No, but I know of states that engage in more and some that engage in less. It’s all a matter of degree.
Socialism isn’t just an economic system, it’s a political system and in politics, there is a world of difference between Nazi Germany and modern day America. So you might say that both are socialist, but obviously there is a large degree of difference between the two states.
I think socialism is about centralization.
Then we are at an impasse.
Yes, but what they are taxing and regulating is different from what I want to see taxed and regulated.
I gotta go. You can spend 10 pages of a thread refusing to make a logically consistent argument. You’re not ready yet. But I am almost 100% sure, one day, you will be ready.
So if the left took over part of health care, it wouldn’t be socialism?
All politics is socialism.
Degree doesn’t make one not socialist. Someone who lies a lot, and someone who lies a little, both are still liars. Likewise, small government and big government, are both socialist. So when you hurl the epithet at the left, you’re basically saying “You’re a more consistent and ambitious socialist than I am! Foo on you!”
What do you think the state and monopoly are? Centralization.
I was going to say checkmate, but if you think an unassailable argument is an impasse, I’m ok with that.
Right, you’re just a self-interested socialist then. You don’t disagree with the principle, only the aesthetics.
Yes, but the difference still is within the spectrum of socialism. Like the difference between fascism and communism. It’s just marginal socialism (ha!).
The system of economics by Mises and the system of socialism by Marx are both derived by use of logic. Just like math.
That’s a non sequitir. The contemporary left and right don’t define what socialism is or what the state is. They can only exemplify it. Just as the idea of a triangle can exist without there being any actual triangles.
Well, if I’m a marginal socialist to you, so be it.
Anyways, this topic is meaningless and endless I think it’s best we move on to something else.
Also, my concern is less with economics than it is with politics, and if all politics are socialist by the AE definition, then it suppose it makes sense that you would see me as socialist.
Most of us here, who employ logic, do not see a big difference between right and left.
We are not arguing a political system, we are not arguing a political system. We are arguing logical consistency. The same functions that helps us conclude that 1+1=2 is the same fundamental functions that help us understand what socialism is and is not.
We are arguing logic, not opinions. We are asking you to provide your logic and compare it to ours. Our assertions are not founded on opinions. It is not our opinion that the sky is blue. It is not our opinion that Humans Act. The school of thought, AE, the one you subscribe to, is founded in logic. Logic and economics is below any political orientation you think we are espousing.
No it’s dissonance when you deny the law of identity. When you deny that A = A, but equal to B, or AB, or CDE or whatever you like, that is cognitive dissonance. You’re choosing to deny logic. Which you’re entitled to do, lots of people do it every day. But it’s an admission that debate and discussion with you will be fruitless because you aren’t arguing sincerely.
In political systems, it’s not fair to talk about A = A, there is always a world of difference between one thing and another even if we call them by the same name.
Then you’re on the wrong website because this isn’t a site about politics.
By the economic definition. Economics (here at least) being part of the study of human action.
But your agreement doesn’t change reality. For the purposes of debate, it is irrelevant whether or not you agree with facts, the facts remain what they are.
I’ll leave you with this. If socialism is what the left is doing, then what is anarchism? Can you explain how anarchism precludes capitalism, individual liberty, free markets etc? Here is the trick. You have to avoid positivism, because that is fallacious. So no logical fallacies.
If you can explain how anarchism is not synonymous with individual rights and so forth, then wouldn’t you be arguing by extension that anarchism is the same as socialism, because socialism precludes markets, individual rights etc? And if so, then wouldn’t you be saying that centralization and decentralization are the same thing, thus violating the law of identity?
Bloom we have opened ourselves to you. Please don’t shutdown the door of opportunity. It’s fine if you want to disagree but don’t be a closed door. Rather, ask questions and explore what faulty logic you think we hold. Who knows, you may prove us wrong!
If you would rather choose and not have a debate grounded in reality then don’t post. Or take a break and come back another day.
Look, Fil, you don’t have to worry about a door of opportunity with me. I’m already marginalized as far as economic theory and political theory go, I come on this website every day and I read lots of the articles, I even post them on other websites so they get more exposure.
I don’t really care that much if you guys think I’m a socialist. It’s not a big deal to me, I’ve been called worse. I know I’m not going to change anyone’s mind on here, and I don’t expect you to think you’re going to change mine. This is the internet, after all.
I have an ideology that’s different from yours, so we’re talking past one another.
If that makes me illogical or whatever in your eyes, so be it. Again, I don’t really care that much, this is probably an enormous waste of time, let’s go back to talking about why people don’t choose an-cap. Because I think I have a good enough idea where public opinion and thought is right now to be able to contribute meaningfully to that conversation. This one, however, is a dead end.
I would like to say that whether you guys like it or not, there are political implications to anarchism. It’s a theory of governance that espouses the absence of central governance. But it’s still about government. Just self-government.
I find it interesting that somehow Bloom should be guilted into joining the apparent forum mind, which appears to increasingly assume that in order to advance liberty in the tradition of the Austrian school, you must be an “anarcho-capitalist” (I thought there was more accurate terms nowadays?).
Not at all. I want him to ask us why/how we come to our conclusions. How/why we define socialism as such. He can come to his own conclusions when he is ready to learn. Perhaps hes not ready to learn but hes IS posting here. shrug
