Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Oligarchy; Small Groups of Multi Millionaires Funding Super Pacs
Topic Started: Feb 25 2012, 11:04 PM (1,874 Views)
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 11:30 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 11:26 PM
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 11:23 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 10:00 PM
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 09:47 PM
Socialism/communism only works in the minds of those who have ignored history and ignore human nature, or don't understand either.
Why do you guys keep bringing up socialism/communism? No one is suggesting either.
What do you call what you advocate?

Whatever you call it, we call it socialism. Just as facsim, nazism, communism, social democracy, progressivism, modern liberalism are all branched of socialism, failed socialism, I might add, so is what you and brewster and others day in and day out advocate.

Don't get hung up on the word. Pay attention to what people mean.
Good advice, Chris. Pay attention to what people mean. If you can't read my mind, then you have no idea what I mean as long as you are so wrapped up in your own definitions, which are easily debunked by looking them up in a dictionary.
It's not about reading minds, rivers, it's about the context of other words and their meanings that establish the meaning of any one word.

Simple example:

* I'm going down to the bank to swim.
* I'm going down to the bank to deposit.

No mind reading required.
"I'm going down to the bank", is meaningless unless you add the rest of your sentences. That's where I think you err. You have to put things in context. When I say that progressive taxation is a good thing, it doesn't follow that I think the government should own all means of production.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
""I'm going down to the bank", is meaningless unless you add the rest of your sentences."

Good, now you understand my point, context gives words meaning. :-)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 11:32 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 11:24 PM
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 10:35 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 10:32 PM
Stoney
Feb 26 2012, 10:29 PM
Quote:
 
Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system. The Constitution of the International Labour Organization affirms that "universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice."[4] Furthermore, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of the human rights education.


Wikipedia

That's the same things that Marx and Engels talked about, equal results instead of equal opportunity. Its still socialism/communism.
"These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system."

What do you disagree with in that sentence?
Aiming is always well intended. When government intervenes it always intervenes on the behalf of some and at the expense of others. Government cannot enhance equal opportunity. It can only diminish it. What it does for some it must take from others.

i
Do you only see the world in black and white? No in-betweens? When government does things, it usually benefits more people than it hurts.
Equal outcome and equal opportunity are black and white. There is no in between. One precludes the other.
If people truly had equal opportunity, there would be equal outcomes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 11:36 PM
""I'm going down to the bank", is meaningless unless you add the rest of your sentences."

Good, now you understand my point, context gives words meaning. :-)
Going to just ignore the rest of what I said? It doesn't fit your argument, does it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 11:38 PM
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 11:36 PM
""I'm going down to the bank", is meaningless unless you add the rest of your sentences."

Good, now you understand my point, context gives words meaning. :-)
Going to just ignore the rest of what I said? It doesn't fit your argument, does it?
It had to do with the importance of context, which is what I said.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 11:41 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 11:38 PM
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 11:36 PM
""I'm going down to the bank", is meaningless unless you add the rest of your sentences."

Good, now you understand my point, context gives words meaning. :-)
Going to just ignore the rest of what I said? It doesn't fit your argument, does it?
It had to do with the importance of context, which is what I said.
Context gives words meaning, but that meaning can be misinterpreted as in your assertion that what those of us on the left want is socialism. You can't simply ascribe your own meaning when the speaker refutes your interpretation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 11:44 PM
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 11:41 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 11:38 PM
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 11:36 PM
""I'm going down to the bank", is meaningless unless you add the rest of your sentences."

Good, now you understand my point, context gives words meaning. :-)
Going to just ignore the rest of what I said? It doesn't fit your argument, does it?
It had to do with the importance of context, which is what I said.
Context gives words meaning, but that meaning can be misinterpreted as in your assertion that what those of us on the left want is socialism. You can't simply ascribe your own meaning when the speaker refutes your interpretation.
It is perfectly legitimate to say what the left want is this that and the other and those things are socialist.

Words serve two functions. One is to define, as in math, a triangle is a polygon with three corners. Other is to name, as in science, the beginning of the universe as we know it is called big bang. One is prescriptive, the other descriptive. While I am being descriptive you are only obfuscating by prescribing definitions. Like I said above, call it (B), call it thingamabob or doohickey, makes no difference, meaning is the same. I call it socialism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 11:50 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 11:44 PM
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 11:41 PM
Mountainrivers
Feb 26 2012, 11:38 PM
Chris
Feb 26 2012, 11:36 PM
""I'm going down to the bank", is meaningless unless you add the rest of your sentences."

Good, now you understand my point, context gives words meaning. :-)
Going to just ignore the rest of what I said? It doesn't fit your argument, does it?
It had to do with the importance of context, which is what I said.
Context gives words meaning, but that meaning can be misinterpreted as in your assertion that what those of us on the left want is socialism. You can't simply ascribe your own meaning when the speaker refutes your interpretation.
It is perfectly legitimate to say what the left want is this that and the other and those things are socialist.

Words serve two functions. One is to define, as in math, a triangle is a polygon with three corners. Other is to name, as in science, the beginning of the universe as we know it is called big bang. One is prescriptive, the other descriptive. While I am being descriptive you are only obfuscating by prescribing definitions. Like I said above, call it (B), call it thingamabob or doohickey, makes no difference, meaning is the same. I call it socialism.
Meaning is not the same regardless of your grand assertion that it is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
"Meaning is not the same regardless of your grand assertion that it is."

Huh, I made no such assertion, in fact asserted the opposite. We agreed context determines meaning, why now the obfuscation?

So what do your call your socialism?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Chris
Feb 27 2012, 12:28 AM
"Meaning is not the same regardless of your grand assertion that it is."

Huh, I made no such assertion, in fact asserted the opposite. We agreed context determines meaning, why now the obfuscation?

So what do your call your socialism?
I posted it above or in another thread this morning. "Contemporary social democracy", describes my political leanings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis