Jussie Smollett Charged with False Report

This is where old posts that do not fit into any of the new forum categories are dumped.
zeke5123
Posts: 3129
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:43 pm

Re: Jussie Smollett Charged with False Report

Post by zeke5123 » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:46 pm

Still Lit wrote:Hey Zeke,

The issue is what socialism is in the first place. I said that a socialist regime must own the means of production. I was then labelled with various sobriquets for sticking to that.

My next attempt was to point out that liberal policy is not necessarily socialist. I did this by pointing out that that things like social security, medicare are social welfare programs supported by tax dollars generated from private enterprise.

Kodiak's retort is that there are ways to control how businesses are run without controlling operations and the means of production, for example, taxes, regulations, etc.

That brings us to my present line of inquiry: we can't be saying that regulation and oversight of business is socialism since that would include every viable regime on the planet. It is too broad a definition accurately to capture what socialism is if it is anything.

We need a definition that does not let in spurious cases and does not exclude genuine cases. But it may be that socialism is not really a natural kind and does not admit of a coherent definition.


I don't think there is a textbook definition of socailism that is appropriate in practice. Or stated differently, the real question is what does "ownership" mean? One can imagine where sufficient regulation is imposed on property that heavily curtails usage and onerous taxes such that the benefit from owning the property is largely expropriated that in practice the nominal owner is not the actual owner of the property.

I'd agree with you then that it is possible to argue that any regulation or any tax is socialist, as it is socializing the ownership of the good (to a point).

However, similar to our discussion of good and bad, I think socialism is meant to convey a situation where there is significant and material socialized ownership of the means of production. Thus, while I can't tell you the dividing line between why, e.g., a 10% tax on capital is not socialist but a 90% tax is, I think everyone has the same intuition that there is a categorical difference betwixt the two. Hate to fall back on Potter's aphorism of "I know it when I see it," but fee things in life are Platonic forms.



Kodiak
Posts: 19242
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:49 am

Still Lit wrote:My next attempt was to point out that liberal policy is not necessarily socialist.


It is absolutely socialist. Granted, there are degrees of socialism, but we do not actually live under free market capitalism. Indeed, several so-called "socialist" society rank higher for economic freedom.

And I'm not saying that any and all socialism is bad....just pointing out that what most people are advocating is more socialism....and that is associated, usually, with higher unemployment, much higher taxes, and lower growth. That may very well be what society wants, although I cannot imagine why.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

Kodiak
Posts: 19242
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:55 am

Still Lit wrote:Kodiak needs to explain more unless he's really going to affirm that all regulation of business is socialist


In practice, YES. That's not passing judgement on good or bad, but merely stating fact. I also never said regulation is socialism, but rather that regulation means classical social ownership is not necessary. Surely someone so specific with their words would have understood that, but then you're not being intellectually honest in this debate, are you professor?

I will not continue splitting hairs over language with someone who either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge fundamental economic principles. This is not a debate about semantics - if you want to debate economic theory you have a lot of reading to do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

Kodiak
Posts: 19242
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:57 am

SteelPro wrote:I hope you aren’t truly expecting a legitimate well reasoned response. Shall I speed this up for you? It doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict this one.


LOL. From someone clearly lacking the education and experience to reason.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

Legacy User
Posts: 288948
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 am

Post by Legacy User » Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:44 am

Kodiak wrote:
Still Lit wrote:Kodiak needs to explain more unless he's really going to affirm that all regulation of business is socialist


In practice, YES. That's not passing judgement on good or bad, but merely stating fact. I also never said regulation is socialism, but rather that regulation means classical social ownership is not necessary. Surely someone so specific with their words would have understood that, but then you're not being intellectually honest in this debate, are you professor?

I will not continue splitting hairs over language with someone who either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge fundamental economic principles. This is not a debate about semantics - if you want to debate economic theory you have a lot of reading to do.


Oh no, friend, that is not what happened.

You said that socialism does not require ownership of means of production bc business could be controlled by other means.

The implication (implication is necessary bc you have not been clear) is that control of business is socialism.

I responded that all govt controls business to some extent so all govt must be socialist on your view.

Now you return to insults. Come now.

Instead, just tell us what kind of control and how much of it warrants the name socialism. Indeed, I feel like i’m about to learn something, so do us a kindness a say a bit more.

The idea that I would need to do a lot reading in order for you to explain your own claims is silly. If you know what you’re talking about, you’ll be able to do so easily.

User avatar
jebrick
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:59 pm

Post by jebrick » Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:14 pm

Kodiak wrote:
Still Lit wrote:Kodiak needs to explain more unless he's really going to affirm that all regulation of business is socialist


In practice, YES. That's not passing judgement on good or bad, but merely stating fact. I also never said regulation is socialism, but rather that regulation means classical social ownership is not necessary. Surely someone so specific with their words would have understood that, but then you're not being intellectually honest in this debate, are you professor?

I will not continue splitting hairs over language with someone who either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge fundamental economic principles. This is not a debate about semantics - if you want to debate economic theory you have a lot of reading to do.


i must agree with Lit here. Are you saying that any regulation of businesses is socialism because that is what it seems. Regulations by a government are put in place to benefit society.

I guess you could reach for that if the basis is pure capitalism. Any regulation of pure capitalism could be considered socialist if you squint at it ( a lot). I prefer things like child labor laws and various safety regulations over pure capitalism. You can argue how much regulation is needed but to equate regulation to the standard definition of socialism i.e. control of production is a bit of a reach.
"I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts."

- Mark Twain

955876
Posts: 2830
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 8:24 pm

Post by 955876 » Wed Apr 24, 2019 7:20 pm

Regulations by a government are put in place to benefit society.


Sometimes.

And sometimes they are put in place to benefit the politician or party pushing the reg.
”I was putting time pressure on the Raiders”… MT

Kodiak
Posts: 19242
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:29 am

jebrick wrote:i must agree with Lit here. Are you saying that any regulation of businesses is socialism because that is what it seems.


No, I thought I was clear.

Regulation is not socialism, but it is a MEANS to socialism. You seem to be just blindly assuming that every regulation is for the public good....I'm here to tell you it's not.

Any regulation is inherently anti-free markets. That doesn't make it bad. But as it relates to this discussion, it's corrupt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

Kodiak
Posts: 19242
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:31 am

955876 wrote:
Regulations by a government are put in place to benefit society.


Sometimes.

And sometimes they are put in place to benefit the politician or party pushing the reg.


This is the big disconnect in this thread. The "my government is my God"....Always good for a chuckle when an atheist realizes who he worships....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

Legacy User
Posts: 288948
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 am

Post by Legacy User » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:27 am

Kodiak wrote:
jebrick wrote:i must agree with Lit here. Are you saying that any regulation of businesses is socialism because that is what it seems.


No, I thought I was clear.

Regulation is not socialism, but it is a MEANS to socialism. You seem to be just blindly assuming that every regulation is for the public good....I'm here to tell you it's not.

Any regulation is inherently anti-free markets. That doesn't make it bad. But as it relates to this discussion, it's corrupt.


I can agree that any reg by definition restricts freedom. Although Plato has some things to say in book 8 of the Republic that puts pressure on that intuitive position.

Now, you say regulation is means to (for?) socialism. Y being a means or road to X does not make Y an instance of X. Also, regulation is a means for several kinds of regimes and not only socialism (do I equivocate here and confuse political with economic systems?—is there only capitalism and socialism as economic models?).

So what the fuck is socialism if it is not regulation per se?

Then we can see whether all liberal policy tends toward socialism.

Not trying to be a dick. I hope that’s clear.

SteelPro
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:38 pm

Post by SteelPro » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:41 am

955876 wrote:
Regulations by a government are put in place to benefit society.


Sometimes.

And sometimes they are put in place to benefit the politician or party pushing the reg.


I think for the most part regulations are well meaning. The problem is the unintended consequences often create more problems than what the regulation was intended to fix. Perhaps the biggest reason Trump is president is the poorly estimated impact of Obama era regulations on business, energy, and the environment. When your regulations cripple entire industries in swing states a political price is going to be paid.

User avatar
jebrick
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:59 pm

Post by jebrick » Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:10 pm

SteelPro wrote:
955876 wrote:
Regulations by a government are put in place to benefit society.


Sometimes.

And sometimes they are put in place to benefit the politician or party pushing the reg.


I think for the most part regulations are well meaning. The problem is the unintended consequences often create more problems than what the regulation was intended to fix. Perhaps the biggest reason Trump is president is the poorly estimated impact of Obama era regulations on business, energy, and the environment. When your regulations cripple entire industries in swing states a political price is going to be paid.


I would disagree in that Trump is President because a) HRC was a horrible candidate. B) The Dems, under Bill Clinton, abandoned the working class, which the GOP never supported. This led to no one making policies to help the working class and thus they ( as a disparate group) felt like no one was speaking for them. The Clinton/Obama wing is closer to the GOP in who they target as donors. Trump spoke to the working class to get elected. Bernie Sanders spoke ( and speaks) to them as well. IMHO, Bernie would have beaten Trump in the general election because Bernie would have taken voters from Trump.

But all of this comes around to none of the candidates on the Democratic side are proposing socialist ( based on the dictionary definition) policies. They are speaking of expanding the welfare state. They wish to expand the tax base ( read tax wealthier people) so they can spend the money in different places than the GOP.
"I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts."

- Mark Twain

SteelPro
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:38 pm

Post by SteelPro » Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:01 pm

jebrick wrote:
I would disagree in that Trump is President because a) HRC was a horrible candidate. B) The Dems, under Bill Clinton, abandoned the working class, which the GOP never supported. This led to no one making policies to help the working class and thus they ( as a disparate group) felt like no one was speaking for them. The Clinton/Obama wing is closer to the GOP in who they target as donors. Trump spoke to the working class to get elected. Bernie Sanders spoke ( and speaks) to them as well. IMHO, Bernie would have beaten Trump in the general election because Bernie would have taken voters from Trump.

But all of this comes around to none of the candidates on the Democratic side are proposing socialist ( based on the dictionary definition) policies. They are speaking of expanding the welfare state. They wish to expand the tax base ( read tax wealthier people) so they can spend the money in different places than the GOP.


From 2010 - 2016 these states had the following coal power station closures:

Pennsylvania 6
Ohio 10
Michigan 6

That impacted a lot of families. So someone coming in speaking of ending the "war on coal" was a huge reason those states turned red. Maybe Bernie steals some of the populist vote from Trump. There is a good argument to be made though that moderate Dems might have been scared aware from a socialist platform. And lets be frank here, Bernie goes beyond just expanding the welfare state. He is a self admitted socialist. I'm not so sure in a general election 2016 that would have worked. I do think now that the Trump hatred is so white hot moderate Dems will full on embrace the self admitted socialist be damned the consequences. However, if Bernie keeps trying to out crazy talk Trump by continuing to press for allowing incarcerated felons to vote... that stuff won't fly in midwest swing states.

User avatar
jebrick
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:59 pm

Post by jebrick » Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:23 pm

SteelPro wrote:
jebrick wrote:
I would disagree in that Trump is President because a) HRC was a horrible candidate. B) The Dems, under Bill Clinton, abandoned the working class, which the GOP never supported. This led to no one making policies to help the working class and thus they ( as a disparate group) felt like no one was speaking for them. The Clinton/Obama wing is closer to the GOP in who they target as donors. Trump spoke to the working class to get elected. Bernie Sanders spoke ( and speaks) to them as well. IMHO, Bernie would have beaten Trump in the general election because Bernie would have taken voters from Trump.

But all of this comes around to none of the candidates on the Democratic side are proposing socialist ( based on the dictionary definition) policies. They are speaking of expanding the welfare state. They wish to expand the tax base ( read tax wealthier people) so they can spend the money in different places than the GOP.


From 2010 - 2016 these states had the following coal power station closures:

Pennsylvania 6
Ohio 10
Michigan 6

That impacted a lot of families. So someone coming in speaking of ending the "war on coal" was a huge reason those states turned red. Maybe Bernie steals some of the populist vote from Trump. There is a good argument to be made though that moderate Dems might have been scared aware from a socialist platform. And lets be frank here, Bernie goes beyond just expanding the welfare state. He is a self admitted socialist. I'm not so sure in a general election 2016 that would have worked. I do think now that the Trump hatred is so white hot moderate Dems will full on embrace the self admitted socialist be damned the consequences. However, if Bernie keeps trying to out crazy talk Trump by continuing to press for allowing incarcerated felons to vote... that stuff won't fly in midwest swing states.


Talk is good. What has Trump and the GOP actually done to help the coal industry? It is like trying to help the charcoal burners union when coal production began to ramp up in the 1700's. The GOP has changed some regulations and perhaps created 100 jobs in coal mines because mines are mostly automated. How many new coal burning plants have even been proposed? I do know that Ohio is building a natural gas plant in the same county as their largest coal mine. That should tell you everything about this. The GOP has helped the coal mine OWNERS in allowing them to dump pensions.

Trumps policies have done almost nothing for the midwest except hurt farmers. Not saying Bernie would be better. I think their trade policies would be the same.

Bernie's only socialist platform is healthcare. And I think he has moderated even that but I do not follow him.

As I have said, I am willing to debate healthcare. I think we are at a point where it is not working for the vast majority of people and their is no silver bullet.
"I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts."

- Mark Twain

SteelPro
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:38 pm

Post by SteelPro » Thu Apr 25, 2019 6:40 pm

jebrick wrote:
SteelPro wrote:
jebrick wrote:
I would disagree in that Trump is President because a) HRC was a horrible candidate. B) The Dems, under Bill Clinton, abandoned the working class, which the GOP never supported. This led to no one making policies to help the working class and thus they ( as a disparate group) felt like no one was speaking for them. The Clinton/Obama wing is closer to the GOP in who they target as donors. Trump spoke to the working class to get elected. Bernie Sanders spoke ( and speaks) to them as well. IMHO, Bernie would have beaten Trump in the general election because Bernie would have taken voters from Trump.

But all of this comes around to none of the candidates on the Democratic side are proposing socialist ( based on the dictionary definition) policies. They are speaking of expanding the welfare state. They wish to expand the tax base ( read tax wealthier people) so they can spend the money in different places than the GOP.


From 2010 - 2016 these states had the following coal power station closures:

Pennsylvania 6
Ohio 10
Michigan 6

That impacted a lot of families. So someone coming in speaking of ending the "war on coal" was a huge reason those states turned red. Maybe Bernie steals some of the populist vote from Trump. There is a good argument to be made though that moderate Dems might have been scared aware from a socialist platform. And lets be frank here, Bernie goes beyond just expanding the welfare state. He is a self admitted socialist. I'm not so sure in a general election 2016 that would have worked. I do think now that the Trump hatred is so white hot moderate Dems will full on embrace the self admitted socialist be damned the consequences. However, if Bernie keeps trying to out crazy talk Trump by continuing to press for allowing incarcerated felons to vote... that stuff won't fly in midwest swing states.


Talk is good. What has Trump and the GOP actually done to help the coal industry? It is like trying to help the charcoal burners union when coal production began to ramp up in the 1700's. The GOP has changed some regulations and perhaps created 100 jobs in coal mines because mines are mostly automated. How many new coal burning plants have even been proposed? I do know that Ohio is building a natural gas plant in the same county as their largest coal mine. That should tell you everything about this. The GOP has helped the coal mine OWNERS in allowing them to dump pensions.

Trumps policies have done almost nothing for the midwest except hurt farmers. Not saying Bernie would be better. I think their trade policies would be the same.

Bernie's only socialist platform is healthcare. And I think he has moderated even that but I do not follow him.

As I have said, I am willing to debate healthcare. I think we are at a point where it is not working for the vast majority of people and their is no silver bullet.



I'm not saying Trump has done anything substantial for the coal power industry. And yes, coal power was/is a sinking ship. But Democratic policies have certainly hastened that demise. So just talking a good game was a big deal in those Swing States. As opposed the Hillary's comments... "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."

User avatar
jebrick
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:59 pm

Post by jebrick » Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:14 pm

SteelPro wrote:
I'm not saying Trump has done anything substantial for the coal power industry. And yes, coal power was/is a sinking ship. But Democratic policies have certainly hastened that demise. So just talking a good game was a big deal in those Swing States. As opposed the Hillary's comments... "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."


Thus point proving both my points A and B. I know a lot of midwest people who were looking at either Bernie or Trump. what both of them have in common is the populist message to the working man. The advantage Sanders has is he really believes what he says. It is part of his values.
"I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts."

- Mark Twain

SteelPro
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2019 7:38 pm

Post by SteelPro » Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:23 pm

jebrick wrote:
SteelPro wrote:
I'm not saying Trump has done anything substantial for the coal power industry. And yes, coal power was/is a sinking ship. But Democratic policies have certainly hastened that demise. So just talking a good game was a big deal in those Swing States. As opposed the Hillary's comments... "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."


Thus point proving both my points A and B. I know a lot of midwest people who were looking at either Bernie or Trump. what both of them have in common is the populist message to the working man. The advantage Sanders has is he really believes what he says. It is part of his values.

Bernie would have come under a lot more scrutiny had he won the nomination. He never had to really defend his stances on fossil fuel policies in Appalachia. I’m not saying he wouldn’t have fared better than Hillary. But it still would have been tough sledding for him in those States.

Donnie Brasco
Posts: 5644
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2019 11:53 am

Post by Donnie Brasco » Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:52 pm

SteelPro wrote:
jebrick wrote:
SteelPro wrote:
I'm not saying Trump has done anything substantial for the coal power industry. And yes, coal power was/is a sinking ship. But Democratic policies have certainly hastened that demise. So just talking a good game was a big deal in those Swing States. As opposed the Hillary's comments... "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."


Thus point proving both my points A and B. I know a lot of midwest people who were looking at either Bernie or Trump. what both of them have in common is the populist message to the working man. The advantage Sanders has is he really believes what he says. It is part of his values.

Bernie would have come under a lot more scrutiny had he won the nomination. He never had to really defend his stances on fossil fuel policies in Appalachia. I’m not saying he wouldn’t have fared better than Hillary. But it still would have been tough sledding for him in those States.


Can't disagree with that take- he may have indeed been roasted when it came down to brass tacks.

But I think many people liked Bernie because he seemed more genuine than HRC or Trump (not a big hurdle to clear)
Don't underestimate likeability factor when it comes to being the POTUS. Reagan and Clinton both had it and are looked upon favorably

User avatar
jebrick
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:59 pm

Post by jebrick » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:30 pm

SteelPro wrote:
jebrick wrote:
SteelPro wrote:
I'm not saying Trump has done anything substantial for the coal power industry. And yes, coal power was/is a sinking ship. But Democratic policies have certainly hastened that demise. So just talking a good game was a big deal in those Swing States. As opposed the Hillary's comments... "We're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business."


Thus point proving both my points A and B. I know a lot of midwest people who were looking at either Bernie or Trump. what both of them have in common is the populist message to the working man. The advantage Sanders has is he really believes what he says. It is part of his values.

Bernie would have come under a lot more scrutiny had he won the nomination. He never had to really defend his stances on fossil fuel policies in Appalachia. I’m not saying he wouldn’t have fared better than Hillary. But it still would have been tough sledding for him in those States.


Bernie's bullshit policies would come under more scrutiny but he would still be taking voters from Trump in the election. If he got all the the HRC votes plus ones he would get from Trump. Anyone who tells the true will have a hard time Appalachia so make up some BS about being for the working man and play on their fears.


That is neither here not there.
"I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts."

- Mark Twain

User avatar
K_C_
Posts: 20048
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:37 pm
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Contact:

Post by K_C_ » Fri Apr 26, 2019 3:34 pm

SteelPro wrote:
jebrick wrote:
I would disagree in that Trump is President because a) HRC was a horrible candidate. B) The Dems, under Bill Clinton, abandoned the working class, which the GOP never supported. This led to no one making policies to help the working class and thus they ( as a disparate group) felt like no one was speaking for them. The Clinton/Obama wing is closer to the GOP in who they target as donors. Trump spoke to the working class to get elected. Bernie Sanders spoke ( and speaks) to them as well. IMHO, Bernie would have beaten Trump in the general election because Bernie would have taken voters from Trump.

But all of this comes around to none of the candidates on the Democratic side are proposing socialist ( based on the dictionary definition) policies. They are speaking of expanding the welfare state. They wish to expand the tax base ( read tax wealthier people) so they can spend the money in different places than the GOP.


From 2010 - 2016 these states had the following coal power station closures:

Pennsylvania 6
Ohio 10
Michigan 6

That impacted a lot of families. So someone coming in speaking of ending the "war on coal" was a huge reason those states turned red. Maybe Bernie steals some of the populist vote from Trump. There is a good argument to be made though that moderate Dems might have been scared aware from a socialist platform. And lets be frank here, Bernie goes beyond just expanding the welfare state. He is a self admitted socialist. I'm not so sure in a general election 2016 that would have worked. I do think now that the Trump hatred is so white hot moderate Dems will full on embrace the self admitted socialist be damned the consequences. However, if Bernie keeps trying to out crazy talk Trump by continuing to press for allowing incarcerated felons to vote... that stuff won't fly in midwest swing states.


Once Trump learns how huge the Aryan Brotherhood population is in prison, he'll be all for inmates voting.
"In my opinion, he is a great motivator and good leader of men, but a shit tactician and absolutely game day imbecile".

Baltostiller

User avatar
Pabst
Posts: 2647
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:14 pm

Post by Pabst » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:26 pm

KC wrote:Once Trump learns how huge the Aryan Brotherhood population is in prison, he'll be all for inmates voting.

Numbers-wise, they're actually fairly small. Influence is primarily due to extreme violence and key alliances (particularly with the Mexican Mafia). I watch alot of Gangland.

Kodiak
Posts: 19242
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:13 am

Still Lit wrote:So what the fuck is socialism if it is not regulation per se?

Then we can see whether all liberal policy tends toward socialism.

Not trying to be a dick. I hope that’s clear.


Regulation and taxes are mostly the opposite of free markets, agreed?

Now, despite being a card-carrying Libertarian, I will not denigrate ALL regulation and taxes. However, more often than not, it's not a public good much less effective and efficient. If there was a fundamental case for what we call liberalism today, they wouldn't rely almost purely on emotional appeal. Why all these arguments have to completely trample state rights is absolutely beyond me.

I'm merely pointing out that an 18th century definition of socialism doesn't mean tax & spend and spend & tax some more policies aren't socialism. In many respects, regulations and taxes are much more efficient than actually running the company.

I favor regulation and taxes that INCREASE transparency and information. In our modern world, that's generally not the case. The former adds value, as predicted by theory (which assumes perfect information). But when I see someone like Beto or AOC proposing TRILLIONS to combat climate change, I see zealots looking to enrich themselves and their supporters.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

Kodiak
Posts: 19242
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 8:43 pm

Post by Kodiak » Tue Apr 30, 2019 7:26 am

Still Lit wrote:I realize all this, but I was called an Ivory Tower dumb fuck for saying it. What you have expressed was what I was told was a distinction without a difference and an "intellectually bankrupt argument." (Nevermind that it is a claim, not an argument.)


The problem is, once you introduce progressiveness into a social insurance program, then it is no longer social insurance but socialism. You're convoluting the argument to claim SS/Medicare are the same as govt takeovers of health insurance and energy. The end results may not be that different, out of necessity, but it's pseudo intellectualism to pretend the fundamentals of the programs are the same.

And when it's no longer self-funded because of gross miscalculation (medicare) or abusive misappropriation (social security), then what you are left with is an unfunded promise that can only be made whole by a redistribution of wealth. It may seem trivial when the govt simply prints money to fund its promises, but that is implicitly a tax on EVERYONE, without respect to what you have contributed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben comes back, Tomlin doesn't = CHAMPIONSHIP!!!

User avatar
jebrick
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:59 pm

Post by jebrick » Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:12 pm

Kodiak wrote:
Still Lit wrote:I realize all this, but I was called an Ivory Tower dumb fuck for saying it. What you have expressed was what I was told was a distinction without a difference and an "intellectually bankrupt argument." (Nevermind that it is a claim, not an argument.)


The problem is, once you introduce progressiveness into a social insurance program, then it is no longer social insurance but socialism. You're convoluting the argument to claim SS/Medicare are the same as govt takeovers of health insurance and energy. The end results may not be that different, out of necessity, but it's pseudo intellectualism to pretend the fundamentals of the programs are the same.

And when it's no longer self-funded because of gross miscalculation (medicare) or abusive misappropriation (social security), then what you are left with is an unfunded promise that can only be made whole by a redistribution of wealth. It may seem trivial when the govt simply prints money to fund its promises, but that is implicitly a tax on EVERYONE, without respect to what you have contributed.


i think you need to separate SS from Medicare in your argument. SS is a welfare program there is literately no way of socializing it. Yes, you can mismanage it and run out of money but because there is no production you can't control it. You do not need a redistribution of wealth to help SS. Just change the spending. Less going out and more coming in ( via already budgeted items not taxes).

Heathcare can be socialized as in controlling the production/payment. The arguments for and against revolve around costs of Heathcare. It is an interesting dilemma for most Conservatives in that they want no government control of any aspect of business but want to control the price of healthcare. The Paul Ryan conservative want to adjust the spending while letting the business charge whatever they want. This is approaching a failure point mainly do to the cost keep going up. To stay true to their stated beliefs, the Ryan Conservatives have to cover less people.
"I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts."

- Mark Twain

Legacy User
Posts: 288948
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2019 1:19 am

Post by Legacy User » Tue Apr 30, 2019 2:53 pm

Kodiak wrote:
Still Lit wrote:So what the fuck is socialism if it is not regulation per se?

Then we can see whether all liberal policy tends toward socialism.

Not trying to be a dick. I hope that’s clear.


Regulation and taxes are mostly the opposite of free markets, agreed?

Now, despite being a card-carrying Libertarian, I will not denigrate ALL regulation and taxes. However, more often than not, it's not a public good much less effective and efficient. If there was a fundamental case for what we call liberalism today, they wouldn't rely almost purely on emotional appeal. Why all these arguments have to completely trample state rights is absolutely beyond me.

I'm merely pointing out that an 18th century definition of socialism doesn't mean tax & spend and spend & tax some more policies aren't socialism. In many respects, regulations and taxes are much more efficient than actually running the company.

I favor regulation and taxes that INCREASE transparency and information. In our modern world, that's generally not the case. The former adds value, as predicted by theory (which assumes perfect information). But when I see someone like Beto or AOC proposing TRILLIONS to combat climate change, I see zealots looking to enrich themselves and their supporters.


Regulation is the opposite of a free market by definition, of course.

However, none of what you posted explains why regulation = socialism.

Are you claiming that any and all economic regulation is socialism or only certain kinds?

My beef with you has not been an evaluation of the merits of regulation, but what socialism is.

You say that Marx's definition is outdated on the grounds that there are other ways to control business other than by owning the means of production. Fair enough, I do not deny it.

My question is: why are you calling any regulation a form of socialism? Are there only two economic models, free capitalism or socialism? I'm confused about why any and all regulation is socialism just because it is regulation. That seems absurd. But this may not be what you are claiming.

Locked Previous topicNext topic