Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Free Markets and "Rugged Individualism"

JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 11:10:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
People seem to assume that anyone who believes in free markets or free market capitalism also believes in something called "rugged individualism". In my opinion, nothing could be more wrong.

I am a very strong believer in free markets. But, I certainly don't think that "rugged individualism" is a way forward. I believe in cooperation between people and entities. I believe in people helping others and such.

But, when you look at it, big government is an obstacle to genuine social cooperation.

There is nothing "cooperative" or "communitarian" about violently taking wealth from one person to give to another.

In fact, large government destroys the fabric of the community.

Now, I do believe we need a government to do basic things in a large economy. But, the idea that anyone who opposes the state taking more and more from us to give to others is somehow opposed to "community" or cooperation is maddening.

The real opponents of social cohesion are the people who are trying to replace genuine compassion and cooperation with state coercion.

Any thoughts?
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 11:20:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Cooperation between entities in a free market is done solely under the premise of self interest derived from voluntary interaction between these parties. Individualism, as a philosophy of recognizing your own individual autonomy and principles above everything else mutually co-exists with a free market society since self-interest prevails in an individualistic society.

However, I think, that the term of "rugged individualism" is mostly referred to as the very notion of what individualism is- rational self interest. The term "rugged" presumably comes from the lack of altruistic notion that this philosophy possess and propagates. In that sense, "rugged individualism" is just "individualism" with a phoney adjective designed to demean the philosophy to exactly what its basic philosophical standards are.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 11:40:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sounds like you hold some communitarian beliefs. There are conservatives who believe in progressive communities, such as rural towns and suburbs, where people and leaders care about other people (empathy) and act responsibly to help themselves and others (social responsibility). Many conservatives are progressive in this view.

But yes, community is essential to success in my view. "It takes a community" said Hillary Clinton.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 11:45:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you believe you have inherited herd animal instincts from thousands of years of evolution, then promoting the community would be an individually selfish endeavor.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2012 11:58:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
From one of my favorite channels, fringeelements stated in one of his videos:

"We are not statists, we are socialists"
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:19:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 11:45:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If you believe you have inherited herd animal instincts from thousands of years of evolution, then promoting the community would be an individually selfish endeavor.

Evolved instinct is to ensure genetic, not individual, survival-- let alone happiness. That is, it "cares" whether you live long enough to knock someone up (or help your brother do so), and nothing else.

Rugged individuals cooperate-- for this-lifetime benefits.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 4:20:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:19:12 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:45:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If you believe you have inherited herd animal instincts from thousands of years of evolution, then promoting the community would be an individually selfish endeavor.

Evolved instinct is to ensure genetic, not individual, survival-- let alone happiness. That is, it "cares" whether you live long enough to knock someone up (or help your brother do so), and nothing else.

Rugged individuals cooperate-- for this-lifetime benefits.

That's untrue. Genetic survival is fun. And happy sometimes.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 4:22:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
We're usually socialists with respect to our family, social democrats with regard to our lifetime neighbors, and capitalists to anyone more than a block away. Although, it's considered a great prize to socialize compatible strangers, so I guess micro-Marx was on to something, even if macro-Marx wasted his last years inventing the Proletarian Shuriken.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 12:25:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 4:20:03 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/26/2012 2:19:12 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:45:00 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
If you believe you have inherited herd animal instincts from thousands of years of evolution, then promoting the community would be an individually selfish endeavor.

Evolved instinct is to ensure genetic, not individual, survival-- let alone happiness. That is, it "cares" whether you live long enough to knock someone up (or help your brother do so), and nothing else.

Rugged individuals cooperate-- for this-lifetime benefits.

That's untrue. Genetic survival is fun. And happy sometimes.

Genetic survival-- Have sex in the missionary position for the purposes of procreation with whoever has the widest hips. Or, dedicate your life to your brother doing so with at least twice as many women.

Fun-- Have a variety of sex, the vast majority of which should not be for the purposes of procreation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:02:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 4:22:45 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
We're usually socialists with respect to our family, social democrats with regard to our lifetime neighbors, and capitalists to anyone more than a block away. Although, it's considered a great prize to socialize compatible strangers, so I guess micro-Marx was on to something, even if macro-Marx wasted his last years inventing the Proletarian Shuriken.

I'm not sure Marx was onto anything.

Basically, all Marx did was take this vague "communal duty" we felt towards people close to us and combined it with all of these weird and nutty theories about exploitation and whatever else and used this to justify a huge expansion of state power, all while preaching the "disintegration" of the state.

Marxism is probably the greatest sham in history. I would go as far as to say that marxism is the opiate of the intellectuals.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 2:27:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:02:39 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/26/2012 4:22:45 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
We're usually socialists with respect to our family, social democrats with regard to our lifetime neighbors, and capitalists to anyone more than a block away. Although, it's considered a great prize to socialize compatible strangers, so I guess micro-Marx was on to something, even if macro-Marx wasted his last years inventing the Proletarian Shuriken.


I'm not sure Marx was onto anything.


Basically, all Marx did was take this vague "communal duty" we felt towards people close to us and combined it with all of these weird and nutty theories about exploitation and whatever else and used this to justify a huge expansion of state power, all while preaching the "disintegration" of the state.

Marxism is probably the greatest sham in history. I would go as far as to say that marxism is the opiate of the intellectuals.

A product of his times, he was a generation or so after Jeremy Bentham, and saw first hand the Industrial Revolution. Although, having said this, whilst I'm no expert, what I know of his theories don't seem so awful. Sort of, reasonable rules of thumb, if appropriately contextualized and qualified.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 4:24:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 2:27:25 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/26/2012 2:02:39 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/26/2012 4:22:45 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
We're usually socialists with respect to our family, social democrats with regard to our lifetime neighbors, and capitalists to anyone more than a block away. Although, it's considered a great prize to socialize compatible strangers, so I guess micro-Marx was on to something, even if macro-Marx wasted his last years inventing the Proletarian Shuriken.


I'm not sure Marx was onto anything.


Basically, all Marx did was take this vague "communal duty" we felt towards people close to us and combined it with all of these weird and nutty theories about exploitation and whatever else and used this to justify a huge expansion of state power, all while preaching the "disintegration" of the state.

Marxism is probably the greatest sham in history. I would go as far as to say that marxism is the opiate of the intellectuals.

A product of his times, he was a generation or so after Jeremy Bentham, and saw first hand the Industrial Revolution. Although, having said this, whilst I'm no expert, what I know of his theories don't seem so awful. Sort of, reasonable rules of thumb, if appropriately contextualized and qualified.

Reading his theories by themselves they don't seem that awful. But, any critique, even the weaker critiques, pretty easily dismantle every single part of it. And, the marxists don't really have a decen response to these critiques.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2012 5:15:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/26/2012 4:24:46 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/26/2012 2:27:25 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 7/26/2012 2:02:39 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/26/2012 4:22:45 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
We're usually socialists with respect to our family, social democrats with regard to our lifetime neighbors, and capitalists to anyone more than a block away. Although, it's considered a great prize to socialize compatible strangers, so I guess micro-Marx was on to something, even if macro-Marx wasted his last years inventing the Proletarian Shuriken.


I'm not sure Marx was onto anything.


Basically, all Marx did was take this vague "communal duty" we felt towards people close to us and combined it with all of these weird and nutty theories about exploitation and whatever else and used this to justify a huge expansion of state power, all while preaching the "disintegration" of the state.

Marxism is probably the greatest sham in history. I would go as far as to say that marxism is the opiate of the intellectuals.

A product of his times, he was a generation or so after Jeremy Bentham, and saw first hand the Industrial Revolution. Although, having said this, whilst I'm no expert, what I know of his theories don't seem so awful. Sort of, reasonable rules of thumb, if appropriately contextualized and qualified.


Reading his theories by themselves they don't seem that awful. But, any critique, even the weaker critiques, pretty easily dismantle every single part of it. And, the marxists don't really have a decen response to these critiques.

I guess some of the criticisms have been dealt with? I have no idea how successfully? I know there are modern Marxists, but I can't recall having read a significant piece by any of them.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:24:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 11:58:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
From one of my favorite channels, fringeelements stated in one of his videos:

"We are not statists, we are socialists"

I'm not sure what exactly that means. Isn't a socialist an ultra statist?
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:26:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 2:24:25 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:58:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
From one of my favorite channels, fringeelements stated in one of his videos:

"We are not statists, we are socialists"

I'm not sure what exactly that means. Isn't a socialist an ultra statist?

No.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:30:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 11:40:11 PM, Contra wrote:
Sounds like you hold some communitarian beliefs. There are conservatives who believe in progressive communities, such as rural towns and suburbs, where people and leaders care about other people (empathy) and act responsibly to help themselves and others (social responsibility). Many conservatives are progressive in this view.

But yes, community is essential to success in my view. "It takes a community" said Hillary Clinton.

Ah, but what kind of a community? A regulated, coerced, greater good cooperative? Or a group of completely different individuals acting together voluntarily for each's self interest?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 2:53:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 2:30:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:40:11 PM, Contra wrote:
Sounds like you hold some communitarian beliefs. There are conservatives who believe in progressive communities, such as rural towns and suburbs, where people and leaders care about other people (empathy) and act responsibly to help themselves and others (social responsibility). Many conservatives are progressive in this view.

But yes, community is essential to success in my view. "It takes a community" said Hillary Clinton.

Ah, but what kind of a community? A regulated, coerced, greater good cooperative? Or a group of completely different individuals acting together voluntarily for each's self interest?

Conservatives believe very strongly in self discipline and individualism. That is all.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 3:17:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 2:53:12 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:30:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:40:11 PM, Contra wrote:
Sounds like you hold some communitarian beliefs. There are conservatives who believe in progressive communities, such as rural towns and suburbs, where people and leaders care about other people (empathy) and act responsibly to help themselves and others (social responsibility). Many conservatives are progressive in this view.

But yes, community is essential to success in my view. "It takes a community" said Hillary Clinton.

Ah, but what kind of a community? A regulated, coerced, greater good cooperative? Or a group of completely different individuals acting together voluntarily for each's self interest?

Conservatives believe very strongly in self discipline and individualism. That is all.

You have not answered my response, which was in response to your comment that community is essential to success.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 3:29:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 3:17:36 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:53:12 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:30:19 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:40:11 PM, Contra wrote:
Sounds like you hold some communitarian beliefs. There are conservatives who believe in progressive communities, such as rural towns and suburbs, where people and leaders care about other people (empathy) and act responsibly to help themselves and others (social responsibility). Many conservatives are progressive in this view.

But yes, community is essential to success in my view. "It takes a community" said Hillary Clinton.

Ah, but what kind of a community? A regulated, coerced, greater good cooperative? Or a group of completely different individuals acting together voluntarily for each's self interest?

Conservatives believe very strongly in self discipline and individualism. That is all.

You have not answered my response, which was in response to your comment that community is essential to success.

A community formed of voluntary individuals who work together to advance the common good and help empower and protect all citizens equally. Citizens engage in private enterprise and advance their self, individual responsibility while acting through gov't to act responsibly toward others to empower them to become productive citizens.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 3:32:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 2:26:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:24:25 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:58:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
From one of my favorite channels, fringeelements stated in one of his videos:

"We are not statists, we are socialists"

I'm not sure what exactly that means. Isn't a socialist an ultra statist?

No.

The vast majority are, which excuses Madison's confusion. Madison, some socialists are silly enough to think the means of production can be universally collectivized without pulling out guns.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 4:14:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 3:32:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:26:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:24:25 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:58:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
From one of my favorite channels, fringeelements stated in one of his videos:

"We are not statists, we are socialists"

I'm not sure what exactly that means. Isn't a socialist an ultra statist?

No.

The vast majority are, which excuses Madison's confusion. Madison, some socialists are silly enough to think the means of production can be universally collectivized without pulling out guns.

It's seems to me that they are saying that they want the state to run everything... but that it is wrong to call them statists.

They can't have it both ways.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 4:29:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 3:32:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:26:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:24:25 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:58:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
From one of my favorite channels, fringeelements stated in one of his videos:

"We are not statists, we are socialists"

I'm not sure what exactly that means. Isn't a socialist an ultra statist?

No.

The vast majority are, which excuses Madison's confusion. Madison, some socialists are silly enough to think the means of production can be universally collectivized without pulling out guns.

It's more of a reference that we are inherently social beings...hence socialist. We act in socialist ways quite often. For example, If you ever are on a sports team, you act in a socialist way, try your hardest, even though the reward is collectivized (If the team wins, you win). There's no "free rider problem". Socialism is everyone If you look through it but it isn't carried out through the barrel of a gun and nobody needs to force anybody to do anything.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 4:49:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 4:14:39 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/28/2012 3:32:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:26:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:24:25 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:58:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
From one of my favorite channels, fringeelements stated in one of his videos:

"We are not statists, we are socialists"

I'm not sure what exactly that means. Isn't a socialist an ultra statist?

No.

The vast majority are, which excuses Madison's confusion. Madison, some socialists are silly enough to think the means of production can be universally collectivized without pulling out guns.


It's seems to me that they are saying that they want the state to run everything... but that it is wrong to call them statists.

They can't have it both ways.

Some Socialists believe in a free market with cooperatives formed by voluntary individuals and they compete with other businesses such as corporations.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 4:55:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 4:14:39 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/28/2012 3:32:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:26:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:24:25 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:58:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
From one of my favorite channels, fringeelements stated in one of his videos:

"We are not statists, we are socialists"

I'm not sure what exactly that means. Isn't a socialist an ultra statist?

No.

The vast majority are, which excuses Madison's confusion. Madison, some socialists are silly enough to think the means of production can be universally collectivized without pulling out guns.


It's seems to me that they are saying that they want the state to run everything... but that it is wrong to call them statists.
Oh no. They want something to run everything-- some sort of workers collective or whatever (perhaps highly locally)-- but they want everyone to consent to it, none of the guns that make a state.

It's more of a reference that we are inherently social beings...hence socialist.
Pssht, so in other words it's vague and meaningless. "Inherently social beings?" Are we ants?

e act in socialist ways quite often. For example, If you ever are on a sports team, you act in a socialist way, try your hardest, even though the reward is collectivized (If the team wins, you win).
That's a cooperative way, but hardly socialist-- I can leave the team and many do, and the lazy and incompetent get kicked off the team.
There's no "free rider problem".
There is. It just happens to be solved by kicking people off the team, and keeping it small enough to keep track.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 4:58:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 4:29:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/28/2012 3:32:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:26:35 PM, Contra wrote:
At 7/28/2012 2:24:25 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:58:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
From one of my favorite channels, fringeelements stated in one of his videos:

"We are not statists, we are socialists"

I'm not sure what exactly that means. Isn't a socialist an ultra statist?

No.

The vast majority are, which excuses Madison's confusion. Madison, some socialists are silly enough to think the means of production can be universally collectivized without pulling out guns.

It's more of a reference that we are inherently social beings...hence socialist. We act in socialist ways quite often. For example, If you ever are on a sports team, you act in a socialist way, try your hardest, even though the reward is collectivized (If the team wins, you win). There's no "free rider problem". Socialism is everyone If you look through it but it isn't carried out through the barrel of a gun and nobody needs to force anybody to do anything.

I guess that makes sense.

It's too bad that ultra statists have poisoned that word.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 5:25:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/25/2012 11:10:03 PM, JamesMadison wrote:

Now, I do believe we need a government to do basic things in a large economy.

Like what?

The real opponents of social cohesion are the people who are trying to replace genuine compassion and cooperation with state coercion.

That is morally, intuitionally, intellectually, and empirically correct.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2012 8:41:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/28/2012 5:25:37 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/25/2012 11:10:03 PM, JamesMadison wrote:

Now, I do believe we need a government to do basic things in a large economy.

Like what?

What is in the original constitution, and nothing more.


The real opponents of social cohesion are the people who are trying to replace genuine compassion and cooperation with state coercion.

That is morally, intuitionally, intellectually, and empirically correct.

Yes, I never understand people who think state coercion=social cohesion.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.