Socialism Is Always Doomed to Fail

[whollygoats]

You keep using that word.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You keep using that word.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Who were directing that to?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Isn't the argument that we are having on this is how much an economy is mixed compared to socialist. Heritage has Iran as 155th on economic freedom

Most of the world's economies are mixed economies, on a sliding scale that ranges from capitalism (in the free market sense of the world) to communism at the endpoints. The discussion really should be about where on the scale any given economy is. Very few countries are at the extreme itself, such as North Korea.

In theory, if we were being more careful with our language, we'd see which countries are closer to either of the endpoints and compare how they do to countries on other places on the sliding scale.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Isn't the argument that we are having on this is how much an economy is mixed compared to socialist. Heritage has Iran as 155th on economic freedom

Capitalism isn't economic freedom. A purely capitalist society is anti-competition because the corporations get swallowed by bigger corporations until there is a *-poly. They create a barrier of smaller entries into the market, engage in price fixing, etc. The government has to engage in intervention to keep the playing field more equal so that smaller entities can be free and also so that consumers can enjoy economic choice.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Isn't the argument that we are having on this is how much an economy is mixed compared to socialist. Heritage has Iran as 155th on economic freedom

Most of the world's economies are mixed economies, on a sliding scale that ranges from capitalism (in the free market sense of the world) to communism at the endpoints. The discussion really should be about where on the scale any given economy is. Very few countries are at the extreme itself, such as North Korea.

In theory, if we were being more careful with our language, we'd see which countries are closer to either of the endpoints and compare how they do to countries on other places on the sliding scale.

Correct. Heritage puts out an economic freedom index which highlights the general areas that they believe are necessary for capitalism. If you wanted a definition and support for what constitutes capitalism, this would be a source.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Isn't the argument that we are having on this is how much an economy is mixed compared to socialist. Heritage has Iran as 155th on economic freedom

Capitalism isn't economic freedom. A purely capitalist society is anti-competition because the corporations get swallowed by bigger corporations until there is a *-poly. They create a barrier of smaller entries into the market, engage in price fixing, etc. The government has to engage in intervention to keep the playing field more equal so that smaller entities can be free and also so that consumers can enjoy economic choice.

The economic freedom is very much a part of it. You are describing the catch 22 though. The government creates the regulations that create the large companies by protecting them and then has to break them up. Except I say that the problem with monopolies are greatly exaggerated by the government. They don't last and the harm they can usually do is very small. The behemoths of the past go bye bye if they don't continue to meet customer demands.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Isn't the argument that we are having on this is how much an economy is mixed compared to socialist. Heritage has Iran as 155th on economic freedom

Capitalism isn't economic freedom. A purely capitalist society is anti-competition because the corporations get swallowed by bigger corporations until there is a *-poly. They create a barrier of smaller entries into the market, engage in price fixing, etc. The government has to engage in intervention to keep the playing field more equal so that smaller entities can be free and also so that consumers can enjoy economic choice.

The economic freedom is very much a part of it. You are describing the catch 22 though. The government creates the regulations that create the large companies by protecting them and then has to break them up. Except I say that the problem with monopolies are greatly exaggerated by the government. They don't last and the harm they can usually do is very small. The behemoths of the past go bye bye if they don't continue to meet customer demands.

Yours is an ideological tenet of faith, not verified by empirical evidence. Big companies create a market barrier for new companies and swallow up their IP, sometimes even killing it off. Microsoft is a good example. It isn't dying off either. Pharmaceutical companies are another good example. Telecoms are another.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Back in the 1970s, IBM was the giant in the tech industry, and it was said they had so much monopoly power that no other tech company could ever grow big without being swallowed or destroyed.

By the time the 1990s rolled around Microsoft was the giant in the tech industry, and it was said they had so much monopoly power that no other tech company could ever grow big without being swallowed or destroyed. During the investigations against Microsoft, that is when AOL acquired Time-Warner, creating AOL-Netscape-CompuServe-Time-Warner-Turner-CNN.

Then the 2010s came and now Google is the giant in the tech industry, and they have so much monopoly power that no other tech company could ever grow big without being swallowed or destroyed. Antitrust hearings are going on in the EU to limit Google's power. Meanwhile Amazon is surpassing Barnes and Noble as the largest book seller.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The economic freedom is very much a part of it. You are describing the catch 22 though. The government creates the regulations that create the large companies by protecting them and then has to break them up. Except I say that the problem with monopolies are greatly exaggerated by the government. They don't last and the harm they can usually do is very small. The behemoths of the past go bye bye if they don't continue to meet customer demands.

Yours is an ideological tenet of faith, not verified by empirical evidence. Big companies create a market barrier for new companies and swallow up their IP, sometimes even killing it off. Microsoft is a good example. It isn't dying off either. Pharmaceutical companies are another good example. Telecoms are another.

You are describing one area that capitalists do split on, the role of patents. But patents are one rule of government that does protect larger business, though it's supposed to help smaller ones. Microsoft could easily be gone in a few years, and it's funny because we are arguing about products that are free.

Telecoms also because the government gives them the benefits with the land use right aways.

 

[dismal]

Isn't Iran capitalist?

Can I open up a rib joint on main street if I want to? A movie theater? A gasoline station? Can I sell what I want to sell and charge what I want to charge?

 

[whollygoats]

Isn't Iran capitalist?

Can I open up a rib joint on main street if I want to? A movie theater? A gasoline station? Can I sell what I want to sell and charge what I want to charge?

So, CMOT Dibbler is the epitome of capitalism?

 

[untermensche]

Best but not perfect, as sometimes the majority votes to violate those rights.

Nobody ever voted for slavery. Or voted to make marijuana illegal.

It is minorities that do the things you fear all the time.

And you seem perfectly happy with it.

You are the type that deserves dictatorship. You long for it.

I'm not wailing against democracy, I'm asking how you plan to protect people against this potentiality.

You're spreading disinformation about it. You think the decisions of dictators like Hitler are democratic.

Having all people without access to firearms is a wise safety measure.

So it isn't diminishing anyones' rights if it isn't a right you agree with. Therefore this isn't a True Scotsman. Got it.

Is taking away the right to own slaves taking away rights or giving rights?

The right to own firearms is like the right to own slaves. It is giving some people a right and taking away rights of others.

People have the inherent right not to be killed by somebody with a firearm. That is the right that is supreme.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Nobody ever voted for slavery. Or voted to make marijuana illegal.

And yet it happened.

And you seem perfectly happy with it.

Nope, I'm asking how you plan to deal with it when the majority tries to violate the rights of the minority.

You are the type that deserves dictatorship. You long for it.

Nope, I'm asking how you plan to deal with it when the majority tries to violate the rights of the minority.

You're spreading disinformation about it. You think the decisions of dictators like Hitler are democratic.

Nope, I'm asking how you plan to deal with it when the majority tries to violate the rights of the minority.

Having all people without access to firearms is a wise safety measure.

So it isn't diminishing anyones' rights if it isn't a right you agree with. Therefore this isn't a True Scotsman. Got it.

Is taking away the right to own slaves taking away rights or giving rights?

So you think owning people is the same as owning objects?

The right to own firearms is like the right to own slaves.

I think there's a big difference between owning an object and owning a person. Apparently you think they're the same. How many people do you want to own?

People have the inherent right not to be killed by somebody with a firearm. That is the right that is supreme.

So you're okay with killing them in other ways.

 

[untermensche]

You have no more arguments.

Democracy in name only, like the US, of course is not enough. You need a functioning democracy.

And you need a Bill of Rights and Courts that protect rights.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You have no more arguments.

What I have is a question, not an argument.

And you need a Bill of Rights and Courts that protect rights.

Which the majority could repeal. People today are talking about repealing the 2nd amendment.

 

[untermensche]

You have no more arguments.

What I have is a question, not an argument.

And you need a Bill of Rights and Courts that protect rights.

Which the majority could repeal. People today are talking about repealing the 2nd amendment.

You are fine with the elephant crushing your chest but fear the ant crawling on the ground.

You can either have democracy in some form or dictatorship in some form.

You prefer dictatorship.

 

[coloradoatheist]

What I have is a question, not an argument.



Which the majority could repeal. People today are talking about repealing the 2nd amendment.

You are fine with the elephant crushing your chest but fear the ant crawling on the ground.

You can either have democracy in some form or dictatorship in some form.

You prefer dictatorship.

No, the preference is to maximize freedom, of which democracy is a subset but you have to ver aware of it's abuses.

 

[untermensche]

What do you propose instead?

If it isn't democracy it's some minority enforcing dictates.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Capitalism lets money rule the world.

 

[arkirk]

What I have is a question, not an argument.



Which the majority could repeal. People today are talking about repealing the 2nd amendment.

You are fine with the elephant crushing your chest but fear the ant crawling on the ground.

You can either have democracy in some form or dictatorship in some form.

You prefer dictatorship.

Whatever form of governance one lives under, if it is properly tempered with HUMANISM will be okay. The problem is that the dictatorships and the like get narrower and narrower views of of just who is human. It can also happen in democracies...such as Israel. Where the European Jews think they have God's blessing to ethnic cleanse Muslims and even Sephardi Jews. Propagandists are able with mass media to stir populations into a fury of contempt for those not like themselves. It is the religious basis of their claim of power that makes Netanyahu's government unacceptable, and the so-called democracy they say they have does not cure the problem. People who place their faith in military might are always wrong. Until all human beings have some inalienable rights, there will continue to be killing and atrocities. Marx was right if the right people had taken power during the revolution. They were assassinated by the Bolsheviks. Place your faith in force of arms and you spiral into disorderly chaos and start to murder your fellow men. Our country is now in that spiral. I sincerely hope it is not a death spiral and cooler calmer heads prevail, but so far I see our country as in the hands of people that think a nation is a race car and they can steer it anywhere they like...like out of international agreements to save the planet from catastrophic effects of over-industrialization. I don't think any specific ideology will guarantee we remain a civilized species. It takes genuine humanistic values that devalue NOBODY AT ALL.