The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I bailed from this whole discussion as well a few pages ago, it has been hard not to make snarky remarks about some stuff that was said since, and I'd say the one thing I did learn from this thread is that extreme libertarianism is actually a "pretty scary" worldview.

Not too many years ago I would've said "the free market over everything" is a good idea, that has changed and this thread was part of that. My first ever vote in an election went to a libertarian party years ago. "Free market" is something I would put myself in favor usually, but I now know to ask "how far do you go with your free market idea?" before I support someone who demands a free market. Because I've now learned there are people who, in my opinion, go much too far.

all i learned from or what this thread shows me is that socialy oriented poeple are either called delusional or satanistic ussrreds .. the words communism and socialism here have been warped so much in peoples minds that they no longer understand or care about its original intented meaning .. and it just boggles my mind how people think that the "free market" without governing regulations will help the lower classes in any way when companies basicaly would be allowed to do whatever they want to gain profit ... and believe me there are companies that sht on peoples wellbeing for their profit ... asking the goverment to back off opens the gate for more abuse for such companies ...


tl:dr everyone accuses everyone of extremism ... i'm done

Yeah libertarianism is scary
http://www.savageleft.com/poli/mbc.html

I love how the URL says "savage left" and yet includes Nazi Germany. Who's social views were hard right filled with hardcore nationalism. Besides Nazi Germany was a mixed economy- not a real socialism. Don't forget that North Korea has the word Democratic in the title... Doesn't necessarily mean it is one.

Without fail, well intentioned anti-humanists never provide any examples or derive any of their thinking into coherent arguments. All they ever do is sit back and make emotionally appealing statements like "gone too far" without any supporting explanation. As if one can have too much freedom to decide what they want to do with their life /smh.

If you feel so strongly about using a gun against others to enforce certain behaviours, atleast back it up with intellectual rigour instead of just saying "I want to use snarky comments but I won't".

Consistently, the willingness to participate in thought out, honest argument now adays is almost always found anywhere but the left. I remember having to finally admit that the socialist views I held were awfully like a religion where you believed something without evidence, prejudged opposing views as greedy and evil, submitted yourself without question to an annointed class of intellectuals, and sought violence as the means to impose your beliefs on others. That and the ever present exhibition of pathological close mindness to fact, reason, and new ideas.

And it's the violence that irks me so much. If you think your ideas are better, why bring a gun to the contest? It's obvious as hell the root of corruption is not money but the ability to turn money into the use of force.

I'm willing to admit I'm wrong when shown to be. Are you?

The workings of a socialist utopia
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americ...ela-buying-too-much-food-can-get-one-arrested

Tragedy of the commons
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/tragedy-commons-case-connectivity-booths-new-york-enrique-dans

Romantic Socialism like an evolutionary buglight for humans
http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/16/why-is-socialism-so-damned-attractive

https://mises.org/library/why-nazism-was-socialism-and-why-socialism-totalitarian

Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. This is exactly what Nazi Germany was.
Straight from wikipedia

Are you noticing a trend here? Government voted in by popular democratic vote. Takes over industry and the market place. Bad things follow.

I also love how one can conveniently discount the other millions of deaths by having a point of contention about one of the countries listed. At some point you have to admit that the "but socialism was never implemented properly!" argument is just balony. 25th time lucky?

Socialism is like the eternally bumbling idiot who can't see the wake of destruction left in their footsteps.

It's merely because it shouldn't be listed. Why would I mention what should be listed?

- While not espousing a specific economic philosophy, Hitler employed anti-semitic themes to attack economic systems in other countries, associating ethnic Jews with both communism("Jewish Bolsheviks") and capitalism, both of which he opposed.[19][20] Hitler also believed that individuals within a nation battled with each other for survival, and that such ruthless competition was good for the health of the nation, because it promoted "superior individuals" to higher positions in society.[21] At Berchtesgadenin July of 1944, Hitler gave his final speech in front of an audience. Drafted by Albert Speer, he emphasised the "self-responsibility of industry". After the war was won "private initiative of German business will experience its greatest moment". Hitler also expressed his belief in "the further development of humanity through the promotion of private initiative, in which alone I see the precondition for all real progress." -

Edit: Just because Nazi Germany had socialistic principles doesn't mean it was a socialism. The US has a minimum wage, constrictions on private industry and monopolies, public schools, transportation, and etc. Without even being close to a true Socialism. Now of course Nazi Germany was closer to being a Socialism. But as it stood it was a Mixed Economy.

Why shouldn't it be listed?

Socialism is currently being espoused by the left, hence the title of the website. But historically it has also been used by the right and the bad results that followed from the concentration of power can and should be kept in mind.

I really don't care what hitler said bout the jews or what he wanted to do after the war. The red line is very clear to follow. Hitler was voted in by a democratic majority and then nationalised private industry towards the goal of nation building and world conquest. What part about this isn't democratic socialism? The people voted for it. If this isn't community management of resources I don't know what is. Force is then used against dissenting minority voices.

Concentration of power in government and individuals always results in tyranny. large systematic risks, loss of freedom etc. Yet you need that same monopoly on violent force in order to institute socialism. It's an unsound, contradictory ideology that is just laughable at best. Good ideas don't need the initiation of force to maintain them.

My intention wasn't that much talking bad about socialism but to point out the historic consequences of "extreme" libertarianism.
The consequences of "extremely" owning the fruits of oneself work have never been remotely as bad as the consequences of taking others properly without asking.

And concentration of power in industry doesn't result in tyranny? Aren't you always talking about the corruption of Hillary Clinton through bribery and donations via the rich who control her?

I just can't take a site seriously that claims that something or someone is on a "ongoing war against Christianity, against the family" and then makes it a very important point how all the evil socialists were Atheist, except for the Nazis, those were "Pagan". Funny enough Google says 95% of Germans during 1933 to 1945 were of Christian religion.
"Pagans" probably just served the interest of whoever made that site who didn't want to connect "Christian" and "Nazi".

Similarly "socialist" to that writer probably is whatever it was that killed people in the past. Like Nazis (lol) or other criminals who definitely were not actually interested into well being of anyone, just in getting into a position of power through excessive violence.
That's so completely besides the whole discussion how much free market and how much state welfare you need.
Murdering people is bad, I think we can all agree on that. The aim is to make _everyone_ somewhat rich and happy. The only question is how.

EDIT:

I can't remember threatening you or anyone else with a gun of any other kind of violence.
Arbitrarily putting such false claims about what I am advocating is the main reason why I feel I am talking with a wall or, alternatively, with a person who is religiously inclined to their viewpoint and will twist whatever counter arguments provided to the point where they claim I am advocating violence to achieve something. That's ridiculous btw, I am against gun ownership and pacifistic to the point that I believe the best reaction to violence pointed at you is to take a step back and talk. Always.

Good for you, I don't own a gun and very likely never will even get close to touching one. Never have and never will. Stop making such twisted claims about what I want.
What I want is a market as free as possible, but with a state that uses taxes to build infrastructure and provide everyone with their basic needs, so everyone can prosper. Simple as that. Violence is something you constantly somehow come up with, dunno why.

<snarky remark>probably because an unregulated free market without any state welfare really just is a pretty violent state of affairs of the strong eat the weak, so violence is just a fix part of your own ideals?</snarky remark>

I btw more or less have what I want here in Germany. Sure there is so much to complain about when looking at the details, but all and all it sure is basically what I described. I said this before a few pages ago I think, and because of such repetition in this discussion I quit posting walls of text here. Until this post. Meh.

You constantly take this into this violence region. Just stop. The whole point of any sort of socialistic political system is to make sure everyone is well.
The moment you are on the level of "we're going to murder these groups of people because reasons" you are so ridiculously far away from what anyone arguing in this thread advocates that you might as well just not write it. Stop. Yes killing people is bad. No matter what stamp you put on your political system while you do it.

So, Colin, you're saying that government should strive to "make sure everyone is well"? What is 'well'? More importantly, who defines it?

I do.
You do.
Everyone decides for themselves what this mystical 'doing good' is. They decide, of their own free will, to work and pursue happiness. You cannot force this responsibility on others. You cannot give it to them. And, above all, you cannot take it from them.

Redistributing wealth from those who created it to those that didn't earn it is robbery. It's done at the point of a gun (through government and the criminal justice system), because you can't do it on a massive scale without violence. Charity works, but it doesn't force anything on you. It's voluntary.

What we are saying isn't hyperbole or slippery slope, Colin. It's historical fact. It's happened before. It can happen again. Wake up.

We vote on what "well" means. The people's vote is what makes these kinds of decisions. That's the entire basis of democracy.

This will be my last post, I think. I'm not sure if it's intentional or not but repeatedly complaining about "strawman" arguments while also putting words in my mouth ("evil hidden agendas") really kinda makes your logic look poor.

"if you ran a business" encapsulates the past ten pages or however long it's been of armchair expertise. If you ran a business you'd hit problems at every step of the way; because all businesses do. If you failed to overcome even one of them the rest of the steps would suffer (and you might not even make if off of the ground).

I'm aware of this personally thanks to my parents creating and sustaining their own business over the past thirteen years (which I've worked for, for some of that time). I have no direct experience, either. But you don't seem to have any experience at all.

You aren't an expert in this matter; you have theories. Which is fine, because that's all I have too. The problem is, I don't go around condescendingly making statements like "what minimum wage actually does has been explained very clearly to you several times". I do not treat my opinions as self-evident facts. That is something else you also struggle with, intentionally or otherwise (maybe you think the barbed comments are justified due to your belief in your own expertise - understandable, although flawed).

It's all getting rather overtly personal, with you throwing out things like "retarded marxist" as a label (not of me, of course, but of an argument that I have used). Which you then follow-up by complaining I resort to mud-slinging.

So hopefully I've pointed out the numerous ways in which your posts display both hypocrisy and fallacies of their own, and I'll bow out here.

Just a reminder - as a general rule, and with very few exceptions, no-one will admit that they are wrong on the internet. This is always worth bearing in mind when phrasing your arguments. As I said earlier, being antagonistic will only dig people's heels in further.

==

@cdrkf on the minimum wage thing, the trouble is that the minimum wage doesn't apply to every competitor equally these days. We live in a globalised world, which means that setting a minimum wage (a) in your currency and (b) in your country leaves local businesses open to being undercut by those operating in more liberalised economies.

If the difference in production costs is greater than the cost of shipping the product the additional distance, then the business operating elsewhere will have the competitive advantage. This applies to wages, to business tax, to electricity costs etc. (Interesting to note for example that the high cost of electricity in the UK is one of the primary factors for the recent Port Talbot steelworks crisis).

Hence setting a higher minimum wage will contribute to price inflation, which lowers the effective wages of all workers.

Does Hillary work in government or private enterprise? The poor funding bernie's campaign to steal from the rich is not any different from the rich funding hillary to steal from the poor. (I wouldn't say bernie is corrupt because he was upfront about it, but it was certainly tyrannical in nature). Typically it is the rich doing it more because they tend to have more money to throw around, but the problem is not that they have produced their wealth in a legit manner in voluntary free markets. Those that grew rich because of crony capitalism can go screw themselves though.

Rather, the problem is that government has power to legislate on issues in the first place. It doesn't make sense to argue that we shouldn't have any bill gates or steve jobs or elon musks in the world just because they could take advantage of a loophole in the political system. What makes sense is closing the loophole to begin with. Shut off the tap of power and the money will have nothing to buy.

Political power is very hard to reform or destroy because it is backed up with a gun. The moment you understand this is the moment you understand why western political systems are defined in terms of their checks and balances on the expansion of power. Economic power however is easily destroyed by customers simply making decisions in their own self interest because it is based in voluntarism.

Imagine if you could choose voluntarily whether you wanted to pay taxes based on how well government was performing and whether the services they provided to you were worth the money. On a contractual basis very much like you might pay for electricity. If government wanted to receive taxes, they would have to provide good services and programs.

@cola_colin
Violence does not narrowly mean going around murdering people because reasons. Taxes are collected by threat of violence as are regulations enforced in the same way. Surely you understand that the police will come and put people in jail if they don't co-operate with some dictate.

You also keep taking this into strong eats weak. Wealth is not a fixed sum pie and no-one is using coercion upon anyone else in capitalism. If someone is making a better product than I am, why should I force people to buy my inferior product instead of working hard to make my product competitive. I'm not being 'eaten'. I'm merely not being chosen by the little consumers for completely rational reasons. Either address these same counter arguments that have already been raised in the past, or stop repeating the same lines over and over again and then complaining about me being repetitive.

If you think wealth redistribution is necessary for the 'wellness' of everyone, at least be honest about how you're going about it. You are using government as your proxy in order to impose and enforce your beliefs on others with the threat of violence. When i hire someone to steal from my neighbour, I don't pretend that I didn't just participate in theft.

You know what is wellness to you, I know what is wellness to me. Why is a democratic vote required to determine what is wellness? Rather, is it not just trying to forcibly control the lives of other people with different opinions who you may think are wrong?

That's like saying you know better than me what's in my own self interest. That you can justify turning me into an inanimate zombie by stripping me of the ability to exercise self agency as the most sacred thing that gives value to my life and experience. The sentiment is understandable and the intention is praiseworthy, but i think as you grow older you'll look back at it as a product of youthful hubris when you start looking at the cost of acting like a bull in a china store. Most people I know who hold economically conservative views go through this same transition.

Imagine if you were in the minority and the definition of wellness held by the majority was adverse to your own. Democratic socialism wouldn't sound so crash hot anymore. The ancient greeks and persians knew very well the dangers of democracy long ago and it's why western political systems are set up to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

Aristotle predicting socialism before it was cool

I can tell you that having something to eat is in your own self interest. Simple as that. There is no big discussion about that. You, as a human, have certain basic needs that are defined by your biological nature. You need food, you need medical attention when you are sick. Are you seriously claiming that some people might not need these things?
That's simply NOT a personal decision you make. Similar with more things, like education or having a place to sleep that keeps you warm even in winter. All very fundamental things nobody in their right mind would reject, because sleeping in the cold kills and not being able to read makes you unable to hold pointless internet discussions

By that logic you are demanding to abolish any sort of state system and go back to natural laws.
That's where I go back to the strong who eat the weak.

In my model the state enforces people pay taxes that are used to make sure people are well.
In your model people are forced to fight for themselves to get money. The need to earn enough money to survive is just as much violence as a state that collects taxes.

No matter what society you are asking for, it will come down to some form of "violence" in the wider sense to push people into it.
Otherwise some people will actually really pack out real guns and shoot you down to enforce their own rule.

As with all ideas, extreme versions tend to be a bad bet when your talking about systems that relate to people. People are all different, have different needs and blanket black and white policies, of any particular leaning are unlikely to work. Like yourself I don't disagree with the principal of a free market- however the concept of 'freedom within limits' keeps coming to mind when reading through this thread.

For all the things it gets wrong (and surely politicians get A LOT wrong, on a regular basis) what I can say is that, for the developed countries at least, things really aren't bad. A lot better in fact that in the past most people. I mean if you look back at early industrial revolution Britain, well lets just say most people wouldn't want to go back there and that was a pretty much unregulated market.

That's fair enough, my main point (not really aimed at you specifically) is a minimum wage as a concept isn't automatically a bad idea. As with all things 'the devils in the detail'- it can certainly be implemented badly.

I think on that point the current UK system is actually quite shrewd... businesses don't really like taking on very young workers as they're by definition inexperienced. As a result the minimum wage is on a sliding scale, which acts as an incentive to take on and train up a new worker, rather than only taking in older, more experienced staff (everyone's got to get a first job after all).

I'm aware Australia has imposed rather a high minimum wage- which I feel is the root cause of this whole debate, however surely that is merely a case of a bad implantation of an idea as much as anything..?

No it really isn't that simple. Does government create food out of a magic hat?

Is it ok for thieves to steal just because it is in their self interest? Whose food are you stealing to give to me? Is it in their self interest to lose the fruit of their labour? Will they continue making food if they know it will just be taken away from them? Isn't it easier for them to become a receiver of food just like me? And if so, what food is left to take to give to me? Welcome to the fall of the Roman empire.

Is it in my self interest for someone to steal food and provide for me instead of learning to make my own?

Like cdrkf said. Freedom within limit. My freedom ends where yours begins. No-one in their right mind advocates the freedom to initiate force on the sovereignty of another persons life and property.

No. In your model someone is fighting to survive for him/herself as well as someone else

In my model, everyone is fighting to survive only for him or herself.

I like to think sometimes that capitalism is often more 'social' in outcome that socialism is. Where everyone actually pulls their own weight and works for the benefit of others in voluntary, mutually beneficial relationships.