When you're young you simply reflect the ideology in which you were raised. I have no doubt that these intellectuals had fairly liberal parents. Even if those parents were not politically active, they likely espoused leftist or collectivist ideas which influenced the worldview of their offspring. Individual freedom and free market principles are attractive simply because they work. Their practice has afforded the greatest freedom and wealth to the greatest number of people in all of history.
Grew up in a conservative Fox News household, gained empathy and a heart to become a liberal, and now acquired knowledge of how things ACTUALLY work to become a Libertarian with both a heart for what's best for society and a mind on how to achieve it.
Ok. Thanks for explaining why all republican politicians are so fucking stupid. Also thanks for explains why republicans do not contribute anything to academia or science. This whole time I assumed u were all fuck nut stupid, I stand corrected. That cleared that up :).
@psistarpsi80 Ok. Thanks for explaining why all democrats politicians are so fucking stupid. Also thanks for explains why democrats do not contribute anything to academia or science. This whole time I assumed u were all fuck nut stupid, I stand corrected. That cleared that up :).
BS - those with opportunity and resources exploit others. NOTHING to do with desire or affirmation. Uncle TOM with an Agenda - keep getting paid. All my posts are my opinion.
So does this mean that since I'm a libertarian at 20 that I have no chance of becoming an intelligent libertarian in my future? Or somehow its a reflection that I possess no heart or a proper idealism for my youth? Why is left-wing radicalism in your 20's considered such a necessary step in one's intellectual development?
@tacosforfreedom: It isn't, but it is typical given the nature of the academies to which our brightest children are sent for an education. Once ones mind is calcified in ones youth, it hard to shift those opinions cum prejudices. You are a leg up now, you'll have more time to develope your ideas. Perhaps (oh, impossible dream to hope) you'll even becom sharper then Sowell.
I became deeply conservative while still in high school, it was the terminal phase of communism which drove me to it.
@tacosforfreedom i believe he is speaking generally. It was rare in his day that there was youth libertarians. The hippies were all left back then. Even now with its growing popularity Libertarians are still under represented.
@tacosforfreedom I'm not much older than you, and also a libertarian, and I think it's because young people are passionate, and develop hearts before brains, and nobody likes anybody that's a little bit too smart before their time :)
@tacosforfreedom we are in the same boat, we are the ones who put the rest of our youth in place... It would be a pretty boring world if we were all smart
i think my meaning is getting lost in semantics. i use the word 'wealth' to indicate something that is tangible and of value. even an idea can be considered wealth if it is made tangible (improved) by a patent or some other means. the value of wealth is subject to fluctuations in supply and demand. the 'free market' includes not just the stock and commodities markets, but anywhere wealth is created, gambled, or exchanged.
The word "radical" has hence been literally overused to ad nausea. So one guy have supported an affirmative action, and thus he is a radical lefty? My God, what a scientific standards.
ex socialist, even studied sociology myself, its kind of good though as when debating leftists i often know their theories inside out, which makes me despise them all the more
@ImEuanAndIGotsSkeelz - I too am a former Leftist. I've seen how their ideology destroyed my family, starting with my parents. I've read socialist tracts and deeply followed Leftist "Critical Theory" where it's easy to trace it back to Nazis and fascism. When you read Derrida and Foucault you'll find fascist dogma. Much of what Leftists say can be pulled straight from "Mein Kampf" (which no Leftist has ever read) or "The Doctrine of Fascism." In particular, their hatred of Christianity.
One side calls it 'greed', the other side calls it 'success'. The reality is that some people excel at accumulation of wealth, and without some means or inclination on their part to circulate that wealth, an imbalance will occur which eventually results in forced redistribution of wealth. This is evident throughout history. There is no economic system that I am aware of that perfectly addresses human nature, but free or not, the market goes on...
@wildhammer81: Wealth doesn't accumulate, it is created. It is impossible to participate in the market process, providing services &/or making goods, w/o generating wealth for others in the process. Even if you merely inherit a fortune, you will either spend it away & transfer it to others or it will sit in a bank or in investments. People will manage it for you & your wealthe will benefit them also, however passively. You are talking utterly ignorant nonsense.
@VictorLepanto You are correct wealth is created from wealth. That wealth had destroyed the concept that wealth is created form labor. Because the wealth creating wealth makes sure that labor does not receive their just reward for their labor.
@louiethegreater: Such is the corrupting influence of ideology that it renders the mind incapable of grasping the most elementary logic no matter how often or in how many different ways it is presented. Wealth is what creates the opertunity for labor to seek a reward. No one ever made a gain w/o 1st risking some investment. No one is seeking to deny anyone any reward, except maybe the cynical politician prattling about "justly" redistributing wealth that is not his own.
@Vi Yes, it is inconceivable that there are those that believe that redistributing the American Middle classes wealth to Wall Street via Multinational Corporations is in the interest of working Americans. When CEOs began to announce they were moving their operations off shore, and leaving 30,000 Ameican workers behind, has taken its toll on the those who labor with their hands for a living. Of course their stocks would take a jump and the investment class would hail the CEOs as geniuses.
@louiethegreater: Wow! There might be (for all I know) an idea in that incoherent mass of ranting verbiage, but I couldn't find one if my life depended on it. If there was one, if it isn't the mindless growl of irrational hatred that it seems to be, would you please isolate it & present it. Maybe then we can discuss it. Until then, as you've actually said nothing, we have nothing to discuss. Bye!
@VictorLepanto Well if you choose to stay ignorant, than continue to bask on your own illusion, that wealth is only created by wealth. How can your mentality justify 65% of the wealth created in the U.S. last year, going to 1% of the population. If you are not one of those 1% than you are a Chicken Rooting for Colonial Sanders. I present facts, not Fox News talking points. Please go back to sleep.
@louiethegreater: It is always astonishing how leftist always project their sick twisted mentalities on others. I do appreciate how you reveal how envy drives the mind of a person like yourself, w/ your imaginary numbers like 65% & 1%. You & the sleazy politicians who encourage your childish mentality are the Col. Sanders here. If wealth isn't created by wealth, what does created it, poverty? Wealth isn't "going" to anyone. It is created, no one gave that money to them for nothing.
@VictorLepanto Yes, poverty is creating wealth for those of your mentality: that is --- the greed is good mentality. The new infusion of Wall Street wealth has came off the backs of Asian and Latino peasant workers who have been converted from subsistence farmer, to subsistence factory worker. That concentration of wealth for a few has came at the cost of the many: that is -- the American Middle class. Please don't call me a leftist you brainwashed, dimwitted, Friedman worshiping moron.
@louiethegreater: "Poverty is creating wealth." Thank you that is the most precious line in your whole rant. Nothing could more perfectedly illustrate your ignorance, though, I have no doubt in your ignorance you are also a Ph.D. Dean of some college dept. somewhere. In your world, the equation 0 > 1 makes sense.
@VictorLepanto Of course you are much to morbidly stupid to understand the comment I made, in the context it was made in. Southern Plantation Owners created wealth off the backs of slave labor. Who was the wealth created for? The plantation owner of course!, At whose expense-- the slaves-- of course. Can you wrap that feeble mind of yours around that illustration. That is creating wealth form poverty--- dingbat. Tariffs saves the country, it's as simple as that !!!!
@louiethegreater: You still haven't explained how poverty creates wealth. That is like saying coldness makes one hot. As a real scientist (that is the exact opposite of a Marxist ideologue) will tell you that heat is kinetic energy. What we feel as cold is not the opposite of warm, it is simply a relatively low level of heat. In live manner, poverty is not the opposite of wealth. It is simply a lack of economic energy. So you said, 0 > 1. You need to explain how that is so.
@Victor I repeat my previous statement, you are just to morbidly stupid to understand it. You also seem to have difficulty understanding the position of a economic protectionism, and Marxism. Here--- think on this-- I voted for Chuck Baldwin last election cycle. You probably don't know who Chuck Baldwin is, but Google the Constitutional Party, after you have read their platform, explain how Marxist that sounds to you. If you believe their platform is Marxist that you are a total basket case.
@louiethegreater: You still haven't explained houw poverty creates wealth, I really want to hear that one. As for being Marxist. You have essentially espoused Marxist sentiments already, anyone who prattles about wealthe simply "going" to people is no better then a Marxist in understanding real economic principles. I go by what you've said to me, I don't who or what party you vote for.
@VictorLepanto I have explained it to you, dingbat, I have also explained that you are much to addle brained to understand it. I also should attempt to convey to you that you would not know a Marxist if they came up the street in a red hat. Actually you seem to have trouble identifying an patriotic American, actually I am a nationalist, politically, and support economic nationalism. Perhaps you would be much more successful at finding some beavis an butthead videos to comment on.
@louiethegreater: I am thinking you don't have an answer to my question, how does poverty create wealth. If you have explained it, please re-explain it, or point where your explanation occurs. It isn't obvious to anyone save yourself. As for what you call "economic nationalism," I am perfectly familiar w/ corporatism. I don't acknowledge their being any meaningful difference b/t Fascism & Marxism. Read Jonah Goldberg's book on the subject. Recommend your favorite B&B sites & I'll look @ them.
@VictorLepanto In todays economy wealth is created off the backs of third world workers. In China the communist government simply offered their subsistence farmers to multinational corporations as cheap labor. Than subsistence farmers were suddenly subsistence factory workers, and the american middle class was conned into believing that it was their responsibility to build viable middle class in Mexico and Asia through the sacrifice of their jobs. The brain dead know that didn't work.
@louiethegreater: In reality, 3rd world countries are buidling up their own capital by having corporations invest their own well established capital in their countries. Thus new wealth, in the form of useful products, is being created for all.
As for what the "brain dead know," I will leave it your expertease on that subject.
@VictorLepanto No, No, No, NOT new wealth, WEALTH TRANSFER, from one hemisphere to the other. You mean Western middle class wealth to the third world. You mentality is that of a globalist, not an American. You would gladly trade your American citizenship for a global one. Globalist is as much a political ideology as socialism or Marxism. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is destroying Western economies, while transfering the wealth to Wall Street, wealth created of the backs of third world peasants.
@louiethegreater: Well, I do thank you for oblging me. You've made a complete show pof precisely what a brain dead person knows. There is not a complete thought in any of the preceeding rant. The 2 most amusing semi-thoughts contained in it are your notions that wealth is being transferred to the 3rd world & being made "on their backs." Which is it, is the wealth going TO or coming FROM the 3rd world? It can't be both.
@Victoro Well I assume you are admitting being a traitor to your own country or countrymen. Are you in line for global citizenship? Do you long for the day that U.S. well be a part of the global plantation? You should be reminded that you--- moron, will not be one of the plantation masters. That my dim witted friend is what a brain dead, dim witted, person fails to think through. Read all my posts again, please attempt to glean some understanding of the events taking place before your eyes,
@louiethegreater: I don't deny that I might be brain dead. I am not hear to celebrate myself. Regardless of how stupid I might be, you are obviously far thicker. As I've pointed out, you are saying that 0 > 1; or in your own terms, poverty creates wealth. You've yet to offer an explanation of how that works. Your world view is as muddled as your syntax. You have been condemning free enterprise. The only alternative to free enterprise is state economic control. So who is the defender of slavery?
@Victo No you are wrong: I have been condemning globalization and neo-liberalization, being forced on the world under the disguise of free market capitalism. You have been so pitifully brainwashed that you do not understand that the western middle class was created by protected economies. Especially the U.S. It is apparent that the West cannot compete with 4 billion thirdworld workers. If you do not understand that, you are indeed brain dead, or you have been fed some economic glbbledygoop.
@louiethegreater: It so strange listening to someone prattling this kind of economy as conspiracy nonsense talking about being brainwashed. You obviously have no idea what liberalism means, it means LIBERTY. How do you force liberty.
@VictorLepanto How convenient for a confessed globalist traitor to label the ongoing process of globalization as a conspiracy. I remember when speaking of globalization, NAFTA, NAU, even the EU was considered conspiracy theories. Now they are facts. Only the ignorant, supporters of globalization, and NWO deny that globalization through free trade is a reality. You are a traitor to your own country and should be denied citizenship to any country, you wait for the soon coming global citizenship.
@louiethegreater: Actually, I've been studying the possibility of using the ideas of this new seasteading movement to create a new Christian micro-nation as a remnant to hold during the impending collapse of Western Civilisation. What I am is a libertarian Christian nationalist. But I do love how your paranoic fantasism fits me into your demonology.
We are watching the collapse of the EU debacle into ashes @ our feat & you go on about it being a "globalist" conspiracy. TOO FUNNY!
@VictorLepanto Just exactly which nation are you loyal to, certainly not the U.S. If you put no more value on the jobs, or welfare of your own countrymen than you could not profess to be a nationalist. In fact you are a globalist who holds no loyalty to any nation, but only to the accumulation of wealth. You are perfectly willing to sacrifice the welfare of the working class, for the amassing of enormous wealth of a few investors. Actually 80% of the newly created wealth in the US went to top 1%
@louiethegreater: Oh, quit gibbering like an idiot. I get so sick of your politicians game prattling on about one man's job & seeking to save it, at the cost of ten others. Of course, if the politician gets of cut of that man's pay through his henchmen in some union, he care about the one & screw the ten. Jobs are created & lost all the time. Only a GROWING economy can create more jobs for everyone. The day it becomes too embarrassing to advocate your child economic notions will be great day.
@Victor You are right jobs are created all the time-- in Asia. WHY? Because when tariffs were removed, investment went to the third world, WHY -- because the government you love, but claim to hate gave permission to multinational corporations, to manufacture using .50/hr. labor. and ship the product back to the west without threat of tariffs. Idiots like you applauded that, that is you, and a few thousand corporate CEOs and a few college professors, like Milton Friedman, who teaches that - = +.
@louiethegreater: Talking to you is like explaining electricity to a medieval sert. It was high tariffs which blundered the world into the Great Depression, it was the lowering of those tariffs which got us out. It is unions which have destroyed industry in this country. More people are employed today by Japanese car companies then by so-called American car companies. I'd invited you to read just one book by Sowell, but I fear your head would explode the challenge of his thought.
@VictorLepanto How can you say that, Sowell has been around for years, and was used by the Gingrich con job during the passing of the Contract With America. He was one of the major contributors to the Republican take over of the House. His economics has failed the country, and you are badly mistaken concerning your understanding of the Depression. and Japanese auto manufacturers. Please don't attempt the grab the intellectual high ground here. You are the stupid, uninformed, child here.
@louiethegreater: That rant was such a jumble of empty assertions & incoherent notions, that I can't find a single substantial idea to address. If there was an idea in all that mess of verbiage, please isolate it & try to present it in some semblance understandable order. When exactly was Dr. Sowell elected to Congress now?
@VictorLepanto Tariffs had nothing to do with the great depression. Tariffs served the country well until the global plutocracy decided that globalization, and the era of the New World Order was at hand. Of course you are much to ignorant to understand that, because you are a chicken rooting for colonial sanders. It is your nature to be a chicken, and follow blindly the concept of globalization by trade.
@louiethegreater: YOur comments are appearing more & more like the symptoms of paranoia then the presentation of a political economic world view. Are you afraid the Global Plutocratic Conspiracy (GPC) will send Col. Sanders to get you in the night. You know he was a real colonel, right?
@VictorLepanto Well, actually my comments are really expressing a thought. Little wonder they are difficult for you to comprehend. Your comments are little more than parroting some pre-learned diatribe, or just plain mimicking some Corporate think tanks dialogue. So in all seriousness have you ever had an original thought?
@VictorLepanto Please go to your room, say : I am a chicken rooting for colonial sanders. Now repeat that a thousand times, then write it five hundred times. After you have completed this exercise stay in your room, and meditate on what you just told yourself. Watch in the mirror and stupid will start rolling off you.
@louiethegreater: It has become obvioius to me that this commenter is not mentally stable. I hope whoever is responsible for his care gives him his medication. I'd urge anyone else commenting here to not engage w/ him.
@VictorLepanto Hey!!! Explain to me how high tariffs caused the great depression. Please show the forum the real reason you choose to stop the engagement.
@louiethegreater i didnt see this whole arguement but after WW1 many nations went into a post war slump (excluding the US) but slowly climbed out of it through trade, mainly with the U.S. when the stock market crashed in 1929 and banks failed and exports and imports failed in the U.S. they raised tariffs to protect US industry which then caused other nations to raise tariffs the US which stifled trade at a time when it was most needed, so it didnt cause it but it is why it was so long and costly
@NewmanEspanolBI I respectfully disagree with you on Smoot- Hawley. Total U.S. imports in 1930 was 4% of GNP, Smoot-Hawley applied to 1/3 of that 4% or 1.3% of total GNP. At that it only raised the tariff 19% to the already 40% which ended up at 59%. NOW are you saying that a 19% tariff applied to 1.3% of GNP caused unemployment to race to 25%, and caused the collapse of 5,000 banks, wiped out 5/6 of the stock market, and cause a drop of 46 % of the GNP of the U.S. I personally cannot buy that.
@louiethegreater Just wanna say i was not agreeing with this guy on what he''s saying just pointing out the history, but your right that it is wrong for americans to outsource jobs for lower wages in other countries and that he is dead wrong that unions killed business, what unions killed was horrible exploitation of workers for huge profits and if thats his definition of business i want no part
@wildhammer81 - you don't "accumulate" wealth, you create it. You're not aware of a "system" because you don't even know where wealth comes from. Wealth comes from production. The more efficient a person is, the harder and smarter they work, the more wealth they generate for themselves. A good farmer doesn't steal anything.
Without government that farmer will generate a wealth of crops, limited by their ingenuity and their mind/body's stamina for work - BTW, that's a free market.
@thomaserossi i agree that i create wealth - i am a blacksmith. i improve resources and add value, thus creating wealth. as does a farmer. but how for example, does income from speculative trading "create" wealth? when the market price of a fixed resource like real estate goes up, the profit comes from those who are not invested (through increased rents and cost of goods), but nothing is "created" as far as i am aware. please correct me if i am wrong.
Yep, you're wrong.First off, ALL trading is speculative, and every trader is a speculator. If I own a bread company and I want to expend my business, I would need know with absolute certainty that wheat wasn't going to go up and cut into my profit margin for a set number of months or years.The only way for me to guarantee my profit margin would be to buy wheat futures for how ever many months I felt necessary so the price of my bread and therefore sales of my bread would be stable
@jjrglobal i'm missing your point. by my understanding of economics, material wealth is created by improvement of resources. your bread company creates wealth by improving wheat into bread. but no matter how many futures you buy, you can't produce the same amount of bread if there's a grain shortage next year. yet you will still transfer wealth to your company (via the futures) without producing bread - where does this wealth come from if you are not improving a resource?
Since every market participant is a speculator, without speculators we would have no market, without any market, we would have no pricing mechanism with which to price things.
intr. verb 2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain.
speculation is gambling. i assume retailers are still part of the free market? retailers improve land by providing space for and arranging regular stocking of goods for trade. but my local retailer doesn't speculate with their stocked goods. otherwise, the price of toilet paper and canned goods would have quadrupled during the last flood, instead of being bought out. how am i wrong?
I'm in the oil business, if I want to drill a new well, but need the price of oil to be $100 in order for it to be feasible, then I can lock in a $100 price for as long as I need. I am SPECULATING that oil may go down, to protect my company I short futures to make up the difference in losses on oil sales if oil were to go down, if oil goes up I lose however much per barrel over $100 that oil reaches. I'm not sure I understand what youre talking about with toilet paper and floods
@jjrglobal in that scenario, yes i think speculation could be a part of the process of adding value to land to produce oil. i can't see how it would be practical or legal however, and in any case it's not the source of the vast majority of speculative trading. the toilet paper/flood thing was just an example of the trading of wealth without speculation.
The market is also a world wide pricing mechanism for goods with a world wide demand. It is this price mechanism that sends signals to businesses and individuals about the supply and demand of the good. If a copper mine that produced 50% of the worlds supply of copper caved in and was rendered useless for six months, the companies that use copper to produce their products would not have to be told individually to cut down on their use of copper, they would automatically
cut back on their use of copper, due to the massive spike in the price because of the mine collapse. This is just one example of how the market plays such an important role in everyday business and without market participants, there would be no market.
@jjrglobal there will always be a market. we love to trade, and we could never have developed our civilization without trade. where free markets are outlawed, there are black markets. where there is abuse of individuals via
the market, there is regulation. where there is regulation, there are loopholes. in the end, we more or less trade as we see fit. self-regulation in trade seems to come from two sources - loyalty (our trades more greatly benefit the group we are loyal to; family,
@jjrglobal tribe, state, race, or humanity as a whole). - wisdom (will a less profitable trade result in opening a new market?, etc.) any attempt to moralize how trade is conducted only succeeds in demonizing human nature, and doesn't contribute to a solution. solutions are achieved through cooperation, not factionalism. the fact remains however, that when the distribution of wealth becomes too extreme then people go hungry, and hungry people tend to be violent and light things on fire.
Wealth should not be distributed it should be created. You may think market participants are not important but they play a very important role in ALL of our lives and businesses. Believe it or not, financiers create wealth thru capital formation and investment. Are you saying that people r going hungry in this country? If they do go hungry it will be because of the distribution of wealth to those that don't produce a damn thing, making the productive produce less.
@jjrglobal the optimum means of redistribution of wealth is by trade for labor. but if there is no offer of trade (unemployment) and no other societal means of redistribution, then the choice is starvation or crime. i'm guessing that what bothers you is parasites - people who 'milk the system'. i find those people offensive as well - they offer very little of benefit to humanity and tend to create a great deal of trouble, but not all poor are parasites, and not all parasites are poor.
You left out one very important other choice besides starvation or crime, CHARITY. Thats what really burns my ass about gov redistribution, they have taken away the ability of the common man to be charitable and replaced it with mandates enforced by violence; and on the flip side the gov has replaced gratitude with entitlement. The gov has stolen away a large part of our humanity thru the welfare state. Other than that I agree with what you said
@jjrglobal then we agree 100% - i didn't mention it because most people lump government charity in with community charity, but community charity truly helps connect us. it makes people more appreciative of what they're given, and that appreciation helps foster greater responsibility with what's been given. it also benefits the givers by knowing they have actually helped someone real, and not having 90% of the donation go to the vast bureaucratic parasite of government.
@jjrglobal what i don't understand is how we ended up with the welfare system we have now. for all the complaint about the WPA, they created a great deal of our infrastructure and provided employment instead of a monthly "gift". if we're going to offer a safety net, there's no reason we can't benefit from it - anyone can operate a shovel.
Agree 100%. Instead of handouts there should be paychecks. This would also raise the level of pride confidence and self worth in the people living on the dole. The Austrians argument against the WPA and gov spending as a whole, is that the money must come from somewhere to fund these programs, and that somewhere is the private sector, either thru taxation, loans, or inflation of the money supply, it is the private sector that always takes the hit when gov spends.
Once a die hard Austrian myself, I have started looking at things a bit differently lately due to my change of view in the current monetary system and its reliance on perpetual debt. Our problem is that our money is ALL created thru debt with interest. IF the gov were to issue our money instead of the Fed, based on a % of GDP and used to pay gov employees in lieu of a Federal income tax, then the built in failure of the current system would disappear.
@jjrglobal is there something you could reference me to on that subject? i've only recently developed an interest in economics and what little i know is self-taught and mostly from observation, but i'm always open to a good reference to a legitimate source of information. i've read a little of john mills and the federalist papers (mainly to get a grasp of the ideals of some of the founding fathers), and will continue to work my way through it, but i'd like some modern perspectives as well.
@jjrglobal The current monetary system *is* a government system. The Fed monopoly is franchised and protected by law. The solution is to get the government out of the monetary system, as it was for the first half of the U.S.. The removal of free banking led to the great depression and to many of the subsequent boom/bust cycles.
@wildhammer81 - The Real Estate argument is a bullshit one. There is still land that is not owned or lived on throughout planet earth. It's a bullshit argument. Then you quickly retreat into another bullshit argument about "speculation."
Real Estate goes up because of DEMAND, ergo, it's not fixed in any meaningful sense. There is still unused Real Estate throughout the world. They are "invested" because they own land. If someone dumped toxic waste they wouldn't care? According to you no.
@thomaserossi the only land that is not owned by persons or governments is under the ocean 2 miles offshore, and even that is subject to international regulation and/or national claims. there is a great deal of land available for purchase, and all land is possible to improve. and yes, of course the land owners are invested, and if they purchased for speculation then wealth would be transferred away from them if the demand for their land decrease due to toxic waste or market decline.
@wildhammer81 - Land owners are invested which changes everything. Personally, I like the state Constitution that Alaska created whereby the residents of the state are given revenue from private earnings on the land's resources. Oil and mining companies pay the citizens for taking from the land. What I like about this idea is it makes people vigilant in who does what to and in their state. Private ownship of land still exists for farming and the like but nonrenewable is treated differently.
The biggest critics of the left within the world of Conservatives are much like the best drug consolers in that they are both helping to cure others of the same diseases they themselves overcame...
@thatsillyliberal The vast majority of Russians and Chinese can tell you a lot about what this guy is saying. And I bet it wouldn't be very flattering to the "american left".
@thatsillyliberal The vast majority of Americans go to the mall every weekend and couldn't tell the difference between surplus and deficit. Is that the opinion you want to take seriously to run the economy? Pleeeeaaase!
And not that palin is a bad person, but I see her as unable to defend the conservative position. Now if she were to be tutored by Sowell for the next 12 months 6 hours a day, 6 days a week then maybe. LOL
Great observation. No wonder ppl like palin look foolish. The real geniuses of conservative thinking are out there living the dream, leaving the less intellectually qualified to the fend fort. Srry palin, youre just not electable to me
So true. My first presidential ballot was cast for Jimmy Carter. After seeing the results I've voted for the conservative candidate, not necessarily Republican, ever since.
I became a believer in Individual Liberty and Free and Open Markets after reading Capiatlism & Freedom when I was 11 years old (1964) the same year Barry Goldwater won the Republican nomination (at the Cow Palace in San Francisco!).
I have realized since then what idiots, stooges and phonies people on the Left are! That's why I'm still single - single women vote Democrat 76% of the time!
I like Sowell, and aways have but hate that quote at the end. The one about not having any heart and then not having any head.
Some young people, with hearts, are taught better or think more clearly so they choose the right path. Others, who are smart, choose the "liberal" route later in their years due to greed, hate, or some other base interest.
I used " " for liberal because today's "liberal" is in not a constitutionalist or for individual rights but instead is a tyrannical collectivist.
@TheBigBadWoIf That would be counter productive since Beck reads his books and agree's with them, while has used them in the past to support his talks on the free market. And not to mention Sowell's been on Becks show and supports him.
Stop believing propaganda and watch Beck (for more than 5 min) for yourself. There's no-body doing a more thourough job in exploiding Washingtons agenda for socialism and global governance!
@ricadrew I'll take your word for it because I sure as hell don't watch Beck [not even for five minutes]. And I don't intend to start. However I will continue to read Sowell.
I really don't like his show, but the blaze is proving to be a valuable news resource. Not to mention his biggest detractors are people that would probably bitch and moan about Thomas Sowell, so it's not like Beck is costing the right anything.
Wow. Once again. HooRay Liberty Pen. I have never thought of that. Sowell is a very articulate man. Churchill said that last comment but instead of radical he used Socialist
I recall reading this a while back. Nice work, LibertyPen. Sowell's greatness is illustrated well in this comment section. When you can't debate a man, call him a "racist" and "pseudo intellectual." Hysterical. The things people do to help them sleep at night with the understanding that someone who has values that are polar opposite than them is infinitely more intelligent.
@REASONINFUSION Your proof that Washington 'beat them half to death' is. . . . . . .? You are a Marxist, and therefore have the agenda of destroying America. All your rhetoric is in the service of that agenda and cannot be taken on face value.
@82compoundw Okay, you saw my channel lol! On that you assume that I am a Marxist. Whilst I am not any "ist", I do at least know who Marx was and that is more than most of you can even say about Adam Smith, your saint of the Free Market. The fact that you think Marxists seek to destroy america tells me that you are another white who has never had to be anything but white (must be nice). That "superstructure" that marx said makes people think they r doing well, you are an example of how it works.
@82compoundw You have not "informed" me of anything. In fact, you do not have the intelligence to do so. Next, I am far too bright for you to make a statement and not defend it. If I am wrong, I am afraid that you will have to tell me "why" and that will have to be more than "cause I said so". Unlike you, I have studied the subjects that I comment on and unless you have, you are of the mindset that your comments will carry the same weight with me as it does with your buddies. They will not.
@82compoundw I do not have to prove Washington beat his slaves! All I have to do is point to the fact that he cradited his will to fight england for fear that in his own words, he would be treated like the slaves he owned. Antime a man fights for a freedom he would kill others for attempting to get, he is morally bankrupt. That is more than enough for me to judge your praise of him on.
@REASONINFUSION You made an assertion and can't back it up. I did not nor do I praise Everything about Washington. You're versed in your Saul Alinsky tactics, but you aren't fooling me.
@82compoundw I made the assertion that by you praising Washington, a man who was a flesh peddler speaks much of your mind set! It is on surprise that most of your kind love Jefferson and Washington, two morally bankrupt people and know little about the one good "founding father", Thomas Paine. You have little knowledge and less character.
@REASONINFUSION You don't much about anything that's quite clear. You are merely indoctrinated. Getting back on topic, what is your purpose in coming to this video?
@82compoundw My purpose in coming to this video is none of your fing business! You are indeed white lol! I have to have a fucking "pass" from you to look at a video. This nation has fucked you up bad.
@82compoundw 2) Next, A "racist" thinks an entire ethnic group (if there is one) can be and is superior to another. They believe that the inferior group is innate in that regard and no external forces can bring them to equality in cognitive ability or any other ability that makes them fully equal. Blacks do not think such things nor do other groups as a whole. You find most of the people still in that 18th century scientific racist mode are whites generally speaking. Stay in your place please.
@REASONINFUSION Your blanket statement that blacks don't think such things is BS, All blacks do not, nor do all whites, or all anybody. Racism is the hatred of others because of their race, judging them based on race, making blanket statements based on race. You're a racist.
@Runesocesius Uhhh, Sweden's a full-court shot. How many consecutive basketball games do YOU bet on to have such a score? Yeah. It's like that. And Sweden already isn't going to last long on this path, considering the US is the guarantor of the current world reserve currency. As soon as the dollar goes bust, say b-bye to Sweden's "non-authoritarian" socialism...or even the CONTINUANCE of their socialism.
@QuartuvLarry Not a big B-ball fan, didn't get the reference. I'm not disputing your prediction. But the fact still stands that they are non-authoritarian. They're actually very socially liberal.
@Runesocesius Democracy is dictatorship of the masses. And a government that extorts taxmoney off its citizens is by default authoritarian. Now there might be and have been socialistic communities where everyone chips into the common pool and if they don't contribute they get kicked out or dunno, but that is different from a government, you can't just stop paying taxes and say "just leave me alone, I don't even want anything".
@taubstumm You are arguing semantics. You are calling a government that exorts tax money an authoritarian government for the sake of fitting your argument.
If we were to argue such position, every single country in the world with the exception of Somalia would be authoritarian. Even the Libertarian paradise Sowell dreams of. Some common sense is required. Being "Authoritarian" isn't a binary classification, theres many shades of grey.
@Runesocesius Socialism cannot exist without an authoritarian government. People are in it for themselves, and their families. It's that drive that leads to prosperity.
@asleeperj The premise doesn't match the explanation. You can have democratic Socialism and Authoritarian Socialism (whichever branch of Socialism). It might be more difficult to support a socialist govn. without a authoritarian govn; but it doest not mean it's not possible.
@Runesocesius democratic socialism is nothing more than a slight majority, voting for benefits, from the minority. This cannot work. The minority will never be able to support the majority. This leads us to an Authoritarian government. Which this can work, as long as the people do not rebel. The problem is, as history shows, people rebel against authoritarian governments. If a government takes from one, and gives to another, there is a fundamental problem in that society.
@asleeperj Whether it's feasible or not isn't the point. You can in theory and practice have Anarchy. It does not mean it's a feasible regime. You can in theory and practice also have a democratic socialist regime. Does not mean it would be the best choice for a govnm. My point was made coming from a purely political science argument.
i hate to see this left/right comparison simply because people almost never get their terms correct. for the record, traditional leftism is free markets, civil liberties, etc. traditional rightism is authoritarianism, capitalism, facism, etc. pls people, do your homework on terminalogy and ideaologies before making your claims. i can't stand it when modern right wingers (aka neocons) make the ridiculas claim that obama is a socialist.
@megaminxmaster I have yet to find someone that can give me (or anyone else) a valid reason why he isn't. When confronted with a decent argument and not hateful rhetoric or idiotic Hannity quotes most resort to insults and quotes from their end of the spectrum (Olberman and Huffington come to mind). Can you give me a few good reasons why you believe he isn't? Can you do it w/o calling me (someone you don't know from Adam) a racist or "neocon"? I'll read it. TY
@megaminxmaster All of this was wrong. Everything you said. It's like you tried this on purpose. You need to read a few definitions. Coming to think about it, you just need to read, period
@ravaneli55 i need to clearify a few things. when i use the term socialism, i am using it in the general sense (aka anti-capitalist/ libertarian socialism). if you didn't know already, traditional leftism(classical liberalism) as an ideaology is austrian free markets, limited government, and social and civil liberties. traditional rightism is anti-cultural change, nationalistic, facistic, capitalistic, authoritarian, anti-social equality, and corporatistic. CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE
Yes you nailed it....if obama was (or most of the pple in gov inc republicans) were socialist they would be controling our money supply, or taking over (socializing) car companies, and health care, and the student loan industry, or dbling down on the patriot act, paying farmers not to grow certain crops, or taking our money and giving it to(or forcing it on) big business with the conditions of more "regulation" whether they like it or not.
@robertmike57 Actually, I prefer an environment where everyone wants to become rich, and has opportunity. I have missed two in my lifetime, and am trying for a third, but that is what makes America great, that we have opportunity. Most countries have no opportunity, and the left want to remove opportunity from America, and make us like Cuba or North Korea.
Ask yourself is it better to have a chance to make life better for yourself and others, or to simply live off others in poverty?
Nothing wrong with libertarians. Ron Paul 2012
TheGoat1954 3 weeks ago
hehe... left vs right illusion.....
Blizeful 4 weeks ago
When you're young you simply reflect the ideology in which you were raised. I have no doubt that these intellectuals had fairly liberal parents. Even if those parents were not politically active, they likely espoused leftist or collectivist ideas which influenced the worldview of their offspring. Individual freedom and free market principles are attractive simply because they work. Their practice has afforded the greatest freedom and wealth to the greatest number of people in all of history.
jamo387 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We need this guy in Brazil...
The socialists are destroying our country...
Bill Maher, fuck you!
paunocu666 1 month ago
18 years old and...
Grew up in a conservative Fox News household, gained empathy and a heart to become a liberal, and now acquired knowledge of how things ACTUALLY work to become a Libertarian with both a heart for what's best for society and a mind on how to achieve it.
kmelfina 2 months ago 2
@kmelfina hear hear
Cornampoo 1 month ago
Ok. Thanks for explaining why all republican politicians are so fucking stupid. Also thanks for explains why republicans do not contribute anything to academia or science. This whole time I assumed u were all fuck nut stupid, I stand corrected. That cleared that up :).
psistarpsi80 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psistarpsi80 Ok. Thanks for explaining why all democrats politicians are so fucking stupid. Also thanks for explains why democrats do not contribute anything to academia or science. This whole time I assumed u were all fuck nut stupid, I stand corrected. That cleared that up :).
Tsugua21 3 months ago
Thomas is a Libertarian... Different from a republican lets get that straight before you start calling people something they arnt.
scienceatheism 3 months ago
BS - those with opportunity and resources exploit others. NOTHING to do with desire or affirmation. Uncle TOM with an Agenda - keep getting paid. All my posts are my opinion.
mba2ceo 4 months ago
College actually made me give up liberalism and become libertarian.
Shonenut213 4 months ago
Sounded like he said Norman Potterance? But that spelling is not coming up on google.
BullToTheShit 5 months ago
I love this guy.
elysium735 6 months ago 19
So does this mean that since I'm a libertarian at 20 that I have no chance of becoming an intelligent libertarian in my future? Or somehow its a reflection that I possess no heart or a proper idealism for my youth? Why is left-wing radicalism in your 20's considered such a necessary step in one's intellectual development?
tacosforfreedom 7 months ago 12
@tacosforfreedom: It isn't, but it is typical given the nature of the academies to which our brightest children are sent for an education. Once ones mind is calcified in ones youth, it hard to shift those opinions cum prejudices. You are a leg up now, you'll have more time to develope your ideas. Perhaps (oh, impossible dream to hope) you'll even becom sharper then Sowell.
I became deeply conservative while still in high school, it was the terminal phase of communism which drove me to it.
VictorLepanto 7 months ago
@tacosforfreedom i believe he is speaking generally. It was rare in his day that there was youth libertarians. The hippies were all left back then. Even now with its growing popularity Libertarians are still under represented.
ORACLE063 4 months ago
@tacosforfreedom I'm not much older than you, and also a libertarian, and I think it's because young people are passionate, and develop hearts before brains, and nobody likes anybody that's a little bit too smart before their time :)
StuartHughes2990 2 months ago
@tacosforfreedom Nope. It means that being so young, you already embraced common sense and rationality :)
chechitopaisa 2 months ago
@tacosforfreedom we are in the same boat, we are the ones who put the rest of our youth in place... It would be a pretty boring world if we were all smart
JDPKRevolution 1 month ago
True, when you're young and inexperienced leftists ideas look good on the surface.
In my case however, having grown up in downtown Brooklyn,
I knew a retard when I seen one.
Nowadays, I believe they have evolved into Retarded Liberal Zombies.
Zendout1 7 months ago
i think my meaning is getting lost in semantics. i use the word 'wealth' to indicate something that is tangible and of value. even an idea can be considered wealth if it is made tangible (improved) by a patent or some other means. the value of wealth is subject to fluctuations in supply and demand. the 'free market' includes not just the stock and commodities markets, but anywhere wealth is created, gambled, or exchanged.
wildhammer81 9 months ago
The word "radical" has hence been literally overused to ad nausea. So one guy have supported an affirmative action, and thus he is a radical lefty? My God, what a scientific standards.
Antoshik81 9 months ago
Thomas Sowell for President!
parakeethands 10 months ago
neoconservatism is almost the opposite of libertarianism, tow completly different things.
radiofreak56 10 months ago
ex socialist, even studied sociology myself, its kind of good though as when debating leftists i often know their theories inside out, which makes me despise them all the more
ImEuanAndIGotsSkeelz 11 months ago
@ImEuanAndIGotsSkeelz - I too am a former Leftist. I've seen how their ideology destroyed my family, starting with my parents. I've read socialist tracts and deeply followed Leftist "Critical Theory" where it's easy to trace it back to Nazis and fascism. When you read Derrida and Foucault you'll find fascist dogma. Much of what Leftists say can be pulled straight from "Mein Kampf" (which no Leftist has ever read) or "The Doctrine of Fascism." In particular, their hatred of Christianity.
thomaserossi 9 months ago
One side calls it 'greed', the other side calls it 'success'. The reality is that some people excel at accumulation of wealth, and without some means or inclination on their part to circulate that wealth, an imbalance will occur which eventually results in forced redistribution of wealth. This is evident throughout history. There is no economic system that I am aware of that perfectly addresses human nature, but free or not, the market goes on...
wildhammer81 11 months ago
@wildhammer81: Wealth doesn't accumulate, it is created. It is impossible to participate in the market process, providing services &/or making goods, w/o generating wealth for others in the process. Even if you merely inherit a fortune, you will either spend it away & transfer it to others or it will sit in a bank or in investments. People will manage it for you & your wealthe will benefit them also, however passively. You are talking utterly ignorant nonsense.
VictorLepanto 11 months ago 10
@VictorLepanto You are correct wealth is created from wealth. That wealth had destroyed the concept that wealth is created form labor. Because the wealth creating wealth makes sure that labor does not receive their just reward for their labor.
louiethegreater 4 months ago
@louiethegreater: Such is the corrupting influence of ideology that it renders the mind incapable of grasping the most elementary logic no matter how often or in how many different ways it is presented. Wealth is what creates the opertunity for labor to seek a reward. No one ever made a gain w/o 1st risking some investment. No one is seeking to deny anyone any reward, except maybe the cynical politician prattling about "justly" redistributing wealth that is not his own.
VictorLepanto 4 months ago
@Vi Yes, it is inconceivable that there are those that believe that redistributing the American Middle classes wealth to Wall Street via Multinational Corporations is in the interest of working Americans. When CEOs began to announce they were moving their operations off shore, and leaving 30,000 Ameican workers behind, has taken its toll on the those who labor with their hands for a living. Of course their stocks would take a jump and the investment class would hail the CEOs as geniuses.
louiethegreater 4 months ago
@louiethegreater: Wow! There might be (for all I know) an idea in that incoherent mass of ranting verbiage, but I couldn't find one if my life depended on it. If there was one, if it isn't the mindless growl of irrational hatred that it seems to be, would you please isolate it & present it. Maybe then we can discuss it. Until then, as you've actually said nothing, we have nothing to discuss. Bye!
VictorLepanto 4 months ago
@VictorLepanto Well if you choose to stay ignorant, than continue to bask on your own illusion, that wealth is only created by wealth. How can your mentality justify 65% of the wealth created in the U.S. last year, going to 1% of the population. If you are not one of those 1% than you are a Chicken Rooting for Colonial Sanders. I present facts, not Fox News talking points. Please go back to sleep.
louiethegreater 4 months ago
@louiethegreater: It is always astonishing how leftist always project their sick twisted mentalities on others. I do appreciate how you reveal how envy drives the mind of a person like yourself, w/ your imaginary numbers like 65% & 1%. You & the sleazy politicians who encourage your childish mentality are the Col. Sanders here. If wealth isn't created by wealth, what does created it, poverty? Wealth isn't "going" to anyone. It is created, no one gave that money to them for nothing.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto Yes, poverty is creating wealth for those of your mentality: that is --- the greed is good mentality. The new infusion of Wall Street wealth has came off the backs of Asian and Latino peasant workers who have been converted from subsistence farmer, to subsistence factory worker. That concentration of wealth for a few has came at the cost of the many: that is -- the American Middle class. Please don't call me a leftist you brainwashed, dimwitted, Friedman worshiping moron.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: "Poverty is creating wealth." Thank you that is the most precious line in your whole rant. Nothing could more perfectedly illustrate your ignorance, though, I have no doubt in your ignorance you are also a Ph.D. Dean of some college dept. somewhere. In your world, the equation 0 > 1 makes sense.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto Of course you are much to morbidly stupid to understand the comment I made, in the context it was made in. Southern Plantation Owners created wealth off the backs of slave labor. Who was the wealth created for? The plantation owner of course!, At whose expense-- the slaves-- of course. Can you wrap that feeble mind of yours around that illustration. That is creating wealth form poverty--- dingbat. Tariffs saves the country, it's as simple as that !!!!
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: You still haven't explained how poverty creates wealth. That is like saying coldness makes one hot. As a real scientist (that is the exact opposite of a Marxist ideologue) will tell you that heat is kinetic energy. What we feel as cold is not the opposite of warm, it is simply a relatively low level of heat. In live manner, poverty is not the opposite of wealth. It is simply a lack of economic energy. So you said, 0 > 1. You need to explain how that is so.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@Victor I repeat my previous statement, you are just to morbidly stupid to understand it. You also seem to have difficulty understanding the position of a economic protectionism, and Marxism. Here--- think on this-- I voted for Chuck Baldwin last election cycle. You probably don't know who Chuck Baldwin is, but Google the Constitutional Party, after you have read their platform, explain how Marxist that sounds to you. If you believe their platform is Marxist that you are a total basket case.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: You still haven't explained houw poverty creates wealth, I really want to hear that one. As for being Marxist. You have essentially espoused Marxist sentiments already, anyone who prattles about wealthe simply "going" to people is no better then a Marxist in understanding real economic principles. I go by what you've said to me, I don't who or what party you vote for.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto I have explained it to you, dingbat, I have also explained that you are much to addle brained to understand it. I also should attempt to convey to you that you would not know a Marxist if they came up the street in a red hat. Actually you seem to have trouble identifying an patriotic American, actually I am a nationalist, politically, and support economic nationalism. Perhaps you would be much more successful at finding some beavis an butthead videos to comment on.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: I am thinking you don't have an answer to my question, how does poverty create wealth. If you have explained it, please re-explain it, or point where your explanation occurs. It isn't obvious to anyone save yourself. As for what you call "economic nationalism," I am perfectly familiar w/ corporatism. I don't acknowledge their being any meaningful difference b/t Fascism & Marxism. Read Jonah Goldberg's book on the subject. Recommend your favorite B&B sites & I'll look @ them.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto In todays economy wealth is created off the backs of third world workers. In China the communist government simply offered their subsistence farmers to multinational corporations as cheap labor. Than subsistence farmers were suddenly subsistence factory workers, and the american middle class was conned into believing that it was their responsibility to build viable middle class in Mexico and Asia through the sacrifice of their jobs. The brain dead know that didn't work.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: In reality, 3rd world countries are buidling up their own capital by having corporations invest their own well established capital in their countries. Thus new wealth, in the form of useful products, is being created for all.
As for what the "brain dead know," I will leave it your expertease on that subject.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto No, No, No, NOT new wealth, WEALTH TRANSFER, from one hemisphere to the other. You mean Western middle class wealth to the third world. You mentality is that of a globalist, not an American. You would gladly trade your American citizenship for a global one. Globalist is as much a political ideology as socialism or Marxism. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is destroying Western economies, while transfering the wealth to Wall Street, wealth created of the backs of third world peasants.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: Well, I do thank you for oblging me. You've made a complete show pof precisely what a brain dead person knows. There is not a complete thought in any of the preceeding rant. The 2 most amusing semi-thoughts contained in it are your notions that wealth is being transferred to the 3rd world & being made "on their backs." Which is it, is the wealth going TO or coming FROM the 3rd world? It can't be both.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@Victoro Well I assume you are admitting being a traitor to your own country or countrymen. Are you in line for global citizenship? Do you long for the day that U.S. well be a part of the global plantation? You should be reminded that you--- moron, will not be one of the plantation masters. That my dim witted friend is what a brain dead, dim witted, person fails to think through. Read all my posts again, please attempt to glean some understanding of the events taking place before your eyes,
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: I don't deny that I might be brain dead. I am not hear to celebrate myself. Regardless of how stupid I might be, you are obviously far thicker. As I've pointed out, you are saying that 0 > 1; or in your own terms, poverty creates wealth. You've yet to offer an explanation of how that works. Your world view is as muddled as your syntax. You have been condemning free enterprise. The only alternative to free enterprise is state economic control. So who is the defender of slavery?
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@Victo No you are wrong: I have been condemning globalization and neo-liberalization, being forced on the world under the disguise of free market capitalism. You have been so pitifully brainwashed that you do not understand that the western middle class was created by protected economies. Especially the U.S. It is apparent that the West cannot compete with 4 billion thirdworld workers. If you do not understand that, you are indeed brain dead, or you have been fed some economic glbbledygoop.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: It so strange listening to someone prattling this kind of economy as conspiracy nonsense talking about being brainwashed. You obviously have no idea what liberalism means, it means LIBERTY. How do you force liberty.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto How convenient for a confessed globalist traitor to label the ongoing process of globalization as a conspiracy. I remember when speaking of globalization, NAFTA, NAU, even the EU was considered conspiracy theories. Now they are facts. Only the ignorant, supporters of globalization, and NWO deny that globalization through free trade is a reality. You are a traitor to your own country and should be denied citizenship to any country, you wait for the soon coming global citizenship.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: Actually, I've been studying the possibility of using the ideas of this new seasteading movement to create a new Christian micro-nation as a remnant to hold during the impending collapse of Western Civilisation. What I am is a libertarian Christian nationalist. But I do love how your paranoic fantasism fits me into your demonology.
We are watching the collapse of the EU debacle into ashes @ our feat & you go on about it being a "globalist" conspiracy. TOO FUNNY!
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto Just exactly which nation are you loyal to, certainly not the U.S. If you put no more value on the jobs, or welfare of your own countrymen than you could not profess to be a nationalist. In fact you are a globalist who holds no loyalty to any nation, but only to the accumulation of wealth. You are perfectly willing to sacrifice the welfare of the working class, for the amassing of enormous wealth of a few investors. Actually 80% of the newly created wealth in the US went to top 1%
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: Oh, quit gibbering like an idiot. I get so sick of your politicians game prattling on about one man's job & seeking to save it, at the cost of ten others. Of course, if the politician gets of cut of that man's pay through his henchmen in some union, he care about the one & screw the ten. Jobs are created & lost all the time. Only a GROWING economy can create more jobs for everyone. The day it becomes too embarrassing to advocate your child economic notions will be great day.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@Victor You are right jobs are created all the time-- in Asia. WHY? Because when tariffs were removed, investment went to the third world, WHY -- because the government you love, but claim to hate gave permission to multinational corporations, to manufacture using .50/hr. labor. and ship the product back to the west without threat of tariffs. Idiots like you applauded that, that is you, and a few thousand corporate CEOs and a few college professors, like Milton Friedman, who teaches that - = +.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: Talking to you is like explaining electricity to a medieval sert. It was high tariffs which blundered the world into the Great Depression, it was the lowering of those tariffs which got us out. It is unions which have destroyed industry in this country. More people are employed today by Japanese car companies then by so-called American car companies. I'd invited you to read just one book by Sowell, but I fear your head would explode the challenge of his thought.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto How can you say that, Sowell has been around for years, and was used by the Gingrich con job during the passing of the Contract With America. He was one of the major contributors to the Republican take over of the House. His economics has failed the country, and you are badly mistaken concerning your understanding of the Depression. and Japanese auto manufacturers. Please don't attempt the grab the intellectual high ground here. You are the stupid, uninformed, child here.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: That rant was such a jumble of empty assertions & incoherent notions, that I can't find a single substantial idea to address. If there was an idea in all that mess of verbiage, please isolate it & try to present it in some semblance understandable order. When exactly was Dr. Sowell elected to Congress now?
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto Tariffs had nothing to do with the great depression. Tariffs served the country well until the global plutocracy decided that globalization, and the era of the New World Order was at hand. Of course you are much to ignorant to understand that, because you are a chicken rooting for colonial sanders. It is your nature to be a chicken, and follow blindly the concept of globalization by trade.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: YOur comments are appearing more & more like the symptoms of paranoia then the presentation of a political economic world view. Are you afraid the Global Plutocratic Conspiracy (GPC) will send Col. Sanders to get you in the night. You know he was a real colonel, right?
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto Well, actually my comments are really expressing a thought. Little wonder they are difficult for you to comprehend. Your comments are little more than parroting some pre-learned diatribe, or just plain mimicking some Corporate think tanks dialogue. So in all seriousness have you ever had an original thought?
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: Original or not, I do have thoughts. That puts me one up on you.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto Please go to your room, say : I am a chicken rooting for colonial sanders. Now repeat that a thousand times, then write it five hundred times. After you have completed this exercise stay in your room, and meditate on what you just told yourself. Watch in the mirror and stupid will start rolling off you.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater: It has become obvioius to me that this commenter is not mentally stable. I hope whoever is responsible for his care gives him his medication. I'd urge anyone else commenting here to not engage w/ him.
VictorLepanto 3 months ago
@VictorLepanto Hey!!! Explain to me how high tariffs caused the great depression. Please show the forum the real reason you choose to stop the engagement.
louiethegreater 3 months ago
@louiethegreater i didnt see this whole arguement but after WW1 many nations went into a post war slump (excluding the US) but slowly climbed out of it through trade, mainly with the U.S. when the stock market crashed in 1929 and banks failed and exports and imports failed in the U.S. they raised tariffs to protect US industry which then caused other nations to raise tariffs the US which stifled trade at a time when it was most needed, so it didnt cause it but it is why it was so long and costly
NewmanEspanolBI 2 months ago
@NewmanEspanolBI I respectfully disagree with you on Smoot- Hawley. Total U.S. imports in 1930 was 4% of GNP, Smoot-Hawley applied to 1/3 of that 4% or 1.3% of total GNP. At that it only raised the tariff 19% to the already 40% which ended up at 59%. NOW are you saying that a 19% tariff applied to 1.3% of GNP caused unemployment to race to 25%, and caused the collapse of 5,000 banks, wiped out 5/6 of the stock market, and cause a drop of 46 % of the GNP of the U.S. I personally cannot buy that.
louiethegreater 2 months ago
@louiethegreater Just wanna say i was not agreeing with this guy on what he''s saying just pointing out the history, but your right that it is wrong for americans to outsource jobs for lower wages in other countries and that he is dead wrong that unions killed business, what unions killed was horrible exploitation of workers for huge profits and if thats his definition of business i want no part
NewmanEspanolBI 2 months ago
@wildhammer81 - you don't "accumulate" wealth, you create it. You're not aware of a "system" because you don't even know where wealth comes from. Wealth comes from production. The more efficient a person is, the harder and smarter they work, the more wealth they generate for themselves. A good farmer doesn't steal anything.
Without government that farmer will generate a wealth of crops, limited by their ingenuity and their mind/body's stamina for work - BTW, that's a free market.
thomaserossi 11 months ago
@thomaserossi i agree that i create wealth - i am a blacksmith. i improve resources and add value, thus creating wealth. as does a farmer. but how for example, does income from speculative trading "create" wealth? when the market price of a fixed resource like real estate goes up, the profit comes from those who are not invested (through increased rents and cost of goods), but nothing is "created" as far as i am aware. please correct me if i am wrong.
wildhammer81 9 months ago
@wildhammer81
Yep, you're wrong.First off, ALL trading is speculative, and every trader is a speculator. If I own a bread company and I want to expend my business, I would need know with absolute certainty that wheat wasn't going to go up and cut into my profit margin for a set number of months or years.The only way for me to guarantee my profit margin would be to buy wheat futures for how ever many months I felt necessary so the price of my bread and therefore sales of my bread would be stable
jjrglobal 9 months ago
@jjrglobal i'm missing your point. by my understanding of economics, material wealth is created by improvement of resources. your bread company creates wealth by improving wheat into bread. but no matter how many futures you buy, you can't produce the same amount of bread if there's a grain shortage next year. yet you will still transfer wealth to your company (via the futures) without producing bread - where does this wealth come from if you are not improving a resource?
wildhammer81 9 months ago
@wildhammer81
Since every market participant is a speculator, without speculators we would have no market, without any market, we would have no pricing mechanism with which to price things.
jjrglobal 9 months ago
@jjrglobal Webster's definition of SPECULATE:
intr. verb 2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain.
speculation is gambling. i assume retailers are still part of the free market? retailers improve land by providing space for and arranging regular stocking of goods for trade. but my local retailer doesn't speculate with their stocked goods. otherwise, the price of toilet paper and canned goods would have quadrupled during the last flood, instead of being bought out. how am i wrong?
wildhammer81 9 months ago
@wildhammer81
I'm in the oil business, if I want to drill a new well, but need the price of oil to be $100 in order for it to be feasible, then I can lock in a $100 price for as long as I need. I am SPECULATING that oil may go down, to protect my company I short futures to make up the difference in losses on oil sales if oil were to go down, if oil goes up I lose however much per barrel over $100 that oil reaches. I'm not sure I understand what youre talking about with toilet paper and floods
jjrglobal 9 months ago
@jjrglobal in that scenario, yes i think speculation could be a part of the process of adding value to land to produce oil. i can't see how it would be practical or legal however, and in any case it's not the source of the vast majority of speculative trading. the toilet paper/flood thing was just an example of the trading of wealth without speculation.
wildhammer81 9 months ago
@wildhammer81
The market is also a world wide pricing mechanism for goods with a world wide demand. It is this price mechanism that sends signals to businesses and individuals about the supply and demand of the good. If a copper mine that produced 50% of the worlds supply of copper caved in and was rendered useless for six months, the companies that use copper to produce their products would not have to be told individually to cut down on their use of copper, they would automatically
jjrglobal 9 months ago
@wildhammer81
cont'd
cut back on their use of copper, due to the massive spike in the price because of the mine collapse. This is just one example of how the market plays such an important role in everyday business and without market participants, there would be no market.
jjrglobal 9 months ago
@jjrglobal there will always be a market. we love to trade, and we could never have developed our civilization without trade. where free markets are outlawed, there are black markets. where there is abuse of individuals via
the market, there is regulation. where there is regulation, there are loopholes. in the end, we more or less trade as we see fit. self-regulation in trade seems to come from two sources - loyalty (our trades more greatly benefit the group we are loyal to; family,
wildhammer81 9 months ago
@jjrglobal tribe, state, race, or humanity as a whole). - wisdom (will a less profitable trade result in opening a new market?, etc.) any attempt to moralize how trade is conducted only succeeds in demonizing human nature, and doesn't contribute to a solution. solutions are achieved through cooperation, not factionalism. the fact remains however, that when the distribution of wealth becomes too extreme then people go hungry, and hungry people tend to be violent and light things on fire.
wildhammer81 9 months ago
@wildhammer81
Wealth should not be distributed it should be created. You may think market participants are not important but they play a very important role in ALL of our lives and businesses. Believe it or not, financiers create wealth thru capital formation and investment. Are you saying that people r going hungry in this country? If they do go hungry it will be because of the distribution of wealth to those that don't produce a damn thing, making the productive produce less.
jjrglobal 9 months ago
@jjrglobal the optimum means of redistribution of wealth is by trade for labor. but if there is no offer of trade (unemployment) and no other societal means of redistribution, then the choice is starvation or crime. i'm guessing that what bothers you is parasites - people who 'milk the system'. i find those people offensive as well - they offer very little of benefit to humanity and tend to create a great deal of trouble, but not all poor are parasites, and not all parasites are poor.
wildhammer81 9 months ago
@wildhammer81
You left out one very important other choice besides starvation or crime, CHARITY. Thats what really burns my ass about gov redistribution, they have taken away the ability of the common man to be charitable and replaced it with mandates enforced by violence; and on the flip side the gov has replaced gratitude with entitlement. The gov has stolen away a large part of our humanity thru the welfare state. Other than that I agree with what you said
jjrglobal 9 months ago
@jjrglobal then we agree 100% - i didn't mention it because most people lump government charity in with community charity, but community charity truly helps connect us. it makes people more appreciative of what they're given, and that appreciation helps foster greater responsibility with what's been given. it also benefits the givers by knowing they have actually helped someone real, and not having 90% of the donation go to the vast bureaucratic parasite of government.
wildhammer81 9 months ago
@jjrglobal what i don't understand is how we ended up with the welfare system we have now. for all the complaint about the WPA, they created a great deal of our infrastructure and provided employment instead of a monthly "gift". if we're going to offer a safety net, there's no reason we can't benefit from it - anyone can operate a shovel.
wildhammer81 9 months ago
@wildhammer81
Agree 100%. Instead of handouts there should be paychecks. This would also raise the level of pride confidence and self worth in the people living on the dole. The Austrians argument against the WPA and gov spending as a whole, is that the money must come from somewhere to fund these programs, and that somewhere is the private sector, either thru taxation, loans, or inflation of the money supply, it is the private sector that always takes the hit when gov spends.
jjrglobal 9 months ago
@wildhammer81
Once a die hard Austrian myself, I have started looking at things a bit differently lately due to my change of view in the current monetary system and its reliance on perpetual debt. Our problem is that our money is ALL created thru debt with interest. IF the gov were to issue our money instead of the Fed, based on a % of GDP and used to pay gov employees in lieu of a Federal income tax, then the built in failure of the current system would disappear.
jjrglobal 9 months ago
@jjrglobal is there something you could reference me to on that subject? i've only recently developed an interest in economics and what little i know is self-taught and mostly from observation, but i'm always open to a good reference to a legitimate source of information. i've read a little of john mills and the federalist papers (mainly to get a grasp of the ideals of some of the founding fathers), and will continue to work my way through it, but i'd like some modern perspectives as well.
wildhammer81 9 months ago
@jjrglobal The current monetary system *is* a government system. The Fed monopoly is franchised and protected by law. The solution is to get the government out of the monetary system, as it was for the first half of the U.S.. The removal of free banking led to the great depression and to many of the subsequent boom/bust cycles.
r74quinn 8 months ago
@wildhammer81 - The Real Estate argument is a bullshit one. There is still land that is not owned or lived on throughout planet earth. It's a bullshit argument. Then you quickly retreat into another bullshit argument about "speculation."
Real Estate goes up because of DEMAND, ergo, it's not fixed in any meaningful sense. There is still unused Real Estate throughout the world. They are "invested" because they own land. If someone dumped toxic waste they wouldn't care? According to you no.
thomaserossi 9 months ago
@thomaserossi the only land that is not owned by persons or governments is under the ocean 2 miles offshore, and even that is subject to international regulation and/or national claims. there is a great deal of land available for purchase, and all land is possible to improve. and yes, of course the land owners are invested, and if they purchased for speculation then wealth would be transferred away from them if the demand for their land decrease due to toxic waste or market decline.
wildhammer81 9 months ago
@wildhammer81 - Land owners are invested which changes everything. Personally, I like the state Constitution that Alaska created whereby the residents of the state are given revenue from private earnings on the land's resources. Oil and mining companies pay the citizens for taking from the land. What I like about this idea is it makes people vigilant in who does what to and in their state. Private ownship of land still exists for farming and the like but nonrenewable is treated differently.
thomaserossi 8 months ago
The biggest critics of the left within the world of Conservatives are much like the best drug consolers in that they are both helping to cure others of the same diseases they themselves overcame...
TheConservatveLibral 1 year ago
This guy is spouting bullshit.
We've deregulated like crazy since the 70s and the majority of Americans support things like Single-payer healthcare and Cap and Trade.
The only "left" in this country, is the vast majority of the American people.
thatsillyliberal 1 year ago
@thatsillyliberal The vast majority of Russians and Chinese can tell you a lot about what this guy is saying. And I bet it wouldn't be very flattering to the "american left".
ninacalifornia 1 year ago
@ninacalifornia
moourl(.)com/h8zcz - Most Americans want Cap and Trade
moourl(.)com/60zaa - Most Americans have wanted single payer since 1987
Hmmmry
thatsillyliberal 1 year ago
@thatsillyliberal The vast majority of Americans go to the mall every weekend and couldn't tell the difference between surplus and deficit. Is that the opinion you want to take seriously to run the economy? Pleeeeaaase!
ninacalifornia 1 year ago 2
@thatsillyliberal Must suck to hear that only 20% identify themselves as liberal huh? You are delusional.
MrTmj1991 1 year ago
And not that palin is a bad person, but I see her as unable to defend the conservative position. Now if she were to be tutored by Sowell for the next 12 months 6 hours a day, 6 days a week then maybe. LOL
tatsumakisempyukaku 1 year ago
Great observation. No wonder ppl like palin look foolish. The real geniuses of conservative thinking are out there living the dream, leaving the less intellectually qualified to the fend fort. Srry palin, youre just not electable to me
tatsumakisempyukaku 1 year ago
Thomas himself admitted that he was also a Marxist and supported leftist ideas.
FireGuyX 1 year ago
@FireGuyX ...untill he started working in the system and saw how those "ideas" work in practice
mowgly3000 1 year ago
I didn't know an attorney was a liberal movement. SMH.
cabalofdemons 1 year ago
L+R = R+L
Steadno 1 year ago
So true. My first presidential ballot was cast for Jimmy Carter. After seeing the results I've voted for the conservative candidate, not necessarily Republican, ever since.
gsuitter 1 year ago
I became a believer in Individual Liberty and Free and Open Markets after reading Capiatlism & Freedom when I was 11 years old (1964) the same year Barry Goldwater won the Republican nomination (at the Cow Palace in San Francisco!).
I have realized since then what idiots, stooges and phonies people on the Left are! That's why I'm still single - single women vote Democrat 76% of the time!
vince33x 1 year ago
I like Sowell, and aways have but hate that quote at the end. The one about not having any heart and then not having any head.
Some young people, with hearts, are taught better or think more clearly so they choose the right path. Others, who are smart, choose the "liberal" route later in their years due to greed, hate, or some other base interest.
I used " " for liberal because today's "liberal" is in not a constitutionalist or for individual rights but instead is a tyrannical collectivist.
aristotlestudent 1 year ago
This vid is so true to me and people I know it's eerie!
loszhor 1 year ago
Frederick Douglas, George Washington Carver, Martin Luther King Jr.
Thomas Sowell.
Geniuses.
QuartuvLarry 1 year ago
This was my experience as well. Started off at a Leftist Environmental organization...sad but true.
HowTheWorldWorks 1 year ago
More wise words by Mr. Sowell. Thanks.
tommag82 1 year ago
interesting....!!!!
mallardhead 1 year ago
what conservatism needs today are more thomas sowells and fewer glenn becks.
TheBigBadWoIf 1 year ago
@TheBigBadWoIf That would be counter productive since Beck reads his books and agree's with them, while has used them in the past to support his talks on the free market. And not to mention Sowell's been on Becks show and supports him.
Stop believing propaganda and watch Beck (for more than 5 min) for yourself. There's no-body doing a more thourough job in exploiding Washingtons agenda for socialism and global governance!
ricadrew 1 year ago
@ricadrew I'll take your word for it because I sure as hell don't watch Beck [not even for five minutes]. And I don't intend to start. However I will continue to read Sowell.
That's all.
bye.
TheBigBadWoIf 1 year ago
@ricadrew I have a love/hate for Beck myself.
I really don't like his show, but the blaze is proving to be a valuable news resource. Not to mention his biggest detractors are people that would probably bitch and moan about Thomas Sowell, so it's not like Beck is costing the right anything.
jrsub3 11 months ago
Wow. Once again. HooRay Liberty Pen. I have never thought of that. Sowell is a very articulate man. Churchill said that last comment but instead of radical he used Socialist
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
I recall reading this a while back. Nice work, LibertyPen. Sowell's greatness is illustrated well in this comment section. When you can't debate a man, call him a "racist" and "pseudo intellectual." Hysterical. The things people do to help them sleep at night with the understanding that someone who has values that are polar opposite than them is infinitely more intelligent.
JoeRyMi 1 year ago
Why doesn't this man run for President?
Too smart I reckon.
A damn shame and tragedy for America though.
People thought Obama was the black JFK (which is BS btw).
I think Sowell would be the black Washington.
82compoundw 1 year ago 10
@82compoundw By "black washington", do you mean he will own people and beat them half to death when he is not talking about the value of freedom??
REASONINFUSION 7 months ago
@REASONINFUSION Your proof that Washington 'beat them half to death' is. . . . . . .? You are a Marxist, and therefore have the agenda of destroying America. All your rhetoric is in the service of that agenda and cannot be taken on face value.
82compoundw 4 months ago
@82compoundw Okay, you saw my channel lol! On that you assume that I am a Marxist. Whilst I am not any "ist", I do at least know who Marx was and that is more than most of you can even say about Adam Smith, your saint of the Free Market. The fact that you think Marxists seek to destroy america tells me that you are another white who has never had to be anything but white (must be nice). That "superstructure" that marx said makes people think they r doing well, you are an example of how it works.
REASONINFUSION 4 months ago
@REASONINFUSION Your are both wrong, and a racist. Sorry to inform you of another of your 'ists'.
82compoundw 4 months ago
@82compoundw You have not "informed" me of anything. In fact, you do not have the intelligence to do so. Next, I am far too bright for you to make a statement and not defend it. If I am wrong, I am afraid that you will have to tell me "why" and that will have to be more than "cause I said so". Unlike you, I have studied the subjects that I comment on and unless you have, you are of the mindset that your comments will carry the same weight with me as it does with your buddies. They will not.
REASONINFUSION 4 months ago
@REASONINFUSION You wrong to assume that I am white.
82compoundw 4 months ago
@REASONINFUSION You've also yet to back up your allegation regarding Washington's treatment of his slaves.
82compoundw 4 months ago
@82compoundw I do not have to prove Washington beat his slaves! All I have to do is point to the fact that he cradited his will to fight england for fear that in his own words, he would be treated like the slaves he owned. Antime a man fights for a freedom he would kill others for attempting to get, he is morally bankrupt. That is more than enough for me to judge your praise of him on.
REASONINFUSION 4 months ago
@REASONINFUSION You made an assertion and can't back it up. I did not nor do I praise Everything about Washington. You're versed in your Saul Alinsky tactics, but you aren't fooling me.
82compoundw 4 months ago
@82compoundw I made the assertion that by you praising Washington, a man who was a flesh peddler speaks much of your mind set! It is on surprise that most of your kind love Jefferson and Washington, two morally bankrupt people and know little about the one good "founding father", Thomas Paine. You have little knowledge and less character.
REASONINFUSION 4 months ago
@REASONINFUSION You don't much about anything that's quite clear. You are merely indoctrinated. Getting back on topic, what is your purpose in coming to this video?
82compoundw 4 months ago
@82compoundw My purpose in coming to this video is none of your fing business! You are indeed white lol! I have to have a fucking "pass" from you to look at a video. This nation has fucked you up bad.
REASONINFUSION 4 months ago
@82compoundw 2) Next, A "racist" thinks an entire ethnic group (if there is one) can be and is superior to another. They believe that the inferior group is innate in that regard and no external forces can bring them to equality in cognitive ability or any other ability that makes them fully equal. Blacks do not think such things nor do other groups as a whole. You find most of the people still in that 18th century scientific racist mode are whites generally speaking. Stay in your place please.
REASONINFUSION 4 months ago
@REASONINFUSION Your blanket statement that blacks don't think such things is BS, All blacks do not, nor do all whites, or all anybody. Racism is the hatred of others because of their race, judging them based on race, making blanket statements based on race. You're a racist.
82compoundw 4 months ago
@82compoundw Very good question. Why don't you vote in the primaries?
doveisle 4 months ago
whats this from?
CommSense 1 year ago
Thomas Sowell FOR PRESIDENT!
insightfu 1 year ago 4
This is great.
By the way, socialism and fascism differ very little, so moving from one team to the other is not a big jump (Hayek, The road to Serfdom)
ravaneli55 1 year ago
@ravaneli55 Actually Socialism is a Economic setting while Fascism is a form of government. Theres a difference.
Fascism is basically a form of socialism with Authoritarian governments.
Runesocesius 1 year ago 25
@Runesocesius "socialism with Authoritarian governments" kinda redundant eh? ;)
taubstumm 1 year ago
@taubstumm Not really. Look at Sweden for instance, very socialistic/socialist. Not authoritarian.
Even communism can in theory, be democratic. Theres historical examples of anarco-communism even.
Runesocesius 1 year ago
@Runesocesius Uhhh, Sweden's a full-court shot. How many consecutive basketball games do YOU bet on to have such a score? Yeah. It's like that. And Sweden already isn't going to last long on this path, considering the US is the guarantor of the current world reserve currency. As soon as the dollar goes bust, say b-bye to Sweden's "non-authoritarian" socialism...or even the CONTINUANCE of their socialism.
QuartuvLarry 1 year ago
@QuartuvLarry Not a big B-ball fan, didn't get the reference. I'm not disputing your prediction. But the fact still stands that they are non-authoritarian. They're actually very socially liberal.
Runesocesius 1 year ago
@Runesocesius Democracy is dictatorship of the masses. And a government that extorts taxmoney off its citizens is by default authoritarian. Now there might be and have been socialistic communities where everyone chips into the common pool and if they don't contribute they get kicked out or dunno, but that is different from a government, you can't just stop paying taxes and say "just leave me alone, I don't even want anything".
taubstumm 1 year ago
@taubstumm You are arguing semantics. You are calling a government that exorts tax money an authoritarian government for the sake of fitting your argument.
If we were to argue such position, every single country in the world with the exception of Somalia would be authoritarian. Even the Libertarian paradise Sowell dreams of. Some common sense is required. Being "Authoritarian" isn't a binary classification, theres many shades of grey.
Runesocesius 1 year ago
@Runesocesius
you can have fascim without having socialism
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@unfad1ng Not really no. You can have an authoritarian governement without socialism however.
Runesocesius 1 year ago
@Runesocesius Socialism requires authoritarianism to exist.
mikebgood 8 months ago
@mikebgood Not quite.
Runesocesius 7 months ago
@Runesocesius Socialism cannot exist without an authoritarian government. People are in it for themselves, and their families. It's that drive that leads to prosperity.
asleeperj 7 months ago
@asleeperj The premise doesn't match the explanation. You can have democratic Socialism and Authoritarian Socialism (whichever branch of Socialism). It might be more difficult to support a socialist govn. without a authoritarian govn; but it doest not mean it's not possible.
Runesocesius 7 months ago
@Runesocesius democratic socialism is nothing more than a slight majority, voting for benefits, from the minority. This cannot work. The minority will never be able to support the majority. This leads us to an Authoritarian government. Which this can work, as long as the people do not rebel. The problem is, as history shows, people rebel against authoritarian governments. If a government takes from one, and gives to another, there is a fundamental problem in that society.
asleeperj 7 months ago
@asleeperj Whether it's feasible or not isn't the point. You can in theory and practice have Anarchy. It does not mean it's a feasible regime. You can in theory and practice also have a democratic socialist regime. Does not mean it would be the best choice for a govnm. My point was made coming from a purely political science argument.
Runesocesius 7 months ago
i hate to see this left/right comparison simply because people almost never get their terms correct. for the record, traditional leftism is free markets, civil liberties, etc. traditional rightism is authoritarianism, capitalism, facism, etc. pls people, do your homework on terminalogy and ideaologies before making your claims. i can't stand it when modern right wingers (aka neocons) make the ridiculas claim that obama is a socialist.
megaminxmaster 1 year ago
@megaminxmaster I have yet to find someone that can give me (or anyone else) a valid reason why he isn't. When confronted with a decent argument and not hateful rhetoric or idiotic Hannity quotes most resort to insults and quotes from their end of the spectrum (Olberman and Huffington come to mind). Can you give me a few good reasons why you believe he isn't? Can you do it w/o calling me (someone you don't know from Adam) a racist or "neocon"? I'll read it. TY
phredbeard 1 year ago
@megaminxmaster All of this was wrong. Everything you said. It's like you tried this on purpose. You need to read a few definitions. Coming to think about it, you just need to read, period
ravaneli55 1 year ago
@ravaneli55 i need to clearify a few things. when i use the term socialism, i am using it in the general sense (aka anti-capitalist/ libertarian socialism). if you didn't know already, traditional leftism(classical liberalism) as an ideaology is austrian free markets, limited government, and social and civil liberties. traditional rightism is anti-cultural change, nationalistic, facistic, capitalistic, authoritarian, anti-social equality, and corporatistic. CONTINUES ON NEXT PAGE
megaminxmaster 1 year ago
@ravaneli55 CONTINUED FROM MESSAGE
also, obama is not a socialist, he is a facist and a capitialist. PLEASE do your homework. SMASH THE STATE!
megaminxmaster 1 year ago
@megaminxmaster
Yes you nailed it....if obama was (or most of the pple in gov inc republicans) were socialist they would be controling our money supply, or taking over (socializing) car companies, and health care, and the student loan industry, or dbling down on the patriot act, paying farmers not to grow certain crops, or taking our money and giving it to(or forcing it on) big business with the conditions of more "regulation" whether they like it or not.
Yea you can really spot socialism.
pensword5 1 year ago
This is spot on.
However, neocon is (modern) Liberal in terms of Fascism.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
Comment removed
robertmike57 1 year ago
@robertmike57 Actually, I prefer an environment where everyone wants to become rich, and has opportunity. I have missed two in my lifetime, and am trying for a third, but that is what makes America great, that we have opportunity. Most countries have no opportunity, and the left want to remove opportunity from America, and make us like Cuba or North Korea.
Ask yourself is it better to have a chance to make life better for yourself and others, or to simply live off others in poverty?
Brantoc 1 year ago 2