a great read on statism vs capitalism

[slimreaper]

You must be registered for see links

It basically boils down to statists on the left(communists,socialists, fascists) and capitalists on the right.

"The growing use of “statism” may portend a political sea change, because it pierces a major Leftist-created smokescreen: the placing of fascism on the Right."

 

[Punk Hazard]

Thought that said Satanism. I am less interested now.

 

[slimreaper]

Thought that said Satanism. I am less interested now.

well Satan isn't real. so satanism shouldn't really matter

 

[ItachiDaSoloKing]

I don't give a **** about that shit.

Irreverent to me.

 

[slimreaper]

I don't give a **** about that shit.

Irreverent to me.

yet you commented:eww:

 

[Joon]

So we are not looking at politics as a whole? Our country is shaped by both parties.

 

[slimreaper]

So we are not looking at politics as a whole? Our country is shaped by both parties.

I don't really understand this comment or if it has a point

 

[Narushima]

The economic debate, in my humble opinion, is an antiquated one (the lunacy of leftists has to do with social and political policy, not economics - commies are a different beast altogether).

As is the case for most social phenomena, the optimal condition for human well-being, both individual and collective, appears to be the golden mean - free markets but with some regulation.

The real problem is that the social market economy is an unsustainable one - and fundamentally for reasons most economists are reluctant to discuss much less recognize, namely demographics.

Welfare states ultimately entail an underclass - an ever growing and self-perpetuating one because these policies almost by definition seem to conduce greater fertility in the underclass, most saliently by encouraging single motherhood, that then transmit (for whatever reason) their sub-cultural values to their offspring.

What is the solution? A very interesting suggestion was once contended by anthropologist Henry Harpending (though I think it needs to be a tweaked a little bit so that "cads" cannot exploit it):

You must be registered for see links

 

[Angelic.]

fascist

 

[slimreaper]

The economic debate, in my humble opinion, is an antiquated one (the lunacy of leftists has to do with social and political policy, not economics - commies are a different beast altogether).

As is the case for most social phenomena, the optimal condition for human well-being, both individual and collective, appears to be the golden mean - free markets but with some regulation.

The real problem is that the social market economy is an unsustainable one - and fundamentally for reasons most economists are reluctant to discuss much less recognize, namely demographics.

Welfare states ultimately entail an underclass - an ever growing and self-perpetuating one because these policies almost by definition seem to conduce greater fertility in the underclass, most saliently by encouraging single motherhood, that then transmit (for whatever reason) their sub-cultural values to their offspring.

What is the solution? A very interesting suggestion was once contended by anthropologist Henry Harpending (though I think it needs to be a tweaked a little bit so that "cads" cannot exploit it):

You must be registered for see links

I agree... the bold is explained in depth by this video

[video=youtube;2GklCBvS-eI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI[/video]

to quote the article

"Today’s political-economic system is not capitalism–not pure, consistent, uncontrolled, laissez-faire capitalism. Today in America we live in the Entitlement State and the Regulatory State.

A government that taxes 40 percent or more of our income, that controls our medical care, that regulates business so thoroughly that every firm large enough to afford it has a department of “compliance,” a government that controls the money supply, sets bank reserve-ratios, regulates stock offerings, margin-ratios, home construction, determines what pharmaceuticals and medical innovations can be sold, operates schools and universities, runs the passenger rail system, forbids “offensive” speech, increasingly intervenes in diet, subsidizes agriculture and “green” businesses, imposes tariffs, decides which businesses may merge, and, we have just learned, spies on its own citizens–is not a government remotely consistent with capitalism."

 

[Joon]

I don't really understand this comment or if it has a point

Nah, I'm trying to understand statism myself. It's new to me.

And from my understanding, the government is moving towards a "statist capitalism". I believe that is more of the Democrats ideology than the Republicans, who wants a "free market capitalism". But I see that easily exploited by big corporations; the reason why the government has to stop in - although, I think they are overstepping.

 

[slimreaper]

Nah, I'm trying to understand statism myself. It's new to me.

And from my understanding, the government is moving towards a "statist capitalism". I believe that is more of the Democrats ideology than the Republicans, who wants a "free market capitalism". But I see that easily exploited by big corporations; the reason why the government has to stop in - although, I think they are overstepping.

from the article... this comment talks about gov't exploitation

So, we observe a fundamental difference: one system grants the state unlimited power, holding that the individual is the rightless slave of the state; the other system holds individual rights to be supreme and inalienable, with the state limited to a single function: the protection of those rights from physical force and fraud.


Yet the sheep on the left want to vote away this freedom

 

[Angelic.]

I agree... the bold is explained in depth by this video

[video=youtube;2GklCBvS-eI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GklCBvS-eI[/video]

to quote the article

"Today’s political-economic system is not capitalism–not pure, consistent, uncontrolled, laissez-faire capitalism. Today in America we live in the Entitlement State and the Regulatory State.

A government that taxes 40 percent or more of our income, that controls our medical care, that regulates business so thoroughly that every firm large enough to afford it has a department of “compliance,” a government that controls the money supply, sets bank reserve-ratios, regulates stock offerings, margin-ratios, home construction, determines what pharmaceuticals and medical innovations can be sold, operates schools and universities, runs the passenger rail system, forbids “offensive” speech, increasingly intervenes in diet, subsidizes agriculture and “green” businesses, imposes tariffs, decides which businesses may merge, and, we have just learned, spies on its own citizens–is not a government remotely consistent with capitalism."

i bet ur quoting urself xD

 

[slimreaper]

i bet ur quoting urself xD

oooh yeah, I wrote the article*_*

 

[Multiply]

​

"I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism." ~ Harry Binswanger

Hahahaha.

 

[slimreaper]

​

"I defend laissez-faire capitalism, using Ayn Rand's Objectivism." ~ Harry Binswanger

Hahahaha.

as If it's been tried and failed. It's never even been given half a chance yet you doubt him

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

Slave to the government, or slave to the corporations, hmm...

 

[slimreaper]

Slave to the government, or slave to the corporations, hmm...

the other system holds individual rights to be supreme and inalienable, with the state limited to a single function: the protection of those rights from physical force and fraud.

 

[Multiply]

as If it's been tried and failed. It's never even been given half a chance yet you doubt him

I wasn't laughing at him per-se. I was laughing at Christians that love Ayn Rand and her ideals more-so.

 

[slimreaper]

I wasn't laughing at him per-se. I was laughing at Christians that love Ayn Rand and her ideals more-so.

**** a damn christian. I live in the real world. BTW ayn rand is probably my least favorite of the great conservative icons. She was kinda shit at making her points