Protests in France

[AttackFormation]

Here we seem to agree. This is what I meant by "redistribution." Government takes and redistributes, allocates if you will, aside from proscribing and enforcing laws, etc. But even for that it needs money to function. But I don't see it as this separate entity, as cynical as I sound from time to time. It's the people of a tribe or society pooling resources (generated without) and establishing laws.

We seem to disagree on the merits of barter and capitalism, but that's simply a difference of opinion or viewpoint.

Yes, government is supposed to be the people coming together to organize themselves. To me as a libertarian socialist, top-down authoritarianism is an aberration. But whoever controls that state gains its power. That's why the existence of a state is critical to any privileged class that maintains itself at the expense of the commons, such as a capitalist class. This was recognized way back. John Locke when he was formulating his philosophy, had no illusions about what a state really existed for, and what it needed to keep existing for for the sake of people like him. The neoliberals in the Mont Pelerin society advocated for a strong state for the same reason. The idea that capitalism is antithetical to a strong state is just a red herring/disinformation.

I don't think barter is wrong, but I wanted to point out the historicity of credit, money and barter which neoliberal orthodoxy gets backwards in order to show that human civilizations and the societies before them don't originate as barter economies. As for capitalism, I don't think that things which nature created, or things that are necessary for society to function at its optimal technological capacity for human welfare, or things that society actually funds and supports directly or indirectly, should be privatized. So I don't think a country's banking system should be privatized for profit, for example. Again, I'm a libertarian socialist. People and society should have their means to a living and progress free of individual or collective coercion to wage slavery which requires scarcity to function. This is the same view that lots of earlier 19th and early 20th century economists had. Again, the first economics professor at America's first business school the Wharton school endowed by Joseph Wharton was Simon Patten, and he had these same kinds of views. What was common American economic thought then would be called socialist today. The American population itself largely thought the same thing, if you go back and read what they said about capitalism in the 19th century when the factories and stuff were emerging.

Glad we could actually discuss something for once... most people just want to parrot their own preconceived dogmas.

 

[EyeBRollin]

1. I did not say this, please fix the quoting so you are not putting words in ny mouth.

2. You are making a GREAT point on why the "wealth gap" is meaningless and will never be addressed. Because there will always be rich and poor. This is an invented problem for the purpose of stealing money.

Right wing capitalist economies have a history of growing and creating wealth.

Left wing socialist eceonmies inevitably collapse.

Thus this "dichotomy" you speak of makes no sense.

Everything with the right wing is in absolutes. Your argument that countries can only be "right wing capitalist" or "left wing socialist" and not a combination shows you have no interest in honest intellectual debate. You also make no mention of gini coefficient and how it illustrates how free or restrictive a society is. Neither of those fall into right-wing talking points, so it's no surprise there.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I am using the spectrum as an example to illustrate my point, I never said it had to be one extreme or the other.

My point still stands, capitalist societies (right wing) have generated more wealth than all ither countries in history.

Socialist economis (left wing) self destruct due to socializing and consuming their seed caputal, just like Venezuela right now.

These are basic facts observable throughout history.

There you go again parroting more right-wing propaganda. You lack the nuance to understand that socialism comes from failed capitalism. By the time a country becomes "socialist" it's already rife with corruption and political instability due to extreme consolidation of wealth under capitalism.

 

[samspade]

"Everything with the right wing is in absolutes." - Lol, you can't make this stuff up.

 

[EyeBRollin]

No need for making personal remarks (I lack the nuance?).

I only go off what you post.

1. That corruption and political instability are caused by a wealth gap (consolidation of wealth under capitalism).

Correct.

2. That if a nation only started as socialist, then it would generate wealth since the corruption would not exist.

This is a textbook strawman argument. I can't even fathom how anything I posted could lead to this statement.

 

[Trump]

I don't trust a man who married a women that might even be older then his own mother.

He goes against his biology.

And I've heard from colleagues that he "needs" his wife to mommy him when he goes campaigning/ground visits etc.

Disgusting. Boggles the mind to think people voted for a deviant to be a president.

Would you consider Trump a deviant?

 

[Spaz]

Would you consider Trump a deviant?

No. I do however consider Hillary a deviant.

You could write to her that Spaz said so.

 

[EyeBRollin]

2. And how does the wealth gap cause corruption?

3. I am only asking if that is what you meant, no need to get angry. Can you explain what you mean with "By the time a country becomes "socialist" it's already rife with corruption and political instability"? It seems reasonable that your statement here is suggesting that if a nation started as socialist that the corruption would not occur.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why consolidation of wealth causes corruption. Pleading ignorance is not a credible argument. You do know what corruption is right?

 

[EyeBRollin]

No need to be condescending.

You said the wealth gap causes corruption, this does not make sense to me. Can you please explain how?

Naw, you can figure it out. Do some reading on gini coefficient and democracy.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Shocking

Read.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I did, nothing on corruption.

Do you have a link?

That’s a lie.

 

[samspade]

No need to be condescending.

You said the wealth gap causes corruption, this does not make sense to me. Can you please explain how?

I can. But I'm not gonna let EBR off the hook!

 

[EyeBRollin]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ec.../2013/11/26/gini-in-the-bottle#ampf=undefined

Nope. So do you have a link?

Nothing about inequality vs democracy. You have more work to do my friend.

 

[Anonimmus]

I recommend the French to look at the example of Ukraine, and think carefully about what they are doing......

 

[EyeBRollin]

The key claim you made is that the wealth gap causes corruption. Not about inequality versus democracy.

Your chief argument is always to play dumb. Here you present parallel statements as conflicting when they mean the same thing. Are you incapable of deducing the link between inequality (“wealth gap”), corruption, and democracy?

 

[EyeBRollin]

And again you make it about me personally.

Why is it so hard to explain your argument with logic or to provide a link.

It sounds like your answer is yes. You are incapable of deducing the link between wealth inequality and corruption.

 

[EyeBRollin]

So will you explain your logic on how a wealth gap creates corruption?

Or provide a link that explains it?

Or will it be personal insults all day?

I’m not explaining shiit. Ignorance is not an argument. Go do some reading.

 

[Spaz]

Since when being accused of ignorance an insult ?

You could easily turned it around if you are in fact not ignorant but it seems you choose to cover that ignorance by pleading that as insulting.

It's the same tactic used by those religious extremists who claimed the earth was flat, and when challenged they then use it as a means to shut their idealogical opponents up by using "insult towards god" or some crap to get their opponents in trouble thereby letting themselves off from answering uncomfortable truths.

ERB could easily have taken a similar route and say your ignorance is an insult to his intelligence.

I could even say that participating in this thread is an insult towards progress and development since the intellectual discourse is null, as some participants are obviously sub par in knowledge on subject matter.

If a man wants to run with the wolf's then he better don't act like a pup with all the inherent traits of whining, complaining and b1tching.

 

[Spaz]

Men don't puss out when asked to provide logic or facts.

Only women do that. Which one are you two?

This too can be viewed as insulting. I too can play that game. It's so easy.

But then I'm not you.

The only person here who is consistently complaining about being insulted is you.

 

[Spaz]

If you were me you would not call names or insult when asked to provide your logic or facts that lead to your conclusion (if you saw only "ignorance" then you need to go back and read some more).


Men use facts and logic to reach conclusions, it is why they are good at math, logic, spatial problems, etc,...

Women use feelings to reach conclusions, it is why they are good with language, reading body language, and in soft skills like communication and marketing.

Guess which sex has a harder time with facts?

I would enjoy answering this and twisting your brain in knots by this fallacy or more accurately the naivety you are projecting.

But then you'll invariably view it as an insult.

Any reason for me to participate?

Or for that matter anyone to participate?