posted by xpanda:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well, I am sure you've figured by now that I don't consider myself socialist, although there are a couple of socialist ideologies which I do support, namely universal health care and education. (very difficult to shake Canadians loose of this, even the more conservative ones.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seems like being a little bit pregnant, but okay.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As per your assertion that socialism is supported because of it's ability to take care of us at our weakest (or laziest, depending on who you talk to) is dead true. So I wonder why you consider that (widespread support, that is) to be a detriment?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because it doesn't work. It is seductive, and tempting, especially when one wields the awesome, unparalleled power of the state instead of the sort of power with which the rest of us
regular schmoes are stuck. But it still doesn't work, and the results are seldom attractive.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In fact, your last statement leads me to wonder if you believe that capitalism will survive at the expense of democracy? Surely the notion of the 'free market' is completely dependent upon the full and willing participation of its consumers?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure what the two have to do with one another actually. Democracy -- the tyrannical rule of the mob over the individual -- has got to be the one social concept more overrated than Socialism.
You're mis-stating above, as do many proponents of so-called democracy, because democracy does not involve the "full and willing participation" of anyone. In the end, just like living under Stalin, living under democratically-elected rulers you do what you're told, or you're punished. Rule of Law is a concept lost in the modern world and it is foolish to think that it will be coming back anytime soon (indeed, few people are even acquainted with the traditional definition of this phrase and think that it means "follow the law" -- a damning indictment of our collective ignorance right there.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The fact remains that, like it or not, corporatism has become the current model that capitalism is perceived to not only endorse, but to aspire.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But perception is not being, no matter how realistic it might seem. People and companies which can be singled out as representatives of that reprehensible class are no more capitalists than the "commies" of the USSR were communists.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Corporatism in my opinion is little different from the more corrupt regimes on this planet and is being supported by large NGOs and gov't the world over. The backlash against this is undeniable and the culprit will be capitalism -- the victor may well be socialist ideology.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are entirely correct, I'm afraid, except that I would stipulate that capitalism will not be the "culprit" so much as it will be the scapegoat.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Oh, and I am confused by your assertion that socialism is for the 'weak-moraled.' Please do explain.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Given Socialism's sorry hsitory and the fact that it was largely debunked before it ever came into wide-scale application in the world, I posit that there are only two categories of people who advocate it: the ignorant, and the malevolent. Although the great majority will fall into the former class (and bear in mind that ignorance of one thing does not neccesarily make a person an ignoramus; just poorly-informed about a certian subject) the existence of the latter class should not be discounted or ignored.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Well, I am sure you've figured by now that I don't consider myself socialist, although there are a couple of socialist ideologies which I do support, namely universal health care and education. (very difficult to shake Canadians loose of this, even the more conservative ones.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seems like being a little bit pregnant, but okay.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
As per your assertion that socialism is supported because of it's ability to take care of us at our weakest (or laziest, depending on who you talk to) is dead true. So I wonder why you consider that (widespread support, that is) to be a detriment?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because it doesn't work. It is seductive, and tempting, especially when one wields the awesome, unparalleled power of the state instead of the sort of power with which the rest of us
regular schmoes are stuck. But it still doesn't work, and the results are seldom attractive.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In fact, your last statement leads me to wonder if you believe that capitalism will survive at the expense of democracy? Surely the notion of the 'free market' is completely dependent upon the full and willing participation of its consumers?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not sure what the two have to do with one another actually. Democracy -- the tyrannical rule of the mob over the individual -- has got to be the one social concept more overrated than Socialism.
You're mis-stating above, as do many proponents of so-called democracy, because democracy does not involve the "full and willing participation" of anyone. In the end, just like living under Stalin, living under democratically-elected rulers you do what you're told, or you're punished. Rule of Law is a concept lost in the modern world and it is foolish to think that it will be coming back anytime soon (indeed, few people are even acquainted with the traditional definition of this phrase and think that it means "follow the law" -- a damning indictment of our collective ignorance right there.)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The fact remains that, like it or not, corporatism has become the current model that capitalism is perceived to not only endorse, but to aspire.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But perception is not being, no matter how realistic it might seem. People and companies which can be singled out as representatives of that reprehensible class are no more capitalists than the "commies" of the USSR were communists.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Corporatism in my opinion is little different from the more corrupt regimes on this planet and is being supported by large NGOs and gov't the world over. The backlash against this is undeniable and the culprit will be capitalism -- the victor may well be socialist ideology.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are entirely correct, I'm afraid, except that I would stipulate that capitalism will not be the "culprit" so much as it will be the scapegoat.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Oh, and I am confused by your assertion that socialism is for the 'weak-moraled.' Please do explain.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Given Socialism's sorry hsitory and the fact that it was largely debunked before it ever came into wide-scale application in the world, I posit that there are only two categories of people who advocate it: the ignorant, and the malevolent. Although the great majority will fall into the former class (and bear in mind that ignorance of one thing does not neccesarily make a person an ignoramus; just poorly-informed about a certian subject) the existence of the latter class should not be discounted or ignored.
Phaedrus
posted by eek:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You probaly dont have debt repayment because it is regarded as a capital item, like a loan.
Revenues and expenditure are the 'profit and loss' for the year bit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right. Looking back on the figures I cited, it does say "outlays before capital expenditures" so it would not include debt repayment and certain other measures.
Still, if there's anything in the world that shows that a government is taxing its citizens to death, it has got to be a persistent budget surplus, especially in a country with as thin a GDP base and as massively Socialistic in nature as Canada.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
You probaly dont have debt repayment because it is regarded as a capital item, like a loan.
Revenues and expenditure are the 'profit and loss' for the year bit.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right. Looking back on the figures I cited, it does say "outlays before capital expenditures" so it would not include debt repayment and certain other measures.
Still, if there's anything in the world that shows that a government is taxing its citizens to death, it has got to be a persistent budget surplus, especially in a country with as thin a GDP base and as massively Socialistic in nature as Canada.
Phaedrus
Nice thread guys ... lots of intelligent posts here. I can't single out any one thing to comment on but I'll say that I agree with about 98% of what Phaedrus says, 90% of XP, and maybe 50% of Patriot.
Phaedrus: Just wondering, have you read the Unabomber's manifesto? And if so, what is your opinion of it?
Unabomber's Manifesto
Phaedrus: Just wondering, have you read the Unabomber's manifesto? And if so, what is your opinion of it?
Unabomber's Manifesto
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
even if it is AQ, they still have the right to be pissed at Spain, who aren't withdrawing troops in Iraq until late June.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Excuse me for back-tracking a bit here, but I just can't let this comment go without telling Xpanda something....Of all your liberal-with-a Canadian-twist viewpoints that we've all had to sift through, without a doubt, the above off-the-cuff remark was the stupidiest f*cking thing I've ever seen you post. I had to tell you that. Do you ever take time to think before you post this crap or do you type as it pops into you head?
I'm going to quote one of Al Qaeda's fatwas or religious edicts....Muslims are being told by AQ to kill "Americans wherever they are, irrespective of whether they are soldiers or civilians or women, elderly people or children." Does that about sum it up for you as to why we are on the offensive with these scumbags? (Didn't you say you'd be the first to enlist if Oh Canada was attacked?) Do you see why this won't be settled with a sit-down?
So now Al qaeda has the right to be pissed at Spain for not withdrawling sooner? That is so weak, it's pathetic. Definately your worst, dumbass post ever. You barely stop short of saying that you actually side with these soon-to-be-dead scumbags.
even if it is AQ, they still have the right to be pissed at Spain, who aren't withdrawing troops in Iraq until late June.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Excuse me for back-tracking a bit here, but I just can't let this comment go without telling Xpanda something....Of all your liberal-with-a Canadian-twist viewpoints that we've all had to sift through, without a doubt, the above off-the-cuff remark was the stupidiest f*cking thing I've ever seen you post. I had to tell you that. Do you ever take time to think before you post this crap or do you type as it pops into you head?
I'm going to quote one of Al Qaeda's fatwas or religious edicts....Muslims are being told by AQ to kill "Americans wherever they are, irrespective of whether they are soldiers or civilians or women, elderly people or children." Does that about sum it up for you as to why we are on the offensive with these scumbags? (Didn't you say you'd be the first to enlist if Oh Canada was attacked?) Do you see why this won't be settled with a sit-down?
So now Al qaeda has the right to be pissed at Spain for not withdrawling sooner? That is so weak, it's pathetic. Definately your worst, dumbass post ever. You barely stop short of saying that you actually side with these soon-to-be-dead scumbags.
Darryl
It's been a while since I last read it, but at the time it struck me as regurgitating Krotopkin from the standpoint of a sociopath living in the modern age, versus a genuinely intellectual leftist at a time when socialist theory was all the rage (note that Krotopkin himself was not actually a socialist but an anarcho-communist.)
But I know someone who might agree with lots of what the Unabomber says (aside from our own eek and JackDee) ... former VP Al Gore.
See also:
Not Just Another Stupid Stupid Online Quiz: Al Gore, or the Unabomber?
Phaedrus
It's been a while since I last read it, but at the time it struck me as regurgitating Krotopkin from the standpoint of a sociopath living in the modern age, versus a genuinely intellectual leftist at a time when socialist theory was all the rage (note that Krotopkin himself was not actually a socialist but an anarcho-communist.)
But I know someone who might agree with lots of what the Unabomber says (aside from our own eek and JackDee) ... former VP Al Gore.
See also:
Not Just Another Stupid Stupid Online Quiz: Al Gore, or the Unabomber?
Phaedrus
American: the point that I am making is that the black-and-whiteness of Patriot's presumptions with respect to AQ is ridiculously short-sighted, as are many of the US's foreign policies. Presuming that AQ are indeed responsible for the Madrid bombings (and most of us believe that to be true) it doesn't follow that electing a socialist gov't will automatically dissipate their anger toward Spain. That would be much like saying if the US pulls out of Iraq tomorrow, that my opinion of their history in the MidEast should immediately change. It may help it along, but it won't be decisive.
As far as your assertion that I would prefer a sit-down with terrorist organisations, you are dead wrong. And when I say that I would enlist if Canada were attacked, that does not mean I would support out-of-country aggression aimed at the wrong people. I meant that I would defend my country at home if the need arose.
As far as your assertion that I would prefer a sit-down with terrorist organisations, you are dead wrong. And when I say that I would enlist if Canada were attacked, that does not mean I would support out-of-country aggression aimed at the wrong people. I meant that I would defend my country at home if the need arose.
posted by Darryl Parsons:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I thought you would have regarded it more highly since I see lots of similarities between your world view and his. This Krotopkin guy sounds interesting, though. I think I'll check out some of his writings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm willing to concede when even the worst person has a point, but when that person starts killing innocent people as a means to the end of obtaining publicity for his work the statistical likelihood that I will ever become an "admirer" gets pretty low.
Some of Kropotkin's work is here. I recommend "Law and Authority," with which I am generally in total agreement with regards to the nature of state and church, but total opposition with regards to his views of capitalism.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I thought you would have regarded it more highly since I see lots of similarities between your world view and his. This Krotopkin guy sounds interesting, though. I think I'll check out some of his writings.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm willing to concede when even the worst person has a point, but when that person starts killing innocent people as a means to the end of obtaining publicity for his work the statistical likelihood that I will ever become an "admirer" gets pretty low.
Some of Kropotkin's work is here. I recommend "Law and Authority," with which I am generally in total agreement with regards to the nature of state and church, but total opposition with regards to his views of capitalism.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xpanda:
And when I say that I would enlist if Canada were attacked, that does not mean I would support out-of-country aggression aimed at the wrong people. I meant that I would defend my country _at home_ if the need arose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The U.S. was attacked. These fruitcakes flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. I guess Al Qaeda flying an airplane into the stadium during a Montreal Canadians hockey game wouldn't call for "out-of-country aggression" in your book.
Al Qaeda is a cancer that represents no one but the wackos within their own organization. They aren't part of any government, they aren't elected and they speak for no one but themselves. They've cast their whole race in a horrible light, one that threatens their own culture's existence. Your references to them suggest that you feel they are a legitimate political organization whose voice needs to be heard, and not a bunch of young, hateful, violent little scumbags, which is what they are.
I still hold firm that the post I mentioned was the shitiest, worst post you ever made. Everyone makes mistakes. If you'd like to recant that post, and you prostrate yourself before my kangeroo court, I'll listen to what you have to say.
And when I say that I would enlist if Canada were attacked, that does not mean I would support out-of-country aggression aimed at the wrong people. I meant that I would defend my country _at home_ if the need arose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The U.S. was attacked. These fruitcakes flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. I guess Al Qaeda flying an airplane into the stadium during a Montreal Canadians hockey game wouldn't call for "out-of-country aggression" in your book.
Al Qaeda is a cancer that represents no one but the wackos within their own organization. They aren't part of any government, they aren't elected and they speak for no one but themselves. They've cast their whole race in a horrible light, one that threatens their own culture's existence. Your references to them suggest that you feel they are a legitimate political organization whose voice needs to be heard, and not a bunch of young, hateful, violent little scumbags, which is what they are.
I still hold firm that the post I mentioned was the shitiest, worst post you ever made. Everyone makes mistakes. If you'd like to recant that post, and you prostrate yourself before my kangeroo court, I'll listen to what you have to say.
Reading back over Kaczynski's work I can see where the similarities might be drawn, especially in the first bits, but the neo-Luddism and conspirational air are pathetic, and sacrifice of the individual (and pretty much everything else) for the ostensible purpose of perhaps one day freeing other individuals is a little Maxian for my taste.
Phaedrus
Phaedrus
American: how about if I change my statement to: I'm not surprised that AQ is still pissed at Spain. I think violence is generally senseless, so of course I don't support their actions. It just surprises me that people still think that invading Iraq would not have this exact direct consequence, or that electing a socialist gov't would make it all go away. The black and whiteness of this view is very frustrating.
No offense was intended.
No offense was intended.
Xpanda,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When was the last time a terrorist group attacked Russia? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Russia is having serious problems on their own from Chechnya and their terrorist groups. I just want for you to get the records straight regarding true facts.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When was the last time a terrorist group attacked Russia? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Russia is having serious problems on their own from Chechnya and their terrorist groups. I just want for you to get the records straight regarding true facts.
