Socialism

Though we may be few in number, Libertarians and small government/free market Republicans are superior to both. Originally Posted by Tiny

There are few to none...small government Republicans.

Only Libertarians are small government.

There are few to none...small government Republicans. Originally Posted by WTF

Because Neocons are Trotskyists

Agreed

Because Neocons are Trotskyists Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Actually WTF is Trotsky. I noted that here a few days ago:

Have you seen the deficits of the last 3 years and the one soon to be?



Originally Posted by WTF

Damn, we're beginning to sound like Stalin and Trotsky. We're both deficit hawks and each is accusing the other of not being hawkish enough.

I'm Stalin btw. Originally Posted by Tiny

I'll kind of agree with both of you. Trotskyites, who never saw a foreign intervention they didn't like, are like Neocons. But I don't see what that has to do with socialism or crony capitalism. Or noninterventionist Republicans, including Donald Trump if you disregard Iran.

I'm "small and as local as you can get it" government, anti-socialism, anti-cronyism in politics, but am relatively pro-crony in business ventures if I get to build my own team. I think not using the resources you have to put people you collaborate really well with to ensure success is foolish. Giving your retarded delinquent of a nephew a job as a favor to your sister is bad for business.

Those who love the fiden crime cabal - and its' marxist policies - do not fit the definition of 'Libertarian"!

If you disregard all those women Ted Bundy knocked in the head...he was a pretty good law student!

7

Those who love the fiden crime cabal - and its' marxist policies - do not fit the definition of 'Libertarian"! Originally Posted by oeb11

Correct but do not leave out Trump and his crony capitalists being excluded too.

If you think Trump and company are small government, your nuts are cracked.

If you think Trump and company are small government, your nuts are cracked. Originally Posted by WTF

Trump = small government? Nope. But he was relatively anti-interventionist and/or imperialist. Not completely, but moreso than the people he ran against and had to work with.

If you disregard all those women Ted Bundy knocked in the head...he was a pretty good law student! Originally Posted by WTF

Extremely sexist!

Trump = small government? Nope. But he was relatively anti-interventionist and/or imperialist. Not completely, but moreso than the people he ran against and had to work with. Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Yes Trump for the most part was an isolationist. But I couldn't help jabbing at Tiny's "excluding Iran" quip.


But you can't be big government and consider yourself a conserative imho. Trump supporters consider themselves conservative. I consider them full of shit in this regard .

...As to the difference, Socialists want the government to have all the power. And crony capitalists also want the government to have all the power, just as long as government gives them rent seeking advantages. Originally Posted by Tiny

Rockefeller Republican here. Your definition of Socialism is incorrect, at least in the Democratic Socialist standpoint. Socialism means that the state is the owner/controller of an industry’s production, but Democratic Socialism underlines that the PEOPLE control the government (an idea apparently foreign to many of its citizens). Reasonable minds can disagree with regards to which system produces the best outcomes for a sovereign’s citizens: lower outputs with universal profit sharing, or higher outputs with profits in the hands of a select group with any redistribution or benefit left to the voodoo of “Trickle-Down Economics”.

Though we may be few in number, Libertarians and small government/free market Republicans are superior to both. Originally Posted by Tiny

LOL. Libertarians are among the most deluded individuals on the planet for their failure to distinguish between the hypothetically possible and the realistically probable. And the only fans of small governments and “free” markets are those who benefit from such and those who would sell organs/children to obtain those benefits.

In reality, any representative government with taxation powers contains some element of socialism. Otherwise, all roads would be literal tollways, Pinkertons would be the primary mode of law enforcement, and emergency rooms would check a patient’s ability to pay prior to admittance. Most of us have no problem with those who have more, as long as more is not acquired or maintained via the oppression of others.

So, no: I don’t have a problem with some elements of socialism. However, socialism (like any other means of power) requires constant scrutiny and diligence to ensure the fox in the hen house is a vegetarian.

Yes Trump for the most part was an isolationist. But I couldn't help jabbing at Tiny's "excluding Iran" quip.


But you can't be big government and consider yourself a conserative imho. Trump supporters consider themselves conservative. I consider them full of shit in this regard . Originally Posted by WTF

For the record what would you like America to look like?

There are few to none...small government Republicans.

Only Libertarians are small government. Originally Posted by WTF

I vote libertarian every election. My chick never wins.

Rockefeller Republican here. Your definition of Socialism is incorrect, at least in the Democratic Socialist standpoint. Socialism means that the state is the owner/controller of an industry’s production, but Democratic Socialism underlines that the PEOPLE control the government (an idea apparently foreign to many of its citizens). Reasonable minds can disagree with regards to which system produces the best outcomes for a sovereign’s citizens: lower outputs with universal profit sharing, or higher outputs with profits in the hands of a select group with any redistribution or benefit left to the voodoo of “Trickle-Down Economics”.



LOL. Libertarians are among the most deluded individuals on the planet for their failure to distinguish between the hypothetically possible and the realistically probable. And the only fans of small governments and “free” markets are those who benefit from such and those who would sell organs/children to obtain those benefits.

In reality, any representative government with taxation powers contains some element of socialism. Otherwise, all roads would be literal tollways, Pinkertons would be the primary mode of law enforcement, and emergency rooms would check a patient’s ability to pay prior to admittance. Most of us have no problem with those who have more, as long as more is not acquired or maintained via the oppression of others.

So, no: I don’t have a problem with some elements of socialism. However, socialism (like any other means of power) requires constant scrutiny and diligence to ensure the fox in the hen house is a vegetarian. Originally Posted by intldjgig

The definition of socialism is a system where the government controls and owns the means of production. It currently only exists in a relatively pure form in Cuba and North Korea. Why? Because it doesn't work. It created great poverty and suffering, and was abandoned.

Yeah, you look at the Libertarian platform, and there are parts of it that aren't practical and don't make sense. But those parts will never be implemented. You're not going to see public schools or public roads put out of business. Libertarianism is about social freedoms, the right of individuals to engage in behavior that doesn't harm others, and yes, smaller, less intrusive government. But it's a big tent philosophy. I personally believe in universal health care backed up by government, along the lines of Singapore's system, which provides universal coverage at a much lower cost and with much better outcomes than what we have in the USA, and I've seen praise for their system (and admittedly criticism as well) in Reason, the flagship Libertarian magazine.

What happens when a Libertarian is elected to public office? Well, there's only been one elected to a high executive office, Gary Johnson, ex-Governor of New Mexico, and he did a pretty damn good job. He ran as a Republican in a blue state and still won by 10%, in two elections. He wasn't afraid to take the axe to pork.

Contrary to your belief, smaller government and lower taxes can result in greater prosperity for all. Kick out petro states and small places, and Switzerland, Singapore and the USA have among the lowest taxes and lowest government spending as % of GDP of developed countries, and also the highest median income. Please note that's median, not average.

I'm not saying the USA should adopt the platform of the Libertarian Party. Yeah, I agree that wouldn't be ideal. But neither is what we have now.

And, really, fuck ideology. What's the point in arguing about socialism or libertarianism? How we should define them, how well they'd work? It's a little like an argument between early 20th century Marxists and Anarchists. To a large extent, they were both full of shit. What we need to do is implement what works. And some of that comes from the Libertarian playbook. For example, no, we don't need to privatize the schools. But charter schools and tuition vouchers in private schools for underprivileged children, that makes sense.

Btw, your contention that Libertarians are wild eyed ideologues who harvest organs is over the top.