just another rant!?

[Gilligan]

Come on digit, i know your smarter than that. I even quoted the question for you.

"I have a quick question for ya though digit. I've seen several posts about U.S. government actions you were not happy about. You seem to think our government is intrusive towords the rights of other countries and the people that inhabit them. Considering that a socialist government, like the one you are advocating would require even more government, and considering that the size of our government is to blame for the problems you lament. Why are you advocating it? We both want the same thing, except for welfare.(from what I can tell) We would like the government to be less intrusive, respect the rights of other countries, the citizens of those countries, and it's own citizens. I simply don't believe that more bureaucracy is the answer, why do you think it is?"

Nice smart ass answer to the wrong question...

Still waiting on that hefer with cheese julio.....

[Grim Bongmaster]

Originally Posted by Grim Bongmaster

I have a quick question for ya though digit. I've seen several posts about U.S. government actions you were not happy about. You seem to think our government is intrusive towords the rights of other countries and the people that inhabit them. Considering that a socialist government, like the one you are advocating would require even more government, and considering that the size of our government is to blame for the problems you lament. Why are you advocating it? We both want the same thing, except for welfare.(from what I can tell) We would like the government to be less intrusive, respect the rights of other countries, the citizens of those countries, and it's own citizens. I simply don't believe that more bureaucracy is the answer, why do you think it is?

We're enjoying our shits and giggles for a reason

[Grim Bongmaster]

Originally Posted by Grim Bongmaster

I have a quick question for ya though digit. I've seen several posts about U.S. government actions you were not happy about. You seem to think our government is intrusive towords the rights of other countries and the people that inhabit them. Considering that a socialist government, like the one you are advocating would require even more government, and considering that the size of our government is to blame for the problems you lament. Why are you advocating it? We both want the same thing, except for welfare.(from what I can tell) We would like the government to be less intrusive, respect the rights of other countries, the citizens of those countries, and it's own citizens. I simply don't believe that more bureaucracy is the answer, why do you think it is?

.................................

[oiseau777]

The dollar falls and falls. Where will it end?

Everyone do yourself a favor - go see Amsterdam right now while your money is still worth something!

[Digit]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Come on digit, i know your smarter than that. I even quoted the question for you.

"I have a quick question for ya though digit. I've seen several posts about U.S. government actions you were not happy about. You seem to think our government is intrusive towords the rights of other countries and the people that inhabit them. Considering that a socialist government, like the one you are advocating would require even more government, and considering that the size of our government is to blame for the problems you lament. Why are you advocating it? We both want the same thing, except for welfare.(from what I can tell) We would like the government to be less intrusive, respect the rights of other countries, the citizens of those countries, and it's own citizens. I simply don't believe that more bureaucracy is the answer, why do you think it is?"

Nice smart ass answer to the wrong question...

Still waiting on that hefer with cheese julio.....

oh. you clearly missed me dealing with that issue.

could you stop making up my side of the discussion. it makes the flow really twisted. i know it might seem like a quick and easy way to win an argument, but its really really flawed.

I NEVER have advocated more burocazy, nor will i ever.

so, since you have asked me " I simply don't believe that more bureaucracy is the answer, why do you think it is?"...
i feel i must ask you,
Why do you think i think more bureaucracy is the answer?

i'd really like to get to the bottom of this misconception. what was it i did or said that lead you to this conclusion?



you'll probably ignore the majority of my questions above as per norm, perhaps in assumption that they were intended to be rhetorical, or perhaps because you read words i don't write.... idk... then bitch at me for not answering just one question. but the thing is, i don't mind. you're free to do as you please, and i like that. ignore my questions all you want, keep up the baby propaganda campaign of "didgit doesnt answer questions" if you must. i'll come back at ya with the same if ya like. tada. fun eh?

we really need to stop this crap, u know that right? how does any of this help? really... how? (consider as rhetorical if u wish)



edit- ok, i re-read over this thread, it musta been somewhere else i defended against the same accusation of being pro-bureaucracy.

[Grim Bongmaster]

Originally Posted by Digit

so, since you have asked me " I simply don't believe that more bureaucracy is the answer, why do you think it is?"...
i feel i must ask you,
Why do you think i think more bureaucracy is the answer?

I don't, I voted libertarian for that very reason, bueraucracy sucks!

Originally Posted by Digit

i'd really like to get to the bottom of this misconception. what was it i did or said that lead you to this conclusion?

It can be deduced from your posts that you are for some sort of socialized government (the che quotes, your hatred of corporations, etc) socialized governments REQUIRE more government.

Originally Posted by Digit

you'll probably ignore the majority of my questions above as per norm,

I don't recall ever ignoring any of your questions digit. If I have please let me know, and I'll answer them for you.

Originally Posted by Digit

perhaps in assumption that they were intended to be rhetorical, or perhaps because you read words i don't write.... idk... then bitch at me for not answering just one question. but the thing is, i don't mind. you're free to do as you please, and i like that. ignore my questions all you want, keep up the baby propaganda campaign of "didgit doesnt answer questions" if you must. i'll come back at ya with the same if ya like. tada. fun eh?

I simply asked a question, surely that's not THIS big of a deal. It was only a question.

Originally Posted by Digit

we really need to stop this crap, u know that right? how does any of this help? really... how? (consider as rhetorical if u wish)

It's just a discussion, is a discussion over politics a horrible thing?

Originally Posted by Digit

edit- ok, i re-read over this thread, it musta been somewhere else i defended against the same accusation of being pro-bureaucracy.

"i'm a LIBERTARIAN Socialist. you could even call it ANARCHO-Leftism"

Libertarian socialist? Those two words do not need to be that close to eachother. As I said, socialist governments REQUIRE more government, and more central state control. How else are you going to redistribute wealth?

[Gilligan]

Thanks for quoting me, i didnt even ask the question lol. Look past the loathing.

"It can be deduced from your posts that you are for some sort of socialized government (the che quotes, your hatred of corporations, etc) socialized governments REQUIRE more government."

Exactly. That is the base of the question. You advocate big government, but you hate government.

Libertarian Socialist lol. Thats like saying i am a jewish nazi.
Libertarian = less government
Socialist = more government

[Digit]

i seeeeeeee now. so u guys have been arguing against me as if i advocate something entirely different. your definition of socialist, is completely different to mine.

lemme help yas out here, because you've both got it in your heads that socialism only means one thing. its a very broad ideology.

Libertarian Socialist is not such an oxymoron as you might think. being on the side of LIBERTY, does not exclude the possability of being SOCIALIST.

here's dictionary.com's take on Socialism...

6 entries found for socialism.


so·cial·ism P Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.



[Download or Buy Now]


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.




socialism



\Socialism\, n.

Socialism of the chair [G. katheder socialismus], a term applied about 1872, at first in ridicule, to a group of German political economists who advocated state aid for the betterment of the working classes. Sock \Sock\, v. t. [Perh. shortened fr. sockdolager.] To hurl, drive, or strike violently; -- often with it as an object. [Prov. or Vulgar] --Kipling.




Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.




socialism



\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless, revolutionary social scheme. See Communism, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, forms of socialism.

[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

We certainly want a true history of socialism, meaning by that a history of every systematic attempt to provide a new social existence for the mass of the workers. --F. Harrison.




Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.




socialism



n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital [syn: socialist economy] [ant: capitalism]




Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University




socialism



socialism in InvestorWords




Source: InvestorWords, © 2000 InvestorGuide.com, Inc.




socialism



socialism: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary




Source: On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB

so theres one word delt with via dictonary.com
but just remember dictonarys can never do justice to a name of political ideology, or worse, as in this case, a term applied to dozens of variations. Please note even the inconsistencies in the definitions themselves, a few even take note of this. i would reccomend a google search too, but its such a commonly used term your search wouldnt be very time effective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page might help.

it is NOT a requirement of Socialism to have more bureaocracy and bigger government, whoever has been telling you this either didn't know wtf they were talking about or they had some other agenda, some motive to keep pumping out the status quo.


so next time i use a term (like socialism perhaps) in describing my political ideolody, please don't make the same mistake of assuming you know exactly my whole philosophy on government. "just words" - Iain Barrington

it was mistakes like this i encountered a long time ago that made me create the thread with the USA's Libertarian Party's "world's smallest political quiz" as the words can never acurately portray their intended meaning. go look at that map for a long time. it may not be 100% accurate, but its a shitload better than the discussion we just had. one glance at the map and you'll have someone's political mindset down alot better than if you tried to get it outta them mid discussion. a picture is worth a thousand words.
(of course, i do reccognise the flaw in this map in that it uses words, arguably very flawed wording, to ask the questions. there is the http://www.politicalcompass.org that is way more thorough)

now as you say you're libertarian, grim, you can of course claim i am for bigger government than you are for, however, the type of government i advocate is still a LONG LONG way smaller than that of the current elective dictatorships we currently live under. effectively, i'm a polar opposite of our current governments in many respects. i'm for Honesty, Liberty, Equality, Non-Violence. Wow, they must really hate me. I know which one we'll agree on there... Liberty.

I do place Liberty above "Equality"*, but i've noted that Liberty will not last long at all without some social awareness. people don't need to be controlled, power does.
*i fekkin hate that word and how it's been abused.

i think both you guys will like this, http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
though it is long, (longer than many people on the net seem willing to endure) it is very informative and educational, without trying too heavily to sell you anything.

its as close as i can find to my politics these days, though close is a loose term.

Look past the loathing.

thnx. i'll try. though thats a little harsh ("loathing"), i put my hand up and accept guilt... i was headin down that path a bit. sorry.
"these days you can't just tap someone on their sholder to get their attention, you have to hit them over the head with a sledgehammer"
- Verbal Kent from The Usual Suspects ( i think )


one day i hope, we'll all move yet even further beyond our dilapidated methods of definition and analysis, maybe one day we'll all be able to think yet even further outside "the box", but for now, just getting everyone at least aware of the box is enough for me.
.... for now. pulling our heads outta the sand would be really good too. the fact that we're having this disscussion would suggest we've done that.

grim
I simply asked a question, surely that's not THIS big of a deal. It was only a question.

heh, yeah. sorry i got a bit carried away there. what can i say, i'm my own humour's biggest fan.

I don't recall ever ignoring any of your questions digit. If I have please let me know, and I'll answer them for you.

i wouldnt worry about it. i'm not. if you want you can scan back for question marks.

It's just a discussion, is a discussion over politics a horrible thing?

I've noticed they get that way sometimes. usually, unless its an excersize in back patting, an uphill struggle to stop political discussion from getting becoming a "horrible thing".

all meant kindly


Gilligan, do you like the concept of "the noble lie"?

[oiseau777]

A wonderful post Digit! You go get 'em!

[Gilligan]

What did you score on the quiz? I scored 90% libertarian.

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved."

That was a very well put together post. I do know what socialism is. I dont know, like you said, your governmental ideas, but i do not like socialsim. I do think it leads to a bigger government, and historicly has led to facism or communism.

The second definition is the one i use to define it. It is astep or stage between capitalism and communisum. I just dont buy the whole marxist theory. I think it looks good on paper, but i have yet to see 1 model in the real world work and maintain. I think it is a good form of government during a period of reconstruction, or when the poor greatly outnumber everyone else. To me, it is unfair.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this.

[Digit]

link i forgot to add before: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI1.html "Isn't libertarian socialism an oxymoron?"

frankly i'm a little confused as to where exactly "90% Libertarian" puts you on the quiz's result sheet. are you centralist? left? right? 90% both personal and ecconomic freedoms? where i score is usually on the line between "liberal" and "Libertarian". "balance between equality and liberty" as i heard someone put it. thats 100% personal freedoms, 50% ecconomic freedoms.

as for working models... yeah, i keep looking for them too. does Cuba count? i'm quite certain there are hundreds all over the world on small scale. centralization also looks good on paper (not in my opinion though), but putting the two together has never mixed well.

from my point of view, democracy and capitalism do not mix well. infact, capitalist democracy is a greater oxymoron than libertarian socialist. Capitalism (particularly the heavy on authoritarianism type, like we have these days) fails us on so many levels, even on a consumer level!!!
i'd say it looks bad on paper, and works worse in practice. Socialism (even communism) looks good on paper, but just hasn't ever taken root for long enough to prove its worth. other forces always see socialism fall on it's ass.

state capitalism i don't consider socialism nor communism. russia wasn't communist in my mind for the duration of the cold war.

i don't like to even agree to disagree. sure, i agree we currently disagree, but we might not in the future, and so if i had agreed to disagree i would then be breaking that agreement by agreeing.

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by Digit

i don't like to even agree to disagree. sure, i agree we currently disagree, but we might not in the future, and so if i had agreed to disagree i would then be breaking that agreement by agreeing.

Wow. nicely put.

Im not even sure where that put me on the map. I remember the thread, and i took it a few months back. Ill take it again here soon, but i believe it put me almost in the back of the libertarian corner, a little toawrds the center.

[Grim Bongmaster]

Originally Posted by Digit

from my point of view, democracy and capitalism do not mix well. infact, capitalist democracy is a greater oxymoron than libertarian socialist. Capitalism (particularly the heavy on authoritarianism type, like we have these days) fails us on so many levels, even on a consumer level!!!

Capitalist democracy is most defanitly an oxymoron, however, capitalist republic is not. In fact, a republic could not be a republic without capitalism.

democracy is a horrible form of government.

[Digit]

republic isnt even a form of government imo.
as far as i can tell, a republic is nothing more than having the government spin the circular argument that they'll act as per the wishes of the people because they are the people, even though many times a "republic" is still ruled by a dictatorship. iraq, korea, china, usa....

i agree, democracy is a horrible form of government, however its a better system than most of the alternatives. E-Democracy could be the way forward. Better education and means of participation are two areas that would improve democracy's effectiveness.

[Gilligan]

I know the best form of government. Make me king of the world!!!!

I would probably be assassinated in 30 minutes.

We should all get our guns, go to washington, and run all the national level politicians out of town. Then let states governments run the states. The states, i think, would do a good job, because they are more in touch with their state's needs and wants more than some fat cat sitting in washington DC voting on the side that gives him the biggest bribe. I know this wouldnt truely work, smaller states, rural states, would have trouble raising funds, but i do think states should have more rights and more power. It is the United STATES of America.