This argument is disbanded by the Nash equilibrium; social cooperation is needed for society optimums, the problem is the method used 'the state governance' is to heavily centralized, but still without trying to attain the NE society will suffer
Funny he says this. He was one of the 3 guys that came up with the plan for the federal government to start withholding people's money from their paychecks for taxes.
His 1st point is the most important, & most damning of socialism. Yes. Socialism must at its foundation mean violence, or the threat of violence. The state exists for no other purpose then to coerce others. People who don't see that have romantic fantasies about using the state to do all manner of good, but have no thought for the injury they must do to do their imagined good.
@mikerotcherson Have you seen Chomsky vid. Is capitalism making life better? Have you seen his remarks on Afghanistan? His remarks on the simple and vital questions that are rarely asked. (and you do not need proof of that mate I can see it on the news and read it in newspapers every day. And you should also check out Ha Joon Chang. He points out that it is protectionism that has made countries prosper, Check out: Ha Joon Chang 23 things.
Yes I've seen the videos. Chomsky does nothing but spout a bunch of nonsense but using specifics and with such a tone of assuredness that the poor sap who asked the question didn't have the knowledge enough to refute. He spends the majority of the video claiming nonsense like the economies of places like Soviet Russia were admirably efficient & prosperous things are worse in Russia NOW. It's not just nonsense it's outright lies.
@mikerotcherson What about Ha Joon Chang? I mean come on. They both provide historical examples,plenty of them and modern day examples.Can you provide an example witch contradicts them?Your just saying its lies. And that page,Even if it was true(that he criticized Chavez for that imprisonment) doesn't mean he got anything wrong,he doesn't have to praise everything Chavez does just because he did it about other things.And that article just smeared him most of the time.
Their OWN examples contradict them. That's the whole point. I'm sorry if the fact that they're making shit up isn't a good enough reason to not buy what they're selling, but for the non-biased that is usually all u need.
And Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge & has basically been more or less sympathetic (if not supportive) of dictators like Chavez for as long as the professor has been spouting his nonsense worldviews instead of sticking to something he actually knows. Like linguistics
@mikerotchersonAgain you are not coming with examples, please a video, an article, a book, anything..that is not just smearing but facts please.History books are pretty good.And where exactly is Ha Joon Chang wrong in the 23 things video,show me historical evidence that makes him wrong.And I do not think Chavez is a dictator he did get elected after all..unlike bush(did you support Bush?,probably not).And Chomsky uses common sense not "just facts" in his arguments on f.ex. philosophical points.
@mikerotcherson No I want facts just not from you directly from a book or a video or something that could back you up. And what I meant was Chomsky uses common sense whether it would be philosophically or politically or historically. And yes economically people where living a lot better in the Soviet after the time of slavery of the Czars. But that doesn't mean I support dictatorships or communism. Read Helen Brown on that, Web of Debt f.ex on why the soviet fell... next thread. =)
@mikerotcherson Start with earlier thread. =) And You can read history books on the Soviet to realize why it came to be in the first place. But again Chomsky s point in that vid was to question capitalism, is it as good as we want to believe? He is not saying we should become communists. And yes Hugo Chavez was elected 3 times by the majority of the people so yea I do not see him as any more a dictator that f. ex. the US president. Ok so how about those books or vids?
Sure. Check out "The Black Book of Communism". Read that and let's hear how great the Soviet Union was doing. Or hell. See some footage:
/watch?v=NJ4L8JEILNE
/playlist?list=PLC417BC8AAD6E8669
Chomsky's point was to push his syndicalist ideology by building straw men and spouting lies. And his denial of atrocities puts him on pace to be in company with a Walter Duranty. And if you seriously want to compare a Chavez "election" with a U.S. election, you're simply delusional.
@mikerotcherson Again he doesn't deny the atrocities of the Soviet leadership he is simply saying that we should reflect on the fact that our capitalist society has problems as well (counting its leadership).
Ok so I cant compare them, how do you explain that Bush got in to the white house the first time when it should have been Gore. Think about it.
@mikerotcherson Again you have misunderstood Chomsky and missed many of his points.Please tell me you at least understand that he isn't in favor of communism. He simply wants to put our modern society in to perspective.I am pro capitalist but I am also pro democracy.Just as he is.And I have quite recently realized that people have forgotten about what it is about.OK but this quarrel is getting us nowhere,I am just gonna ask a question, what do you think democracy is about?
You have made it quite obvious it is YOU who does not fully understand Chomsky's political views. Chomsky is not pro-capitalism or pro-democracy. And the fact that you think he is shows how little you understand. And the fact that you think you can be both of those things simultaneously illustrates even more.
And Chomsky is NOT "just saying that our capitalist society has problems as well". For one thing, you make it sound like there is even a comparison between the US and USSR...
tens of millions of people. Starved to death in a genocidal famine. And you want to go "well we have problems too." That's actually insulting and disrespectful IMO.
2nd, u want to call what US has "capitalist" but the vast majority of the problems you speak of can be traced to a LACK of capitalism and freedom in one way or another.
3rd, it was actually Sowell who said "nothing is easier than to prove that something human has imperfections."
As a side note, be sure u click "see all comments" link so u don't miss replies that span multiple posts. (I have a feeling you missed the second part of the last one)
But your question makes no sense. That's like saying "what do you think fire should be about?" Can you answer that question? Democracy is not a social movement or an opera. It's a noun with a specific definition. And that definition basically boils down to "mob rule". There isn't really an answer to your question.
Uh...do YOU believe if 51% of the country says the other 49% of the country should be shot in the face, they are justified in doing it? They took a vote, and the majority voted in favor of it. Majority rules right? You really see no problem with this?
To answer what I think you're asking, no, I do not believe "mob rule" is moral, justified, or desirable. Do you?
@mikerotcherson No one or very few would ever ask for such a thing. And you underestimate the public. But you think a representative democracy works best right? The things you would have to do in order to protect the minority in a direct democracy is to eliminate poverty.
Have you checked your augments with historical facts? Look to the all countries with high welfare budgets and you will find that they all are high in poverty, corruption, inefficiency etc. E.g. USSR, China under communism, N. Korea, Vietnam during communist regime etc.
In contrast, the countries get rapid growth after they slash their welfare budgets. E.g. Russia, India, China and many more.
The politicians have tricked in in belief that welfare can remove poverty, open your eyes.
@chovbha You forgot Denmark, Norway, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Australia and others. So you need to look more closely on history and the world of today my friend. =)
Current problems of the those countries are due to government debt, accumulated to finance ever increasing public welfare projects, not because of limited governance. Public welfare is socialism, not capitalism.
If you look to the records of length and depth of problematic periods then you won't miss that capitalist countries have lesser problems. Can you show me a country which switch to socialism from capitalism and is in better shape after 30 years? Reverse is true for many.
@chovbha No it is because of war projects and decreasing taxes for the wealthy I think. And of course, decreasing government involvement in the economy. Just need to look more closely at history again. =)
I suggest you look at what Ha Joon Chang has to say, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. =)
How many countries go broke due to wars? Norway? Italy? Germany? What is their War budgets and welfare budgets?
For example, USA is spending about $600Billion/annum for all kind of defense including wars, and they are spending over $1.5 Trillions for welfares?!?!?
I am kinda agree with tax on rich, but high tax on rich should be keeping money off the economy, not on making profits. because profit may be invested somewhere to make more productive use.
None of developing country have reliable currency and that's why they are dancing per developed countries. They need to print 10 times more money than developed countries because their politicians love socialist economy which give them chance to buy votes through welfare projects.
Ha Joon Chang has interesting argument, thanks. however public welfare is different then intervention of economy. I don't know what he thinks about general tax level, do you?
@chovbhaYou understand thelogic of his argument do you not,makes perfect sense,and completely destroys the"freemarket"nonsensethat is prettycommon now.Andsocial expenditur may be bigger but if that is yourargument it is a terrible oneThe US people get nothing out of wars but they get alot from social expenditure.Well I could go on and on about this subject but I find it pretty difficult to do over youtub.Nice chatting with you.You seem to have a brain at leastunlike someother turds on the net =)
@Auraruth8 Where do you see decreasing govt. involvement in the economy? Show me the graph. The welfare-warfare-regulatory state has only grown. Under GWB the regulatory state grew at the fastest pace since Nixon. The welfare state grew at the fastest pace since LBJ. You aren't entitled to your own facts. The fed. govt. has metastized under ever President for generations. 1 regulation goes away to be replaced by 2.
I suggest you take off ideological blinders and read some more.
@joepeeler34 You have got to be kidding me check the young turks show for inctance they have FACTS there ok I get that government has increased in some areas(like listening to peoples phone calls and monitoring people on the internet, probing people at airports, infiltrating peace groups) but on for example job programs and other needed social programs is very little being done in comparison. And the reason it goes so well for the chinese government for example is because of socialism and cap..
@Auraruth8 I am aware of the Young Turks. I don't know why you felt the need to capitalize the term 'facts' though.
I don't think policiticians are the answer any more than I think central planners in govt. have the answers. I follow ideas, not men.
China has a freer market than we do now. They are friendlier to capital. They save and invest. Very capitalistic. We have much socialism in our economy. It's been there for decades. U.S. and China both have mixed economies.
@mikerotcherson Sorry bout that might have missed it but anyway I can not convince you and you can not convince me one of the problems of trying to debate with people on the net.Face to face conversations generally workbetter at least for me.But I wish you the best of luck,you are probably a self made man right,gone to private school not funded by the state,not receiving welfare,use private hospitals and so on,well if we ever meet I will enjoy talking with you we might agree on more than we know
@Auraruth8 you're wrong. social spending per capita has doubled since the mid-60s even correcting for inflation and people are not better off except for the bureaucrats who run those programs.
@joepeeler34 But I could go on we probably agree on more than we can know it is difficult when you are not talking face to face but anyway hope you want get fooled by politicians you do not seem to ...good luck. I wish you well in life.
@mrjercan2 Again socialism is not to be confused with communism, look up Chomsky on socialism and you will realize that the meaning of the word is somewhat redefined in America. And has Chomsky ever advocated communism? I do not think so.
@mrjercan2 But please check out Changs 23 things. you can get a little more versatile view of history and economics from there. Friedman states some things that may not be as true as one might believe. He has good points on many things but again you may also have to look individually on many cases. And if you think about it, would a person who makes little money on welfare spend it any less wisely than a person who does not have to rely on welfare? Think about it.
The government is the poorest institution in the country. It has to steal from people to do anything. Without taxpayers, they have nothing. Why don't they let us run the show for once, eh? Only kidding, but seriously, the stealing needs to stop. The IRS is a bullshit institution with no right to take people's money, so they do it by coercion. It's plain evil, really.
@yenamarre100: I shouldn't have read "money might be spent for futile things when it's yours, whiel for more useful stuff when it's government decision" this early in the morning. I almost threw up my breakfast.
By the way, they've already tried the "the government knows how to distribute what I create better than I, so let's allow it to forcefully take the fruits of our work and spend it as they see fit". It ended with people standing in line for half a day so they didn't starve to death.
@TheDestroyerCrom Amen, I work in a Public sector job I'm said to say, but I do my best to save every penny, the mentality just in the school system alone blows my mine, it's so bad people actually say the line "if we don't waste it, somebody else will", and that mentality comes from the fact they are not allowed to save money on the government side, they can't keep it for when they need it, so they waste it on crap they don't need.
At no point has Freidman ever advocated for "no govt". There are specific things the fed govt is tasked to do. Creating large bureaus to steal money from one person, pay their employess, then "distribute" what is left over to who they deem worthy, is NOT one of those functions.
But this is hard to explain to liberals because liberalism is their religion, and big govt is their "God". Getting govt to take money and give it to others makes them feel good about themselves.
@yenamarre100 If you'll actually read what he's written & listen to what he's stated he says quite clearly. (In one talk w/Donahue here on YT he states specifically that he's not an anarchist and that government has a role to play.)
Second, to your question I say: who are you to decide for me what my money should be spent on? Who are you to decide what are "futile things" (I think you mean "frivolous"). Do you really want to argue that I should be able to decide what you should be buying?
They would if it wasn't taken from them by force and spent "on their behalf." That's the whole point. If the people were allowed to spend their own money they would get those same services provided better, more efficiently and at a lower cost.
@mikerotcherson Far more so than if it was the private sector. What incentive does a private company have to inspect it's own food for safety? Would they really issue a recall if they found traces of e-coli in their lettuce? They would probably ignore it until someone actually got sick, and even then they would try to blame in on another company. Not everything in this world should be for profit. It's nice to know we have certain regulations looking out for us.
@Saebeck32 Dude, what is wrong with you? First of all, a private company would have every incentive for food inspection because if people get sick, the company is in trouble and will get sued. Even worse, its reputation will be tarnished and its out of business really quick because no one wants to buy food from a company that has a bad mark on its rap sheet. Regulations simply protect these companies and people have a hard time suing companies that get special privileges by the government.
@Saebeck32 Take a look at the FDA. Surely, it protects the American consumers by preventing harmful edible products from entering our markets by requiring them to pass guidelines before they can be sold. However, large pharmaceutical companies have lobbed the FDA to regulate the industry in ways that favors the interests of these companies. Drugs produced in Europe that saved many lives were not entered into the US because it was against the interests of these companies. That is the problem.
@Saebeck32 The FDA, while it has good intentions, has merely become an organization that supports large companies and protects their interests, largely at the expense of the consumers. For example, if you were to advertise that an orange cures the disease of scurvy, the FDA will send units to shut down your business and arrest you for selling a drug without license. Some businesses were confiscated because they sold natural herbs as medical remedy, potential hurting the profits of big pharma.
This argument is disbanded by the Nash equilibrium; social cooperation is needed for society optimums, the problem is the method used 'the state governance' is to heavily centralized, but still without trying to attain the NE society will suffer
radroatch 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SaveTheRepublic1791 Why do you say that?
Auraruth8 4 months ago
Funny he says this. He was one of the 3 guys that came up with the plan for the federal government to start withholding people's money from their paychecks for taxes.
YoDudeRock 4 months ago
@YoDudeRock
Of which he later said, just to be fair:
"I have no apologies for it, but I really wish we hadn't found it necessary and I wish there were some way of abolishing withholding now."
jccusell 3 months ago
His 1st point is the most important, & most damning of socialism. Yes. Socialism must at its foundation mean violence, or the threat of violence. The state exists for no other purpose then to coerce others. People who don't see that have romantic fantasies about using the state to do all manner of good, but have no thought for the injury they must do to do their imagined good.
VictorLepanto 6 months ago
Chomsky would rip this guy apart. =)
Auraruth8 8 months ago
@Auraruth8
With a bunch of syndicalist nonsense and non sequitur
mikerotcherson 8 months ago
@Auraruth8 HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! you are WRONG
mrjercan2 8 months ago
@mrjercan2 So you think Chomsky is wrong?
Auraruth8 8 months ago
@Auraruth8
Depends on what you're talking about. If the subject is linguistics, Chomsky might actually know what he's talking about.
mikerotcherson 8 months ago
@mikerotcherson OOo he is right on foreign policy as well and on historical and philosophical points.
Auraruth8 8 months ago
@Auraruth8
Care to provide an example?
mikerotcherson 8 months ago
@mikerotcherson Have you seen Chomsky vid. Is capitalism making life better? Have you seen his remarks on Afghanistan? His remarks on the simple and vital questions that are rarely asked. (and you do not need proof of that mate I can see it on the news and read it in newspapers every day. And you should also check out Ha Joon Chang. He points out that it is protectionism that has made countries prosper, Check out: Ha Joon Chang 23 things.
Auraruth8 8 months ago
@Auraruth8
Yes I've seen the videos. Chomsky does nothing but spout a bunch of nonsense but using specifics and with such a tone of assuredness that the poor sap who asked the question didn't have the knowledge enough to refute. He spends the majority of the video claiming nonsense like the economies of places like Soviet Russia were admirably efficient & prosperous things are worse in Russia NOW. It's not just nonsense it's outright lies.
And as for political:
tinyurl [dot] com/chomskychavez
mikerotcherson 7 months ago
@mikerotcherson What about Ha Joon Chang? I mean come on. They both provide historical examples,plenty of them and modern day examples.Can you provide an example witch contradicts them?Your just saying its lies. And that page,Even if it was true(that he criticized Chavez for that imprisonment) doesn't mean he got anything wrong,he doesn't have to praise everything Chavez does just because he did it about other things.And that article just smeared him most of the time.
Auraruth8 7 months ago
@Auraruth8
Their OWN examples contradict them. That's the whole point. I'm sorry if the fact that they're making shit up isn't a good enough reason to not buy what they're selling, but for the non-biased that is usually all u need.
And Chomsky defended the Khmer Rouge & has basically been more or less sympathetic (if not supportive) of dictators like Chavez for as long as the professor has been spouting his nonsense worldviews instead of sticking to something he actually knows. Like linguistics
mikerotcherson 7 months ago
@mikerotchersonAgain you are not coming with examples, please a video, an article, a book, anything..that is not just smearing but facts please.History books are pretty good.And where exactly is Ha Joon Chang wrong in the 23 things video,show me historical evidence that makes him wrong.And I do not think Chavez is a dictator he did get elected after all..unlike bush(did you support Bush?,probably not).And Chomsky uses common sense not "just facts" in his arguments on f.ex. philosophical points.
Auraruth8 7 months ago
@Auraruth8
So let me get this straight before we get to any "examples".
1) You do not believe Hugo Chavez is a dictator.
2) You don't want "facts", you want "philosophical points".
3) You believe that the economy of the Soviet Union was prosperous and booming, like Chomsky said.
Is that correct?
mikerotcherson 7 months ago
@mikerotcherson No I want facts just not from you directly from a book or a video or something that could back you up. And what I meant was Chomsky uses common sense whether it would be philosophically or politically or historically. And yes economically people where living a lot better in the Soviet after the time of slavery of the Czars. But that doesn't mean I support dictatorships or communism. Read Helen Brown on that, Web of Debt f.ex on why the soviet fell... next thread. =)
Auraruth8 7 months ago
@mikerotcherson Start with earlier thread. =) And You can read history books on the Soviet to realize why it came to be in the first place. But again Chomsky s point in that vid was to question capitalism, is it as good as we want to believe? He is not saying we should become communists. And yes Hugo Chavez was elected 3 times by the majority of the people so yea I do not see him as any more a dictator that f. ex. the US president. Ok so how about those books or vids?
Auraruth8 7 months ago
@Auraruth8
Sure. Check out "The Black Book of Communism". Read that and let's hear how great the Soviet Union was doing. Or hell. See some footage:
/watch?v=NJ4L8JEILNE
/playlist?list=PLC417BC8AAD6E8669
Chomsky's point was to push his syndicalist ideology by building straw men and spouting lies. And his denial of atrocities puts him on pace to be in company with a Walter Duranty. And if you seriously want to compare a Chavez "election" with a U.S. election, you're simply delusional.
mikerotcherson 7 months ago
@mikerotcherson Again he doesn't deny the atrocities of the Soviet leadership he is simply saying that we should reflect on the fact that our capitalist society has problems as well (counting its leadership).
Ok so I cant compare them, how do you explain that Bush got in to the white house the first time when it should have been Gore. Think about it.
Auraruth8 7 months ago
@mikerotcherson Again you have misunderstood Chomsky and missed many of his points.Please tell me you at least understand that he isn't in favor of communism. He simply wants to put our modern society in to perspective.I am pro capitalist but I am also pro democracy.Just as he is.And I have quite recently realized that people have forgotten about what it is about.OK but this quarrel is getting us nowhere,I am just gonna ask a question, what do you think democracy is about?
Auraruth8 7 months ago
@Auraruth8
You have made it quite obvious it is YOU who does not fully understand Chomsky's political views. Chomsky is not pro-capitalism or pro-democracy. And the fact that you think he is shows how little you understand. And the fact that you think you can be both of those things simultaneously illustrates even more.
And Chomsky is NOT "just saying that our capitalist society has problems as well". For one thing, you make it sound like there is even a comparison between the US and USSR...
mikerotcherson 7 months ago
...
tens of millions of people. Starved to death in a genocidal famine. And you want to go "well we have problems too." That's actually insulting and disrespectful IMO.
2nd, u want to call what US has "capitalist" but the vast majority of the problems you speak of can be traced to a LACK of capitalism and freedom in one way or another.
3rd, it was actually Sowell who said "nothing is easier than to prove that something human has imperfections."
4th, what makes you say Gore "should have won"?
mikerotcherson 7 months ago
@mikerotcherson OK so what do you think democracy should be about?
Auraruth8 7 months ago
@Auraruth8
As a side note, be sure u click "see all comments" link so u don't miss replies that span multiple posts. (I have a feeling you missed the second part of the last one)
But your question makes no sense. That's like saying "what do you think fire should be about?" Can you answer that question? Democracy is not a social movement or an opera. It's a noun with a specific definition. And that definition basically boils down to "mob rule". There isn't really an answer to your question.
mikerotcherson 7 months ago
@mikerotcherson So you do not believe in "mob rule" then?
Auraruth8 7 months ago
@mikerotcherson OK so what do you believe in?
Auraruth8 7 months ago
@Auraruth8
Uh...do YOU believe if 51% of the country says the other 49% of the country should be shot in the face, they are justified in doing it? They took a vote, and the majority voted in favor of it. Majority rules right? You really see no problem with this?
To answer what I think you're asking, no, I do not believe "mob rule" is moral, justified, or desirable. Do you?
mikerotcherson 7 months ago
@mikerotcherson No one or very few would ever ask for such a thing. And you underestimate the public. But you think a representative democracy works best right? The things you would have to do in order to protect the minority in a direct democracy is to eliminate poverty.
Auraruth8 7 months ago
@Auraruth8 "No one or very few would ever ask for such a thing."
Ever heard of the Holocaust?
"But you think a representative democracy works best right?"
No. I don't.
mikerotcherson 7 months ago
@Auraruth8
Have you checked your augments with historical facts? Look to the all countries with high welfare budgets and you will find that they all are high in poverty, corruption, inefficiency etc. E.g. USSR, China under communism, N. Korea, Vietnam during communist regime etc.
In contrast, the countries get rapid growth after they slash their welfare budgets. E.g. Russia, India, China and many more.
The politicians have tricked in in belief that welfare can remove poverty, open your eyes.
chovbha 6 months ago
@chovbha You forgot Denmark, Norway, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Australia and others. So you need to look more closely on history and the world of today my friend. =)
Auraruth8 6 months ago
@Auraruth8
Current problems of the those countries are due to government debt, accumulated to finance ever increasing public welfare projects, not because of limited governance. Public welfare is socialism, not capitalism.
If you look to the records of length and depth of problematic periods then you won't miss that capitalist countries have lesser problems. Can you show me a country which switch to socialism from capitalism and is in better shape after 30 years? Reverse is true for many.
chovbha 6 months ago
@chovbha No it is because of war projects and decreasing taxes for the wealthy I think. And of course, decreasing government involvement in the economy. Just need to look more closely at history again. =)
I suggest you look at what Ha Joon Chang has to say, I think you will be pleasantly surprised. =)
Auraruth8 6 months ago
@Auraruth8
How many countries go broke due to wars? Norway? Italy? Germany? What is their War budgets and welfare budgets?
For example, USA is spending about $600Billion/annum for all kind of defense including wars, and they are spending over $1.5 Trillions for welfares?!?!?
I am kinda agree with tax on rich, but high tax on rich should be keeping money off the economy, not on making profits. because profit may be invested somewhere to make more productive use.
continue on part 2....
chovbha 6 months ago
@Auraruth8
Part 2
None of developing country have reliable currency and that's why they are dancing per developed countries. They need to print 10 times more money than developed countries because their politicians love socialist economy which give them chance to buy votes through welfare projects.
Ha Joon Chang has interesting argument, thanks. however public welfare is different then intervention of economy. I don't know what he thinks about general tax level, do you?
chovbha 6 months ago
@chovbhaYou understand thelogic of his argument do you not,makes perfect sense,and completely destroys the"freemarket"nonsensethat is prettycommon now.Andsocial expenditur may be bigger but if that is yourargument it is a terrible oneThe US people get nothing out of wars but they get alot from social expenditure.Well I could go on and on about this subject but I find it pretty difficult to do over youtub.Nice chatting with you.You seem to have a brain at leastunlike someother turds on the net =)
Auraruth8 6 months ago
@Auraruth8 Where do you see decreasing govt. involvement in the economy? Show me the graph. The welfare-warfare-regulatory state has only grown. Under GWB the regulatory state grew at the fastest pace since Nixon. The welfare state grew at the fastest pace since LBJ. You aren't entitled to your own facts. The fed. govt. has metastized under ever President for generations. 1 regulation goes away to be replaced by 2.
I suggest you take off ideological blinders and read some more.
joepeeler34 6 months ago
@joepeeler34 You have got to be kidding me check the young turks show for inctance they have FACTS there ok I get that government has increased in some areas(like listening to peoples phone calls and monitoring people on the internet, probing people at airports, infiltrating peace groups) but on for example job programs and other needed social programs is very little being done in comparison. And the reason it goes so well for the chinese government for example is because of socialism and cap..
Auraruth8 6 months ago
@Auraruth8 I am aware of the Young Turks. I don't know why you felt the need to capitalize the term 'facts' though.
I don't think policiticians are the answer any more than I think central planners in govt. have the answers. I follow ideas, not men.
China has a freer market than we do now. They are friendlier to capital. They save and invest. Very capitalistic. We have much socialism in our economy. It's been there for decades. U.S. and China both have mixed economies.
joepeeler34 6 months ago
@Auraruth8
You have all this time to reply to everyone else but you can't answer my question? Should I be offended? hehe
mikerotcherson 6 months ago
@mikerotcherson Sorry bout that might have missed it but anyway I can not convince you and you can not convince me one of the problems of trying to debate with people on the net.Face to face conversations generally workbetter at least for me.But I wish you the best of luck,you are probably a self made man right,gone to private school not funded by the state,not receiving welfare,use private hospitals and so on,well if we ever meet I will enjoy talking with you we might agree on more than we know
Auraruth8 6 months ago
@Auraruth8 you're wrong. social spending per capita has doubled since the mid-60s even correcting for inflation and people are not better off except for the bureaucrats who run those programs.
andrelebaron 4 months ago
@andrelebaron Whats social spending per capita?
Auraruth8 4 months ago
@joepeeler34 But I could go on we probably agree on more than we can know it is difficult when you are not talking face to face but anyway hope you want get fooled by politicians you do not seem to ...good luck. I wish you well in life.
Auraruth8 6 months ago
@Auraruth8 Of course Chomsky is wrong, anyone that advocates socialism is an idiot. Socialism doesn't work, period.
mrjercan2 8 months ago
@mrjercan2 Again socialism is not to be confused with communism, look up Chomsky on socialism and you will realize that the meaning of the word is somewhat redefined in America. And has Chomsky ever advocated communism? I do not think so.
Auraruth8 8 months ago
@mrjercan2 But please check out Changs 23 things. you can get a little more versatile view of history and economics from there. Friedman states some things that may not be as true as one might believe. He has good points on many things but again you may also have to look individually on many cases. And if you think about it, would a person who makes little money on welfare spend it any less wisely than a person who does not have to rely on welfare? Think about it.
Auraruth8 8 months ago
The government is the poorest institution in the country. It has to steal from people to do anything. Without taxpayers, they have nothing. Why don't they let us run the show for once, eh? Only kidding, but seriously, the stealing needs to stop. The IRS is a bullshit institution with no right to take people's money, so they do it by coercion. It's plain evil, really.
vmcnick 9 months ago 2
@yenamarre100: I shouldn't have read "money might be spent for futile things when it's yours, whiel for more useful stuff when it's government decision" this early in the morning. I almost threw up my breakfast.
By the way, they've already tried the "the government knows how to distribute what I create better than I, so let's allow it to forcefully take the fruits of our work and spend it as they see fit". It ended with people standing in line for half a day so they didn't starve to death.
TheDestroyerCrom 10 months ago 2
@TheDestroyerCrom Amen, I work in a Public sector job I'm said to say, but I do my best to save every penny, the mentality just in the school system alone blows my mine, it's so bad people actually say the line "if we don't waste it, somebody else will", and that mentality comes from the fact they are not allowed to save money on the government side, they can't keep it for when they need it, so they waste it on crap they don't need.
jkessler410 10 months ago 2
@yenamarre100
At no point has Freidman ever advocated for "no govt". There are specific things the fed govt is tasked to do. Creating large bureaus to steal money from one person, pay their employess, then "distribute" what is left over to who they deem worthy, is NOT one of those functions.
But this is hard to explain to liberals because liberalism is their religion, and big govt is their "God". Getting govt to take money and give it to others makes them feel good about themselves.
EchoMike03 11 months ago
@yenamarre100 If you'll actually read what he's written & listen to what he's stated he says quite clearly. (In one talk w/Donahue here on YT he states specifically that he's not an anarchist and that government has a role to play.)
Second, to your question I say: who are you to decide for me what my money should be spent on? Who are you to decide what are "futile things" (I think you mean "frivolous"). Do you really want to argue that I should be able to decide what you should be buying?
mikerotcherson 1 year ago
@yenamarre100 Not an argument he made. Logical flaw, my dear yenamarre. (It's called "straw man" if you want to look it up.)
mikerotcherson 1 year ago
But no mention of progressive taxation.
Feedabeast321 1 year ago
We need him now more than ever.
pimpdalyrical 1 year ago 5
Very few people spend other peoples money as carefully as their own ;)
Spiboy 1 year ago 34
@Spiboy Very few people spend their money on roads, food inspections, airplane safety, bridges, police, firefighters or the military.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32
They would if it wasn't taken from them by force and spent "on their behalf." That's the whole point. If the people were allowed to spend their own money they would get those same services provided better, more efficiently and at a lower cost.
mikerotcherson 4 months ago
@mikerotcherson Really? You're living in the Fox News fantasy world.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
@Saebeck32
You really think everyone is getting their money's worth from government services?
mikerotcherson 4 months ago
@mikerotcherson Far more so than if it was the private sector. What incentive does a private company have to inspect it's own food for safety? Would they really issue a recall if they found traces of e-coli in their lettuce? They would probably ignore it until someone actually got sick, and even then they would try to blame in on another company. Not everything in this world should be for profit. It's nice to know we have certain regulations looking out for us.
Saebeck32 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Saebeck32 "Far more so than if it was the private sector."
Really? You're living in the MSNBC fantasy world. lol
mikerotcherson 4 months ago
@Saebeck32 Dude, what is wrong with you? First of all, a private company would have every incentive for food inspection because if people get sick, the company is in trouble and will get sued. Even worse, its reputation will be tarnished and its out of business really quick because no one wants to buy food from a company that has a bad mark on its rap sheet. Regulations simply protect these companies and people have a hard time suing companies that get special privileges by the government.
GunsNRosesbitches 3 months ago
@Saebeck32 Take a look at the FDA. Surely, it protects the American consumers by preventing harmful edible products from entering our markets by requiring them to pass guidelines before they can be sold. However, large pharmaceutical companies have lobbed the FDA to regulate the industry in ways that favors the interests of these companies. Drugs produced in Europe that saved many lives were not entered into the US because it was against the interests of these companies. That is the problem.
GunsNRosesbitches 3 months ago
@Saebeck32 The FDA, while it has good intentions, has merely become an organization that supports large companies and protects their interests, largely at the expense of the consumers. For example, if you were to advertise that an orange cures the disease of scurvy, the FDA will send units to shut down your business and arrest you for selling a drug without license. Some businesses were confiscated because they sold natural herbs as medical remedy, potential hurting the profits of big pharma.
GunsNRosesbitches 3 months ago
@Saebeck32
One example of many, a profit motive is only a motive for profit
radroatch 3 months ago
Liberalism -- The Audacity of Hoax
TylerNull 1 year ago 4
This is a critical thinker
dila813 1 year ago 26