- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The new animal farm movie focuses on the dangers of capitalism, not totalitarian USSR
Posted on 12/15/25 at 11:09 pm to dawgfan24348
Posted on 12/15/25 at 11:09 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:Strong disagree.
But these monopolies aren't existing because of mass government control they're existing because government allows them to exist.
You have to have strong government control of the means of trade to have corporations
You have to have strong government control to ensure company dictates, and prevent access.
Take the coal miner uprising, as an example. Without government enforcement and protection, we would be talking about that time an entire coal industry was shut down because all the company bosses and local magistrates had been hung.
quote:
these corporations are benevolent in nature
I don't want corporations to exist. But since they do, I certainly don't have an expectation of benevolence. They exist to make money. Can they act in a benevolent manner? Yes. Can they act in a malevolent manner? Also yes. Is it in a company's interest to appear benevolent? Yes.
Company's can sometimes act in what they see as a benevolent manner, and it can be perceived as malevolent by their customer base. Budweiser, Marvel, and Bioware can tell you ALL about that,
. It is, financially, far more important to appear benevolent to the customers, than to themselves. People on the right can act like every corporation is Willy Wonka. and weaker government is needed to allow them to impart their lovingness to all mankind
People on the left act like every corporation is the company from Avatar, and we need an overbearing government to put them to heel.
Libertarians hate corporations and the government, and want to minimize or eliminate both. Libertarians lean Free Market.
If it were this easy to open a business in this country, there would be no massive corporations.
This post was edited on 12/15/25 at 11:18 pm
1
Posted on 12/15/25 at 11:23 pm to WicKed WayZ
Again, the dichotomy being used is all wrong
He used socialism to show the dangers of utopian ideologies, because it was highly visible in his day
He could have used any type of government to make his point.
I don't have faith that Andy Serkis is as good a writer/thinker as George Orwell
He used socialism to show the dangers of utopian ideologies, because it was highly visible in his day
He could have used any type of government to make his point.
I don't have faith that Andy Serkis is as good a writer/thinker as George Orwell
Posted on 12/15/25 at 11:27 pm to Roaad
quote:
You have to have strong government control of the means of trade to have corporations
Well just look at the state of labor before the New Deal for example. One of the great things the New Deal did was usher in a lot of regulations and labor laws we take for granted today.
I used to subscribe to libertarian ideas back during high school and my first year of college. It sounded great to a kid coming out of a Georgia high school who wasn't too keen on the Republican party and their hypocrisy. But that laissez faire attitude is more idealistic than anything resting in the notion that the free market will balance itself out while ignoring the people who fall through the cracks.
There's a reason why the states that are often rated the happiest or most well off are usually found in Europe especially Scandinavia. The notion that we can't have similar politics because of "socialism" is just red scare propaganda.
Posted on 12/15/25 at 11:30 pm to Roaad
He used socialism because it was a system he admired but understood that even that can fall into the perils of authoritarianism. Obviously having Soviet Russia as a shining example helped.
Despite the potential good intentions of the revolution it's fell apart into a dictatorship. Further giving credential to the term, "the path to hell is paved with good intentions"
Despite the potential good intentions of the revolution it's fell apart into a dictatorship. Further giving credential to the term, "the path to hell is paved with good intentions"
Posted on 12/15/25 at 11:39 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:The New Deal was largely flaccid.
look at the state of labor before the New Deal
If government had not prevented labor organizing, the New Deal's few real reforms would have been unnecessary
It was a government solution to a problem that only exists because of government interference.
Again, back to the coal mines. Had the government enforced the laws against involuntary servitude, the corporations would have had to improve conditions and treatment to keep workers on premises.
quote:There are tons of solutions for invalids, infirmed, and elderly in Mises.
But that laissez faire attitude is more idealistic than anything resting in the notion that the free market will balance itself out while ignoring the people who fall through the cracks.
Laissez faire can only function in an anarcho-capitalist setup
I am a minarchist. I want a government that is extremely small
They should only have 3 powers:
1. Enforce contracts
2. Protect the borders
3. Prevent monopolies/Ensure competition
I guess you can add:
4. Collect taxes on consumption (no income or tariff taxation)
Posted on 12/15/25 at 11:42 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:He was a staunch pragmatist. He liked socialism only insomuch as it benefitted people. He was not this hardcore ideologue. He wasn't married to it.
He used socialism because it was a system he admired
Posted on 12/15/25 at 11:43 pm to Roaad
Oh I'm aware that he wasn't a hardcore socialist or anything but he did favor a more social democratic system
Posted on 12/15/25 at 11:44 pm to dawgfan24348
quote:When utopian ideologies have to contend with human nature, the solution is always to create authoritarian regimes to force humans to heel.
Despite the potential good intentions of the revolution it's fell apart into a dictatorship.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 12:07 am to Roaad
quote:
He liked socialism only insomuch as it benefitted people. He was not this hardcore ideologue. He wasn't married to it.
I guess? He went to Spain to cover the war as a journalist and ended up fighting in said war, for socialism. Yes, he liked the idea, insomuch as it benefitted people, because he believed socialism benefitted people. Fighting in a war for it is a significant commitment. Pretty close to a marriage.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 7:49 am to Jay Are
quote:He sided in the war against fascism, on the side he felt was less bad. Jesus, man, you are being dense. , ,or maybe you only did the briefest of Wikipedia skimming
He went to Spain to cover the war as a journalist and ended up fighting in said war, for socialism. Yes, he liked the idea, insomuch as it benefitted people, because he believed socialism benefitted people. Fighting in a war for it is a significant commitment. Pretty close to a marriage.
In fact, iirc, his experiences in the war shaped his concept of purist ideals being ultimately dystopian. He saw his own side devolve into authoritarian bullshite and it molded his beliefs going forward
quote:He believed SOME socialism benefitted people. He also acknowledged that means of trade in private hands is not inherently bad, if it works better. He was, at his base, a pragmatist. As he said, "The belly comes before the soul"
he believed socialism benefitted people.
He went into the Spanish Civil War a bright eyed socialist, and came out an anti-Utopian pragmatist
This post was edited on 12/16/25 at 7:56 am
Posted on 12/16/25 at 8:26 am to Roaad
quote:
They should only have 3 powers:
1. Enforce contracts
2. Protect the borders
3. Prevent monopolies/Ensure competition
I guess you can add:
4. Collect taxes on consumption (no income or tariff taxation)
This is why no one can take libertarians seriously. The infrastructure required to service a country as large and populous as ours cannot exist in a meaningful way to large swaths of the public without govt service/action.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 9:27 am to wesfau
Well also had an extremely weak and decentralized government before during the start of the country and it nearly fell apart because of it. Even our founders knew we had to have a strong federal government. Also this idea does nothing to help combat or who can't make it or fall into poverty. Having a strong social safety net helps prop up the downtrodden
Posted on 12/16/25 at 9:28 am to Roaad
quote:
they can't exist without government help
99.99% of monopolies are thanks to government, and in the exceedingly rare case of a natural monopoly, it's because that company provides an exceedingly valuable product or service to society at such a good price that everyone feels compelled to use it. In this instance, who cares if they're a monopoly? If they raised their prices to exorbitant levels down the road, a competitor would come along and provide a comparable service/product at a better price or with substantial improvements in tech. There are always competitors working to build better mousetraps. Remember when everyone was crying about Blockbuster being a monopoly during the attempted Hollywood Video acquisition? Netflix had them closing the majority of their locations 5 years later
A company only has power when either 1. People use their products/services or B. The government erects barriers to prevent competitors from entering the space.
In Crony Capitalist America, companies love B and spend billions lobbying government officials. It's much easier for large entities to shoulder the costs of regulation compliance as opposed to newer, emerging market entrants.
Posted on 12/16/25 at 9:35 am to Carson123987
Just look at what stores like Walmart did to small businesses across the country. These corporations crush small businesses by underselling them because they can afford it eliminating the competition. The notion that these corporations can't control one are is nonsense even the we still worry about price fixing.
Netflix lucked out by having Blockbuster refuse to buy them and was too late into the streaming game
quote:
crying about Blockbuster being a monopoly during the attempted Hollywood Video acquisition? Netflix had them closing the majority of their locations 5 years later
Netflix lucked out by having Blockbuster refuse to buy them and was too late into the streaming game
Posted on 12/16/25 at 10:33 am to blueboy
quote:
This is bullshite. Orwell was a socialist when he was younger but gradually rejected it as he grew older.
No, your claim is bullshite (checks penis to see if calling someone's statement bs without having any proof makes penis and manhood bigger; does not).
He wrote to Cyril Connolly from Barcelona on 8 June 1937: "I have seen wonderful things and at last really believe in Socialism, which I never did before."
He was 34 at that time (died at 46). He was anti-authoritarian/totalitarian, as many have pointed out.
Posted on 12/17/25 at 1:10 pm to wesfau
DAMN IT! I was really counting on your approval of my ideology.
Muh roads!
People think there will be a house to the left, a store to the right. . .and complete befuddlemennt on how to travel between the 2, without a politician
Muh roads!
People think there will be a house to the left, a store to the right. . .and complete befuddlemennt on how to travel between the 2, without a politician
This post was edited on 12/17/25 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 12/17/25 at 1:13 pm to Carson123987
Everything you posted is dead on
Posted on 12/17/25 at 1:26 pm to hawgfaninc
Andy Serkis should be cast in to the fires of Mt. Doom for this abomination.
He should know better!!
He should know better!!
Posted on 12/17/25 at 2:34 pm to Roaad
quote:
Muh roads!
Yeah, actually.
You think privatization of the interstate infrastructure is a good idea? Toll roads to get anywhere?
Here's a real life example: The Mid-Bay Bridge that connects Niceville and Destin in NWFL was built at great expense...and a toll was levied to pay for the project. Problem is, it's owned by a private entity and every time they get close to paying the bridge off...they refinance, cash out and raise the toll.
Posted on 12/17/25 at 2:50 pm to wesfau
quote:I thought so.
Yeah, actually.
quote:If we want to have them, we will pay for them.
You think privatization of the interstate infrastructure is a good idea? Toll roads to get anywhere?
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News