How would you respond to this intelligent socialist?

[aGameOfThrones]

I stopped after reading this:

i would much rather take the word of the well-appointed government man, whose will and ambition are tempered and shaped by the millions who voted him in, over the word of the corporate man, whose unbridled will and ambition are only tempered by the depth of his wallet.

 

[awake]

Once one understands that socialism is an unworkable system of societal organization, the term 'intelligent socialist' becomes an oxymoron. "If you are a socialist at 20 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist at 30 you have no brain."

What I find most curious is that socialists worry of the evil business man who will grow so big as to wield sole monopoly and exploit the rest of the human race; placing us all into slavery. In contrast, they look upon government not as any of these evils things, while willfully ignoring reality: That the state is all of these things and much worse.

Intellectual Dyslexia.

 

[dannno]

I also like how in his world humanity can't figure out how to hook up differently sized water pipes without the state telling them how.

I honestly thought you were referring to bongs, aka "water pipes"

Let me assure the OP's buddy that bongs are not regulated by the govt., in fact they are only questionably legal (see Feds vs. Tommy Chong) yet I can get a 14mm to 18mm conversion piece for one if I have the wrong bowl size..

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

i would much rather take the word of the well-appointed government man, whose will and ambition are tempered and shaped by the millions who voted him in, over the word of the corporate man, whose unbridled will and ambition are only tempered by the depth of his wallet.

This person trusts public executes (lawyers) over private executives.

[I respect] the politicians that give a damn about the will and ambition of the people; whichever ones pass the laws that regulate and restrict the abilities of companies to lie and take advantage of us... such as requiring warnings and full disclosure of ingredients, mandating truth in advertising, requiring medications and drugs to be tested before being approved, etc... without an organization holding companies liable, they would be able to sell whatever they want under whatever label they want to whoever they want without having any regard for the outcome or effect for those using their products. it still happens, but to a lesser extent than if no rules and regulations were developed. i like how government allocates tax money for public safety/conveniences like sidewalks, street lights, how they mandate interchangeable parts on utilities so that no companies can make their services like water and electric proprietary, therefore allowing an integrated, comprehensive and socially-oriented approach to getting people the services they need. whoever developed speed limits and traffic lights. i feel we need a government to appropriate the funds and pass the laws necessary to keep our communities cohesive and accesible to as many as possible. i feel the public interest is far more important than the private interest. but i do see the importance of limiting such governmental influence. lately the government's been going way too far in some issues, and far too lightly on others. a major overhaul and restructuring is needed, for sure. will it happen? fat chance. but there are still some good representatives, fighting the good fight for the right reasons. unfortunately there's just far too many crooked politicians interfering with that process. oh, well. life goes on.

He believes naively that governments can govern from great distances away which means he doesn't believe in tyranny.

I believe complete dissolution of government would lead to very very bad things. there are people intent on weakening the government more than it already is, but i find a restructuring would be a far better option. the government has gotten stronger, perhaps a little too strong, is some areas, but has remained very weak in others, particularly in it's lack of regulating and reigning-in multi-nationalist organizations and corporations that operate outside of most governments' jurisdictions, allowing tragic abuse of labor laws and child slavery and spiraling of their country's economies into the newly-paved gravel. And despite a resounding effort which failed miserably in the late 90's early 2000's to severely limit the amount of private donation $ allowed from any one corporate entity or private donor, the poll choices are still ridgidly locked-in to candidates who are rampantly stroking the wallets of special interests. And i feel these rich entities were able to dig-in and saturate the "new world" with their imperialistic world-changing policies because of an integrally weak central government far too stunted by the original constitution to have any shot of reinging in said terror. luckily we've amended and restructured enough to allow SOME anti-monopoly control and secure retirement benefits for america's hard-working labor force, but essentially the relative weakness in our government has allowed unbridled growth and consumption, and while this has afforded americans a relatively brief period of success, our starving country is literally starting to eat it's own stomach. And the depraved destitution our lavish lifestyles have caused to other countries who used to get by fine without air conditioners and computers and iphones and all these luxuries which we consider "rights", is disgusting, inhumane, and unacceptable. these countries are literally being sucked dry by the sponge that is consumer america. and those 10-year olds working for walmart nicaragua 100 hours a week for cents a day don't have a bed to go home to, let-alone an xbox, iphone, food, or air conditioners.... And a lot of people say screw other countries, we should worry about our own.... well we weren't singing that tune when we were infiltrating these countries with our corporate agendas, decimating their local economies, and pressuring their governments to restructure themselves around our own thirst for capital. But these issues are all completely different from the ones you raised. Your issues are a perfect example of some of the bad things strong government creates. however, i feel these other issues require immediate attention in the interest of the humanity, and are integral in "preserving the trust." I find the political landscape to be changing, it's much less about "red vs. blue", and much more about several sets of complex views that can't be classified into to any two distinct dichotomies. It's refreshing that so many people have so many different views. Hopefully we can restructure the government in the near future to have a least 5 to 10 "major" political parties, as opposed to the 2 that currently force us to choose one and pit us against the other

.

In my opinion, this person just sounds intelligent.

 

[Vessol]

Point out the gun in the room.

That tactic will defeat any Statist unless they are also by chance a sociopath who has no problem with violence.

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Once one understands that socialism is an unworkable system of societal organization, the term 'intelligent socialist' becomes an oxymoron. "If you are a socialist at 20 you have no heart, if you are still a socialist at 30 you have no brain."

What I find most curious is that socialists worry of the evil business man who will grow so big as to wield sole monopoly and exploit the rest of the human race; placing us all into slavery. In contrast, they look upon government not as any of these evils things, while willfully ignoring reality: That the state is all of these things and much worse.

Intellectual Dyslexia.

Once again, the political spectrum of "the Golden Mean" wasn't intended by Aristotle to create extremes in politics, but to bring a extremist Greece back towards moderacy. As tyranny can't solve problems, so the Federal government can't solve problems. Indeed, as it necessary for it to function, it must operate as a necessary tyranny.

 

[Vessol]

Once again, the political spectrum of "the Golden Mean" wasn't intended by Aristotle to create extremes in politics, but to bring a extremist Greece back towards moderacy. As tyranny can't solve problems, so the Federal government can't solve problems. Indeed, as it necessary for it to function, it must operate as a necessary tyranny.

So you think using violence on peaceful individuals is necessary?

 

[JCLibertarian]

Better yet, have a benevolent dictatorship, that was taught to me in college as being the best form of governement, not kidding that was taught.

I would rather have a corporatist dictatorship, with free market elements than a social democracy like the one mentioned by this guy talked about in the OP.

 

[gb13]

Thanks for all your input, everyone. It's been helpful to hear a myriad of widely differing opinions. I like that "against me" argument...pointing out the gun in the room. Might try it on for size, rather than arguing point-by-point ad infinitum with his long-winded digressions.