Topic: lefties righties (Read 4292 times)

I wasn't picking sides, just presenting another point of view.

That said, consider the magnitude of wars fought with state backing. I doubt there could have been a private funding or collaboration for the Manhattan project, icbm's, or other tools of global extinction. Only recently have private citizens been successful at launching spacecraft, based on 80+ years of state funded r&d.

Historically large advances in military hardware have required the backing of a state or city state. Standing armies have also historically been either state funded or a form of slavery. There are instances or private armies challenging state powers, of which they became the state themselves. The war of the roses for example.

I think the most central issue these days is fiat funded, unending wars. Eventually a private army would run out of money, this isn't an issue for a state with a central bank, or particularly the world reserve currency.

thats a good one but i would say distribute mainly but also redistribute... i would say ppl tend to think that its like 70-80% redistribution and 20-30% distribution but i think this is a wrong perception.

I don't see why wars would be any harder to start without a state. All it would need is the people with the most wealth and control over society to push others in that direction. Just like now.

Governments don't "redistribute" wealth. They distribute wealth (after taking a big cut to pay for all the bureacrats). By doing so, they also discourage creating wealth.

In the free market wealth is produced and exchanged, not distributed.

But who will start the wars?

http://www.autofixinfo.com/kcIzAHoWWljDaD/Questions-for-Statists.html

TMI dude. ROFL

It's actually always a hybrid. Many of liberal states have lists of socially important goods with State controlled prices. There are also such things as antimonopoly committee etc.

"Planning and market forces are not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too. Planning and market forces are both ways of controlling economic activity".

- Deng Xiaoping in 1984

I prefer the free market, because there is still no justice lies in the trade, who's trying diligently then he will get the result. while the socialist system put forward for the average, between really tried with less trying his same position, so there is no principle of justice which is applied here, hopefully there is another system that is better than both of these systems ... 

pretty even

Yikes,

I'm far bottom left too!

Guess I'm with you in this one. To be honest, if I had a zillion dollars like these other world controllers - I would donate most of it to progressive thinking charities that do good in their communities. In fact I would probably only keep a small amount to myself so that I could live peacefully.

hayek put it this way:


people who want a planned economie become the biggest threat to the planned economie of others.


so why instead not have a more or less free economie, you just enforce property rights you have the complete authority to have socialism inside of your own system it just have to operate within the framework (constitution) thats the body within congress and president have to operate in.

so that for example exxon, general motors, schools are privatly run (without ANY government interference expect the written framework)
they couldnt have "http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act" which make google dropbox microsoft spying on us but instead make the illegal thing legal and deal with the new business models that develop and not have the government make corrps monopolized by enforcing rules who centralize everything by federal interference.

same with drug laws why not let the free market develop ways to deal with rap poison in drugs.

for example having something like silkroad where you know if your seller is an asshole or not and have reviews, could be the same with a store that is regulated by some company that everyone agrees that controls then nicely and they put they certificate on it so it protects the consumer.

and they run a in a competetive market so when they make shit, there will b another company runnning 1000 ads blaming them for what they have done and everyone will question them and they have to facethe consequence because there will be no goverment monopoly that will keep them im place


+

the roads thing you were talking about:

why does it contradict to have privatly run roads?   if we all pay for them, and all want them, it would be just the same.


i think like some said here: its not all black and white. you think a mix of both is the best. but i argue:

private corrps + government combined = total control (federal reserve)

I'd like to jerk off with my left hand

Giving up on you, you're dumb.

Probably not, but for some reason people around here think that people with more moderate views are deluded, stupid and just generally wrong.


It is indeed going to be interesting times.  What we are doing now is obviously not working and it seems to be about to crash down around our ears.

Stuff like this has happened before though so we have plenty of "case studies" to learn from.


It's a form of governance, it may not actually have people up the top but it fits the bill.  It usually ends up in the strongest bully taking over, but like I say, it could be different this time compared to the umpteen other times it has happened.  I just don't think so.

Yeah, that's just your opinion, that doesn't mean it's actually happened, I had originally asked for examples so all you're doing is making a statement about it and then expecting people to accept that.

Feudalism isn't about lords either, it is the state where the power of a populous goes to the landholders by default because they hold all the cards.  I think Anarchism will probably evolve along the same lines after too long.

Well maybe you need to be more clearer then and no it's not like Feudalism at all, I never said anything about Lordships lol.

Where did I say Anarchism?  I said what your talking about sounds like feudalism.

READ MY WORDS!

You claimed Anarchism does not work and has been tried, then you posted Feudalism as an example, or are you saying that's not what you meant at all?

Sort of, I think it is backwards of what you're saying.  I think society makes government, sometimes they are not happy with the results though.

It does not mean that all government has to be bad though, it just means we need to try again.  Even Anarchism is a form of governance, just one that I don't believe will work.  (Just my opinion though, the limited historical evidence we have turned out nasty).