Question For Lefties

[Burke]

People deal by trade or they deal by force.

Dealing by trade is capitalism, more specifically, laissez faire capitalism.

Since you all hate capitalism and you (mostly) deny that you are socialists, what are you?

Whatever you call yourselves, you are, by simple logic, people who choose to deal with others by force instead of by trade.

What are you doing when you use govt to (supposedly) "rein in the abuses of capitalism"?

To force the lives of people who are doing nothing but producing and trading.

And creating the prosperity of the modern world.

If people who produce wealth and keep it are "greedy," what are people who take it away from them with the govt gun?

[tegator80]

Originally Posted by Burke

People deal by trade or they deal by force.

Dealing by trade is capitalism, more specifically, laissez faire capitalism.

Since you all hate capitalism and you (mostly) deny that you are socialists, what are you?

Whatever you call yourselves, you are, by simple logic, people who choose to deal with others by force instead of by trade.

What are you doing when you use govt to (supposedly) "rein in the abuses of capitalism"?

To force the lives of people who are doing nothing but producing and trading.

And creating the prosperity of the modern world.

If people who produce wealth and keep it are "greedy," what are people who take it away from them with the govt gun?

They bounce between being guilty of our wealth, angry/scared over the effects of technology (global warming) or envious of others who went for it. They don't have strategic ideas, except to endorse others who can eloquate (Obama, Krugman). Then it is off to other evil windmills without checking to see if their last slaying was a good thing or a bad thing.

And as I've posted before, there is a pretty malevolent element who believe in their heart of hearts that we can, and must, tear down our systems in order to "build it right" this time. Talk about arrogance, but unfortunately they are very resolute. And then there is a chronic stupid element who like to get free things. That is why the Dems are the majority party right now. They attract a LOT of diverse people (just not nation builders).

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Burke

People deal by trade or they deal by force.

Dealing by trade is capitalism, more specifically, laissez faire capitalism.

Since you all hate capitalism and you (mostly) deny that you are socialists, what are you?

Whatever you call yourselves, you are, by simple logic, people who choose to deal with others by force instead of by trade.

What are you doing when you use govt to (supposedly) "rein in the abuses of capitalism"?

To force the lives of people who are doing nothing but producing and trading.

And creating the prosperity of the modern world.

If people who produce wealth and keep it are "greedy," what are people who take it away from them with the govt gun?

I think it's really pretty sad that the only way some people seem to be able to justify their own beliefs is to convince themselves that others hate this, or hate that.
I don't see liberals here having to start thread after thread with "well, rightists hate ...."

[g8orbill]

river- a great deal of your liberal brethren spew their hate in every thread

[Burke]

Where did I say anything about hate in this thread?

Except hatred for capitalism, which is obvious?

Lefties think its their prerogative to use force against others who are using none against them.

What do you call yourselves?

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by Burke

Where did I say anything about hate in this thread?

Except hatred for capitalism, which is obvious?

Lefties think its their prerogative to use force against others who are using none against them.

What do you call yourselves?

Economic force is still force. It's why monopolies are illegal, why there is a minimum wage, why Wall Street authored many of the regulations they live under, among other things.
The question isn't whether there should be some form of regulation, the question is where the balance should lie. To argue that because someone wants regulation they are "anti" this or that is a simplistic argument - I doubt that a single person isn't proud of the idea that we can create men like Gates and Jobs in our society, their concern is that we can also create things like Madoff and the 2008 crash. But I guess it's easier to label and by extension demonize than debate.

[chemgator]

The liberals do not necessarily hate things. They may have a horribly incorrect set of assumptions, including:

1) There's plenty of money. No reason we shouldn't spend it. And no reason to ever check and see if there is something positive occurs as a result of spending the money.

2) Helping people is the top priority, even if we hurt a large percentage of them (make them dependent, for example) in the process.

3) Long-term fiscal thinking is for idiots. Deal with the here and now. People need cash--hand it to them. Groceries, doctors, and the electric company don't take IOU's. (And neither do drug dealers, casinos, and liquor stores.)

4) Government can do things better than private citizens. And that includes all things, including charity.

5) Government knows best.

6) If you want something, just legislate it into existence. No need to look too closely at what it will cost (Obamacare) or whether it violates the laws of science (55 mpg average fuel consumption in 2025). If you believe in fairy tales, just vote for them!

7) (Liberals actually have a good understanding of the need to reduce fossil fuel usage.) They way to accomplish conservation is to hit people (and corporations) over the head with a hammer. A really large hammer.

Liberals just tend to be naive and gullible. It's generally not hate. Conservatives tend to be more practical. That's all.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Where did I say anything about hate in this thread?

Except hatred for capitalism, which is obvious?

Lefties think its their prerogative to use force against others who are using none against them.

What do you call yourselves?

your claim of force, as I recall, is taxation. I guess that makes everyone a leftist.

[Burke]

"Economic force" is a silly rationalization lefties cite for their use of real, physical force.

People produce. They won't give it away to others or use it for their benefit. That's "economic force," which they use as an excuse to take it by real force.

And monopolies. Is it even necessary to refute that stupid bugaboo anymore?

Every time the govt grants a patent or a copyright, it's creating a monopoly, one seller of a good or service. Even if a company could earn a monopoly in the free market, so what?

They do it by offering better deals than anyone else.

[Burke]

Chem,

"Liberals just tend to be naive and gullible. It's generally not hate. Conservatives tend to be more practical. That's all."

There used to be liberals like that. You could argue that Lieberman was one.

But if you think today's leftists are only naive and aren't driven by hatred and envy, you are the one who is naive.

And today's conservative is just yesterday's liberal.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Burke

Chem,

"Liberals just tend to be naive and gullible. It's generally not hate. Conservatives tend to be more practical. That's all."

There used to be liberals like that. You could argue that Lieberman was one.

But if you think today's leftists are only naive and aren't driven by hatred and envy, you are the one who is naive.

And today's conservative is just yesterday's liberal.

Damn, you are one negative and bitter person.

[oragator1]

Originally Posted by Burke

"Economic force" is a silly rationalization lefties cite for their use of real, physical force.

People produce. They won't give it away to others or use it for their benefit. That's "economic force," which they use as an excuse to take it by real force.

And monopolies. Is it even necessary to refute that stupid bugaboo anymore?

Every time the govt grants a patent or a copyright, it's creating a monopoly, one seller of a good or service. Even if a company could earn a monopoly in the free market, so what?

They do it by offering better deals than anyone else.

So add silly and stupid to the demonization.
Thank you for further making my point.

[Burke]

River,

I oppose taxation. I just realize that it's a waste of time expecting most others to agree.

I understand that a more completely rational society is a prerequisite for some things.

[msa3]

Every time the govt grants a patent or a copyright, it's creating a monopoly, one seller of a good or service. Even if a company could earn a monopoly in the free market, so what?

But ... but ... isn't that the government granting the patent, protecting the originator's interest? Under your assumption, if I can produce your idea better than you, why shouldn't I just duplicate it and sell it on my own? You're free to do the same, of course, without any of that pesky government interference.

Or, if I can take my pistol and round up a dozen or so people to make my product for me, feed them the minimum, and save on wages, then I can undersell you again. Or, I can leave out that simple part that keeps it from exploding -- heck, I can even use your label, and people will think it's yours. Why not, if government is so bad and you demand a free and open market. You own a fish camp on a river a mile downstream of the factory I decide one day to build. I decide to dump my waste into the river, therefore killing your camp and your income. You okay with that, or do you want the right to try and stop a) my factory and b) my dumping waste, because it wipes out your business. Of course not, because you believe that government interference is bad.

Right now I'm looking at a foot of snow falling in the last 12 hours -- would my community be better served by independently contracting for the road to be plowed? I'm pretty well off, so my section is okay, but my neighbor is in foreclosure, and they've got no money to spare. That's okay, though, because I'm sure this chest pain I feel is nothing. I don't need to get to the hospital or anything.

Everyone wants some level of governmental interference, you just don't like it when it helps someone who isn't you. They don't like it when government helps someone (you) who isn't them. That's the way society works.

While there are liberals who are socialists, the vast majority like capitalism just fine. But they don't agree that the country's best interest is served by adopting a philosophy of every man for himself (neither does capitalism, either, which promotes that I invest in you for a portion of your future income. But in a capitalist model, you need people to invest. But I digress). My personal liberalism comes from the idea that for the history of our species, whenever the gap between the haves and the have-nots gets too large, the have-nots rise up and kill the haves and take their stuff. Rome, France, Russia, China, Cuba, all fell to communism because the gap got too big. As the treasurer said to Cesar, my job is to convince you and the rest of the aristocracy to give as much as I can get you to give, in order to save your lives. In an era like this, where consumption and entitlement are both high (as is visibility), the best way to protect what I have (my wife, really. She has a lot) is to do my best to keep the have-nots content.

And one last thing -- there are plenty -- plenty -- of places you can go where you don't have to worry about the government gun or what you'd consider excessive taxation. They tend not to have a lot of infrastructure, and other people who love the free market may come and take it from you at some point, but there are plenty of places out there.

[fredsanford]

This is an awful bait thread filled with the usual bile from righties, but here is my answer to the OP anyway.

I believe in capitalism with the crap regulated out of it.

A conservative will tell you that someone who dies from a factory's nearby poisoned river will rest in peace knowing that someone made a few bucks on his grave. I disagree.

[108]

thread only shows the erroneous beliefs that Burke and others start with when trying to debate a "liberal"

capitalism is the best overall economic model, but it isn't perfect either, which is why it needs a governing force to regulate it

balance is the key....too much regulation and you stifle, too little and you get economic ruin....pretty much how humans work

you "righties" seem to think that there should be zero regulation and that liberals want full-on socialism

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Burke

River,

I oppose taxation. I just realize that it's a waste of time expecting most others to agree.

I understand that a more completely rational society is a prerequisite for some things.

Statements like these make you seem more extreme than you are, Burke. Your own Ayn Rand despised anarchists. Which is what you get without some form of government.

Government requires funding. That implies some taxes.

You and I both agree federal and state governments are far bigger and more intrusive than they need to be. That said, they do not need to not exist.

[108]

the irony here is that trade on a macro level IS possible with the regulatory and police power of governments....

capitalism has proven itself over and over that it needs "force" for people to comply with it fairly

[dangolegators]

nm

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Statements like these make you seem more extreme than you are, Burke. Your own Ayn Rand despised anarchists. Which is what you get without some form of government.

Government requires funding. That implies some taxes.

You and I both agree federal and state governments are far bigger and more intrusive than they need to be. That said, they do not need to not exist.

Not really. Burke has always claimed that there should be no required taxation. No zoning. That roads should be owned by private enterprise. That there should be no public land, no state parks or national parks.
And,of course, anyone who disagrees with him is a leftist.