Just about everything good in the (Western) world….
-
-
...has come about through the socialist principles of richer people either paying towards the things that benefit poorer ones, or giving up some of their privileges for the betterment of others. In all cases they (conservatives) have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so, of course. Note for our American friends: Socialism is NOT communism. Don’t even bother continuing until you understand this basic point. And a second point, for anyone with poor logic skills: my saying most good things have come about through socialsit ideals is not the same thing as saying that everything every left-leaning perosn or governemnt has done has been good. Over very roughly about the last 200 years or so (say after the French Revolution in Europe and the American Civil War in the US) life has generally got better for most people in the West. This has largely been down to mass education, emancipation (of women and slaves), enclosure laws and just general rights of ordinary people being enshrined in law. All socialist ideals, and all brought about in the face of fierce conservative opposition. In finance, these conservative forces kept taking and taking until they bankrupted virtually the entire Western economy in the Great Depression of the 1930’s, and this has to be rescued in the end by the socialist principle of pouring taxpayer money into public projects, and the introduction of a regulatory system to prevent a repeat. Then things carried on working just fine until once again the Right relaxed the market rules and allowed the rich to start stealing again, and inevitably this led to the same outcome – another big crash, which again had to be rescued by pouring taxpayer money in. Conservatism wants things to either stay the same or go back to a previous state. This is counter progressive, by definition. Conservatives are an anchor on the good ship of progress.
The sun rises and shines yellow because of socialist principles. Cloudy days are Mother Earth being angry with conservatives. Be socialist so the sun won't shine black and purple like a festering bruise. The Great Depression in America happened under presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, who both called themselves "progressives" and not "conservatives", but nothing about the depression was their fault. Maybe the Great Depression ended after WWII when the government and central bank were too busy to perform more 1930's-style crazy social experiments. And maybe progressive leaders predicted the post-war economy to tank. But the economy flourished only because progressive thinkers willed the depression to end in their sleep and forgot their dreams until after the economy was healthy. And Enlightenment thinkers only talked about human rights and anti-slavery a century before socialist movements because they time-traveled into the future and stole socialist ideas. Just like those tricky cavemen time-traveled to the 1960's to get modern art degrees before returning to their own time to develop cave paintings. Thank you for your highly intelligent and well-researched post. It's a shame Marxist brainwashing doesn't produce billions more just like you.
-
-
dlhale wrote:
And BTW, our civil war had little to do with slavery
Complete BS. Secession from the union was 100% about slavery. Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union[^] Slavery was illegal in Britain from 1772 (Somerset v Stewart ), and in its colonies form 1830. It is ludicrous to suggest Britain would support the south.
dlhale wrote:
what were all the civil wars about in England
The big one, 1645, was about the individual rights of man. John Locke, the philosopher of the American revoloution, wrote at this time. You should know this. The US war of independence was just the English Civil War part II, fought by the same people, for the same reasons. Prior to that were the usual power grabs, and the final 'invasion' (by the Dutch, 1670), was when about getting rid of catholicism for good form the UK power structure.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Complete BS.
You can find whatever you want on the internet. In this case, you are wrong.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
dlhale wrote:
What is great about the "Western World" is freedom, the freedom established by the founding Fathers of this country - the United States.
American arrogance; we don't need your idea of freedom. Go ask in Libya how they enjoy their new-found freedoms, how thankfull they are that there's no more free education, no more safe streets.
dlhale wrote:
There is a fundamental flaw in socialism, it doesn't work.
Same is said of democracy, but that doesn't stop us from being democratic here in the Netherlands.
dlhale wrote:
Socialism can only exists through tyranny, so you tell me, how is that good?
The Dutch rule is based on socialism, and it worked longer than the US has been around. Doesn't mean were a very social people ofc. Socialism is not communism; it doesn't require controlling the market. Our "free" market is just a liberal (meaning "government controlled") as yours. The Muricans a free market? Have you ever tried selling weed there? Kinder Surprise Eggs? You do not have a free market; those only exist in anarchies.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Have you ever tried selling weed there?
So, your evidence that the US does not have a free market is because it is illegal in some places to sell a single item? :omg: :wtf:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
The sun rises and shines yellow because of socialist principles. Cloudy days are Mother Earth being angry with conservatives. Be socialist so the sun won't shine black and purple like a festering bruise. The Great Depression in America happened under presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, who both called themselves "progressives" and not "conservatives", but nothing about the depression was their fault. Maybe the Great Depression ended after WWII when the government and central bank were too busy to perform more 1930's-style crazy social experiments. And maybe progressive leaders predicted the post-war economy to tank. But the economy flourished only because progressive thinkers willed the depression to end in their sleep and forgot their dreams until after the economy was healthy. And Enlightenment thinkers only talked about human rights and anti-slavery a century before socialist movements because they time-traveled into the future and stole socialist ideas. Just like those tricky cavemen time-traveled to the 1960's to get modern art degrees before returning to their own time to develop cave paintings. Thank you for your highly intelligent and well-researched post. It's a shame Marxist brainwashing doesn't produce billions more just like you.
-
Dude - you're not even arguing with an American, so expecting him to read/understand the Constitution is pointless. They have no historical basis from which to form a cohesive though regarding its contents because they aren't us.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Have you ever tried selling weed there?
So, your evidence that the US does not have a free market is because it is illegal in some places to sell a single item? :omg: :wtf:
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
011111100010 wrote:
So, your evidence that the US does not have a free market is because it is illegal in some places to sell a single item? :OMG: :WTF:
Not "a single item"; the entire market is regulated. From what you can (and can't!) put into food, from what you can and "must" have on the label, to how it shall be stored in waiting-terminals. The last thing the US wants is a free market.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
011111100010 wrote:
So, your evidence that the US does not have a free market is because it is illegal in some places to sell a single item? :OMG: :WTF:
Not "a single item"; the entire market is regulated. From what you can (and can't!) put into food, from what you can and "must" have on the label, to how it shall be stored in waiting-terminals. The last thing the US wants is a free market.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Not "a single item"; the entire market is regulated. From what you can (and can't!) put into food, from what you can and "must" have on the label, to how it shall be stored in waiting-terminals. The last thing the US wants is a free market.
If that is your definition of a free market, I don't think anyone wants that.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Not "a single item"; the entire market is regulated. From what you can (and can't!) put into food, from what you can and "must" have on the label, to how it shall be stored in waiting-terminals. The last thing the US wants is a free market.
If that is your definition of a free market, I don't think anyone wants that.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
011111100010 wrote:
If that is your definition of a free market, I don't think anyone wants that.
I think we all want that; regulations to prevent lead from entering the food-chain, to name one. Want a free market? Go to Libya, where you can buy everything.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
011111100010 wrote:
If that is your definition of a free market, I don't think anyone wants that.
I think we all want that; regulations to prevent lead from entering the food-chain, to name one. Want a free market? Go to Libya, where you can buy everything.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I think we all want that; regulations
That was my point. You seemed to be defining a free market as a place where you can buy and sell anything with no regulation. I doubt anyone wants 0 regulation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I think we all want that; regulations
That was my point. You seemed to be defining a free market as a place where you can buy and sell anything with no regulation. I doubt anyone wants 0 regulation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Then it is not a free market, by definition.
I don't know. You'd have to look it up. But when people speak of a free market, I doubt they mean zero regulation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Then it is not a free market, by definition.
I don't know. You'd have to look it up. But when people speak of a free market, I doubt they mean zero regulation.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
-
...has come about through the socialist principles of richer people either paying towards the things that benefit poorer ones, or giving up some of their privileges for the betterment of others. In all cases they (conservatives) have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so, of course. Note for our American friends: Socialism is NOT communism. Don’t even bother continuing until you understand this basic point. And a second point, for anyone with poor logic skills: my saying most good things have come about through socialsit ideals is not the same thing as saying that everything every left-leaning perosn or governemnt has done has been good. Over very roughly about the last 200 years or so (say after the French Revolution in Europe and the American Civil War in the US) life has generally got better for most people in the West. This has largely been down to mass education, emancipation (of women and slaves), enclosure laws and just general rights of ordinary people being enshrined in law. All socialist ideals, and all brought about in the face of fierce conservative opposition. In finance, these conservative forces kept taking and taking until they bankrupted virtually the entire Western economy in the Great Depression of the 1930’s, and this has to be rescued in the end by the socialist principle of pouring taxpayer money into public projects, and the introduction of a regulatory system to prevent a repeat. Then things carried on working just fine until once again the Right relaxed the market rules and allowed the rich to start stealing again, and inevitably this led to the same outcome – another big crash, which again had to be rescued by pouring taxpayer money in. Conservatism wants things to either stay the same or go back to a previous state. This is counter progressive, by definition. Conservatives are an anchor on the good ship of progress.
A_Griffin wrote:
...has come about through the socialist principles of richer people either paying towards the things that benefit poorer ones, or giving up some of their privileges for the betterment of others. In all cases they (conservatives) have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing so, of course.
In all things there are no absolutes and certainly no simple explanations. For example Ford didn't invent the production line nor the 8 hour work day, but he was certainly willing to take advantage of both to make more money for himself. Certainly wasn't any force used to convince him that he should use those.
A_Griffin wrote:
life has generally got better for most people in the West. This has largely been down to ...
No. One cannot point to one specific thing and then claim that it is sole result of everything else in the world. Your examples are just examples of things which are both the result of and those that contributed to the overall process. So, for one from you list, "mass education" gradually impacted the overall society but it was in fact general and it could not have come about unless society itself was in a position to pay for, allow and demand it. One need only look at actual education level achievements over time to see how general the process really was. Note in the above that it does say "pay'. The reality is that increasing economics at all levels is something that is correlated, strongly, with all 'benefits' that humans might want to enjoy. So the poor achieve more benefits because they are now richer and not just because the rich gave up their own wealth.
A_Griffin wrote:
Conservatism wants things to either stay the same or go back to a previous state. This is counter progressive, by definition. Conservatives are an anchor on the good ship of progress.
As with my point above it is a generalization which is not true. "Progressives" in the 60s proclaimed that group living would soon take over the world and that was the only equitable and fair system. As such communes flourished. But that experiment failed. Conservatives might need to be dragged into new cultural idioms but they are also the framework that keeps society from imploding while those new idioms are explored. Conservatives do adapt, eventually, and the new conservatives are more than willing to defend
-
I've never read a bigger pile of crap on this site before. What is great about the "Western World" is freedom, the freedom established by the founding Fathers of this country - the United States. There are only two kinds of government in this world. theocracy and man ocracy. The first is recognized by the Declaration of Independance as Man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights. The second is also recognized by the same document as that from which independance was desired, rule of man - kings and dictators which become tyrants. What the Founding Fathers did was to create the great compromise - Rule of Law that allowed mere mortals to govern them selves without being kings and dictators - tyrants. However, we are losing that, our governments are again full of people, like you, that do not understand/adhere to Rule of Law, some wanting to be kings and dictators thinking that they know better what to do with the fruits of our labors than we and becoming tyrants in the process. There is a fundamental flaw in socialism, it doesn't work. There is no known example of socialism working. Why, because it violates the fundamental issue - Man is endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights. And one of those rights is that man has the right to enjoy ALL the fruits of his labor and no man has the right to deprive another man the fruits of his labor. Government is instituted of man and proper government only has powers given it by those men. If man does not have the right to take from another, he can not give that right to government. But if government takes that power unto it's self, called tyranny, that government will eventually fail after bringing great misery to all - that is history - it is observable. The Free Market Economy goes hand in hand with freedom. It allows men the choice as to weather to cooperate with others or not, to exchange with others or not, to form alliances with others or not. Socialism is an economy that denies man these freedoms. It relies on government to excise tyranny by denying one man the right to the fruits of his labors and giving them to another that contributes no labors. Socialism can only exists through tyranny, so you tell me, how is that good?
dlhale wrote:
However, we are losing that, our governments are again full of people, like you, that do not understand/adhere to Rule of Law, some wanting to be kings and dictators thinking that they know better what to do with the fruits of our labors than we and becoming tyrants in the process.
"Losing that". Because in the past it was there. Exactly when was it there? The Mormons were forced out of the east because the states banned their books. Banned as in made it illegal to print them. I believe they also banned their churches. So certainly not a lot of freedom then. Is that the past to which you refer? West Virginia had to be forced to recognize that people of different races could in fact marry. The state would not recognize it without being forced. Perhaps that is the freedoms of the past that you wish to restore? Miranda rights was something that the courts forced on the states. The state paying for attorneys for those that could not be paid was something the courts forced on the states. Are those the freedoms of the past that you are referring to? There were actual "wars" in the past in the US over workers rights. Wars in the sense that there armed mobs, on both sides, drawing up war plans, engaging in those plans and carrying them out with guns, bombs and in some cases with cannons. Is that the freedom of the past that you want to return to?
dlhale wrote:
r and no man has the right to deprive another man the fruits of his labor. Governmen
So are you claiming that a thief that breaks into others houses is not in fact 'laboring'. Rather certain that such a person can certainly engage in planning, executing and then enjoying the fruits of his labors, so certainly you then support allowing that thief to do exactly that?
dlhale wrote:
It relies on government to excise tyranny by denying one man the right to the fruits of his labors and giving them to another that contributes no labors.
Have you seen the documentary "Tickled"? Basically shows a reporter discovering the story of a man who built up a large successful company that exists to this day although he has died. A large portion of that company is owned by his son who inherited it. His son does not work for the company. What the son does is set up shell companies run by employees that attempt to trick men into engaging in tick
-
And BTW, our civil war had little to do with slavery. The backers of the south were European royalty, it was about returning the new world to the tyrants that ruled Europe - that is the true nature of that beast. Now, what were all the civil wars about in England - war after war after war after war ...
