Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Don't get me wrong- Communism as a philosophy had a lot going for it- but in practice, as a government --- complete shit.

I suspect the same would be true if we ever got a Libertarian government. Neither philosophy takes into account the human ability to fuck up nice ideas.

You've been reading Stephenson again!

What phile would you like to join? Well, if you're not born into one, it really just depends on which one will take you.

Haven't you heard we've got a socialist president? It won't be long before Comrade Obama tentacle rapes Australia.

BTW, apparently you haven't tweeted in 78 days. I blame that on the Obamunists.

I don't think communism was complete shit.

Russia and China were basically big, third-world countries until they adopted some form of communism, after which they became very strong, very fast (in relative terms).

I think the absolutist nature of extreme communism was self-destructive, i.e. the idea that nobody could ever own private property. I see the same self-destructiveness in capitalist models that shun the idea of anything being public.

And if it weren't for the sociopathic nature of Stalin and Mao who knows how much farther it could have gone? Maybe it would have evolved.

It's much more complicated than that, of course, but much...if not most...of the anti-government, anti-collectivist folklore is just that: a set of myths perpetuated by entities who see such things as a threat to their bottom line.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^in practice though it was kind of shit- it concentrated power with the politically connected and fostered shoddy goods and services because people don't invent iPhones for the glory of the people's republic.

^As we say in the software development world, those are implementation details.

The problem is a system of government based on the expectation that people will always strive to be the best they can be, and do what's right.

It's a massive chain, with millions of links (the populace.) Enough said about chains and links.

When people speak of Libertarianism and Rand Paul nearly synonymously, I think it shows they really misunderstand the concept of Libertarianism.

Here's food for thought. In a true Libertarian society, you would be free to build a Socialist or Communist commune and run it however you wish. But in a Socialist or Communist society, you can only be Socialist or Communist. Fascists.

I'm personally leaning towards technocracy as the next step. Yes I'm insane, why do you ask? ~_^

The problems of the "last 20 years" that you're talking about were in fact problems long before the 1990s, and thus not a consequence of the fall of the Soviet Republics. The recent excesses of capitalism are nothing new - they've been happening since it was first created and in fact long before that. The basic problem is much broader than capitalism or communism or any other "ism" you care to name. The basic problem is concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. But that problem is not unique to any particular economic or political model. It's a fact of human nature. Communism was probably the best ideology to handle that, but every communist country that ever existed was stuck in the "revolutionary" mind set - The Revolution must continue until everyone is on board, and until then we'll keep complete control in, uh, the hand of a few, uh, party members that understand the, uh, revolution.

Good luck breeding human nature out of humans. Haven't you seen the same concentration of power and "wealth" here in your own social experiment? Same old story. You can build as many roads and access ramps as you want, but there will always be gate keepers and toll collectors.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Good points - but I'm saying there is a collective feeling of vindication and "rightness" to capitalism now - it is unfettered and unchecked - without any competing system on a world stage.

Before communism's fall - there was a pressure on Western governments to prove that they could do a better job at the issues that Communist countries boasted of - a safety net for the poor, social services and massive projects like the space program.

For the past 20 years though, those kinds of programs have been slashed, privatised or done away with- it's no mistake that the last redoubt of communism - the tiny, poor country of Cuba, has better health care for its citizens than the US - with all its HMOs and private hospitals.

Here's the claim that I'm going make: if the Soviet Union was still around - We would have a better healthcare system in the US.

>> ^jonny:
The problems of the "last 20 years" that you're talking about were in fact problems long before the 1990s, and thus not a consequence of the fall of the Soviet Republics. The recent excesses of capitalism are nothing new - they've been happening since it was first created and in fact long before that. The basic problem is much broader than capitalism or communism or any other "ism" you care to name. The basic problem is concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. But that problem is not unique to any particular economic or political model. It's a fact of human nature. Communism was probably the best ideology to handle that, but every communist country that ever existed was stuck in the "revolutionary" mind set - The Revolution must continue until everyone is on board, and until then we'll keep complete control in, uh, the hand of a few, uh, party members that understand the, uh, revolution.
Good luck breeding human nature out of humans. Haven't you seen the same concentration of power and "wealth" here in your own social experiment? Same old story. You can build as many roads and access ramps as you want, but there will always be gate keepers and toll collectors.

All governing systems are essentially ways of socially constructing incentives for social and economic activity.

I think the problem with capitalism is that the only end objective is profit but there is a diminishing return for abnormal profits, you can fire everyone you employ and make money next year you will die. Case in point is the big three with staff lay offs, abnormal profits and subsidies.

The paradigm needs to shift towards something that takes social and environmental concerns.

Seems to me that you view things as a bit too interchangeable - nation states annoy you? let's assume a citizenry tied to some arbitrary other thing, like ideology, instead of geographical place.

Corporatism annoys you? let's assume that communism could just have kept going, and was structurally sustainable in the long run.

details, details.

Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses and both can become tyrannical in absence of the other. I don't want pure socialism or pure capitalism. Give me a hybrid. Let industry build my car and my government build me a road to drive it on. Let industry make my macbook and my government build me an arpanet to connect it to.

"Socialism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social." -MLK

There's a difference between Captialism and free markets and Libertarianism. Capitalism is an economic philosophy of working from capital (savings). Free market is mutually beneficial agreements between two parties without coercion. And Libertarianism (or rather Liberalism) is a social philosophy of individual freedom. I don't want us to blur the lines of distinction.

Capitalism can be scary, but it's the best system we have. There are no foolproof economic systems, and the second one comes out I would happily shake the shackles of Capitalism from my ankles. But there are none. Capitalism is the best man has created.

The "free market" puts the power of coercion in the hands of the wealthy, blanco.

Rhetoric, dft. Government controlled markets have put the power of "coercion" in the hands of the corporatists. Free markets do not use the violence of government to tip the playing field toward the wealthy.

I'm sorry, but saying that capitalism is the best system there is just strikes me as short-sighted.

People used to say that blacks would never adapt to white society, and to prove it they would point at the Negroes slaving away in the fields.

It's like saying that horse-drawn carriages aren't the best form of transportation, but it's all we've got.

It's like saying that combustible engine-driven cars aren't the best form of transportation, but it's all we've got.

There are myriad systems of commerce and governance--and combinations of the two--which have yet to be discovered, yet to be implemented, and the USA is far from being the best example of either commerce or governance that the world has ever seen.

"Free markets do not use the violence of government to tip the playing field toward the wealthy."

Yes they do.

The playing field always tips towards the wealthy. Democracy allows for checks and balances.

@rougy. Name a better system. If there is a better system than competition through free enterprise and Capitalism, I'd be first to sign up for it. And, no, free markets do not use government coercion. You're confusing corporatism with free markets and Capitalism. Again.

@dystopianfuturetoday. How did those checks and balances work out for the gays in California? Prop 8 = Democracy fail.

^For the record, note that blankfist has officially come out against government by, of and for the people. Good work! Democracy has it's flaws, but you offer no worthwhile alternatives. The so called free market system is infinitely more corruptible.

For the record, note that we live in a Constitutional Republic. It's a government of, for and by the people and no where in the Declaration, the Constitution or Bill of Rights is there a single mention of democracy.

There is, however, in Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution the following passage: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

I look forward to your next straw man.

A republic is a form of democracy.

This is you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiberal_democracy

This is you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

Haha. DFT, your Bolshevism colors are showing. Still waiting on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat I see!

I'm for an even blend, remember? I'm not the fringe fanatic in this conversation.

Marxist wanted a blend much like yours.

Never met him.

>> ^blankfist:

Marxist wanted a blend much like yours.

If only everyone understood my point of view, they'd get why my system is the best!

@blankfist, well you're confusing free markets with reality. Again.

The free market is as real as Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. Always has been.

Competition is good, for some things.

But cooperation is better, for many things.

I'm repulsed by the fact that we live in a society that thinks it's more important to have the latest little gizmos and gadgets than it is to keep people housed, fed, and employed.

@rougy, corporations or cooperatives. Same thing.

You still didn't give me a better system. I'd love to hear it. How can you keep people employed without giving individuals the freedom to create jobs? I tried opening a small business here in LA, but I was making significantly less hiring people, paying for lawyers, paying for an accountant, paying the taxes, etc. than I am now working selfishly as a self-employed contractor. I am no longer working to create jobs because it's too expensive. I get a lot less business, but the only employee to pay is me.

So how can you expect people to pay for housing and feeding people? How do you plan on creating jobs for people in your system? You cannot actually believe government created employment to be sustainable, do you?

I'm listening. Taxing the rich entrepreneurs maybe? You think that will incentivize them to create more jobs? Or create less so to increase their personal profits like I did? Please, I want to know the better alternative to free market Capitalism.

@blankfist, well, we need to start trying some new systems on for size, first and foremost, and that's not going to happen as long as people like you, Kubric, and the ultra rich and the trans-national finance institutions that they own are more than willing to strangle those new systems like babes in the cradle.

I don't want to hear any malarkey about "creating jobs" when that is the last thing that rich people or capitalists want to do. You weren't going to hire people to create jobs, you were going to hire people to do your work for you and make you richer.

Where capitalism does create jobs is in the sweatshops of the hell holes that dot the Pacific rim of Asia.

You've retreated into this cocoon of idealism that has completely skewed your view of reality. You've gone so far as to resurrect antiquated definitions of political and social movements and rebrand them to suit this idealistic, and very unrealistic, view of the world.

You've gone so far as to call yourself a liberal and to accuse GW Bush of being a leftist.

That is a disconnect with reality that I think you would do well to reevaluate.

I can't give you a better system than capitalism, but that does not mean that one does not exist, that one can not be found, established, perfected. Things are better for the people of Venezuela, Brazil, and Bolivia since they've moved to a more socialistic system. Few could argue otherwise.

There is a better way. It's out there, waiting to be born.

Reality is subjective to the person experiencing it and reading @blankfist's and @rougy's arguments seems to provide a basis for that theory. Therefore there will never be a perfect reality, because your reality and my reality may be completely different.

@NordichReiter, that's true to a degree.

But when we enter into discussions like this, we all have to agree to the definition of the terms being discussed.

When some of us are using the modern, colloquial definitions of the words and concepts, and somebody else is using definitions that were applicable two or three hundred years ago, then there is no real way to discuss the topic at hand with any success.

The latter party is, in effect, moving the goal posts.

>> ^blankfist:
You still didn't give me a better system.

I've got a better system than you -- a regulated market. FDA to keep an eye on food and drugs, OSHA to keep an eye on labor conditions, EPA to monitor environmental impacts, an SEC and FTC to keep an eye on finance and market competition, etc.

Better still, I have a welfare state to make sure that economic failure isn't a death sentence, with unemployment insurance, food stamps, universal health care, social security, disability, etc.

Zillions of times better than anything you've ever talked about wanting.

A completely new system that's totally different from capitalism? I'm not sure what that would look like. I do think we need a sort of redesign of economics around actual human behavior, and not 18th century presumptions about human behavior. I don't think individual monetary gain is the only or even the best motivator of people, and I'm definitely skeptical that the bulk of the resources of the human race should be at the command of people who've accumulated it through sheer ambitious drive to acquire material resources for themselves.

I'm not going to be the revolutionary philosopher-economist who invents what comes next, but I think we're deluding ourselves if we think that everything we ever needed to know about how to form a human society was worked out by the classical economists.

@rougy, I'm not sure Venezuela is the bastion of social utopia you crave.

You wrote: "I don't want to hear any malarkey about "creating jobs" when that is the last thing that rich people or capitalists want to do. You weren't going to hire people to create jobs, you were going to hire people to do your work for you and make you richer."

You obviously don't know me at all. But you're proving day-by-day to be the king of misguided assumptions.

I'm not rich so I was hardly in a position to make myself richer. I don't come from a well-to-do family and I've paid my way every step. I worked in a textile mill while in college. Does that sound rich? I'm not sure why I feel you're wanting me to justify my humble roots. It's not important where I came from or how much I make.

I will say I was hoping for a successful company, and I was working around the clock making next to nothing while freelancers made a mint from the work I had to hire out. I realized it didn't make financial sense for me to continue especially since I stood to make much more as a freelancer.

The point was, I did create jobs, and if you ever spent a day in your life building a small company from the ground up, you'd realize how difficult and prohibitively expensive it really is. You may take in $200k in a year, but have to pay out $175k, and you're working harder than anyone else.

You can't help the employee (or the unemployed) by destroying the employer.

@NetRunner, you offered the following as your utopian idea for new government:

1. regulated market.
2. welfare state

That's exactly what we have now. Exactly. Government regulates every single industry. Every one. We have a massive welfare state. Our economy is also going to shit and entrepreneurs cannot stay afloat with all the regulations in order to create more jobs. It's a recipe for failure.

Why not give free market Capitalism a chance? Your regulated markets and welfare state spending simply is not sustainable.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

No, I live in a welfare state. Compared to Australia, the US is a RonPaulian fever dream.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, you offered the following as your utopian idea for new government:
1. regulated market.
2. welfare state
That's exactly what we have now. Exactly. Government regulates every single industry. Every one. We have a massive welfare state. Our economy is also going to shit and entrepreneurs cannot stay afloat with all the regulations in order to create more jobs. It's a recipe for failure.
Why not give free market Capitalism a chance? Your regulated markets and welfare state spending simply is not sustainable.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, you offered the following as your utopian idea for new government:
1. regulated market.
2. welfare state
That's exactly what we have now. Exactly. Government regulates every single industry. Every one. We have a massive welfare state. Our economy is also going to shit and entrepreneurs cannot stay afloat with all the regulations in order to create more jobs. It's a recipe for failure.
Why not give free market Capitalism a chance? Your regulated markets and welfare state spending simply is not sustainable.


I'm starting to get curious, do you ever read my comments all the way to the end?

Maybe I need to be less whimsical. My point was that today's flawed reality is a utopia compared to your utopian proposals.

As for "why not give free market capitalism a chance", I may as well say "why not give Marxist Communism a chance"? I mean, obviously real communism has never been tried -- just ask the modern communists.

There's been no radical boost to growth during America's 30-year march to the right, and shrinking the welfare state and dismantling unions hasn't boosted the median income, so why would we ever keep marching on until we get to the ultimate extreme?

The modern progressive movement isn't on a march towards communism, it's trying to optimize society through an iterative scientific process. We look at things that have failed, or things that have worked elsewhere, and try to learn from them, and build a better mousetrap.

I don't really know what the end-state of modern liberalism looks like. I think it will always be looking to change and evolve over time as new problems and new solutions present themselves.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think that's a key point. When the US has eschewed "socialist" welfare state programs as it has generally done over the last 30 years - in favour of free enterprise and privatisation - the result has been to concentrate wealth at the top of the spectrum with the country club set. I don't see any free enterprise solution to this.

Victorian England had a lot of concentrated wealth at the top, and a huge pool of poor workers and very little regulation. That led to work houses and rampant pollution. It also (thankfully) led to a strong labour uprising that redistributed that wealth with a progressive tax system, creating a large middle-class. Bad for the rich? Absolutely. Vastly better for the whole country? Definitely, yes.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
@NetRunner, you offered the following as your utopian idea for new government:
1. regulated market.
2. welfare state
That's exactly what we have now. Exactly. Government regulates every single industry. Every one. We have a massive welfare state. Our economy is also going to shit and entrepreneurs cannot stay afloat with all the regulations in order to create more jobs. It's a recipe for failure.
Why not give free market Capitalism a chance? Your regulated markets and welfare state spending simply is not sustainable.

I'm starting to get curious, do you ever read my comments all the way to the end?
Maybe I need to be less whimsical. My point was that today's flawed reality is a utopia compared to your utopian proposals.
As for "why not give free market capitalism a chance", I may as well say "why not give Marxist Communism a chance"? I mean, obviously real communism has never been tried -- just ask the modern communists.
There's been no radical boost to growth during America's 30-year march to the right, and shrinking the welfare state and dismantling unions hasn't boosted the median income, so why would we ever keep marching on until we get to the ultimate extreme?
The modern progressive movement isn't on a march towards communism, it's trying to optimize society through an iterative scientific process. We look at things that have failed, or things that have worked elsewhere, and try to learn from them, and build a better mousetrap.
I don't really know what the end-state of modern liberalism looks like. I think it will always be looking to change and evolve over time as new problems and new solutions present themselves.

Why don't we look at whats working now?

Scandinavia is doing pretty good in general. Happiest, healthiest, best educated etc. etc.

So what's wrong with the semi-socialist model @blankfist?

@Throbbin, I don't know much about the Scandinavian model. Socialism, however, is when the workers own the means of production. Is that what happens in Scandinavia? If so, that's fine if people come together and voluntarily choose to do that, but when it's the only option and you're forced to do it I'd argue it's fascism.

I want a voluntary society where people choose what they want. A free market allows people to build whatever model they want, even socialist models or communist models.

^i can tell you that what we're told in Denmark about the success of our own system, it's credited to the "flexicurity" model, where jobs are "flexible", i.e. you can fire people at short notice without much trouble, but getting fired is safe because there's a security net of welfare during your transition to a new workplace (hopefully).

safe for the employer because hiring people doesn't put you at risk of being stuck for years with an incompetent idiot on your payroll, and safe for the employee because you don't lose (all of) your income if you get fired.

You're right @blankfist, it's not strictly socialism. I've seen it referred to many times as 'semi-socialism'. From what I gather, it's a political system with near-free-markets (strict regulations) but with a strong welfare component. High taxes pay for free (or mostly free) education (including post-secondary), universal healthcare, a strong social safety net, and significant public investments in the arts.

Some would say high-taxes are tyrannical or that they penalize the successful, but it's hard to argue with the success of the system.

I also really like the idea of proportional fines for traffic violations.

So, whaddya think?

I spent many years studying and debating the principles of politics, but in my old age I realize that it's all bullshit, and one must study real-life examples if one is to have any real debate.

@Throbbin, Denmark has a similar system where income earners are taxed up to 60% of their income. I hear the younger generation absolutely loves this model. I remember listening to a segment on NPR about Denmark. An employer has the right to fire anyone at anytime for any reason, however it's not looked at as being a bad thing because it happens frequently. And when you're let go, you receive a long period of financial help during your unemployment. (I believe I'm right about that being Denmark)

I've wondered often whether or not a system like that would work at all here in the States. Regardless, whether or not a system is successful, and I'd say Denmark proves to be a success, I still think income tax is ownership of the individual's labor, therefore morally wrong.

If once a month I stole $25 per person in my apartment building, I'd have enough to cover my health insurance every month without me having to contribute a single dime. That would be a success.

By the way, no, I do not like proportional fines. I don't like fines in general. Punishment is supposed to fit the crime, and I've never understood how fining someone a particular amount of money is suitable punishment for speeding let alone all other moving violations.

@blankfist,

Whether or not the younger generation loves this model, they almost certainly will love it when they get free schooling, health care, and later on an elders pension. And looking at world happiness, it's hard to get worse than the United States.

The flexicurity model Crake mentioned is interesting. I'd wager that any rational business would hold onto qualified staff, and would only let the ones go who don't measure up. It makes sense to me as it would cut down on costly litigation and save loads of time. And if everyone is cool with it, all the better. I know if I owned a business, it would be nice to have a headache-free process to get rid of underachieving staff without worrying about their physical well-being.

I don't see why this model couldn't work in the United States (of course, other than the fact that politicos love to yell 'FREEDOM' and 'TYRANNY' so much that the words become little more than buzzwords). Formal Freedom and Substantive Freedom are 2 completely separate concepts, and the Formal Freedom lovers need to understand that while it's all well and nice to talk about Formal Freedoms and 'Freedom of opportunity', unless there is a level playing field the rich just get richer, and the poor just get poorer. Recent U.S. demographic statistics confirm this.

Of course, there are the Corporatists who would complain, but Corporations can't vote in the U.S. (yet).

Looking at the 2009 HDI report, Norway (1), Iceland (3), Canada (4), Sweden (7), and Finland (12) all rank higher than the United States (13) in terms of Human Development. And all have generally higher taxes than does the U.S. (although Canada and possibly some others have lower Corporate Tax rates). The HDI is the closest thing to an objective measurement of a nations well-being that I've come across. You may disagree.

Your moral disagreement with income taxes is understandable - no one likes paying taxes. What taxes, I would ask, are acceptable? If none, how does a government function? If some taxes are acceptable, how is this not legitimized theft? Who decides what taxes are acceptable? The electorate? All the countries I listed ^up there are democracies - so now what?

Also, what punishments would you mete out over moving violations? If not financial, would there be jail time? Confiscation of vehicles? The honour system?

And I realize you are not defending America per-se, but when it comes to Freedom, America rates pretty high on Formal Freedoms (which I gather is what you espouse).

@Throbbin, there's no such thing as free school.

I'm okay with taxes when they're voluntary, which I know I've explained multiple times on here so I'll not go on about it. Every Libertarian has a different idea how and what to tax. I'm open to suggestions, but mainly I like excise taxes and user fees. When people here that, however, they start thinking about a toll road society, which is not what I'm saying. I've used the example of gasoline tax to cover the cost of infrastructure, which is a system we currently have in place now in the States.

I don't know enough about Scandinavia or Denmark or anyone else's system to comment effectively on it, but when you tax to create a welfare system, you create an attitude against immigration. Is Scandinavia or Denmark an open border country? I don't know, but if they have a welfare utopia, I'd doubt it. To me that's the fallacy of Leftists wanting welfare and open borders.

"Also, what punishments would you mete out over moving violations? If not financial, would there be jail time? Confiscation of vehicles? The honour system?"

I don't know. I'm not a big fan of moving violations to begin with, so the idea of creating a punishment for them is not something natural of my talents. I don't think $70 parking tickets are fair here in Los Angeles. I don't think $400 red light camera tickets are fair either. I'd be okay with paying $10 for a parking ticket and $20 for running a red light. I know this doesn't do much for the constant offenders, but it would save those of us who are courteous and share the road a lot of money.

@blankfist, Ok, I'll cede that tax policy is not something we will agree on.

Regarding immigration - it's a generally accepted fact that the Western World depends on immigration to maintain a solid tax base and a stable work force. Issues of integration (I hate that word) make international news with some regularity, but are a side issue. The fact is, any thinking western nation has to allow immigration or face the prospects of a shrinking workforce and a growing retirement demographic due to a decline in birth rates. In a sense, western nations rely on immigration to continue the welfare system - no real fallacy there, just a cause & effect.

I do enjoy these discussions - mental exercise is always good.

@Throbbin. I know Denmark (speaking of them because they're the Leftist utopia for welfare programs and high taxation) lacks cultural diversity, meaning they're not a melting pot. Think about that connection for a second. They enjoy high taxation, they enjoy sweeping and comprehensive social programs, and they do so by closing their borders, right? [of course barring tourism] I'd probably say the same goes for any nation ranking highly on the HDI report you mentioned earlier.

I don't necessarily think Westernized countries need immigration for "stability" (as illustrated with Denmark and others), however I do think immigration leads to growth in prosperity and ingenuity. What anti-immigration people don't get is that the people who migrate into their country aren't "taking their jobs", but rather through assimilation they create jobs by renting or buying homes, maintenance on their property, buying food, going to the theater, etc. If given the freedom to do so, they can also be great American inventors!

I also disagree with the welfare state because it can cause a generations of people to be lazy (from abundance to complacency). I can say that safely because I see it directly with people on a Native American reservation. It's not just that some group of white people are stepping on their throats, but rather that the Native Americans live solely for that welfare check. It's sad. They also learn from previous generations that they need to stay on the reserve, and this continues the cycle.

They learn from the previous generations to have abusive and addictive personalities. Usually that means child abuse (which happens way too much), alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling. The parents use their children to get more welfare. And their homes are riddled with toxic black mold, the kids have one pair of clothing (everything else they owned is either stolen or pawned), etc. etc. It's just plain awful. Awful.

We're afraid for family members who are stuck on those reservations, and especially the younger ones who have barely escaped sexual abuse. Who knows if they've already been sexually abused or not? And we watch as those young boys turn into the men they resented that stole from them and gambled away their personal property (clothing, video games, etc.). I would love to see that welfare system yanked from under them tomorrow, so each of them must learn self-reliance. It would certainly help the kids, maybe not the old and stubborn.

I'm sure you'd disagree.

@blankfist, you mean to tell us Native Americans on reservations were once rich and industrious, but welfare checks turned them into poverty-stricken drug-addicted violent degenerates?

@NetRunner. Did I say that? Violent degenerates once rich and industrious? There you go again with your narrative.

Go spew that bile on DailyKos. You won't find an audience with me. Throbbin and I are having a civil conversation over here.

@blankfist, I read your comment as having strongly implied that there was a causal link between state aid and the current state of Native American reservations.

If not, cool, but then it's a non sequitor that took up most of your last comment.

BTW, all I did was reflect your own narrative back at you, and question it. If you don't like it, go someplace where you won't have your ideas challenged.

@NetRunner. Do you hear yourself? "Strongly implied that there was a casual link"

Your lazily veiled pathos is showing.

@blankfist

I would agree that Denmark is not a melting pot - but neither is Canada, and I like it up here. Multiculturalism can be tricky, but it is ultimately a rewarding atmosphere (IMHO). I'm not sure what you mean by closing of borders - most countries I listed do allow for immigration. If you mean open borders as in 'come on in, all of you', I would oppose that. I think immigration is great, and I think more is better - but I do think it has to be controlled in a manner. I don't want Rwandan genocidal collaborators or 'reformed' warlords getting into Canada (although some have been found here). I'm opposed to some of the controls in place now (such as a minimum bank account balance or priority for educated refugees - a part of me thinks the countries African Medical Doctors are emigrating from may need them more than we do). Ultimately, I don't think immigrants should have to beg to immigrate into the west if they are not criminals or misfits - but we do have to control for criminals and misfits.

Regarding Native Americans and conditions on reserves - I see the same thing up here (with both First Nations - thats what we call Native Canadians - and Inuit alike). I do not see a causal relationship, but combined with historical injustices, oscillations between Government heavy-handed interventions and neglect, financial mismanagement by 'leadership', corruption, and the viciously reinforcing poverty cycle I'd say you're right. I've got friends I grew up with who see no need to put the pipe down and get off their asses to make a living if the government is providing social housing and social assistance checks. In Canada (I dunno about down there) there is also an entire 'Aboriginal Industry' of 'well-meaning' white folks who makes loads of money fighting for the Indians while buddying up to corrupt leadership and enriching themselves, thereby prolonging the problems we face.

These problems are multi-faceted and complex, and I do think self-reliance is a necessity. However, yanking out the welfare platform many rely on is not the solution. Ultimately I'd rather that people come to appreciate the dignity and virtue of a hard days work without dropping them all in the gutter to see who climbs out because the truth is many won't make it. We want the same thing - healthy, vibrant, independent people with broadened horizons, but I think it would be cold comfort to withdraw the safety net on principle when so many folks, old and young, only know the lifestyle they've been surrounded by their whole lives.

@NetRunner - ^Read that. What Blankfist says rings true in my experience. I wouldn't say the welfare state caused the problems, but in a manner they are prolonging and intensifying problems that already existed. However, this does not render general arguments in favour of a semi-socialist state or a welfare system moot any more than the experiences of marginalized Americans renders arguments in favour of Democracy moot. They are but examples of a broader systems, and as such I remain a pinko-feminazi-communist.

I suppose this is a wildly inappropriate time to sift a video about Bacardi. I'm crazy like that.

@Throbbin. Great points. Actually, the native family I was talking about are treaty indians from a Canadian reserve. They're my girlfriend's brother's family. Her brother passed away six years ago from lung cancer (not a smoker), and so we've been worried about my girlfriend's four nephews ever since.

I can tell you, things are not peachy on that reserve. Also, the locals in Canada are racist. While visiting her brother in the hospital before he died, my girlfriend, who obviously looks Native American though she has a wider racial mix than that, was in a Canadian store somewhere and the lady behind the counter treated her so rudely and to the point that she almost didn't want to serve my girlfriend. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, maybe they've come to not like the reserve indians because of bad experiences with the drugs, alcoholism and rampant child abuse, but it just smacked of disgusting racism to me.

@blankfist - Yeah, Canada is pretty racist. The cities not so much - alot of diversity in the bigger cities (although I've noticed many Chinese-Canadians are terrified of aboriginal folk too), but rural communities can be pretty bad.

I don't like to give those folks the benefit of the doubt - if they're going to paint us all with the same brush they don't deserve my considerations.

Good discussion. Hope your gf's nephews are doing ok. I've got several First Nations siblings that my mom adopted (and continues to adopt) because she couldn't stand the conditions they were living in, and Inuit children often face the same circumstances. My gf and I are planning on adopting a few just to give them a better shot at a future.

@blankfist, you're right, I'm pathological because I thought you implied a causal link.

What was it you said again? Oh yes, it was this:

I also disagree with the welfare state because it can cause a generations of people to be lazy (from abundance to complacency). I can say that safely because I see it directly with people on a Native American reservation.

...

They learn from the previous generations to have abusive and addictive personalities. Usually that means child abuse (which happens way too much), alcoholism, drug addiction and gambling.

What did I say again?

blankfist, you mean to tell us Native Americans on reservations were once rich and industrious, but welfare checks turned them into poverty-stricken drug-addicted violent degenerates?

What is it about my comments that turns you into a big ball of personal attacks?

I mean seriously, you're coming just shy of calling me an outright liar, when I basically just asked if I was hearing you right because I found what you said so shockingly misguided, I couldn't really believe I'd read it right.

I can agree with Throbbin's contention that what we're doing with reservations is only having the effect of perpetuating a bad situation, and not doing anything to correct it; but it seems to me that there are a huge number of factors holding them back, and aid money alone is never going to fix a wide array of deep, systemic problems like you have with reservations.

But you appear to be making an altogether different argument. You seem to be saying that the situation on Native American reservations was not only caused by aid attempts, but that this is somehow analogous to the entire raft of programs that make up a modern welfare state like Denmark.

That seems crazy to me, and I can't quite believe you really think it's true. So, I asked "is this really what you think?"

Pathos != pathological.

@blankfist: pathos = telling people a sob story about Native American reservations and then blaming it on welfare.

NetRunner responding with "are you fucking crazy?" != pathos.

Since you're all TL;DR these days.

GEEZUS!!! TL;DR!!!! I need pithy two word answers, NR!

>> ^blankfist:

GEEZUS!!! TL;DR!!!! I need pithy two word answers, NR!


Pig Fucker.

The second word was too long. Only read "pig".

The story of Blankfist and Netrunner.

So if NR and I both upvote that video, does that mean we're gay for each other?

Not necessarily - just that you recognize your love-hate relationship.

>> ^dag:

Don't get me wrong- Communism as a philosophy had a lot going for it- but in practice, as a government --- complete shit.
I suspect the same would be true if we ever got a Libertarian government. Neither philosophy takes into account the human ability to fuck up nice ideas.


Sort of, dag. The first project of the bolsheviks after their revolution was to begin attacking and dismantling the spontaneously created communal/communist democratic farms and gardens, pig iron smelters etc. That wasn't a part of Karl Marx.

I like this - it's very funny in parts: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/zdebatehorowitz.htm

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/zdebatehorowitz.htm

Michael Albert debates David Horowitz about Socialism

The question: 'Is Socialism Still on the Agenda?' was put by the New Left Review in 2001. Michael Albert wrote an essay, and a debate ensued between Albert and some other left commentators on the subject. Months later, Horowitz discovered the essay and wrote a brief note to Albert. An extended many-part email debate ensued, that ended up being about participatory economics. What follows below is that exchange...

Re That poster of the Russian octopus: There are old maps from the 50's out there which without irony depict the land mass of communist Russia and China collectively as a very large definite octopus shape, the rest of the land cowering. One for every school...

For the record: The Communist Manifesto etc: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks - that was an interesting debate. I have to admit that I found myself agreeing a lot more with Horowitz than Albert. Participatory Economics is a snazzy title - but reads like a rebadging of a planned economy. This line by Albert, in particular pushed me firmly into the Horowitz camp:

"You are correct in one thing here. I am a market abolitionist. I believe markets are an abomination, perhaps the single worst artifact of human creativity." With that, he just drove over the cliff to loo-loo land, for me.

>> ^qualm:

>> ^dag:
Don't get me wrong- Communism as a philosophy had a lot going for it- but in practice, as a government --- complete shit.
I suspect the same would be true if we ever got a Libertarian government. Neither philosophy takes into account the human ability to fuck up nice ideas.

Sort of, dag. The first project of the bolsheviks after their revolution was to begin attacking and dismantling the spontaneously created communal/communist democratic farms and gardens, pig iron smelters etc. That wasn't a part of Karl Marx.
I like this - it's very funny in parts: http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/zdebatehorowitz.htm
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/zdebatehorowitz.htm
Michael Albert debates David Horowitz about Socialism
The question: 'Is Socialism Still on the Agenda?' was put by the New Left Review in 2001. Michael Albert wrote an essay, and a debate ensued between Albert and some other left commentators on the subject. Months later, Horowitz discovered the essay and wrote a brief note to Albert. An extended many-part email debate ensued, that ended up being about participatory economics. What follows below is that exchange...
Re That poster of the Russian octopus: There are old maps from the 50's out there which without irony depict the land mass of communist Russia and China collectively as a very large definite octopus shape, the rest of the land cowering. One for every school...