I’d have to say that 2 things dominate my “idealogical move” to libertarianism. The first thing being my sense of morality. The second being my material well-being. My family loves Pierre Elliot Trudeau, but I think he was the worst of the worst.
I believe that different factors have different weights for each person.
In other news…
I could pull probably 10 more quotes where you support the state if I wanted to be here all night.
LS is Correct. By very definition a minimal state is still socialist. So if you want to figure out how to fight socialists you have some personal reconciling to deal with first.
I don’t think any of that makes me a socialist and I also don’t agree with LS’s extreme definitions or views. However, I respect them.
I just think he’s wrong.
In the anarchists’ world, anyone who doesn’t want to see the abolition of the state is a socialist. In my world, the definition isn’t as broad. I know what a socialist is, and I don’t consider myself one of them. However, you can call me anything you want if it makes you happy.
Care to tell us what a socialist is, then? Many people will hold the same opinion as you, but that opinion is often formed with the help of the mainstream media.
I think Liberty Student is right.
The state is a socialist entity by its very nature.
They aren’t extreme. We should make a new thread asking what exactly is Socialism. From there we can cover the calculation issue and moral issue. Both subjects you seem to be unaware of. Once you understand the principles you will see that all state activity is socialist in nature. It has nothing to do with being extreme it’s a logical conclusion. If calling a bowling ball black is extreme than we quickly go down the path of lunacy and folly.
And a government program by any name is still socialist. IT’s no more extreme than calling white, white, and black, black. A as A and B as B. The only reason why you may think otherwise is to not yet understand exactly what socialism is. So with that said I encourage you to start another thread regarding that.
Socialism is where the means of production are owned and operated by the state and where both consumption and production are centrally planned.
The state is not a socialist entity. It is, however, the embodiment of force. I don’t mind that. I think that’s necessary to protect individual rights and to protect the country from threats, both foreign and domestic. I do not think that the government can run companies as effectively and efficiently as private individuals can. Right now, the left wants to take over the health insurance industry, that’s a socialist move.
Why not engage us and ask us how/why we come to these conclusions? Why do you shutdown in such haste? To support the state but be against socialism is oxymoronic. One has to ask, why do we hate socialism?
You don’t think monopolies are socialist?
I prefer radical. Radic, meaning root.
That is fine if you can articulate it.
That is correct, because the state is inherently socialist.
Care to share your definition?
It’s not a matter of name calling. It is about getting to the fundamental truths behind certain ideas and positions.
I know how you come to your conclusions, they’re driven by ideology. Which is fine. I have an ideology too, it’s just not as extreme as yours. But I’m still pretty marginal.
This is probably the statement I agree with the least. In my world, everything is a matter of degree. And so black is black is not a proper analogy. It’s more like…one is jet black (although, even modern progressives really aren’t jet black) and the other is light grey. I’m light grey. Very light grey.
I also do not accept slippery slope arguments that say to accept the state is to accept totalitarianism or anything like that. My world just doesn’t work that way.
Can you name one state program that does not fit this definition?
As opposed to the education system? Or domestic security? Oh wait they are all identicle. State owned production of a specific good.
Healthcare is a special case. It’s a pancake nicely dubbed fascialism by the Austrian’s. I don’t know who first coined the phrase. Our healthcare is going to essentially be
Socialism
Fascism
Socialism
Triple Whammy!
It depends
I tried to give my definition in another answer. Basically, it’s the owning and operation of industry by the state.
Do you know any state that doesn’t engage in central planning, and doesn’t claim ownership over the means of production? In other words, do you know of any voluntary states?
Absolutely it is by any economic definition of the word socialism. And Mises confirms this, with his statement about the market, or the state, there being no third solution.
Socialism is all about force. Capitalism is all about liberty.
You can’t protect individual rights, if you protect “the country” as a collectivist entity. In order to protect “the country” you must violate some individual rights. It is impossible to respect the individual property rights of 300 million people, and still pursue a singular vision for law, money, security etc.
The right is equally culpable. That is because both sides are socialist. They both fight over who gets to redistribute what. Neither side stands for more freedom, lower taxes, and less regulation. Oh sure, in rhetoric, the right says that, but when has any right politician short of Ron Paul (who was ostracized by the GOP for decades) actually stood for any individual principles?
You can define socialism any way you want to make you feel better, but we (austrians) understand that where there is no market, there is socialism. If you really want to oppose the left making moves with healthcare, then you need to oppose the principle that government has the power to tell people how to live their lives, and that includes taxation and regulation, because taxes and regulation are exactly what the healthcare bill is.
If logic is my ideology I’d rather be consistent. As opposed to being illogical.
Saying that we’re just dealing with “shades” and “degrees” when dealing with terms such as ‘state’ and ‘socialism’ is like saying 14 is just a lighter shade of 15.
This isn’t about feelings, it’s about facts and ideas that are true whether someone agrees with them or not.
As far as I know, private industries make the weapons and gear the government uses.
I would also argue that the government insurance plans are less fascist and more socialist. But they definitely have fascist overtones.
No, there’s more variance than that..
They’re your facts, not mine. And I understand that.
On what?
Facts are universal.
Are mathematical laws mine or yours?
Who pays for it? In other words whos sovreign to those weapons and gear government uses? Who employs those objects?
I’ll give you a hint, walmart does not buy tanks, missiles, and bombs.
The specific form of socialism your providing as an example is a government business partnership also known as fascism.