Capitalism vs Socialism, Right-wing vs Left-wing politics

[Tampitump]

In light of recent debates I seem to have initiated on the Hillary Clinton thread, and the amount of people who think I'm wrong, here's a thread for it.

 

Discuss.....

[DrmDoc]

Although I did not rate your comments here and made no judgement as to whether you're right or wrong, I did ask whether you were informed. Do you think you are sufficiently informed about Islam, Black Lives Matter, and the other socially significant causes you assessed in Hillary's thread?

[Phi for All]

In any economy, you can have State ownership of an asset. The US owns the Tennessee Valley Authority, a corporation that developed power and a variety of services and products in an economically depressed region. Good use of communism. Republican Senator sponsored it, too.

You can have public ownership of an asset if that makes more sense. Socialism takes concepts that shouldn't be profit oriented and gives them a more focused effectiveness. Healthcare should be socialized - profit should not be a priority over health. Prisons are another good example of where the People should be in charge. We're just now coming to the realization that privatized prisons are a complete failure.

The prison business is fundamentally different in that no one can freely purchase incarceration services as a private individual. There is no natural market for incarceration services. The power to incarcerate someone – to hold a person against his or her will – is a defining characteristic of the state.

And capitalism is best when you want something to grow. While health insurance should be privatized, regular insurance is a good capitalist venture. You know what something is worth, you pay to insure it. Works with cars, boats, even lives. But not with health. Capitalism is what you use when profit is the fair outcome. When it's not right, use a different economic approach.

 

The mix a country uses is important. Too much in any one direction is a mistake, imo.

[Tampitump]

No, I can't possibly be that informed. I can only address the information that is presented to me. My opposition is not necessarily the entire package of Islam, or the entire package of BLM, or feminism, or anything. My problem is when liberals try to stifle debate with safe spaces, political correctness, and all the other attacks on free speech. In no way do I support the country bumpkin, right wing bigotry and racism that comes from the part of the country I live in, but I at least see a very big threat to western values in Islam. And it occurs to me that there is a high amount of support for doctrinal barbarism in the Islamic world. Black lives matter seems much too propagandistic to be legitimately concerned with black lives. Victim culture does not solve anything, and to rise above these illnesses, we need Rosa Parks and Martin Luther Kings in this world, not regressives who want to paint this as a one-sided issue and all white Americans as racist bigots. Black lives matter should be addressing all of the ills that exist within the black community, which include black on black crime among other things. My biggest problems with all of these movements is the intolerant nature of them. If you so much as hold a door open, or pull out a chair for a modern feminist, you're patriarchal. If you try to address the inner workings of the black community, you're a racist. If you so much as suggest that Islam has anti-western values, your a bigot or "islamophobe". This is certainly not true for all liberals, but it does exist, and is an increasing phenomenon as evidenced by things like college safe spaces, and the current positions of the Democratic platform. Issues need to be discussed honestly, and we can't have victim culture and intolerance to free-speech killing the discussion.

In any economy, you can have State ownership of an asset. The US owns the Tennessee Valley Authority, a corporation that developed power and a variety of services and products in an economically depressed region. Good use of communism. Republican Senator sponsored it, too.

You can have public ownership of an asset if that makes more sense. Socialism takes concepts that shouldn't be profit oriented and gives them a more focused effectiveness. Healthcare should be socialized - profit should not be a priority over health. Prisons are another good example of where the People should be in charge. We're just now coming to the realization that privatized prisons are a complete failure.

And capitalism is best when you want something to grow. While health insurance should be privatized, regular insurance is a good capitalist venture. You know what something is worth, you pay to insure it. Works with cars, boats, even lives. But not with health. Capitalism is what you use when profit is the fair outcome. When it's not right, use a different economic approach.

 

The mix a country uses is important. Too much in any one direction is a mistake, imo.

I got nothing for you man. I'll either have to concede you the win, or you'll have to give me time to digest, research, and consider everything you put on the table here. Decisions, decisions.....

Who gave my OP a negative rating? I want to know. Speak up. Who is the little pussy what was so offended by nothing to give a virtually content-free post a negative rating? I'm seriously getting POed at this forum. I thought the people here would be way smarter and less pathetically petty than this. Whoever you are, you are a pettifogging little bitch. I don't care how rude or indecent the people here think I am for saying this. Go fly a kite.

[Phi for All]

I got nothing for you man. I'll either have to concede you the win, or you'll have to give me time to digest, research, and consider everything you put on the table here. Decisions, decisions.....

 

The extremes are actually a good place to start. Think what life would be like if you had to pay for EVERYTHING, even walking on the sidewalk, or fire protection for your home. Can you imagine dialing 911 and having to use your credit card before the cops will come investigate the stranger in your back yard? That would be "full on" capitalism.

[Strange]

Who gave my OP a negative rating? I want to know. Speak up. Who is the little pussy what was so offended by nothing to give a virtually content-free post a negative rating?

 

 

Not me. But I thought about it because the OP was so content free as to be almost useless as the basis of a discussion.

 

"Sport: who do you think should win?"

 

"Science: good or bad?"

[Delta1212]

In any economy, you can have State ownership of an asset. The US owns the Tennessee Valley Authority, a corporation that developed power and a variety of services and products in an economically depressed region. Good use of communism. Republican Senator sponsored it, too.

 

You can have public ownership of an asset if that makes more sense. Socialism takes concepts that shouldn't be profit oriented and gives them a more focused effectiveness. Healthcare should be socialized - profit should not be a priority over health. Prisons are another good example of where the People should be in charge. We're just now coming to the realization that privatized prisons are a complete failure.

 

And capitalism is best when you want something to grow. While health insurance should be privatized, regular insurance is a good capitalist venture. You know what something is worth, you pay to insure it. Works with cars, boats, even lives. But not with health. Capitalism is what you use when profit is the fair outcome. When it's not right, use a different economic approach.

 

The mix a country uses is important. Too much in any one direction is a mistake, imo.

I would say that it is never a case of "too much" so much as it is a case of applying the wrong tools to the wrong problem. You can have the same "amount" of socialist or capitalist policies, but if you are privatizing and socializing the wrong industries, you will wind up much worse off than an economy where the correct sectors are run in the most effective way.

 

This is actually why I have a problem with the "big government/small government" descriptors. When your goal is simply to "shrink the size of government" then it disincentives the process of looking at what the government should and should not be running and instead everything because a target for cutting because cutting anything "shrinks the government," regardless of whether that is really a good idea or not.

 

The goal should not be to shrink the government. It should be to optimize the government for the roles that it should be playing.

 

Shrinking is a process that ends at zero and doesn't discriminate. Optimization seeks to reduce the unnecessary in order to improve the effectiveness of the important parts. That is, to my mind, a much more worthwhile goal, but it's not language that is used, nor is it the how the goal of cutting from the government is typically approached, unfortunately.

[Carrock]

Who gave my OP a negative rating? I want to know. Speak up. Who is the little pussy what was so offended by nothing to give a virtually content-free post a negative rating?

I did, because the OP was so content free as to be complete useless as the basis of a discussion. I gave a content free negative rating in the spirit of the OP.

 

Discuss...

[Tampitump]

 

 

Not me. But I thought about it because the OP was so content free as to be almost useless as the basis of a discussion.

 

"Sport: who do you think should win?"

 

"Science: good or bad?"

It was a spin-off of another thread. There's nothing wrong with being general. The topic was defined in the title.

[DrmDoc]

No, I can't possibly be that informed. I can only address the information that is presented to me. My opposition is not necessarily the entire package of Islam, or the entire package of BLM, or feminism, or anything. My problem is when liberals try to stifle debate with safe spaces, political correctness, and all the other attacks on free speech. In no way do I support the country bumpkin, right wing bigotry and racism that comes from the part of the country I live in, but I at least see a very big threat to western values in Islam. And it occurs to me that there is a high amount of support for doctrinal barbarism in the Islamic world. Black lives matter seems much too propagandistic to be legitimately concerned with black lives. Victim culture does not solve anything, and to rise above these illnesses, we need Rosa Parks and Martin Luther Kings in this world, not regressives who want to paint this as a one-sided issue and all white Americans as racist bigots. Black lives matter should be addressing all of the ills that exist within the black community, which include black on black crime among other things. My biggest problems with all of these movements is the intolerant nature of them. If you so much as hold a door open, or pull out a chair for a modern feminist, you're patriarchal. If you try to address the inner workings of the black community, you're a racist. If you so much as suggest that Islam has anti-western values, your a bigot or "islamophobe". This is certainly not true for all liberals, but it does exist, and is an increasing phenomenon as evidenced by things like college safe spaces, and the current positions of the Democratic platform. Issues need to be discussed honestly, and we can't have victim culture and intolerance to free-speech killing the discussion.

 

Although each of the issues you've raised is itself a separate discussion, your overall candid admission here is refreshing. Unlike you and certain others, it's difficult for me to take a position that appears as firm as yours without being informed from all sides of an issue. I want to be fair and balanced in my views as I hope others might be in their perspective of mine. We can be an uncivil people whose uninformed opinions are frequent excuses for unconscionable behavior, cruel and unfair treatment of other people. On the issue of so-called radical Islam, I don't perceive any different from it and that of Christian fanaticism or other ridiculously fanatic religious ideology. I agree that the Black Lives Matter movement should be inclusive of the community crime and violence that also ruin black lives; however, that does not address the movement's origin which sprang from a continued culture of social injustice and, seemingly, official oppression of people of color. Regarding the issue of a PC culture, I don't see how respect we demand for ourselves is a denial of our free speech when others demand equal respect. I just don't see how civility others demand is abridging our personal freedoms.

[Mordred]

A link to the other or specific posts would be helpful. This way other can join in the discussion without guessing which thread it spins off from.

It was a spin-off of another thread. There's nothing wrong with being general. The topic was defined in the title.

[iNow]

To the OP, since you like videos:

 

http://www.investopedia.com/video/play/mixed-economic-system/

http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-mixed-economy-definition-characteristics-examples.html

http://study.com/academy/lesson/understanding-socialism-communism-and-mixed-economies.html

[CharonY]

As a side note, I would like to point out that MLK and the civil rights movement were far more disruptive than anything we see today. Also, I find it curious that most claims of racism I noticed were from the right, i.e. reiterating the fear of being called out as racist, as opposed to the times they are actually being called out (which is usually reserved for the most blatant instances). It seems to me that the right seems to be keener on safe spaces than anyone else at this point. It is also part of tone deafness in certain people. Obviously not all criticism against, say, Islam should be slammed as being bigoted. However, if someone starts with "Islam is violent and responsible for terror and suppression of women" etc, , it is difficult to assume that a nuanced discussion in good faith can be conducted. But being uneducated (on either side of a given issue) is a big part of all this. If people have some simplified idea what certain things are and label them accordingly, it is going to be a discussion about label and not substance.

Edited September 12, 2016 by CharonY

[Tampitump]

To the OP, since you like videos:

 

http://www.investopedia.com/video/play/mixed-economic-system/

http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-a-mixed-economy-definition-characteristics-examples.html

http://study.com/academy/lesson/understanding-socialism-communism-and-mixed-economies.html

I post two videos and you say I like videos? What about all the videos you posted in our little evolution debate a few weeks ago, huh video boy?

 

lol.....just kidding man. Thanks, I'll take a look at them.

 

You'll likely not convert me to a socialist or a far left liberal. I support all the bleeding-heart stuff liberals support. But I approach them from a conservative trajectory. I support small gov't. I support SOME socialism, but not a socialist economy wherein we are ensuring everyone gets paid more "equally". Some people are not worthy of good pay. They haven't earned it. Of course this does not mean that I support laissez-faire capitalism that is predatory and unregulated. I don't support an irrelevant, powerless gov't. Again, I belong to ZERO political factions. I'm a free-thinker, however effective, and a staunch opponent or regressive-liberalism, feminism, postmodernism, cultural-relativism, moral-relativism, anti free-speech, and victim-culture. I see all of this within modern liberal ideology, and I feel that liberals should denounce the current liberal platform. We should be the champions of free speech, instead of systemically trying to stifle it with safe spaces, and instilling postmodernist ideology into academia.

 

Look up Gad Saad's podcast "The SAAD Truth" on youtube. His views are pretty much the same as mine.

I would like to point out that MLK and the civil rights movement were far more disruptive than anything we see today. Also, I find it curious that most claims of racism I noticed were from the right, i.e. reiterating the fear of being called out as racist, as opposed to the times they are actually being called out (which is usually reserved for the most blatant instances). It seems to me that the right seems to be keener on safe spaces than anyone else at this point. It is also part of tone deafness in certain people. Obviously not all criticism against, say, Islam should be slammed as being bigoted. However, if someone starts with "Islam is violent and responsible for terror and suppression of women" etc, , it is difficult to assume that a nuanced discussion in good faith can be conducted.

Right, and I don't want to come off as having that attitude or position. But I DO think that Islam is mostly terrible. I do. If the idea weren't called a religion or a "culture", you would have no problem detesting its absurdities and atrocities with the utmost ferocity and ruthlessness. These are just ideas, and they are despicable ideas at that. They are irrational, unscientific, and cause much more harm than good. I can't think of one good thing caused by Islam that isn't directly countered by another unthinkably cruel and inhumane thing.

[swansont]

Who gave my OP a negative rating? I want to know. Speak up. Who is the little pussy what was so offended by nothing to give a virtually content-free post a negative rating? I'm seriously getting POed at this forum. I thought the people here would be way smarter and less pathetically petty than this. Whoever you are, you are a pettifogging little bitch. I don't care how rude or indecent the people here think I am for saying this. Go fly a kite.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

I do care about how rude and indecent you are, and whether you are going off-topic expecting people to be politically correct for your sake. Don't do anything like this again.

 

Things not to do would include responding to this modnote via any means other than the report post function

[CharonY]

 

Right, and I don't want to come off as having that attitude or position. But I DO think that Islam is mostly terrible. I do. If the idea weren't called a religion or a "culture", you would have no problem detesting its absurdities and atrocities with the utmost ferocity and ruthlessness. These are just ideas, and they are despicable ideas at that. They are irrational, unscientific, and cause much more harm than good. I can't think of one good thing caused by Islam that isn't directly countered by another unthinkably cruel and inhumane thing.

 

The problem is that anything that is as broad and embedded requires a careful treatment and analysis that must be more encompassing than the latest news headlines. It is also important that one discusses the actual points rather than a caricature of what you think it is. And this requires a deep conversation with people involved in it and that have studied it. Virtually anything, if treated superficial enough can be discarded as irrational, unscientific etc. For example, I could easily make the case that modern capitalism is going to enslave us all. Or that socialism will create murderous dictatorship. But that would only betray my own ignorance.

[Phi for All]

You'll likely not convert me to a socialist or a far left liberal. I support all the bleeding-heart stuff liberals support. But I approach them from a conservative trajectory. I support small gov't. I support SOME socialism, but not a socialist economy wherein we are ensuring everyone gets paid more "equally".

 

I'm not trying to be provocative, but you don't know what's meant by "small government". I can say that with confidence, because nobody does. It's a non-starter as a definition. You may have an idea of what you think it should be, but it's going to be like heaven; all the believers are going to describe it a little differently.

 

Because conservatives made it all up. Why would one of the largest countries in the world need a "small government"? How could a small government regulate all the hugeness of the military, the diplomatic services, the domestic affairs that lie at the heart of our society? "Small government" is corporate code for "no regulations" and "low taxes", aka having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too.

 

And btw, everyone being paid equally is a communistic proposition, not a socialist one. Socialist equality would be like having a minimum subsistence invested in by the People, so nobody starts below a certain rung on the ladder (as it were), or where everyone is given a fair and even shot at education up through a certain level.

 

The big stink going on with wage inequality isn't a socialist movement; average wages used to be tied to productivity, but around Nixon's time, corporations started paying less for the same or greater productivity. 60 years later, wages have become completely decoupled from how productive we are for our employers. Corporations pay workers less for even more productivity, but they did it over decades so we didn't notice until it got this bad. This is a matter of lax regulations for our corporate policies, a capitalist problem.

[Tampitump]

Okay, fair enough Phi for All. My use of the term "small gov't" is a gov't that doesn't get involved in my decisions regarding what I should believe, what I can do with my own body, what I can do with my money, etc etc etc. I've said repeatedly that I don't advocate an irrelevant gov't with no power. I'm more of a cultural libertarian.

[Delta1212]

Well, you have to regulate what people do with their money to some extent. At a very basic level, you shouldn't allow people to pay others to commit crimes for you.

 

Total freedom is a nice ideal, but one that breaks down as soon as you have more than one person involved. Very few people want to live in a world where there are actually no restrictions on freedom, so it's helpful for establishing a dialogue if we admit that everything is really haggling over where to draw the lines rather than a debate over whether there should be lines at all.

[Phi for All]

Okay, fair enough Phi for All. My use of the term "small gov't" is a gov't that doesn't get involved in my decisions regarding what I should believe, what I can do with my own body, what I can do with my money, etc etc etc. I've said repeatedly that I don't advocate an irrelevant gov't with no power. I'm more of a cultural libertarian.

 

Please give an example of where our current government is restricting what you believe. "Get involved in my decisions" is far too vague to provide meaning to my answer. Television commercials "get involved in [your] decisions".

 

Give an example of where it's restricting what you can do with your own body.

 

Same with where it's restricting what you can do with your money.

Very few people want to live in a world where there are actually no restrictions on freedom, so it's helpful for establishing a dialogue if we admit that everything is really haggling over where to draw the lines rather than a debate over whether there should be lines at all.

 

That's the best response to the Libertarian stance I've heard.

[Tampitump]

I'm going to withdraw to save myself some grief. I recognize that there are some pretty damning limits to my wits, and that I'm dealing with much smarter people here. I'm going to wave my white flag, and cop out of this one while the gettin' is still good. After all, this whole thing got started after me expressing my beliefs against socialism. I'm out-classed, you guys win. Congratulations.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tampitump

[iNow]

This isn't about winning and losing. It's about learning and growing. You have enough confidence to assert your beliefs, but not enough to explain them or adjust them in the face of challenge? Really?

 

[Tampitump]

The scientific method, and careful observation is not always the answer. Sometimes you need the spunk, you need the anger, and you need to react.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tampitump

[CharonY]

Not if your goal is to understand the world (and yourself) better.

[Tampitump]

Not if your goal is to understand the world (and yourself) better.

There's the scientific method, then there's just stubborn unwillingness to accept patently obvious realities that are right before your face because they haven't been verified from "credible sources", or because no "citations" have been met. I concede the economics debate because I really don't give as much of a god damn about it, but the Islamic debate is the one that I'm still right on.

 

I don't know how you can have such a large population of people who tell you straight up that they support the death penalty for apostates, gays, and adulterers, and still keep up with you soft, denialistic, obscurantism and unwillingness to accept the facts of reality.

 

Here's just a small sample of the pew data:

 

People in favor of stoning as the penalty for adultery:

 

Egypt - 89% (66,486,600 people)

Pakistan - 81% (162,069,000 people)

Afghanistan - 85% (25,967,500 people)

 

Total - Roughly 254,523,500 people

 

People in favor of the death penalty for leaving the religion:

 

Egypt - 86% (70,571,600 people)

Afghanistan - 79% (24,095,000 people)

Pakistan - 76% (138,396,000 people)

Jordan - 82% (5,296, 380 people)

 

Total - Roughly 238,358,908

 

And these results are only from 3 or 4 small countries. The rest of the countries that were polled ranged anywhere from 30%-60%. I understand that sample sizes matter, but this is not a surprising statistic given the doctrinal advocacy of these things from the various Hadiths and the Quran. I would say these numbers are pretty accurate, and I feel that Pew has a pretty good operation going on when it comes to statistics and polling.

 

So when people keep saying, "there's no evidence for your assertions", or just continue to deny obvious truths, it is more than annoying and you should be utterly ashamed of yourself for being like that. Like I said before, there's the scientific method, then there's just denial, obscurantism, and unwillingness to accept evidence that is presented.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tampitump