Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Are we already living in a dictatorship?


Skoo

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, jon_mx said:
3 hours ago, Workhorse said:

As an idea, socialism vs. capitalism comes down to a pretty simple philosophy:  In a world filled with scarcity of various resources, are you organizing your society based on the individuals ability to pay for fill needs (capitalism) or based purely on need (socialism). Taking healthcare as one example, capitalism treats it as a commodity and socialism treats it as a common good.

True democratic socialism advocates and implements the following things:  Common ownership of various sectors of the economy including healthcare, housing and education. Strong labor unions and worker's rights. Society-wide accountability for institutions and businesses with an appropriate regulatory system. These are arguments about concentration of wealth and power and are not absolute: You can certainly have lots of socialist institutions within a capitalist society - It's really a question of degree. 

Many of those who advocate for an American version of "Democratic Socialism" are simply trying to shift the slider a bit more towards a more egalitarian model than what currently exists. Trying to paint this authoritarian boogeyman about socialism is just plain silly and reflects far more about the scare-tactics of the right than it does about the actual policy prescriptions of the left.

It works both ways.  Why not call it compassionate conservatism?  The left creates a boogeyman out of corporations and wealthy people.  The left tries to coop words and phrases to make all things right into evil and all things left into good.  Power is abused just as much by the left as it is the right.  Governments spending should never consume more than 50% of the GDP and an individual tax should never exceed 50% of the income.  

Look - there is lots of wrong on the left.  Lots of wrong.  However, claiming that one side is making all of the mistakes is simply disingenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JAA said:

this

And I would reread your analysis of fascism.  I would look to 

The denial in here is strong.   There have probably been more authoritarian dictatorships in the name of socialism than there have been from nationalism.  This idea to define socialism to exclude any evil past sins is hilarious.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JAA said:

Look - there is lots of wrong on the left.  Lots of wrong.  However, claiming that one side is making all of the mistakes is simply disingenuous.

I have no idea how you can read what I said and make that statement.  I am not the one making the argument that only one side is making all the mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The denial in here is strong.   There have probably been more authoritarian dictatorships in the name of socialism than there have been from nationalism.  This idea to define socialism to exclude any evil past sins is hilarious.  

Since you like broad generalizations, here is one:  nationalism can be defined as socialized authoritarianism

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jon_mx said:
15 minutes ago, JAA said:

Look - there is lots of wrong on the left.  Lots of wrong.  However, claiming that one side is making all of the mistakes is simply disingenuous.

I have no idea how you can read what I said and make that statement.  I am not the one making the argument that only one side is making all the mistakes.

unsure if serious

Quote

It works both ways.  Why not call it compassionate conservatism?  The left creates a boogeyman out of corporations and wealthy people.  The left tries to coop words and phrases to make all things right into evil and all things left into good.  Power is abused just as much by the left as it is the right.  Governments spending should never consume more than 50% of the GDP and an individual tax should never exceed 50% of the income. 

You paint the left here pretty hard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Actually what you are doing is deliberately deceptive, but I am sure the leftwing groupthink in here will back your false narrative up to defend the good name of socialism. 

On the extreme, communism is branch of socialism which is indisputedly very authoritarian.  But even a more democratic variant of socialism still requires authoritarian beauracracies to run them.  As the reach of socialism grows, the size and numbers of these beauracracies grow with ever increasing authoritarian rules.  History has shown it has been impossible to implement a true socialist society without authoritarian means.  Socialist policies can only freely exist under a strong capitalistic economy.  Socialism by itself is a proven failure.  

 

Never mind.  You are just creating whole new definitions for words that have already have meaning, and that one can learn in an etry level political science class.  This conversation isn't intereting to me at all, sorry.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JAA said:

unsure if serious

You paint the left here pretty hard

I am painting the left the same way they paint the right.  It is funny how offended people get when you illustrate how rhetoric works.  You completely ignore what I responded to as if it were stated in some kind of vacuum.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Never mind.  You are just creating whole new definitions for words that have already have meaning, and that one can learn in an etry level political science class.  This conversation isn't intereting to me at all, sorry.

No, I am using traditional meaning of the word.  This separation of socialism from anything authoritarian is very new effort to cleans the word of any negative connotations..  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I am painting the left the same way they paint the right.  It is funny how offended people get when you illustrate how rhetoric works.  You completely ignore what I responded to as if it were stated in some kind of vacuum.  

ok

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jon_mx said:

No, I am using traditional meaning of the word.  This separation of socialism from anything authoritarian is very new effort to cleans the word of any negative connotations..  

We have the entire 20th century to show us how "benevolent" Socialism really is.  What's the body count up to now?  About 100+ million dead and suffering?

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, zoonation said:

There is nothing about “socialism” that can even be remotely compared to, or synonymous with, “authoritarianism.”

 Doing so is either a result ignorance or, worse, is being deliberately deceptive. Either way, it should be called out. 

For a book-length argument that socialism necessarily leads to authoritarianism, see Hayek's The Road To Serfdom. I find it fairly persuasive in many respects.

(Of course, he was talking about actual socialism -- the kind that dominated Eastern Europe during the Cold War -- not the "socialism" [i.e., capitalism] in modern Canada or Norway.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jon_mx said:

The denial in here is strong.   There have probably been more authoritarian dictatorships in the name of socialism than there have been from nationalism.  This idea to define socialism to exclude any evil past sins is hilarious.  

Cool. Do Christianity next.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Workhorse said:

Cool. Do Christianity next.

Seems a bit bigoted to single out Christianity when the only real authoritarian theocracies which currently exist are Islamic.  Regardless, socialists ones were the most deadly.  

Edited by jon_mx
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

We have the entire 20th century to show us how "benevolent" Socialism really is.  What's the body count up to now?  About 100+ million dead and suffering?

Do you honestly believe that anyone is advocating for the socialism in places like Venezuela?  Or, do you think that the “socialism” people are advocating for is that found in Europe, Australia and Canada?

Your argument is a strawman and disingenuous.   

 

Edited by zoonation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Do you honestly believe that anyone is advocating for the socialism in places like Venezuela?  Or, do you think that the “socialism” people are advocating for is that found in Europe, Australia and Canada?

Your argument is a strawman and disingenuous.   

 

The socialism you speak of isn't even close to socialism.  Private property and ownership of businesses and control of production is a staple in each of those countries.   

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

The socialism you speak of isn't even close to socialism.  Private property and ownership of businesses and control of production is a staple in each of those countries.   

I take your point.  But my point is that no serious consideration is being given to turning America into a socialist country.  What is being advocated is a “social democracy”, like those countries.  

stealthy cat’s argument is still a straw man.   And fear mongering by the right by shouting “Socialism” is totally disingenuous.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "socialism" argument is an enormous straw man. Nobody wants state control of the economy. So somebody calls an expansion of the nation's safety net "socialism" and then compares it to real socialist countries. Those kinds of statements shouldn't even be remotely countenanced.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

This "socialism" argument is an enormous straw man. Nobody wants state control of the economy. So somebody calls an expansion of the nation's safety net "socialism" and then compares it to real socialist countries. Those kinds of statements shouldn't even be remotely countenanced.

Hugo Chavez said the same thing.  Just a few things here and there we'll expand and next thing you know it became hell on earth after he took everything over.

We're on to these "we don't want real socialism" arguments, but that's exactly they want and what will eventually happen.  It doesn't change overnight.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2020 at 8:15 AM, jon_mx said:

Seems a bit bigoted to single out Christianity when the only real authoritarian theocracies which currently exist are Islamic.  Regardless, socialists ones were the most deadly.  

HOLY COW!!

Wow - we sure know how to grow'em here in the US!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2020 at 5:39 PM, zoonation said:

Do you honestly believe that anyone is advocating for the socialism in places like Venezuela?  Or, do you think that the “socialism” people are advocating for is that found in Europe, Australia and Canada?

Your argument is a strawman and disingenuous.   

 

How many millions is nationalism up to?  Hitler, US (American Indians, WWII internment camps, guantanamo bay), Cuba, ... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JAA said:

How many millions is nationalism up to?  Hitler, US (American Indians, WWII internment camps, guantanamo bay), Cuba, ... ?

Still does not hold a candle to socialists...most estimates for socialist regimes in the 1900's range from 60 million to well over 100 million people slaughtered.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:
4 minutes ago, JAA said:

How many millions is nationalism up to?  Hitler, US (American Indians, WWII internment camps, guantanamo bay), Cuba, ... ?

Still does not hold a candle to socialists...most estimates for socialist regimes in the 1900's range from 60 million to well over 100 million people slaughtered.  

Ahhh - the lesser of the evils.  Got it!  Where is Kant and Condorcet when you need them???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JAA said:

Ahhh - the lesser of the evils.  Got it!  Where is Kant and Condorcet when you need them???

I am not advocating for either/or.  Capitalism, religion, nationalism and socialism all have produced evil because of man's nature to abuse power.   The proper answer is not either/or, but the proper balance with appropriate checks and distribution of power to prevent any of them from becoming too powerful.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2020 at 11:03 AM, jon_mx said:
On 4/20/2020 at 10:47 AM, JAA said:

Ahhh - the lesser of the evils.  Got it!  Where is Kant and Condorcet when you need them???

I am not advocating for either/or.  Capitalism, religion, nationalism and socialism all have produced evil because of man's nature to abuse power.   The proper answer is not either/or, but the proper balance with appropriate checks and distribution of power to prevent any of them from becoming too powerful.  

How do you define "too powerful"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 4/19/2020 at 7:34 PM, BladeRunner said:

Hugo Chavez said the same thing.  Just a few things here and there we'll expand and next thing you know it became hell on earth after he took everything over.

We're on to these "we don't want real socialism" arguments, but that's exactly they want and what will eventually happen.  It doesn't change overnight.

Hugo Chavez was an authoritarian-leaning populist.  Just like Robert Mugabe.  Or Daniel Ortega.  Those traits - authoritarian, populist - are the common traits of what scare me in a politician.  Sounds like someone in office now.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, urbanhack said:

Update?

Well, turns out some early in the thread were right, it’s a ridiculous assertion I made and in no way does the United States look like a Banana Republic right now.

 

:homer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
29 minutes ago, Green Balloons said:

Trump Administration Strips C.D.C. of Control of Coronavirus Data

 

Just more consolidation of power.  Not to mention pardoning Stone for collaborating with the Russians to help Trump win the election.

Seriously, is there nothing we can do about this?  Nothing?  How the hell does he have this much power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an agency of the Department of Health - which is a cabinet-level executive branch department. 

So...it's under the purview of the office of the President. :shrug:

https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/white-house-hospitals-bypass-cdc-report-covid-19-data-directly-hhs

Quote

On a press call Wednesday, CDC Director Dr. Robert R. Redfield said that the change had been made with the CDC's support. 

"We at CDC know that the lifeblood of public health is data," said Redfield, adding that collecting and disseminating data "is our top priority and the reason for the change."

He emphasized: "No one is taking access or data away from the CDC."

Readfield noted that about 1,000 CDC experts will continue to have access to the raw data from hospitals. "This access is the same today as it was yesterday," he said.

 

Edited by Andy Dufresne
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

It's an agency of the Department of Health - which is a cabinet-level executive branch department. 

So...it's under the purview of the office of the President. :shrug:

 

Great.     I learned Monday that 4 of my friends all died from covid but guess we know how this all "goes away".

BTW, miss seeing you around GB.


ETA  to quote Trump "One day like a miracle it will all disappear."

Edited by Green Balloons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andy Dufresne said:

As far as I can tell, the data is being reported to a different system but all the same people that had and need access to it still have it. 

Do you trust this administration to follow through with this? Will this truly not at all affect our national ability to respond to the crisis and all appropriate parties' ability to access necessary data? Do you feel as if no information will be stifled or politicized (moreso than it already is) if it's being filtered through the administration?

Do you feel this is a decision made in the best interests of US citizens?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Herb said:

Do you trust this administration to follow through with this? Will this truly not at all affect our national ability to respond to the crisis and all appropriate parties' ability to access necessary data? Do you feel as if no information will be stifled or politicized (moreso than it already is) if it's being filtered through the administration?

Do you feel this is a decision made in the best interests of US citizens?

:shrug: The process was already part of "This administration". Whether things go through the CDC or HHS doesn't seem to much matter since the former has already been part of the latter - and both under the executive.

Seriously, I think everyone is looking through the lens of worst case scenario with everything Trump. Not that he hasn't earned that. But critics should really pick their spots better.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

:shrug: The process was already part of "This administration". Whether things go through the CDC or HHS doesn't seem to much matter since the former has already been part of the latter - and both under the executive.

Seriously, I think everyone is looking through the lens of worst case scenario with everything Trump. Not that he hasn't earned that. But critics should really pick their spots better.

What's the point of doing it then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Andy Dufresne said:

:shrug: The process was already part of "This administration". Whether things go through the CDC or HHS doesn't seem to much matter since the former has already been part of the latter - and both under the executive.

Seriously, I think everyone is looking through the lens of worst case scenario with everything Trump. Not that he hasn't earned that. But critics should really pick their spots better.

On the surface it honestly doesn't seem like a big deal. But under Trump, I always assume the worst and wait to be convinced otherwise. I just wanted to get your thoughts on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Manster said:

As an Oregonian, I'm just glad I don't live in that crap hole Portland.

Would it make you feel better if Trump put Portland (love that city, BTW) under "federal control?" Whatever that's supposed to mean...

This seems like one of those threats that all the 2A separatist/survivalist types have been warning us the Dems would do forever. Wonder how they'd feel about it if Trump actually followed through with it. Again, whatever "it" is.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...