America: Freedom to Fascism
- Thread starter Gotholic
- Start date
2minkey
bootlicker
compelled or those things are provided for?
there is a difference between government filling a certain baseline set of roles and government having extensive involvement in enterprise. the latter leans toward socialism, while the former does not.
you're going all black-and-white on this. just like what's his face, only in reverse.
there are many appropriate roles for government in enterprise. we are no longer the agrarian society we once were, and there are foundational contradictions between the nature of individualist capitalism and the greater good (and by that i mean the greater affluence) that need to be addressed. but, of course, the moment that happens we get dittoheads throwing up some blanket black-and-white objection about "socialism" in its cartoon form.
I dunno. YOu brought 'em up.
Changing the subject? Not about this. No, spike, roads, the PO & the military are not socialist. You aren't dumb enough to think they are so let's not play bait n switch.
Well, goddamn, he can say something of value.
A little laissez faire capitalism is exactly what we need. Regulations empower the weak & lazy. While some regualtion does provide a buffer between 1890s-ish dangerous work condiitons & radical unionist thievery, we have gotten to the point we're looking more USSR that USA. Goods will not continue to be discsovered, manufactured, produced & marketed in a nation that controls more & more of the commerce each day.
Socialism may be a joke to you (and those like you) but in your ignoring the movements we've made in the last century, you've failed to see the lessening importance of our nation & the fewer truly new inventions. For all the crap we've gained, how much has gone undiscovered because some regualtion was in the way?
2minkey
bootlicker
lemme tell you this as someone who had formally studied innovation over the last century:
government has driven a motherfucking shitload of it.
private enterprise in many ways tends to produce extremely conservative innovations that are not very risky in the marketplace. it's not easy to do an ROI calculation for "breakthrough" innovations.
there are no more thomas edisons or elmer sperrys. do you know what a lot of elmer's patents were for? defense shit. government-supported defense shit.
private innovation is not constrained by goevernment regulation nealy to the extent is constrained by the risk-averse business culture that infects todays capitalism. bunch of fuckin' pussies if you ask me.
if you're actually interested in this i could point you toward a few things.
spike
New Member
socialized is "1. To place under government or group ownership or control."
You're not really dumb enough to think they don't qualify are you?
Let those willing to take the risk accept the rewards. If private industry in unwilling to take on the challenge, let's not make things easier by getting out of their way. Instead, let's make sure we force them to give up their goods. We have government telling pharmaceuticals that they have a couple of years before the generics take over.
There is a need for government. There is a need for regualtion. There is no need for 2000 page bills on healthcare. How many volumes do we have in regulations? It's, simply, too much. We've choked off innovation by micromanagement.
2minkey
bootlicker
it's NOT that anyone is 'in their way' in a general sense, other the social world they've created for themselves inside the corporation.
perhaps there are a few examples of industries that need to deal with certain government regs, however, those examples in no way explain the highly constrained innovation behaviors we see.
kneejerk all you want about oppressive government. you'll still be wrong, at least in this case.
spike
New Member
It was placed there from the start. Socialized from the start.
Very insightful spike.
Now I know why you seem so confused about your nation's past & blase to the weakening of our system. You don't understand what Socialism (Communism lite) is. Unfortunately, I don't have time to explain it to you, again, so, just assume yourself to be ignorant of the facts & go study.
Now I know why you seem so confused about your nation's past & blase to the weakening of our system. You don't understand what Socialism (Communism lite) is. Unfortunately, I don't have time to explain it to you, again, so, just assume yourself to be ignorant of the facts & go study.
spike
New Member
Socialized: 1. "To place under government or group ownership or control."
I know you don't want to read that or admit to the obvious fact that the founders set up socialized institutions in the Constitution. But keeping your head in the sand just prolongs your ignorance.
Until you are able to grasp basic concepts like this your not going to be able to contribute anything intelligent to the conversation.
I know you don't want to read that or admit to the obvious fact that the founders set up socialized institutions in the Constitution. But keeping your head in the sand just prolongs your ignorance.
Until you are able to grasp basic concepts like this your not going to be able to contribute anything intelligent to the conversation.
America: Freedom to Fascism
The youtube link is now broken in the OP. You can watch the documentary in the above link. Admins, if you would be so kind to edit my OP and put the above link in there so it can be easily watched by those visiting the thread.
Thank you.
The youtube link is now broken in the OP. You can watch the documentary in the above link. Admins, if you would be so kind to edit my OP and put the above link in there so it can be easily watched by those visiting the thread.
Thank you.
You have the right to travel, freely. You do not have the right to drive. Seperate issues.
2minkey
bootlicker
do you think that the framers of the constitution would have thought of keeping horses and a buggy as related to the right to travel freely? are they not the obvious, enabling artifactual concomitants of a right to travel freely in that context?
if you seize a man's land, are you taking away his right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? why? it's just land. it's not the right itself, is it?
if you seize a man's land, are you taking away his right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? why? it's just land. it's not the right itself, is it?
