Just Curious. What Are You?

@Setanta,

Four lines of pedantic babble followed by a snide but irrelevant reference to things black and white.

The terms "capitalism" and "free market" didn't appear at all in my post, mostly because there is so much largely irrelevant baggage associated with each, Instead I focused on the persistent flaws in authoritarian socialism; the largely unsatisfactory economic results it has so far yielded across the world, and the relatively better (and more widely desired, based on observable patterns of immigration) economic and political conditions that usually attend systems involving individual freedom, and political & property rights.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Although I think we ought be less worried about whether the US has become an oligarchy or a plutocracy...than in the question: If capitalism cannot come up with a more equitable distribution of national wealth...shouldn't we be trying something else

We could try authoritarian socialism, That produced a more statistically flat distribution of wealth 1n both the former Soviet Union and its satellite states in Eastern Europe as well as in Cuba. Unfortunately for those involved that distribution yielded a much lower economic standard of living for almost everyone, and a near total loss of individual freedom for all - not to mention governments well accustomed to the extermination of their political opponents.

There are some interim variants including the equally authoritarian pseudo populist government in Venezuela. It has shown a truly remarkable ability to snatch growing poverty, economic dysfunction and hyperinflation from the jaws of huge sources of potential national wealth and prosperity ... all in the name of the people and a "Bolivarian revolution", ... whatever that means..

I believe the essential problem with redistribution schemes such as those implied here is just who does the redistributing, and how do you limit his power and control. A near equally important issue is how to you sustain economic incentives and productivity under such a system. The track record so far for such systems isn't very promising.

Freedom and free economic activity have produced by far the best economic results around the world for a very long time. The track record for authoritarian systems empowered to pick political & economical winners and losers isn't very good, and they usually degenerate into tyrannies focused only on the maintenance of their power.

Or, heaven forbid, we should try something DIFFERENT.

Perhaps the better features of capitalism can be incorporated into an amalgam with the better features of socialism. We would have to get the far right to acknowledge that there are features of socialism worth incorporating, which might prove impossible, but it is worth considering.

Perhaps something outside the box of either. (Which is what I think will eventually be the case.)

In any case, capitalism (particularly the unfettered kind that seems to appeal to the US) is proving itself to be as much a destroyer of humanity...and a purveyor of unacceptable and unnecessary extreme inequality, as any of the so-called "authoritarian" socialistic regimes.

Something must be done...something will be done.

I would like to see it be planned and peaceful and reasonable...rather than what seems to be shaping up.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Have you read Aesop's fable about the mice and their problem with the cat?

1 Reply

@Trollpatrol,

Hope I didnt hurt your feelings or anything, & actually, I prefer women, so... No boyscouts for me. I just figure, why not answer the "actual question".
Touche, btw

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

glitterbag wrote:
What am I? Annoyed is my first reaction.

Boiling down the views of members to two categories is simplistic. . . .
The Contemplative Sentry
By W. S. Gilbert

When all night long a chap remains
On sentry-go, to chase monotony
He exercises of his brains,
That is, assuming that he's got any,
Though never nurtured in the lap
Of luxury, yet I admonish you,
I am an intellectual chap,
And think of things that would astonish you.
I often think it's comical
How Nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal,
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!

When in that house M.P.'s divide,
If they've a brain and cerebellum, too.
They're got to leave that brain outside.
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of statesmen, all in close proximity.
A-thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity.
Then let's rejoice with loud Fal lal
That Nature wisely does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive,
Is either a little Liberal,
Or else a little Conservative!
Fal lal la!

izzythepush wrote:

That was written when the Liberal and Conservative parties were the two parties that ran government, notably before the Labour Party had much in the way of representation. Now the Liberals are the third party and they are in coalition with the Conservatives. There's plenty of MPs sitting on the opposition benches who are neither Liberal nor Conservative.

Conservatism has to do with rigid accuracy.
Liberalism has to do with deviation from a designated criterion.
(In America, politically, that criterion is the Supreme Law of the Land.)
For instance, my fonetic spelling is a liberal deviation
from the paradime (not paradigm) of English spelling,
based upon considerations of logic and efficiency.

If u have paid me in compliance with a contract
and then I render u 93% of the assets that I contracted to give u,
asserting: "that 's close enuf", then such is a liberal distortion
of our contract executed to enrich me at your expense.

If u have paid me in compliance with our contract
and then I render u 76% of the assets that I contracted to give u,
asserting: "that 's close enuf", then the result is a MORE LIBERAL
distortion of our contract.

If u have paid me in compliance with a contract
and then I render u 33% of the assets that I contracted to give u,
asserting: "that 's close enuf", then such is a progressively even MORE LIBERAL distortion of our contract.

IF I just take the money and run,
then that is a radical ("from the root") interpretation of our contract.

If guests arrive at a formal affair, e.g. a wedding, in evening attire
thay r being conservative, in accord with the applicable paradime of dress.

If some of them arrive wearing tuxedos with red canvas sneakers,
then thay r being liberal qua deviation from the applicable standard of dress.

If some of them arrive naked, then thay r radically rejecting the paradime.

If among poker players, one rakes in the pot, alleging that he has
a flush (with 4 clubs and a spade in his hand), then he is being LIBERAL
qua the rules of poker.

If among poker players, one rakes in the pot, alleging that he has
a flush (with 3 clubs and 2 spades), then he is being more LIBERAL
qua the rules of poker.

If among poker players, one rakes in the pot, alleging that he has
a flush (with 2 clubs, 2 spades and a diamond), then he is being even MORE LIBERAL
qua the rules of poker; i.e., liberalism is cheating.
(Of course, the liberals will be killed.)

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

You certainly are a master at pedantic babble, i'll admit that. I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the system which attains in North America and Europe has any significant degree of personal freedom, or any political rights which are much more than illusory. Just wait until someone wants to build a pipeline to delivery crude oil or petroleum products across your land and see just how strongly protected your property rights are. Capitalism can be and most often throughout history has been every bit as authoritarian, through the agency of allegedly democratic governments, as you assert was the case with the so-called socialist states of the eastern bloc. See, as some classic examples, the enclosure of commons, the corn laws and the replacement of black African slavery with Indian coolies by Parliament. Look at the history of railroad building the the long, bloody history of labor organizing in the United States. You blacken anything you are pleased to call socialist, and whitewash what you seem reluctant to name with anything more specific than "system" with your absurd claims about personal freedom and political and property rights.

It's easy to appear wise if one paints everything black or white.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Have you read Aesop's fable about the mice and their problem with the cat?

Yes, George, I have. In fact, I often bring that tale into my posts when people suggest things that will be very difficult to bring to fruition.

But may I respectfully suggest that we here in America will either make a significant change to SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER ECONOMIC EQUALITY...

...or we will endure something that will make happenings in early 20th century Russia and late 18th century France look like playground mischief.

Know what I mean?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

i love politicians, they are an endless source of entertainment

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

The concept of the social market economy is still the common economic in Germany ... since the collapse of the Nazi period in the Federal Republic (Basic Law: "Article 20 (1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state." And the "eternity clause" reads: "Article 79 (3): Amendments to this Basic Law affecting the division of the Federation into Länder, their participation on principle in the legislative process, or the principles laid down in Articles 1 and 20 shall be inadmissible.")

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Know what I mean?[/b]

Not necessarily, but I recognize the style for what it is.

I don't think the facts are with you there. We are still , relative to other large countries, a land of opportunity. We still offer SIGNIFICANLY GREATER ECONOMIC REWARDS to those who offer SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER ABILITY, WORK AND EFFORT.

1 Reply

@djjd62,

I think it would be cheaper, though, to go to the local comedy club--except, of course, that you're going to pay for political folly whether it amuses you or not.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You certainly are a master at pedantic babble, i'll admit that. I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the system which attains in North America and Europe has any significant degree of personal freedom, or any political rights which are much more than illusory. Just wait until someone wants to build a pipeline to delivery crude oil or petroleum products across your land and see just how strongly protected your property rights are. Capitalism can be and most often throughout history has been every bit as authoritarian, through the agency of allegedly democratic governments, as you assert was the case with the so-called socialist states of the eastern bloc. See, as some classic examples, the enclosure of commons, the corn laws and the replacement of black African slavery with Indian coolies by Parliament. Look at the history of railroad building the the long, bloody history of labor organizing in the United States. You blacken anything you are pleased to call socialist, and whitewash what you seem reluctant to name with anything more specific than "system" with your absurd claims about personal freedom and political and property rights.

Will u specify
what personal freedom we shud have that we don t ?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You certainly are a master at pedantic babble, i'll admit that. I think you're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the system which attains in North America and Europe has any significant degree of personal freedom, or any political rights which are much more than illusory. Just wait until someone wants to build a pipeline to delivery crude oil or petroleum products across your land and see just how strongly protected your property rights are. Capitalism can be and most often throughout history has been every bit as authoritarian, through the agency of allegedly democratic governments, as you assert was the case with the so-called socialist states of the eastern bloc. See, as some classic examples, the enclosure of commons, the corn laws and the replacement of black African slavery with Indian coolies by Parliament. Look at the history of railroad building the the long, bloody history of labor organizing in the United States. You blacken anything you are pleased to call socialist, and whitewash what you seem reluctant to name with anything more specific than "system" with your absurd claims about personal freedom and political and property rights.

It's easy to appear wise if one paints everything black or white.

You are projecting your own hostilities on others and still looking for some basis for an argument (so far without success) in what I wrote. I made no claims about any presumed perfection in either North America or Britain. Instead I asserted that individual freedom generally produces better results for all, both economically and politically than, any top down organized system. Among other things that freedom is what enabled us to evolve through rapid land expansion, railroad building and industrialization with all the adverse side effects attendant to each. Authoritarian political structures are usually more rigid and less adaptable, and the history of the last two centuries abounds with examples.

Property rights in this country are far more restricted by the Endangered Species Act and environmentalists interested in preventing development of any kind than by builders of oil pipelines. Ask the farmers in the California Central Valley about the Sierra Club, the Delta smelt and the water they need to sustain the most productive agricultural land in the country. We are creating an artificial Ddought in the Central Valley with far more dispatch and efficiency that we are in building the Keystone Pipeline.

In any event I am still mystified about just what point you are trying to make. Do you suggest that authoritarian political structures or additional restrictions on our individual freedoms might offer some beneficial solutions to the assumed issue of maldistribution of wealth that is the subject of this dialogue?

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Now you are asserting "hostility" without evidence. I am not hostile toward you, i am just contemptuous toward your claims. What kind of personal freedom obtains in a nation where the highest court can set aside the no establishment clause, and there is no recourse but amendment by the great one party system . . . excuse me, the great two party system?* What kind of personal freedom is there when government agencies can search your electronic messages and telephone records in clear violation of the specific provisions of the fourth amendment? What kind of free government is it that can launch "drone" attacks without a declaration of war or the granting of war powers to the President?

(*Of course, we can all just sit around until the the members of the current court whose devotion is to political ideology rather than to unbiased judicial review and application of the terms of the constitution die off, and hope we don't get anyone even less trustworthy.)

The farmers in California own land can hardly be called the most productive in the country. It is only sustained by robbing Peter to pay Paul with water taken from elsewhere, most notably the Colorado River and the watersheds of northern California. Nature didn't create the agricultural productivity of the central valley, the state and Federal governments did. If the farmers of the central valley feel put upon, they have the same recourse to the courts as do the organizations you castigate. I realize, of course, that such organizations have deep pockets, and those farmers don't. Apparently, right-wing ideologues are not lining up to set up organizations to litigate on behalf of the poor, beleaguered farmers of the central valley.

Quote:

Do you suggest that authoritarian political structures or additional restrictions on our individual freedoms might offer some beneficial solutions to the assumed issue of maldistribution of wealth that is the subject of this dialogue?

Now there's a gem of a straw man argument. I've already stated what my political principles are. The subject of this dialogue, as far as i am concerned, is the distortions you have been peddling. We don't have nearly the personal freedom you allege, nor do we have political freedom and choice, nor is property protected for all citizens. The protection of property rights is a by-blow of the protection of the property of wealthy and influential capitalists.

The so-called socialism of putative Marxist states was always false, because the workers never owned the means of production, nor had any control over the industries which employed them. That is why i offered the Mondragon Corporation as an example earlier. It is the closest i've ever seen an economic entity approach a situation of labor owning and controlling the means of production.

So i have already made my statement about the titular issue of the thread--although i'm fairly certain that Finn just wants us all to jump in a box labeled "liberal" or "conservative." In my exchanges with you, i am scorning the idea that we have very much personal freedom, and particularly that we have well-secured political and property rights. It is your hostile assumption that i want a more authoritarian governments and less personal freedom.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Know what I mean?[/b]

Not necessarily, but I recognize the style for what it is.

I don't think the facts are with you there.

Wow. And I think they are right there like concrete.

Quote:

We are still , relative to other large countries, a land of opportunity.

Okay. And we still have an unacceptable and unnecessary disparity of wealth that should be handled in some way. The wealthiest 1% of our population possess over 40% of ALL THE NATIONS WEALTH...and the bottom 80% possess about 7%. And apparently, the disparity is widening.

That should disgust anyone not infected with American conservatism.

Quote:

We still offer SIGNIFICANLY GREATER ECONOMIC REWARDS to those who offer SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER ABILITY, WORK AND EFFORT.

Nonsense. A janitor in the school down the street can have a work ethic and ability to make that school the cleanest in the entire country...and he will earn spit compared with some relatively incompetent person who gets a managerial position because of nepotism.

But I recognize that American conservationism requires some people to think the way you are on this, George...so stick with it.

When the **** hits the fan...remember that there were people warning about it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I know I'm going to be sorry after I ask this question, but is there any situation where contempt is considered to be friendly?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Okay. And we still have an unacceptable and unnecessary disparity of wealth that should be handled in some way. The wealthiest 1% of our population possess over 40% of ALL THE NATIONS WEALTH...and the bottom 80% possess about 7%. And apparently, the disparity is widening.

That should disgust anyone not infected with American conservatism.

There's a new book out that talks about how most wealth, throughout history, was inherited wealth. The 20th century, with two world wars, wiped out much wealth of that class. For a short period, wealth was earned. Now, supposedly we are going back (worldwide) to the old paradigm of inherited wealth. The rest of the world is not going to change. Why should the U.S.?

The point of the U.S., in my opinion, is that one can live comfortably, if one applies one's gray matter (brains). Why should the U.S. reward bad behavior (the dog ate my homework) because of the boogey man of civil unrest?

0 Replies

I took a long holiday from A2K and the reasons for it are starting to come back to me.

Anyway, come the revolution, commissar Frank will be calling the shots and Setanta will be his theologian. It will be a better world, no doubt.

3 Replies

@glitterbag,

I didn't say that contempt is friendly, so that's a straw man. My contempt is not for O'George, but for the ideas he has posted. Contempt is not automatically hostility, either.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

What a nice example of vicious projection. I haven't called for a revolution, and i'm not peddling theology. Maybe it's been a good thing for us, too, that you haven't been around. Don't mention that low-life scumbag Frank with me in the same post.

2 Replies

Just Curious. What Are You?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know