense that pisses me off, because it's stupidly over-generalizing. Right-wingers don't tend to be sociopathic, neither do the left-wing tend to be 'intellectual exploiters'. Asserting it is the case does not an argument make.

The free market has many practical and conceptual problems which I know you've been told by every other user a million times.

Centrists tend to be whiny pricks who do nothing, complain about everything and have no actual, coherent ideas as to solutions for supposed problems... oh wait I'm over-generalizing, that's just you. -_-

Well listen, every time someone brings up a problem with the free market, it usually falls into one or two categories;

1. They are complaining about private entities that are enforced or protected by the government. I.e the banking cartel. People would blame banks for getting subsidies and bailouts from the government, when it is in actual fact that the government is taking people's money and distributing it to who they like. Banks like this would not exist in the free market, since no one in the free market could forcibly take people's money and give it to special interest groups. If the Mafia takes our money, and gives some of the money to certain people, let's not blame the recipient, but the person stealing the money in the first place.

2. They are complaining about lack of market demand. "There is no wal-mart outside my door, so the market has failed". The market serves no individual, but serves the needs and desires of the people as a whole, not randomly favouring individuals.

---

(September 15, 2013 at 7:16 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:So you people are saying that someone that has never worked a day in his life in the free market knows as much about the free market as someone that works in the free market for a living? It's ridiculous. Get real people, put your thinking caps on a little tighter.[quote]

Why not? I know a marine geologist who has never spent a day in the water, but she clearly knows more about the ocean than any cuttlefish.

Boru

Economics is social, it is about predicting human behaviour, and you kind of need to be in it to understand it. It's not like studying an inert landscape like the sea.

Quote:Economics is social, it is about predicting human behaviour, and you kind of need to be in it to understand it. It's not like studying an inert landscape like the sea.

But everyone already IS 'in economics'. It doesn't matter much if you're a free-wheeling capitalist thug, or a planned-market socialist drone: as long as you produce and consume, you're 'in economics'.

That being said, one doesn't need to be a free-marketeer to understand the free-market, or a socialist to comprehend socialism. The notion that one has to experience something in order to understand it is - on offense - utterly insane. If that were the case, then no society could punish a criminal offender, no one could appreciate music, and so forth.

Boru

Marxism is the guardian angel of capitalism. We know from history and the present that both ideologies are harmful and show no genuine concern for human life, nor any human society.
Capitalism threatens people with communism, communism threatens them with capitalism.
A strong national economy regulated by an authoritarian government is the way to true prosperity and humane living conditions.

Quote:A strong national economy regulated by an authoritarian government is the way to true prosperity and humane living conditions.

Can you cite for me a single instance in which all four of those conditions apply at the same time and in the same place? Ever?

Boru

(September 15, 2013 at 2:56 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: A strong national economy regulated by an authoritarian government is the way to true prosperity and humane living conditions.

History has shown that an authoritarian government does not lead to humane living conditions. Besides, couldn't Lenin have said that he was striving for exactly what you've described?

---

(September 15, 2013 at 3:01 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Can you cite for me a single instance in which all four of those conditions apply at the same time and in the same place? Ever?

Boru

I would settle simply for an example of "authoritarian government" and "humane living conditions" at the same time.

Quote:History has shown that an authoritarian government does not lead to humane living conditions. Besides, couldn't Lenin have said that he was striving for exactly what you've described?

Well, I have pointed out that a "national" authoritarian government with national goals and visions must be in power. Lenin, being a communist, had international goals, and of course, a corresponding internationalist ideology behind it. Namely, communism. As you see, not even the authoritarianism was able to make it work.
However authoritarianism in this particular subject is about the control of the economy. This is how it works. People fuel the Capital. Capital fuels the economy. Economy serves the state, and the state serves the people.
The State is to ensure that the capital that fuels the economy will conform with whatever that is necessary for the people while also maintaining the integrity of capital. Indeed, this will be done by laws. However in a democratic system, lobbies, propaganda campaigns and fluctuation of power by the whims of the people who own capital(who also own the media) this is very hard. Often those who rise to important positions are not people who actually wish to serve the nation, but those who serve the capital, the self-interest aspect comes into play.
But in nationalistic authoritarian regimes, self-interest and egoism are unacceptable notions. Collectivism, and the prosperity of the nation are the top priority, instead of the prosperity of the individual.
You might say, doesn't the prosperity of the individual bring about the prosperity of the nation?
No, as in system that focuses on individuals rather than society, selfishness usually makes it impossible for people to actually view it in that particular frame. They usually do not care whether their individual prosperity is in any relation with society, and maintain the notion that it is them that make society prosperous, rather than that the view that society is the reason that they have managed to prosper. This unwarrented self-importance complex usually leads to extreme materialism and a general indifference to social injustice.
Mind you, this is not just an illness that befalls rich people. No, this befalls even the lowliest bum on the streets, the virus of selfishness.

An authoritarian government on the other hand is more effective in problem solving. They assess the situation, and go on to find a solution without any external meddling. For example, lets say in the USA. It is an established fact that the USA has a problem regarding health care.
The government including the citizens of the country are divided on how to solve it, some do not even accept that there is a problem. Mostly, the opposition is due to the fact that people hate to pay more taxes. However, the present and the future of a nation is not decided on the whims of individuals. Perhaps 100 years from now on, health care will be something that is out of the reach of a lot more people. Does a state that cares about its people disregard a nationally beneficial thing in favor of a selfish individual or even a collective of selfish individuals? In democracy, these things are subject to discussion, propaganda, and public manipulation by other self-interested factios.
An authoritarian state is a state that acts, it is not one that argues.
In such as state, confusion doesn't exist. Either something is done, or its not done. That is based on whether it is beneficial for the nation or not.

Of course we're speaking of authoritarianism as a part of a nationalist government, a government that is led by ideals, and of course, real, solid goals for the future of the nation.

(September 15, 2013 at 2:51 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Economics is social, it is about predicting human behaviour, and you kind of need to be in it to understand it. It's not like studying an inert landscape like the sea.

But everyone already IS 'in economics'. It doesn't matter much if you're a free-wheeling capitalist thug, or a planned-market socialist drone: as long as you produce and consume, you're 'in economics'.

That being said, one doesn't need to be a free-marketeer to understand the free-market, or a socialist to comprehend socialism. The notion that one has to experience something in order to understand it is - on offense - utterly insane. If that were the case, then no society could punish a criminal offender, no one could appreciate music, and so forth.

Boru

Oh come on, being a consumer does not make you knowledgeable in the business you are consuming. Otherwise we would all have equal knowledge to Apple just by using their products. I think you are just grasping at straws here, since this seems really obvious.

You can understand it, but you certainly are no authority in it unless you have years of experience to make you an expert in that field.

It takes an expert to realise when someone else is an expert. For example, an expert surgeon will recognise a really good surgeon, whereas I, obviously could not appreciate the skill of the expert from a regular surgeon.

(September 15, 2013 at 2:56 pm)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Marxism is the guardian angel of capitalism. We know from history and the present that both ideologies are harmful and show no genuine concern for human life, nor any human society.
Capitalism threatens people with communism, communism threatens them with capitalism.
A strong national economy regulated by an authoritarian government is the way to true prosperity and humane living conditions.

I'm sorry, but how is Capitalism a threat?

Government and voluntary trading are two polar opposite moral states. I can't pretend that the government who bombs and encages millions upon millions is morally equivalent to Starbucks, or Wal-Mart. Last time I checked, they are not knocking on my door with guns asking for half of my income.

And if you are going to say an authoritarian government leads to higher living standards, prove it. Otherwise you are just trolling.

(September 15, 2013 at 6:59 pm)Koolay Wrote: Government and voluntary trading are two polar opposite moral states. I can't pretend...

...to sound like you have an intelligent argument? What's with the 'moral states' schtick?

(September 15, 2013 at 7:23 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote:

(September 15, 2013 at 6:59 pm)Koolay Wrote: Government and voluntary trading are two polar opposite moral states. I can't pretend...

...to sound like you have an intelligent argument? What's with the 'moral states' schtick?

'schtick' that's quirky...

Are you saying that government and starbucks are on the same moral level?