Started By
Message

re: True Socialism and True Capitalism are both idealistic and not practical.

Posted on 4/7/14 at 3:11 pm to
Posted by Sleeping Tiger
Member since Sep 2013
8488 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 3:11 pm to
quote:

Do you think pioneers who settled the mid-west and western parts of this continent had it better? They weren't operating under an oppressive capitalist robber-baron, they were just trying to survive and make a life for themselves. As it turns out, many such starving folks found the jobs you deride in your pictures preferential to the hard lives they were enduring. What's wrong with that?

Thankfully, advances due to Capitalism have done away with such necessities.


This makes no sense. But, more power to ya, man.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112478 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 3:30 pm to
quote:

I don't get why you'd flip them..


To make a point that flew waaaaay over your head. Read my post again 10 times. Then take a nap and see if you might understand. I can't make it any more simple. Sorry.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112478 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 3:33 pm to
quote:

OK, give me an example of a policy that an anarchist would accept but a minarchist would oppose? Privatization of Military and Police functions. Minarchists support the night watchman state, no?


What the hell does that mean? Are you saying the distinction is that a minarchist is for the military and an anarchist is for night watchmen?
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112478 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 3:34 pm to
quote:

This makes no sense

It makes no sense to you. It makes perfect sense to levels 4 and 5 in The Bell Curve. I recommend that you never vote.
Posted by catholictigerfan
Member since Oct 2009
56011 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 3:35 pm to
Wow ok I guess I'm being fed lies. Explain how a socialist doesn't want equal success. Also explain how Marxism doesn't demand equality between classes. What is the ultimate goal of Marxism and is socialism different in anyway. I'm no expert on this stuff but I have read up on many economic things. It appears from your posts though that you are well informed on these things. So explain it. On bringing economic growth alone what is better capitiaism or socialism. If capitalism does bring about better growth why go with something else?

I want to get on the same page so we can discuss this stuff
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 3:37 pm
Posted by Sleeping Tiger
Member since Sep 2013
8488 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 3:40 pm to
quote:


It makes no sense to you. It makes perfect sense to levels 4 and 5 in The Bell Curve. I recommend that you never vote.



It of course makes sense, it's just not applicable. There are many others things to discuss and take into consideration when talking about the life of pioneers that were venturing into undeveloped land.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 4:14 pm
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112478 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 3:46 pm to
Are you handicapped?
Posted by Sleeping Tiger
Member since Sep 2013
8488 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:13 pm to
quote:

If capitalism does bring about better growth why go with something else?


Honestly, I'm watching the Cardinals opening day and trying to plan my garden.

I'm doing laundry and enjoying my day off.

It's my fault for getting in this thread when I didn't intend on spending a lot time explaining things, I've poured my heart out on here before and it's usually a waste of time.

But I appreciate your willingness to discuss this in a fair way, it's really refreshing, I'm just not going to do this right now. I promise to remember your screen name and try to hammer this out when I'm in the mood to do it. It's such a huge topic that is a zillion times more complicated than the one liner tag lines suggest.

A really short answer to what is quoted above -- the beginning of the communist manifesto (Marx and Engels) is one of the greatest praises of capitalism, it definitely creates growth and large amounts of wealth, but it's the cost that's questioned by the critics (explaining this takes so much time, it's not a one paragraph explanation). Alongside the prosperity runs poverty. A quick injection, often times people only consider the United States, they don't consider how an American company may effect life in other nations. Capitalism has stripped other nations of their natural resources and abused their human resources.

A quick side note, I can't see how capitalism can work with the existence of large federal governments. To me the term 'crony capitalism' is essentially fascism, it's the failure of capitalism due to human nature. I think if anyone wants to support the idea of capitalism it should include a great distaste for large government, or the existence of any federal government. I can understand how someone can be an AnCap, I disagree with it, but I understand where they're coming from. What I can't understand is thinking that anything close to a free market is possible with the existence of a political state.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 4:16 pm
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112478 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:18 pm to
quote:

There are many others things to discuss and take into consideration when talking about the life of pioneers that were venturing into undeveloped land.


Why? Capitalism worked then. It happened. It's not theory. What do you not understand about what really happened?
Posted by Sleeping Tiger
Member since Sep 2013
8488 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:33 pm to
quote:


Why? Capitalism worked then. It happened. It's not theory. What do you not understand about what really happened?


Many of the essential virtues of capitalism that worked for those people could be found in a 'market marxist' system. But anyway, there is a ton to talk about when discussing the life of pioneers that traveled west into the undeveloped world. This is a very silly and oversimplified example of how capitalism works, which isn't denied by the critics, of course it worked the way it did for those people.

But what else was going on?

I'll use one example of the stupidity of capitalism in that era, we destroyed the buffalo herds, we killed thousands in a day. It was crazy. And for what? Some coins in our pockets? We killed a great lean type of meat, left most of the meat, took the fur, and destroyed the sustainability of a species that is complimentary to human existence.
This post was edited on 4/7/14 at 4:56 pm
Posted by LSUnKaty
Katy, TX
Member since Dec 2008
4343 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 4:51 pm to
quote:

What the hell does that mean?
It means an anarchist would accept privatization of Military and Police functions while a minarchist may not.

Why is that so hard to understand?
Posted by LSUnKaty
Katy, TX
Member since Dec 2008
4343 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:00 pm to
quote:

a 'market marxist' system
Now that makes no sense.
quote:

I'll use one example of the stupidity of capitalism in that era, we destroyed the buffalo herds, we killed thousands in a day. It was crazy. And forr what? Some coins in our pockets?
It's just the opposite actually. The buffalo herds were killed off because of the lack property rights on the frontier. It's the tragedy of the commons. If those Bison had been owned by someone, like the cattle that were eventually herded out there, they never would have been so carelessly slaughtered.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112478 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:01 pm to
quote:

I'll use one example of the stupidity of capitalism in that era, we destroyed the buffalo herds,


1. Who cares?
2. Why do they still exist? I've got a dozen of them in my neighborhood in Benton, La.
3. Why is there buffalo meat in my Albertson's?

quote:

we killed thousands in a day. It was crazy.


So, the white man came into a buffalo herd and with his primitive gun he killed at least 2,000 buffalo in 12 hours. That is assuming he didn't have electric lights. Don't you feel really stupid?

quote:

and destroyed the sustainability of a species that is complimentary to human existence.


I have never eaten buffalo meat. How is it that I exist?


Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112478 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:04 pm to
quote:

It means an anarchist would accept privatization of Military and Police functions while a minarchist may not. Why is that so hard to understand?

1. It's hard to understand because he's a moron.
2. Now, to your distinction... Is the national guard reserve anarchist or minarchist?
Posted by Sleeping Tiger
Member since Sep 2013
8488 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:07 pm to
quote:

Now that makes no sense.



Apparently you've never studied this stuff, most students of Marxism would say he was in favor of markets, at least during a transition period.

Cooperatives competing against each other in the market is a belief of Marx.

quote:

It's just the opposite actually. The buffalo herds were killed off because of the lack property rights on the frontier. It's the tragedy of the commons. If those Bison had been owned by someone, like the cattle that were eventually herded out there, they never would have been so carelessly slaughtered.


This is extremely silly. Natural law and common sense says it's not a good idea to kill 2000 of something in a day. To say that happened because there were no property rights ranks up there with the silliest things I've ever heard.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112478 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:12 pm to
quote:

Natural law and common sense says it's not a good idea to kill 2000 of something in a day.


You watched too many cartoons as a kid. I'm guessing it was Captain Planet. Give me a link that proves settlers could kill 2,000 buffalo in a day.
Posted by Sleeping Tiger
Member since Sep 2013
8488 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:27 pm to
quote:



You watched too many cartoons as a kid. I'm guessing it was Captain Planet. Give me a link that proves settlers could kill 2,000 buffalo in a day.



It was you that used the 2,000 number, I assumed maybe you knew what you were talking about, so I went with it.

Regardless, the species was brought to the brink of extinction, and forever removed from its passed abundance for the sake of profit and as a way to destroy the food supply of the native americans.

LINK

Researchers estimate that prairie bison alone numbered between 30 million and 200 million, while a woodland variant existed in smaller numbers

Soon, their numbers dwindled, with the largest wild herd — just a few hundred animals — sheltered in the isolated valleys of the newly created Yellowstone National Park


more than 1.5 million were packed aboard trains and wagons in the winter of 1872-73 alone.

There were even buffalo killing contests. In one, a Kansan set a record by killing 120 bison in just 40 minutes.


Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112478 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:48 pm to
quote:

Sean Young = Semi anarchy Gary Busey = Total anarchy Get it?

Nope...have no idea who they are.
Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112478 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:52 pm to
quote:

It was you that used the 2,000 number, I assumed maybe you knew what you were talking about, so I went with it.


Are you on drugs? You brought up the 2,000 number. Scroll up and read the whole thread, moron. You made the assertion. I challenged the assertion.

Posted by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112478 posts
Posted on 4/7/14 at 5:55 pm to
Re: you stupid PBS link...where does it say 2,000 buffalo were killed per day???? Are you going to admit you pulled it out of your arse or just stay on the board and show every here that you're an idiot?
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram