Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be aggressive intervention in the economy or you do not.
Since Republicans are largely in favour of central banking, inflationary policy, monetary stimulus, bail-outs and large public military and security sectors, it would appear they are ideologically closer to socialism than capitalism, even though they are largely capitalistic in their approach to micro economics.
Annoying both the left and right at the same time is one of my favourite pastimes
Republicans are not necessarily true conservatives or capitalists. They are, however, less socialist, based on this limited definition, than democrats.
But, but, socialism isn't in favour of central banking inflationary policy, bail outs and large military and security sectors!
Real republicans aren't for a lot of this. Do you really think a real conservative would be in favor of government manipulation of the economy, specifically bailouts? George Bush might have been for this, but that doesn't mean that he represents conservatives by any means.
Conservatives aren't for quantitative easing either. This is fiction. Conservatives want the least government intervention, and you should know that. If you don't, you don't know what a conservative is.
As the only example of what a conservative is the example given to me by the conservative government of the UK all I can say is that conservatives are fiction then.
R(note the capital "r")epublicans are a political party and populated by a whole spectrum of political and economic philosophies. Ron Paul was a libertarian Michael Bloomberg a liberal. Almost all "R"epublicans are such because it aids their aspirations to office and power. "r"epublican is our elective form of government and those who believe in it. In this way Brits are "r"epublican as are Germans and any other country run by representative governments.
Conservative, in the American vein, is a small "c" as it represents certain notions about the nature of the individual and his relationship with government, law and society. "C"onservative is a political party in Britain. The referenced political party in this thread is the American Republican Party.
The Republicans are nearly as full of stupid and silly notions as the Democrats when it comes to how much money actually belongs to the government and how it should be used. On policy issues they are just about as greedy, avaricious and envious as Democrats. The Republicans are Democrats "Lite." It is for this reason that the Republican Party hacks hate any kind of reform movement. They hated Reagan. They HATED Palin. Now, they hate the TEA party, Rand Paul and Ted Cruze.
I do not entirely buy the premise that there are only two competing political and economic philosophies, but it is an interesting jumping off point for examining the validity of certain policies Republicans are foolish enough to support.
They want a government small enough to fit into your bedroom.
What national Republican politician advocates policies predicated on what one does in one's bedroom? There maybe peculiar individuals in some state offices that espouse silly notions, but the Democrat Party isn't free of loons, either.
Please don't insult the bird (loons) by comparing them to that party
As for the rest it is a metaphor for all the moral regulations the party has tried or succeeded in passing. "I want my freedom to regulate your life by my values" sort of argument.
So, nothing real or specific, just the general animosity one can expect in an internet forum. Clear, got ya, i understand. By the way, neither gay "marriage" nor abortion occur in "the bedroom," however, because they both involve sex, they tend to peak the interest of those whose primary focus is on reducing all humans to material things - that would be liberals, if you miss that reference.
Sodomy laws, you know the ones Santorum is a big fan of?
Santorum, Santorum - who is he again? Didn't he do something at one time? I am trying to figure out how that faded shadow of a candidate has any real influence over the policies of an entire political party. I am pretty sure Herman Caine fogged the glass longer than did Santorum. During his brief stint in Congress, did this Santorum fellow ever introduce any anti-sodomy legislation? or has all of his "opposition" fallen into the sacred and FIRST AMENDMENT protected realm of personal opinion? Didn't he say," I personally oppose sodomy, but would never seek to ban it." or is that the dodge liberal Democrat coward Catholics like Mario Cuomo use to keep receiving the Holy Eucharist.
Oh you may remember him as the guy who came second in the Republican primaries. So in other words the guy who republicans considered second most qualified to run for president of the country just last year. The guy who polled highest with self described conservatives.
He was second most popular amongst Republicans and most popular amongst conservatives, obviously a nobody
No he supported Sodomy laws and spoke out against their removal in Texas, he wrote to the Supreme court petitioning them not to repeal sodomy laws, he made petitions to keep Sodomy laws, he said he wanted sodomy laws all across the country.
So he was from Texas? Was he governor? I seem to recall a Governor from Texas losing to the guy who lost the Presidential race? So the loser to the loser is really important. Good to know.
I said yesterday I wish I could have steak and Guinness for evey meal - it didn't happen. If wishes were horses we could all make hamburger.
No he was not from Texas and I never said he was.
He was the conservative favorite, we are talking about conservatives, so yes conservatives want people who support government in your bedroom.
You still need to apologize to the birds (Loons) for calling them members of the Democratic Party.
? Please explain. ?
I have no idea what your talking about.
Part of socialism's definition is 'intervention in the economy', so all of those things have to be considered socialistic acts.
It has occurred to me before that there is a gulf between what you believe 'true' socialism is compared to what it strictly is in the real world. All socialists states to date have used a central bank, and most of them have had large militaries. Also, Josak supports central banking.
I really do wonder what you believe socialism to be.
So the conservatives in the UK bailing out the banks at the expense of the man on the street were acting as socialists!
Name those socialist states that have used a central bank? You must of course include the US and the UK in that list as both use centralised banks. And while you are at it, name some of those states that have had large military forces for other than defending themselves against imperialism.
Absolutely, and many on the left were in support of such a measure too.
The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and East Germany all had central banks and large militaries. I see "defending themselves against imperialism" as an arbitrary excuse.
Oh lord, you have to resort to dragging Nazi Germany and East Germany into support your argument. Neither of them were even remotely socialist. I don'y even agree that the soviet union was socialist - more state capitalism.
We have the greed party and more greed party. You pick which is which, it really doesn't matter.
The two party system changes to appease their base, and whatever feelings or ideals they may carry at the time.
Also, if tired of said base, implementation through indoctrination to install a whole new political philosophy is put in motion.
Democrats had more in common with the current small government conservative in 1860 than Republicans. That mold has obviously changed.. and if you really look hard at these two, especially these days, former conservative republicans are now soft while being basically light weight dems and liberal democrats are now far left progressives.
The only group that really sticks to their ideals and basic plan are Libertarians.
So, who really is who anymore? I think there is an identity crisis with the Big Two, and regardless of their political ideals currently, I do not trust either of them!
This is an often repeated and purely inaccurate distortion shouted by Democrats to replace the reality of their racist roots.
That's almost as absurd as saying that the GOP are progressives because they "ended slavery"
Ending slavery has little to do with progressive politics in America since progressivism is a late 19th/early 20th century phenomenon. The Democrats were the slavery party during the Civil War and the Republican Party was the abolition party. Historically factual.
The elimination of slavery easily adheres to the original ideas of the Declaration of Independence, in so far as it is an expansion of Natural Law Theory over the United States. This is a conservative idea, in that it is an expansion and perpetuation of the original founding idea of the country rather than an attempt to further the subjugation of an entire group of humans in contradiction to the nations foundational document. The slave states sought to continue a practice that denied the fundamental nature of humans, just as the old political orders and habits of Europe continued them.
Therefore, the Republican Party was the human rights party and the Democrat Party was the human as property party. Modern liberals tend to cast the Civil War as a states rights issue without understanding the root cause of that war as slavery.
Modern liberals continue to ignore and obfuscate the history of their own party by continuing to fete Thomas Jefferson - hypocrite slave holder who promised to free his slaves but sold them instead and Andrew Jackson - violent, ignorant butcher of American Indians. Democrats love their racist heroes while lying about the racial attitudes of men like Eisenhower, Bush(es) and Reagan.
Woodrow Wilson segregated the military and was an avid racist; Robert Byrd was a recruiter for the Klan and filibustered the Civil Rights Act and William J. Fullbright was a staunch opponent of Civil Rights and Desegregation. Does anyone actually believe that LBJ would have signed the Civil Rights Act if JFK hadn't been slain?
I would have to agree that Republicans are socialist just like Democrats,Green Party,etc.
Another one who has been reading the big capitalist definition of socialism!
John, enlighten us. How would YOU actually describe socialism? I'll wait...............
I KNOW what socialism means. However, John seems to have a different take on the word as you do.
It's strange, the two socialists on this forum seem to have the wrong idea of socialism whilst those who aren't socialists seem to think they have the right idea - something fishy going on here.
I'll give you a hint, unemployment payments are not socialist, in fact the socialist party in the UK fought against them because they saw there purpose and that was to oppress the workers. True socialism means work for everybody.
I just think you don't know what a capitalist or a conservative is.
Yeah, yeah, any time a conservative or capitalist supports or does something stupid, greedy, illegal, or unpopular, they are not a "true" conservative or a "true" capitalist. That's the same bull$h!t position that Christians take when crimes are committed by Christians in the name of their religion.
Usually when they do something stupid, greedy, illegal or unpopular they call it socialist!
Do you mean the positions consistently taken by McCain, Graham, Hagel, Lugar and now Rubio? These are not illegal just stupid and liberal, thus rendering them none conservative. When a Republican does something that mirrors Democrats it is decidedly not conservative, even if it is texting your privates to a co-ed, like Weiner. It is when a Republican decides that capitulating to Democrat pressures on tax increase, immigration, anti-2nd Amendment policies and other silly liberal ideas that he stops being a conservative - if he was any thing but a pretender to begin with.
Michael Bloomberg ran as a Republican because Rudie Giuliani raised the value of that label to record highs in NYC, but, since his election, has worked to contract the freedom of New Yorkers to eat and drink as they choose. He is not, nor has he ever been a conservative despite the label and he did nothing illegal to be rejected from the ranks of conservatives.
Your premise is flawed. After all, to be rejected by American liberals all you have to do is be pro-life - not an illegal position. To be embraced by liberals all you have to be is anti-American, anti-Israel or anti-Freedom - as we have witnessed for decades with Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Mihn, Castro, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Yassir Arafat, and the ignominious list rolls on and on....
How do you come up with this stuff? Of course there is greed in capitalism. There are greedy conservatives too. Greed and stupidiy is present in every form of government and every philosophy. I do not deny that there are greedy or stupid capitalists. Please provide my quote where I claim this.
I didn't know there was a capitalist book on socialism. I know that taking my money and giving to somebody else is socialism.
No, that is exactly the opposite of socialism. It's capitalism that takes your money off you and gives it to the unwanted members of society so they won't come and trash your factories and riot in the streets.
This is simply wrong. True capitalists don't tax much.
True capitalism is no taxation, representing complete recognition of private property and contract. Any move to the contrary has to be considered socialistic.
So by that reckoning the UK Conservative government is more socialistic than the UKs left wing - they must be because the Conservatives all ways tax more highly than the left.
Taxation is not the only socialistic policy a party can implement, but I wouldn't want to insinuate there was a significant difference between the major parties in the UK.
There is a fundamental error in your analysis of this whole issue, economically I agree there are only two camps interventionist and non interventionist with a variety of stops along the way but to label non interventionism capitalism and interventionism socialism is wrong on both counts.
Socialist based economies can be non interventionist (see syndicalism) and governments can be interventionist without being socialist (see Fascist and communist) so the premise is wrong to begin with.
Furthermore the words carry a lot of non economic baggage.
Non interventionist economies have proven to be unable to compete with interventionist ones economically, dealing with central banking for example the fiat currency and fractional reserve banking gave the nations that used them enormous ability to raise capital for use in periods of need be that for war for stimulus or for infrastructural spending. This also however introduces an element of instability and when badly used, the potential for bubbles. Unable to compete pretty much all developed nations adopted the superior system.
You are right if you only look at the originally ascribed definitions of the terms, but not as how they are in reality. Firstly, syndicalists, presuming they respect private property and are non-aggressive, have to be considered capitalists. With the absence of a central monopoly of force, unions or co-operatives will have to buy the land they need, and that means contract and profit. In a true free-market there is in fact nothing stopping anyone who describes themselves as anything close to socialists from coming together and forming co-operatives. It's still capitalism: Private ownership (a large private party) owns the means of production.
Fascists, socialists and communists agree so heavily with one another it's absurd to consider them different beyond a superficial level. They all agree with economic intervention, but disagree on how exactly the appropriation of resources is to be carried out. Is this a difference? Perhaps, but an unimportant one. In the 30s when Hitler was trendy, it was the leftists and socialists who were declaring him a progressive and an example of how a society should properly be run, on the basis that he was an interventionist.
Finally, your points in favour of intervention are exactly the reasons why I oppose it. I don't want to give the government the ability to get bigger, create bubbles and make war. Apparently you do, on the basis that 'everyone is doing it'. All governments may well have had to adopt central banks to compete with each other, but that doesn't make it right.
First point is incorrect A because most syndicalists advocate seizure of the means of production and B because the system is fundamentally against what capitalism is in reality (you were the one who brought up real world definitions) a competitive system based on private rather than collective ownership and an organized economy.
The second point is ridiculous, the left right separation is not only quite large it is the only fundamental argument really being tackled given that the Anarchist movement has totally collapsed.
As for that all too common Hitler lie it is just that, most leftists despised Hitler from the get go because of the religious and nationalistic overtones of his government (in counter to leftist internationalism) and as soon as he cultivated a relationship with Mussolini it became apparent he was a fascist and in case you don't know your history tens of thousands of leftist from around the world (including relatives of mine) joined the international brigades to fight fascism in Spain.
Yes I know why you oppose it but as a capitalist you should believe in competition and all those things including warfare are and always have been part of the competition between nations, groups, clans and families a system that makes you unable to compete in those areas is a useless system rightly abandoned that is the real world.
Wanting to cling to outdated and out competed systems is exactly why anarchism and free market capitalism collapsed.
You cannot simultaneously claim that syndicalists advocate seizure of production and are non-interventionists. Since you were referring to the non-interventionist syndicalism I took it that you were referring to anarcho-syndicalism, that necessarily requires the private ownership of land. We are indeed talking about the real world, and in the real world, even if a piece of land is owned by a collective, it is technically still owned by a private party.
Perhaps it is the only fundamental argument being tackled in the mainstream because there really is no significant difference. Two groups of thieves arguing about how best to steal from and control the populace might be a fight worth having for you, but it is not for me. Left V Right, Communism/Socialism V Fascism and government V government is exactly that. They will all have you believe that belief in absolute liberty is beyond the range of acceptable opinion because they are all united in the belief that human beings must be aggressed against. It is an illusion.
And demonstrating that they have done this is not proof that it is right. So there are a bunch of criminals competing together to run the world. So what? Why is it that the only option to counter this is to become a criminal? I do agree that there should be competition, but competition does not mean increasing the amount of power each agent has. It means splitting up the power into manageable chunks, more countries with less power. The ultimate aim would be to reduce the power to where it is legitimate: to the individual. However, I would be happy to see, in my lifetime, a thousand Lichtensteins and Luxembourgs, instead of three or four USAs or Chinas, much less one world government.
Your whole argument springs from the basic fallacy that 'what is, must be', rather than 'what is right, must be'.
Well since Tory Blur declared his admiration for Thatcher I would have to agree that both major parties in the UK are now right wing capitalist parties.
They're both heavily interventionist, socio-corporatist parties who believe in ideologies such as 'socialism' and 'capitalism' as far as it suits their need for power. 'Right' and 'left' are a myth and it would do you good to detox yourself of those terms.
The real economic and political question is this: how much must the voluntary affairs of humans be aggressed against?
But you believe we are living in some lassiez-faire wilderness. If you're that delusional it's going to be difficult to debate anything with you.
Besides the bail-out, I don't see any other similitudes with the socialists.
I agree with you, and here's why.
The philosopher A.J. Ayer famously claimed of morality, "The presence of an ethical symbol in a proposition adds nothing to its factual content."
Why then, are there moral disagreements? Ayer asserts:
"But, in all such cases, we find, if we examine the matter closely, that the dispute is not really about a question of value, but a question of fact. When someone disagrees with us about the moral value of a certain action or type of action, we do admittedly resort to argument in order to win him over to our way of thinking. But we do not attempt to show by our arguments that he has a "wrong" ethical feeling towards a situation whose nature he has correctly apprehend. What we attempt to show is that he is mistaken about the facts of the case. We argue that he has misconceived the agent's motive: or that he has misjudged the effects of the action, or its probable effects in view of the agent's knowledge; or that he has failed to take into account the special circumstances in which the agent was placed. Or else we employ more general arguments about the effects which actions of a certain type tend to produce, or the qualities which are usually manifested in their performance."
PLEASE READ THE ABOVE QUOTE. It took forever to type .
While I'm not convinced this is completely true, it is a good rough description. Most Republicans are not libertarians; they are not against taxes per se. They think SOME people (not all) on welfare abuse the system, or the government tends to waste a lot of money, so paying too high of taxes is throwing money down a black hole. Democrats believe people on welfare need it, and the government spends money on social programs efficiently.
What's really interesting is defense spending. Republicans generally flip and say the government spends every defense dollar with the efficiency of Rockefeller, while Democrats believe the budget is massively bloated. I also think beliefs about the efficiency of government are tied into support for universal health care. If Republicans saw the government as a lean mean service providing machine, I think a sizable majority of them would favor universal health care.
So, to tie this back in to supporting your point, the difference between most Democrats and Republicans are FACTUAL differences, just like Ayer says. If Republicans suddenly decided all welfare recipients were deserving, then I think they would support welfare programs, and if Democrats suddenly decided there was massive corruption in the welfare system, they would reduce their support.
You don't have to agree with his verificationism to see his analysis is sharp.
Interesting point, but I'm struggling to see how it supports mine. I do believe there are ideological differences, but the point I am making is that the difference we are presented with is not a significant difference at all because both parties hold the same basic assumptions.
You could quite easily say that Republicans' disagreement with Libertarians only lies with their inability to see how society would operate without taxation, and according to the point you're making, make the disagreement meaningless. Then that doesn't support my point at all.
The quote has made me think, though.
Principles my good man.
Republicans are not "against government" IN PRINCIPLE the same way libertarians are. They simply believe the government wastes money, whereas you believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that all taxation is theft and a violation of private property and the non-aggression principle.
Right. Then I completely agree, and is the point I was trying to make to Education Answer.
This was the point I, too, was trying to make. Conservatives are not against government. They just don't want excessive, wasteful government, the kind we see right now in America and the kind that is going bankrupt in Europe. Conservatives want laws. They just don't want excessive laws that erode liberty.
We just went about making our points in a different manner. Still, good points.
This whole discussion is unnecessary. Conservatives want small government that is less intrusive. Socialists want bigger government that offers more services. They are polar opposites.
They both agree that there should be a government, and that it should be intrusive, they are just arguing about how much. Polar opposites, right . . .
No, modern, your-kind-of-conservative argues that. Real conservatives believe in a federal government but not like what we have. They believe in a government that is much, much smaller, one that consumes fewer resources and leaves them for the people to invest.
Actually, Burkian conservatives (REAL CONSERVATIVES) are fine with a huge police state. Burke saw the stability of society as the most important thing to preserve and strive for.
I'll admit my own ignorance about Burke. I've read about him, but I can't necessarily say that you are or aren't right. What I can say is that he was from centuries ago, and politics have changed a bit, a lot. You're looking at modern "conservatives" and people from the 1700's as examples.
I'm quoting you directly here: " They believe in a government that is much, much smaller... that consumes fewer resources"
So you believe in a government. And you believe that that government should consume resources. That's two fundamental things that form the basis of conservatism and socialism. I'm really not seeing any proper ideological differences.
Conservatives absolutely believe in a government. Yes, we know that governments require funding. What's your point? Do you really think that conservatives believe in no government or a government that runs on fairy dust? The difference is in how much government and what cost. There is a big difference. Try drinking one shot of vodka versus three bottles and tell me there's no difference.
EA, I did ask you to define your understanding of "conservative" several pages back. Perhaps you missed it.
I've already described what a conservative is. Look in this thread.
John, do you believe republicans are socialists? I'm gussing that you don't. I certainly don't. What do you say?
Apart from the comment that conservatives don't believe in big government . . . that can't be all can it?
And no, I don't believe US republicans are socialist.
Republicans aren't necessarily conservatives.
Never said they were!
And is that all conservatives stand for - not too big government? That makes it tricky then because that's what socialists believe as well!
Here's a great article that I believe answers your question well. I am fond of The National Review and am happy to pass this article on to you. It clearly answers your question. No, true conservatives are not just for smaller taxes, smaller government, and less spending. Those are merely policies.
I'm sorry, most of that was empty rhetoric and leaves me not one bit wiser.
Well, let's make this clear. You socialists want the government to provide greater support, such as healthcare. We conservatives generally tend to believe that the government is there to provide services that we can't provide on our own, such as a military. We want less government and less regulation. You generally want more government and greater regulation. Yes, I know you say that socialists don't want a big government. That's not true. If you want to say it is true, provide a good source. Good luck.
As for health care, it is well proven that state supplied health care is much cheaper than privately supplied health care.
A socialist government would spend money only on defence, which in theory would amount to very little but as the biggest threat would be from the US I suspect rather more money than strictly necessary would have to be spent, but even so, not as much as by an imperialist and aggressive government.
Regulation is only needed in a predatory market aimed at making the maximum profit for the minimum outlay, as this would not be the case with socialism, regulation would be much less than needed in a so called free market.
If you want a good source, google is your friend:)
That's what I thought. Instead of proving that socialists want smaller government, you try to justify larger government. Instead of providing proof or your outlandish claim, you direct me towards Google. Great.
By predatory, do you mean competitive, one that enjoys greater freedom from government regulation? John, that, too, is bigger government.
And where have I tried to justify larger government?
That's rich. You're a socialist. Socialists believe in greater government. Don't deny it.
You love universal healthcare. Who runs that? Would that be leprechauns? No, it's the government, and it's just one example, a big one, of how you want the government to do for you. Saying otherwise would be like saying that conservatives love taxes. It's inherently wrong.
But I do deny it.
You won't accept my proof that we don't so it's up to you to prove that we do - and remember, it has to be a socialist source, not some right wing hate fest.
Health care isn't big government, well certainly not as big as defence or social security and we know who loves that don't we?
You didn't provide proof. Look at the thread, and you'll find that you even admit that.
Government healthcare does lead to a larger government. Spin it all you want. It's an obvious truth.
We have a national health service, not a government health service, it is funded through government. but separate from government.
I can't stop laughing. Government versus national? What a joke! Syntax over substance is a bad tactic in debates.
Well let's think about that one.
Asda is a national company so by your reckoning they are a government company!
Do their employees get paid by taxpayers?
Well actually, with many of this governments work schemes, yes.
Socialists look to the government for answers far more than any conservative would ever think of doing.
No, your idea of a socialist may do, but in reality socialism is in favour of small government - a government handling international relations but leaving just about every thing else to people to sort out amongst themselves.
. . . such as healthcare? . . .such as minimum wage? . . .such as support for unions?
No, there is a big difference between socialists and conservatives, and I do not buy, for one second, your assertion about how socialists want small government. Do you have a source?
What need would a socialist state have for a minimum wage or support for unions?
That's right. Your economy would be controlled by the government, so these things would be unnecessary.
Where's your source about socialist governments wanting smaller government?
No, the economy would be controlled by the people, who would set wages at a sufficient level.
Oh, the people set these wages. . . throught the government? We both know that you do not like capitalism. Capitalism truly would allow people to set wages. You'd throw a fit if the people really did set wages in a socialist nation, because you'd say that some of the wages are too low.
No, not through, or even throught , the government, the government would have no place in setting wages at all.
Capitalism doesn't allow people to set wages, do you really believe that people would set wages that were too low to live on? No, businesses set wages, people don't.
Why should wages be too low if the people receiving those wages had set them?
This isn't really what you are after but it is well worth watching anyway -
This one I wish I'd written
http://this.org/magazine/2009/08/20/ste … socialism/
And this American site tops it off -
"Socialism means a government in which the people collectively own and democratically operate the industries and social services through an economic democracy."
Basically, you lose the right to own a business? Sounds like freedom to me.
Basically, you lose the competitive nature of business?
According to your sources, socialism is communism minus. Instead of government ownership, it's collective ownership. Big difference? No.
The amount of vodka one must drink is not an ideological difference but a practical one. The fact that both socialists and conservatives believe in government do some degree proves that they have an ideological similarity.
Conservatives agree with socialists on very little. This is a stretch. It's like saying we are similar to ants, because we work together and are animals. At what point does the comparsion get pointless?
Here's a question for you then: what would be preferable, socialism or anarchy?
Socialism would be preferable to anarchy.
Then you are not quite as committed to small government, and more importantly, liberty, as you think you are!
According to you, the expert? Liberty requires basic necessities, such as a way to defend your nation, that anarchy does not provide. You are quite mistaken.
Liberty requires enforceable respect for person and propert rights, that private courts can do and have done in the past. Anarchy does not mean the lack of law, but the lack of rulers.
It seems a massive contradiction to me to argue that government is both a provider of and aggressor against liberty.
You make good points, actually quite good ones. I do believe in the ability of the people to govern at the local level and as needed. Liberty is a powerful force. However, my take on anarchy is more severe, and I have my doubts about your anarchic country's ability to defend itself against possible threats. Without a federal government, you'd likely have no standing army or only local militias. While many of our founding fathers warned against a standing army, do you really think that would be sufficient in today's world? Because of this simple fact, your anarchic country wouldn't last without another country coming in and defending you.
Your argument would be that of Ben Franklin, and it's a good argument.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
I believe our disagreement is more about the severity of what we define anarchy as more so than our belief in the people, capitalism, and liberty. This is a good discussion, and I appreciate your thoughts. You have me thinking, and that's enjoyable. Liberty, ingenuity, and capitalism might just be enough to overcome some of the inherent problems with anarchy, and now you have me second guessing my answer. Still, I believe our definition of anarchy is our biggest difference. Good job.
There is no pure capitalism or socialism, mixed to some degree or approximates the economic ideology. America is mixed socialist and capitalist - in between - depending on what party is the majority.
http://www.libertarianism.org/blog/libe … -pollution
What do you think of this miff?
I saw his subsequent argument against the NAP a week ago and David Gordon came up with a good rebuttal I thought.
https://mises.org/daily/6414/In-Defense … Aggression
I would add that I agree that the limits of an acceptable level of pollution can easily be figured out through the conventions and traditions of the society in question, and enforced through insurance. For example, the owner of a street could say that light must be kept at a certain level, but if there are no such rules, the person looking for a house will have to look somewhere else. With no monopoly deciding the rules there is a greater chance of peaceful solutions.
dictionaries were written by humans, so their definitions change across time and from place to place
I see conservatives redefining themselves, hence republicans and even democrats...20 years from now what will the common definition be of socialism or conservatism???
THE answer to what is, anything, can never be found because it is all human ego creation. So this is a conversation that will continue, round and round, to infinity.
THE only answer to stop the vicious cycles of human ego creations that never work for everyone completely all of the time, is to desire the highest conscience as guide and to continue to seek to understand and live a lifestyle of the pillars of morality and ethics, even some religious thought, that have been postulated through the centuries. And learn to work on building society by finding and understanding common grounds within groups that you can agree with on what are the most important aspects to agree upon and not letting the other less important aspects divide the group.
by Charles James5 years ago
As some fellow hubbers will know, I am involved in writing hubs for a Socialism 101 series.There are a few issues raised by the conservatives where I do not fully understand what they are saying. Before I address these...
by sneakorocksolid6 years ago
I'm a conservative moderate. I vote for who I think will do the best job. Otherwise I vote issues. I wanted to give my benchmark so maybe someone can point out which is which, they're the same or non of the above. I...
by kerryg6 years ago
"If you are a right-wing white Southern Republican, you can spend your entire life as a ward of the state." "You can serve in the socialist economy of the military and then, as a retired officer, you can...
by Peter Freeman4 years ago
Recently there have been some long-tailed debates held in the comments section of certain Hubs. Particularly in the Hubs written by James Watkins and John Holden. I was wondering if it would be possible to have a...
by Elliott_T5 years ago
I'm a Capitalist - what that means to me is that the closest thing to an ideal economy we can achieve is one where the government has almost no interference in the private business sector whatsoever. I think you can put...
by Scott Bateman15 months ago
Does capitalism encourage greed? Does socialism punish merit and efficiency? Or do both philosophies have good and bad aspects?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.