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.

@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.

Sorry @Stormsinger, but Rand's answer was not clear, because he's attempting to bridge the intersection between the utopian dream of perfect libertarian freedom and the hard, nasty reality of a country partially populated by dumb racists. He's run into a logical paradox where the rights of two individuals are at odds with each other. The lunch counter owner should have the right to discriminate against any customers they don't like, but the public should have the right to eat where-ever they want. Paradox?

I admire the philosophy of classic liberalism, but unfortunately there are places where the government HAS to step on individual freedoms to combat inequality and injustice.

Later, in the future, when we have more enlightened people and fewer dumb racists, maybe then we can realize a government built on the best aspects of human nature. Until then we have to have laws that curb the worst aspects of it.

Obama is no marxist. His policies are centrist liberal. Yes, he cut some taxes but they are not enough.

Furthermore, let's not forget the policies of Reagan were an antidote to the high inflation caused by the military Keynesianism/supposed golden era of Liberalism of the post war boom period (1945-67). Unions were too strong and corrupt, durable and nondurable good consumption started falling in the late 60's, the emergence of OPEC, the expansion of the communist menace leading us into Vietnam, various conflicts to combat Marxist-Leninist-Maonist armed resistence groups taking power under political party fronts and an arms race with the Soviets and off the gold standard...While Europe had their social welfare experiment, we were busy policing the globe.

After the Volcker shock of 1979 (boosted IR to 20%) this lead to the financialization of the economy and the move away from manufacturing. All of this happened under the Carter Administration. Realizing the golden era of liberalism was untenable it brought the inevitable Reagan to prominence whose new regime (following the prescription of Milton Freidman and others was to allow consumers and the market to decide and to decrease the centralized control of government) - as denationalization of the public sector was the only way to create more opportunities and jobs. Cheap credit was not only championed by Wall Street as an antitode to problems, but was also championed by Democrats.

Democrats were almost completely unelectable in the White House until Bill Clinton and his administration (was Republican lite in essence as enacting Welfare Reform and setting the infrastructure for the War in Iraq and following the financial privitization schemes of the Chicago School, the FED fueled dotcom and mortgage bubble which created the much ballyhooed and fictitiuous Clinton surplus) is the reason for the financial deregulation in the late 90's (Clinton is now distancing himself from Rubin and Summers regading derivatives). The Neoconservatives and Democrats have much in common - as they both believe in crazy spending. Neocons through military (some of which does create nascent industries of the future), and Democrats who spend on any frivoulous social programs that work to break states and keep their politicos electable. Where is the incentive to become a producer in this country? If you are not paying high taxes you are competing against government subsidized monopolies (stop whining for more jobs when you overregulate ad penalize big corporations for doing what they need to do to make profits). The Democrats kill the ability to start a small to medium sized business thus making it more attractive to join big firms - that everyone continues to attack - sending them racing abroad.

And last time I checked the "real left" - which Obama distances himself from for good reason - is too busy scratching their heads ain petty sectarianism about how all of their wonderfully utopian ideas caused over 70 years of dreary totalitarianism. Seems the working class in the US now wants nothing to do with them. They want Palin. While you upper middle class liberals eat organic, sip latte's, do your hipster environmental thing and make fun of these people - they are forming the next grassroots that will be a vital contituency to covet.

These people may not be smart - but know that Obama is untrustworthy if he thinks the Federal Government can spend its way out of this mess, not understanding that for every 1/2 cent we have saved we still owe 2 dollars and that if we start increasing our deficits to create new jobs, the Chinese will sell off their currency reserves which are in dollars and then...

>> ^mxxcon:

>> ^blankfist:
I would not want to live in that city.

i would. perfectly engineered and controlled Utopian society. couldn't ask for anything better.


yeah, me neither BF

>> ^blankfist:

I would not want to live in that city.


i would. perfectly engineered and controlled Utopian society. couldn't ask for anything better.

From 1:55 to 3:30 he lays out a pretty good argument for never listening to anti-government revolutionaries. It's the only really persuasive argument he gives.

From the start to the 1:55 mark, he demonstrates why I often tune out libertarian writings/videos, since they seem to be unable to get to the point without making a litany of false assertions about the nature of the world they're in, and then building on those false assertions by declaring them obvious fact and that "everyone" already agrees with their point of view, they just don't know it yet.

He kicks off the remaining 4 and a half minutes by declaring that he's not about to describe a utopia. He then proceeds to say all the things utopians of all stripes say. Things like "only we understand human nature", "only we understand how to create a society that's moral", "only we know how to enforce the One True Moral Code without corruption", and the eternal utopian promise of happiness, freedom, piety, and plenty.

It's a pretty basic paradox libertarians need to deal with. To enforce your moral code you need a state, or a state-like actor (e.g. a private jurisprudence provider). All states (and state-like actors) are susceptible to corruption from within and without, especially if you define "corruption" as including giving in to popular demands for tax-funded welfare programs. Without any state, someone will eventually create one, or an existing neighbor state will assume control of the region to "help out".

If there's a solution to that dynamic, libertarians shouldn't play coy "buy my book" games with it, they should be shouting it from the rooftops.

6:25 elapsed:

Reagan: "...'the full power of centralized government'—this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize.

They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a Utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy 'accommodation' and they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as war mongers."

Obama: "One of the first things I would do, in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward, is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

...They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point, but if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region."

You regurgitate these absurd inanities with out the slightest smidgen of skepticism, a true believer with out a shred of evidence to support this corporate fairy tale.

Your mistake is to equate 'market' with 'corporation'. You are unable to think past the standard liberal left-wing propoganda points on this issue. I put it to you that it is not I, but YOU that is being manipulated. And - sadly - your manipulation was all too easy. Far too many people fall for the liberal left's manipulation on this issue.

'The market' is YOU. It is me. It is the consumer. I express faith in 'the market' because I believe that in the long run the consumer will win. Some government regulation (not participation) is helpful in preventing abuses. But ultimately speaking, the market's dollars are the most effective way to regulate the market that exists in all human history. Government screws up the market by taking away freedom and interfering in the process. The entire insurance market as it exists today is a product of GOVERNMENT - not corporations. Remove government from the picture, and the market would quickly re-adjust back to sanity. It needs no proof, because it has already been proven a million times over. Socialism does not need to be 'disproved' because it has failed in every single endeavor.

Let's see, corporations have taught you to believe that if you give them unlimited power, that the heavens will open up and the bright light of liberty will shine forth on the world in utopian glory.

Lol - what are you even talking about? Corporations have 'taught' me? When? In the public-run school system? In the liberal-left wing dominated world of college academia? In the 30-second snippets of TV ads or radio spots? No - my position is not 'corporate'. It is based on FREEDOM. Freedom man. That is the guiding principle of being a conservative. I don't trust corporations, but I do trust the principle of FREEDOM over control. I understand the greatness of liberty over tyranny. I appreciate the blessings brought by choice as opposed to dictatorships. So in all things I will ALWAYS choose the side that opts for the greater amount of freedom. If you want to follow after a propoganda inspiried vision of benevolent government tyranny where you have no freedom then you go right ahead, but don't pretend there is anything noble or virtuous about it. You're a manipulated puppet who has elected to sell the freedom of all US citizens down the river. Don't be surprised when people who are still loyal to the concept of freedom oppose such stupidity.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Remove government policy, and the market will regulate itself.


Click your heels three times and say 'there's no place like home' and the market will regulate itself.

You regurgitate these absurd inanities with out the slightest smidgen of skepticism, a true believer with out a shred of evidence to support this corporate fairy tale. If you took half a second to pull back the curtain on the people who've taught you what to think, you might be surprised by what you find.

Let's see, corporations have taught you to believe that if you give them unlimited power, that the heavens will open up and the bright light of liberty will shine forth on the world in utopian glory. Do you not see some possible ulterior motives here? Any conflicts of interest? Anything at all?

You are being manipulated.

The pledge of allegiance was a socialist invention; I hardly think liberals would be infuriated by its recitation.

To quote Wikipedia: "The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist, and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850-1898)."

>> ^quantumushroom:
This glib utopian liberal phantasy equation only works if you ignore the evils of communism or jihadists.


I think it's pointing out how we humans have trouble looking in the mirror. Jesus talked about the mantra of the hypocrite, I think we're failing at following his words.

This glib utopian liberal phantasy equation only works if you ignore the evils of communism or jihadists.

Anarcho-Capitalist Ann Coulter? Obviously you don't understand the difference between Anarcho-Capitalism and Neoconservatism, of which I'm neither.

I copy and pasted the NSDAP program nearly word-for-word and substituted The US for German and Congress for the Reich, and because you know it echos the authoritarian poly-babble you spew as a Democratic Socialist, you want to make personal attacks on my intelligence, which is extremely childish. I have also lost respect for you if you must condemn and castigate any opposing your belief system.

Your socialist ideals are utopian and silly, but I've always entertained them as points worth consideration in a debate. Not any more. You Democrats have worked very hard to isolate yourself from the moderates of late, and you'll soon need us on your side again, but I promise you we won't be duped.

It's not about means of production? I thought all socialism was borne from the power being at the top of the pyramid as opposed to the bottom. Am I wrong in that assumption? It seems if the means of production belonged to the proletariat at the bottom of the pyramid, then that would be your ideal utopian society, would it not? Or am I being old fashioned?

Please educate me on the DFT version of this socialism, because according to NetRunner it rings of a touch of Nazism.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Your response confirms that you've never gotten beyond the surface of either of these two economic systems.

Means of production? Transition to socialism?

You are arguing against the socialism of bad cold war era fiction.