I simply tried to show an example of where capitalism fails (Health insurance) and where it wins (Auto Insurance) and how supporting one instance and not the other is why I have mixed views of the whole socialism v capitalism. I don't know how to better explain myself. All I'm simply trying to say is my political ideas veer towards capitalism in some respects and socialism in others but I'm not well read/knowledgable to clearly define where I stand. The fact that you can't conceive of the notion of a mix of capitalism/socialism means no matter what I say you'll insist I can't possibly have socialist ideals because I'm not as socialist as you. Whatever. Like I said, you're presenting a false dichotomy, refusing to admit there are shades of grey.

(January 2, 2009 at 10:10 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: I simply tried to show an example of where capitalism fails (Health insurance) and where it wins (Auto Insurance) and how supporting one instance and not the other is why I have mixed views of the whole socialism v capitalism. I don't know how to better explain myself. All I'm simply trying to say is my political ideas veer towards capitalism in some respects and socialism in others but I'm not well read/knowledgable to clearly define where I stand. The fact that you can't conceive of the notion of a mix of capitalism/socialism means no matter what I say you'll insist I can't possibly have socialist ideals because I'm not as socialist as you. Whatever. Like I said, you're presenting a false dichotomy, refusing to admit there are shades of grey.

OK, let me put it this way, committed socialists do not countenance shades of grey existing, if socialism is ever to replace capitalism.

I understand that. You have a complete socialist outlook. That's awesome, and discussing and debating that is one thing and would be intriguing. However, that's not what is happening here. You've basically said in past posts that I can't possibly have an outlook that meshes the capitalism and socialism. So you're not debating the issue but denying I could possibly hold that position.

I totally get that you don't agree with my mixed position, but you don't seem to want to validate that I have a mixed position. (That I'm just a capitalist end of story.) based on the tone of your posts which is baffling to me, especially given the topic of the post is where you sit on the politcal spectrum. I totally know I'm not a complete socialist and I don't pretend to try and claim I am one but I'm not a complete capitalist either.

It's interesting because in this country if you have a little socialist leaning, that's it! You're a socialist and can be demonized. But according to socialists if I have a capitalist leaning, that's it I'm a capitalist! It's so contradictory and silly to me.

If you want to use Cuba as an example, you will have to explain how most of the population is in poverty ($30 a month income) and all the leaders have excessive incomes. To me, it seems like power has corrupted the people in charge and made them forget their idea that all people are equal.

And why so many people make rafts to get to Florida.

It has to be a happy medium. We know socialism is prone to corruption by government, and capitalism is prone to corruption by big business leaders.

I think it's obvious the best option we have is government providing reasonable regulation on a relatively free market for most industries. I know Healthcare and Auto Insurance all work fantastically under government rule, and that something like arts and food work fantastically under private rule. It really just depends on the nature of an industry, and it's importance to the average joe.

I think business should be kept on a leash, but that individuals should have complete and total civil rights. I should be able to say whatever I want, and do what I want to my body, without exception. A business isn't a person and doesn't need rights like these.

Unrelated: Something I've never bought into is that taxing the wealthy demotivates people to make money. I simply don't think that people in the top tax brackets taking home 2-5% less (with the lower brackets taking 5-10% more) would send society into a downward spiral. I just don't believe that.

You mean the conservative idea of give tax breaks to the wealthy and the wealth will trickle down? Yeah, it's BS. The whole economy crisis is thanks to deregulation. The process started as far back as Reagan, and as much as I love Clinton, some of his policies contributed, but then Bush ripped it all apart and put us in an unnecessary war. :/

Yes, there is corruption in both systems, but I'd much prefer corrupt business over corrupt government.

Yeah, and not that our government is free from corruption herre in the US, but there is an idea of checks and balances that prevents in from running rampant.

(January 2, 2009 at 12:15 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: I understand that. You have a complete socialist outlook. That's awesome, and discussing and debating that is one thing and would be intriguing. However, that's not what is happening here. You've basically said in past posts that I can't possibly have an outlook that meshes the capitalism and socialism. So you're not debating the issue but denying I could possibly hold that position.

I totally get that you don't agree with my mixed position, but you don't seem to want to validate that I have a mixed position. (That I'm just a capitalist end of story.) based on the tone of your posts which is baffling to me, especially given the topic of the post is where you sit on the politcal spectrum. I totally know I'm not a complete socialist and I don't pretend to try and claim I am one but I'm not a complete capitalist either.

It's interesting because in this country if you have a little socialist leaning, that's it! You're a socialist and can be demonized. But according to socialists if I have a capitalist leaning, that's it I'm a capitalist! It's so contradictory and silly to me.

To recap E, my question originally was how people viewed themselves on the political spectrum, " left,right or centre ". Your response was that you are a far left liberal! Perhaps you could explain what that now means since I would place you in the centre ground from what you have subsequently posted. There again, I might not get how you define " liberal " ( it might be something different in your country to how I view liberalism ).
I don't seek to offend, so sorry if my "tone" might infer so.
You use the plural in your last sentence, so it's not just me then! lol.

---

(January 2, 2009 at 1:15 pm)Tiberius Wrote: If you want to use Cuba as an example, you will have to explain how most of the population is in poverty ($30 a month income) and all the leaders have excessive incomes. To me, it seems like power has corrupted the people in charge and made them forget their idea that all people are equal.

A, Cuba is a relatively " poor " country due to the actions of others, notably the USA and yes, Cuban people don't enjoy high incomes.....but they don't go short of the necessities of life, let's say healthcare, unlike
millions of Americans with no medical insurance cover, for example.
You accuse its leaders of corruption..to use your favourite question, where's the evidence for that? Fidel himself is not a wealthy man with millions stashed away in overeas banf accounts. Indeed he lives quite a modest life compared to some famous capitalists, like our own Tony Blair for example?
The overwhelming population of Cuba is proud of its revolution and its leaders who have certainly not forgoten what it's all about.

---

(January 2, 2009 at 2:02 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: And why so many people make rafts to get to Florida.

They are counter-revolutionaries keen to realise " the American dream "...poor souls.

---

(January 2, 2009 at 6:01 pm)Meatball Wrote: It has to be a happy medium. We know socialism is prone to corruption by government, and capitalism is prone to corruption by big business leaders.

I think it's obvious the best option we have is government providing reasonable regulation on a relatively free market for most industries. I know Healthcare and Auto Insurance all work fantastically under government rule, and that something like arts and food work fantastically under private rule. It really just depends on the nature of an industry, and it's importance to the average joe.

I think business should be kept on a leash, but that individuals should have complete and total civil rights. I should be able to say whatever I want, and do what I want to my body, without exception. A business isn't a person and doesn't need rights like these.

Unrelated: Something I've never bought into is that taxing the wealthy demotivates people to make money. I simply don't think that people in the top tax brackets taking home 2-5% less (with the lower brackets taking 5-10% more) would send society into a downward spiral. I just don't believe that.

M, I like your last para. Of course under capitalism the vastly wealthy should be paying vast taxes. If not for fairness then simply as a selfish act to try and stop the proletariat from rising up against the system!

---

(January 3, 2009 at 1:40 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Yes, there is corruption in both systems, but I'd much prefer corrupt business over corrupt government.

Capitalism breds coruption. Capitalism is totally corrupt.