I often wonder, at which point in time did Russia and China become the countries that seem to be maintaining and implementing sensible policies while the West seems to be running around like a chicken with its head cut off?
Here's the link.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Probably when Russia attained their such high standard of living without unions. Oh! Wait! Russia doesn't have a high standard of living!
But they do have a large central states that steals from the public.
Sounds like capitalism to me!
Didn't you take political science?
Yes, and?
so you understand a large central state stealing from the public isn't capitalism, right?
"so you understand a large central state stealing from the public isn't capitalism, right?"
That is not a conclusion of all of political science, Josh. It is a conclusion of one faction within political science. From my perspective, for example, you have to look at what capitalism is fundamentally in relation to biology and you have to look at what class caused the state to 'steal from the public'. If it is the result of the capitalist class, then it is the result of capitalism.
You see, the problem is that your political science program at your university is too narrow. It is center probably around the center-right discourse, which creates students with an inability to think without that discourse. Brainwashing, in short.
"If it is the result of the capitalist class, then it is the result of capitalism."
You see, the problem with your school of thought is that your perspective on capitalism is too narrow.
From your perspective, you could logically conclude that all forms of government are a result of the decisions of the people, which represent a free market and therefore is capitalist. Whether it be a Feudalist, Monarch, Communist, Dictator, its all the result of capitalism because the people allow it to occur. Because in the end WE'RE ALL CAPITALISTS. Even you.
But its not true. Whenever there is an institution in place that can force people to do something against their will at the point of a gun, something they otherwise would not do, its not capitalism. Its not free-markets. Its not liberty or freedom. Its tyranny. Whether its socialism, social-democracy, communism, fascism, dictatorship, monarchy, their all forms of tyranny and while social-democracy is the best of the lot, its still not freedom, liberty, free-markets, capitalism or even close. Your use of the word capitalism is a perversion.
"You see, the problem with your school of thought is that your perspective on capitalism is too narrow."
Thesis statement of counter-argument.
"From your perspective, you could logically conclude that all forms of government are a result of the decisions of the people,"
Yes, that's right. And the decisions of the people have to be examined based on cause-and-effect.
"which represent a free market and therefore is capitalist."
Starting to lose you here...
"Whether it be a Feudalist, Monarch, Communist,"
and completely lost. Feudalists, Monarhs and communists are not capitalist by definition, because they are the result of non-capitalist economies or revolutions.
"its all the result of capitalism because the people allow it to occur. Because in the end WE'RE ALL CAPITALISTS. Even you."
No, capitalism is a social relationship based on the capital/wage relation that produces products in the factory setting. You see, Josh, you define capitalism as self-interest, which is ridiculous, because it defines cats and dogs as capitalists.
"But its not true. Whenever there is an institution in place that can force people to do something against their will at the point of a gun, something they otherwise would not do, its not capitalism."
Then capitalism will never exist as you define it, because private property must be protected using guns and without guns the system would degenerate into anarchy.
"Its not free-markets. Its not liberty or freedom. Its tyranny. Whether its socialism, social-democracy, communism, fascism, dictatorship, monarchy, their all forms of tyranny and while social-democracy is the best of the lot, its still not freedom, liberty, free-markets, capitalism or even close. Your use of the word capitalism is a perversion."
My use of the word is scientific. Don't like it? Want to ignore history, fine. But I am not going to agree with you just because you believe so.
"And the decisions of the people have to be examined based on cause-and-effect."
An examination of cause-and-effect is always helpful, but not the end-all-be-all, or else you ignore free will.
':Feudalists, Monarhs and communists are not capitalist by definition, because they are the result of non-capitalist economies or revolutions."
I was taking your assumption that the Fed is capitalistic to its logical conclusion.
"Then capitalism will never exist as you define it, because private property must be protected using guns and without guns the system would degenerate into anarchy."
With guns the system could degenerate into anarchy as well. Regardless, this is where our natural rights come into the picture. You have the right to protect yourself and your property. The point is, no entity should be able to violate those rights at the point of the gun; government is supposed to protect against those who try, they are not supposed to be the people who do it.
"An examination of cause-and-effect is always helpful, but not the end-all-be-all, or else you ignore free will."
Free Will has not been provn to exist, which means it can be easily ignored.
"I was taking your assumption that the Fed is capitalistic to its logical conclusion."
The FED was instituted by capitalists, stupid.
"With guns the system could degenerate into anarchy as well. Regardless, this is where our natural rights come into the picture. You have the right to protect yourself and your property. The point is, no entity should be able to violate those rights at the point of the gun; government is supposed to protect against those who try, they are not supposed to be the people who do it."
As I said, anarchy, might makes right.
"Free Will has not been provn to exist, which means it can be easily ignored."
Then you ignore your own ability to make choices. And why protect a woman's right to choose when she has no free will anyhow? She's simply a subject of all previous actions that have occured previous to any given point in time?
I'm not sure free will will ever be proven to exist, but as a person who believes I am in control of the quality of life I will enjoy, and not simply a subject of all actions up until this point time, I accept free will. Without accepting free will, what would be the point of life? So no, free will cannot be ignored. This is probably a fundamental point which would always logically lead us to opposing political perspectives.
They are not capitalists if they believe in government control of anything, including the money supply. That would be like calling those in control of GM capitalists. Actions define a person; these actions fail to meet the definition of what it means to be a capitalist.
Post a Comment