Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So again I ask, are you repukies saying that Repugnicans LIKE regulation? Is that what you're trying to get across? Have I been wrong all these years to say that Repugnicans believe solely in deregulation? Damn, I'd love it. So go on, I await impatiently.
If you look at what Republicans do while in office then you must conclude Republicans want regulations.
Besides your childish third grade mentality. I'll let Reagan explain it to you...
Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work—work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.
Make it work? Is that what the right wing intention was? Well, here's an FYI for you - the right wing deregulation not only did not work, but it damaged what there was already in place, and gave us a nice gigantic economic disaster to deal with to boot.
I suggest next time you right wingers get it into your heads to "FIX" something, remember that adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Also, if you're going to fix it, deregulation is the WORST way to fix anything. All deregulation is, is PURE CHAOS in which the wealthy, powerful and crooked are given a green light to do any damned thing they feel like. I'd say it's best if you right wingers sit on your hands and do nothing. Seems like everything you people touch, ends up royally f'd up.
Make it work? Is that what the right wing intention was? Well, here's an FYI for you - the right wing deregulation not only did not work, but it damaged what there was already in place, and gave us a nice gigantic economic disaster to deal with to boot.
I suggest next time you right wingers get it into your heads to "FIX" something, remember that adage, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Also, if you're going to fix it, deregulation is the WORST way to fix anything. All deregulation is, is PURE CHAOS in which the wealthy, powerful and crooked are given a green light to do any damned thing they feel like. I'd say it's best if you right wingers sit on your hands and do nothing. Seems like everything you people touch, ends up royally f'd up.
Actually, what Marx envisioned was the withering away of the state, sounds pretty close to the anarchist libertarian goal, unlike most libertarians who believe government does have a role in protecting life, liberty and property.
There is that property thing again. I have a new phrase I just invented - legislatively created equity -. Not in my Nirvana.
Now that we are on it that is the distinction. Marx considered land usufruct where libertarians believe in private land. Trouble is there is a gap between those extremes. For example what would libertarians do about Pottersville? I don't think that is the outcome they want.
This view that communism had been tried and failed is not entirely accurate. First, it was still monetary based socialism. Communism is a post-capitalistic non-monetary economy where mass production is used to serve humanity rather than lining the pockets of the owners of the means of production. Second, Marx had a prescience of corruption and called it "crude communism" where a despotic party used his writings as a pretext.
As for Libertarianism not being tried yet, or "real" capitalism (minus cronyism), this is in complete denial of the fact that capitalism was born out of chartered companies like East India or Bank of England precisely to gain a monopoly on the market. Before it was regulated it led to child slavery in industrial factories and the importation of "free" labour from Africa. In fact THIS is what Adam Smith opposed, what he called mercantilism and Marx later modified to include the new industrialisation. And Smith himself makes it abundantly clear that for his "invisible hand" to work, his four canons of progressive taxation and trade unionism must be allowed to operate. Hence, this libertarian ideal that the "free market" can only operate without government is a conflation of Adam Smiths *Protectionist* government and government in general. In short, unregulated capitalism HAS been tried and it did fail. It's why socialism and communism started in the first place. Besides, communism already is anti-statist so libertarians have set up a false dilemma.
As for Bastiat, his "silent evidence" theory sounds good on paper (see for eg his "broken window" analogy in Hazlitt's economics in one lesson), but it itself fails to take into account the thousands of forgotten lives that were sacrificed for the "greater good" of economic surplus. This biased and Piecemeal application is why he is not highly regarded in philosophy.
I don't see that there is really a contest here as libertarianism has yet to be tried whereas communism is already a demonstrated failure. One is imaginary and the other one is already dead. They are so dissimilarly situated that a comparison would be difficult. It reminds me of an episode of that Deadliest Warrior show. Sometimes they would do interesting matchups but most of the time they were too fanciful to be worth anything, like asking who would win if a medieval knight fought a pirate or a Roman centurion fought a ninja or other such matchups. Two completely different worlds so no accurate comparison is possible.
But on another note, you say at least Marx accounts for greed, as if libertarianism doesn't. Libertarianism uses a free market, and free markets are based on greed. Libertarianism assumes that people will interact with each other on the basis of self interest and that the market is created by the interaction of these interests. So libertarianism does account for greed. Greed is a fundamental building block of a libertarian society. I acquire wealth by satisfying others' greed for goods and services which I can provide, and I use that wealth to satisfy my own greed in acquiring the goods and services I desire, which provides those people with the resources they use to buy my goods and services. It's a neverending cycle based on greed.
I agree with the first paragraph, but in the second, your use of the term "greed" is not clear. To me, greed is an emotion. All goods and services are not consumed out of greed.
This view that communism had been tried and failed is not entirely accurate. First, it was still monetary based socialism. Communism is a post-capitalistic non-monetary economy where mass production is used to serve humanity rather than lining the pockets of the owners of the means of production. Second, Marx had a prescience of corruption and called it "crude communism" where a despotic party used his writings as a pretext.
As for Libertarianism not being tried yet, or "real" capitalism (minus cronyism), this is in complete denial of the fact that capitalism was born out of chartered companies like East India or Bank of England precisely to gain a monopoly on the market. Before it was regulated it led to child slavery in industrial factories and the importation of "free" labour from Africa. In fact THIS is what Adam Smith opposed, what he called mercantilism and Marx later modified to include the new industrialisation. And Smith himself makes it abundantly clear that for his "invisible hand" to work, his four canons of progressive taxation and trade unionism must be allowed to operate. Hence, this libertarian ideal that the "free market" can only operate without government is a conflation of Adam Smiths *Protectionist* government and government in general. In short, unregulated capitalism HAS been tried and it did fail. It's why socialism and communism started in the first place. Besides, communism already is anti-statist so libertarians have set up a false dilemma.
As for Bastiat, his "silent evidence" theory sounds good on paper (see for eg his "broken window" analogy in Hazlitt's economics in one lesson), but it itself fails to take into account the thousands of forgotten lives that were sacrificed for the "greater good" of economic surplus. This biased and Piecemeal application is why he is not highly regarded in philosophy.
Also let us not forget that Marxism was twisted and warped over time by the likes of Stalin and other dictators/political figures to make Communism what it is today - a perverted beast completely separated from what Karl Marx had originally intended.
This view that communism had been tried and failed is not entirely accurate. First, it was still monetary based socialism. Communism is a post-capitalistic non-monetary economy where mass production is used to serve humanity rather than lining the pockets of the owners of the means of production. Second, Marx had a prescience of corruption and called it "crude communism" where a despotic party used his writings as a pretext.
As for Libertarianism not being tried yet, or "real" capitalism (minus cronyism), this is in complete denial of the fact that capitalism was born out of chartered companies like East India or Bank of England precisely to gain a monopoly on the market. Before it was regulated it led to child slavery in industrial factories and the importation of "free" labour from Africa. In fact THIS is what Adam Smith opposed, what he called mercantilism and Marx later modified to include the new industrialisation. And Smith himself makes it abundantly clear that for his "invisible hand" to work, his four canons of progressive taxation and trade unionism must be allowed to operate. Hence, this libertarian ideal that the "free market" can only operate without government is a conflation of Adam Smiths *Protectionist* government and government in general. In short, unregulated capitalism HAS been tried and it did fail. It's why socialism and communism started in the first place. Besides, communism already is anti-statist so libertarians have set up a false dilemma.
As for Bastiat, his "silent evidence" theory sounds good on paper (see for eg his "broken window" analogy in Hazlitt's economics in one lesson), but it itself fails to take into account the thousands of forgotten lives that were sacrificed for the "greater good" of economic surplus. This biased and Piecemeal application is why he is not highly regarded in philosophy.
So true. In my view, I just automatically view Libertarians as Republicans with a looser view of sex and drugs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
