Why do so many Ron Paul members doubt the dangers of socialism?

[Anti Globalist]

I never doubted the dangers of socialism.

 

[juleswin]

Successful...sure, depending on what metric you use to measure success.

But I'll even grant that many of these societies are successful by universally agreed upon standards.

But that's not the point of government...at least as understood by the Enlightenment men who founded the nation.

The point of government, it's only legitimate purpose, is to protect individual liberty.

Success or failure is up to you...or at least it's supposed to be...we, as a nation, no longer believe that.

So now we look for "success" to be provided by government manipulation...and that's a god damned dangerous road to go down.

Success?

If I had plenipotentiary dictatorial powers I could slash violent crime rates, increase life expectancy rates and massively reduce welfare dependency by forcibly rounding up every black person in the country and shipping them back to Liberia.

You wanna live in that society?

That would be unfortunate for the black folks who don't want to be deported but if it leads to the betterment of the of 77%+ of Americans who aren't black, then that is success. As the saying goes, you cannot argue with success

 

[Anti Federalist]

By the way, we already have full blown socialism, by any objective measure.

We are now drifting towards a strange, evil and uniquely AmeriKan mix of leftist Bolshevism, "Reign of Terror" Jacobinism and Jim Jones cult style, religiously tinted, authoritarian communism.

 

[acptulsa]

The discussion drifted in that direction. My whole point in this discussion is to dispel this myth that there is only one way and that way is pure unadultrated capitalism to achieve economic prosperity. And in addition to that the myth that a mixed economic system with a sizeable chunk of socialism is a fatal economic system that will for the most part always lead to collapse.

If there were a lot of people, even here, who thought that, this thread would never have been created. I personally believe that is dependent on size--a hippy commune or a kibbutz can survive, but the bigger the entity the sooner central micromanagement fails miserably.

Of course, there's that other variable. How does the mix run? You mentioned Japan and South Korea. Someone mentioned Sweden. No state owns Honda, Toyota, Saab, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Nissan, Volvo...

That said, all the CIA has to do is jack with Venezuela. Afghanistan isn't even slightly socialist, and has stood against the actual military for over a decade and a half.

I submit deciding to centrally plan one's economy is a mistake. You haven't changed my mind. But I guess you had a good time arguing.

 

[Krugminator2]

The discussion drifted in that direction. My whole point in this discussion is to dispel this myth that there is only one way and that way is pure unadultrated capitalism to achieve economic prosperity.

There are zero instances in world history of a country becoming substantially more economically free and not becoming much better off.

The failure rate of countries with substantial planning is about 90%. You can count on one hand countries that aren't messes that have a lot of planning. And Taiwan and South Korea don't count. I don't know what you are talking about there.

You equate Venezuela, which confiscated businesses on a mass scale and had price controls and ranks almost last in economic freedom, with the UK or the US or South Korea which is ridiculous. And if only the mean old US didn't meddle then Venezuela would be thriving like South Korea. Because something something derp imperialism.

 

[juleswin]

What are you talking about? Britain was a $#@!hole country in the 1970s. It was mess. That weren't doing just fine. That would be exhibit A of the evils of socialism. 1970s Britain is why Margaret Thatcher got elected. Watch a documentary sometime about what a $#@!hole Britain was during that time period.

I don't know how true the claim that the UK was a shyte hole country in the 70s but they became a super power while having a centralized socialist govt. What's up with that? I will try and read up on it and get back to you.

Can you recommend any documantary to view?

 

[acptulsa]

I don't know how true the claim that the UK was a shyte hole country in the 70s but they became a super power while having a centralized socialist govt. What's up with that? I will try and read up on it and get back to you.

Can you recommend any documantary to view?

They became a super power when?

Try this: Britain became a world power in May of 1588 when it was extremely capitalist, and ceased to be one in 1944 after it went socialist. By the 1960s...

Stick "export or die" in your search engine.

 

[Krugminator2]

they became a super power while having a centralized socialist govt. What's up with that? I will try and read up on it and get back to you.

No they didn't. They became a superpower with an economy that was more capitalistic than the US which was also very capitalistic.

 

[juleswin]

They became a super power when?

Try this: Britain became a world power in May of 1588 when it was extremely capitalist, and ceased to be one in 1944 after it went socialist. By the 1960s...

Stick "export or die" in your search engine.

There is a lot that I am trying to read up on now, but something tells me a lot was left out of the story. Maybe, just my guess is that they were able to get a jump on many countries, took a bunch of colonies which they sucked dry for their own benefit for years and then in the 1940, they fought their second ill advised war which broke their backs. This loss in addition with many of their colonies revolting and kicking them out led to their final demise.

Capitalism in the 1580s? with Kings and Queens declaring and commanding? that don't sound right to me.

 

[acptulsa]

No they didn't. They became a superpower with an economy that was more capitalistic than the US which was also very capitalistic.

The U.S?

Um, when they became a world power, they started setting up colonies, right? And among those colonies was...?

There is a lot that I am trying to read up on now, but something tells me a lot was left out of the story. Maybe, just my guess is that they were able to get a jump on many countries, took a bunch of colonies which they sucked dry for their own benefit for years and then in the 1940, they fought their second ill advised war which broke their backs. This loss in addition with many of their colonies revolting and kicking them out led to their final demise.

Sorry, was I supposed to insert a comprehensive course in world history into this thread? My bad.

The bitter end of the last remnants if the British Empire had more to do with FDR saying, sure, we'll get Nazi Germany off your backs. But we get all the client states we roll through on the way across Africa.

The history books don't describe it just that way. But it was just that way.

Capitalism in the 1580s? with Kings and Queens declaring and commanding? that don't sound right to me.

Oh? You think kings and queens had the technology to micromismanage everything in the sixteenth century?

If all sixteenth century British bakers were owned by the government, then this bureaucracy had a name and a headquarters. Find them. I dare you. Yes, all farmers were serfs, otherwise known as sharecroppers, when only nobles owned land. But you think London could micromismanage every cobbler in York with sixteenth century methods of communication?

They call the stuff Marxism, right? For Karl Marx (5 May 1818 - 14 March 1883)?
Who was just saying that there can be varying degrees of state ownership and control?

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I don't know how true the claim that the UK was a shyte hole country in the 70s but they became a super power while having a centralized socialist govt. What's up with that? I will try and read up on it and get back to you.

Can you recommend any documantary to view?

They became a superpower in the 1970s? What are you on about? The 60s and 70s is when their superpower status started to truly vanish, as opposed to the 1950s when it was just diminishing. The unions in Britain were totally out of control, striking constantly, holding the country over a barrel, building cars nobody wanted to buy, including Brits. If you're talking about when they started to really rule the world, that's when they were free traders, opening markets, sometimes by force. That's why the more protectionist "American School" of economics was contrasted to the more free-trade oriented "British School".

There is a lot that I am trying to read up on now, but something tells me a lot was left out of the story. Maybe, just my guess is that they were able to get a jump on many countries, took a bunch of colonies which they sucked dry for their own benefit for years and then in the 1940, they fought their second
ill advised war which broke their backs. This loss in addition with many of their colonies revolting and kicking them out led to their final demise.

So this is what you meant? During the colonial period, Britain was largely free market, and their wealth did not come from the colonies. Not to mention the actual civilization they brought to the backward places they invaded.

Capitalism in the 1580s? with Kings and Queens declaring and commanding? that don't sound right to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Monasteries

The dawn of capitalism in Englad predates the 1580s, actually.

 

[acptulsa]

The 60s and 70s is when their superpower status started to truly vanish, as opposed to the 1950s when it was just diminishing.

I guess I should ask what you mean by 'superpower' at this point, because they didn't have one acre more territory in 1950 than in 1970.

So this is what you meant? During the colonial period, Britain was largely free market, and their wealth did not come from the colonies.

No? So the British East India Co. and the Hudson's Bay Co. weren't two of the most profitable and successful enterprises the world had ever seen at that time?

Gee, if the colonies weren't producing, how did they pay all those sailors?

The dawn of capitalism in Englad predates the 1580s, actually.

The dawn of capitalism in England predates the Bronze Age. It may predate the Stone Age.

It works so darned well cave men can do it.

 

[juleswin]

They became a superpower in the 1970s? What are you on about? The 60s and 70s is when their superpower status started to truly vanish, as opposed to the 1950s when it was just diminishing. The unions in Britain were totally out of control, striking constantly, holding the country over a barrel, building cars nobody wanted to buy, including Brits. If you're talking about when they started to really rule the world, that's when they were free traders, opening markets, sometimes by force. That's why the more protectionist "American School" of economics was contrasted to the more free-trade oriented "British School".





So this is what you meant? During the colonial period, Britain was largely free market, and their wealth did not come from the colonies. Not to mention the actual civilization they brought to the backward places they invaded.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Monasteries


The dawn of capitalism in Englad predates the 1580s, actually.

There is a lot to unpack and read here and I will try and do my assignments when I get the chance but I did not say they became a super power in the 1970. What I meant to say was that they only privatized their oil company in the 1970, my point being that they were a super power before then when they were still owning huge industries.

Thanks for the link, I will check out when I get a chance. I have to say something else, everytime I see a response from you to any thread I am posting on, my heart jumps a couple of beats. Its like I am afraid(and I shouldn't) of what you are going to say but the jump I got this time made me think I was about to code. Resting easy now from the fright

 

[oyarde]

As far as the question of the OP , many members here are left leaning in certain matters because they were before they came. They will learn much here .

 

[enhanced_deficit]

No expert on lures of socialism but some of it could be reactive, sort of like election of socialist Barack Hussein Obama as a result of stunning performance of last major Capitalism Freedom team that led the country.


Capitalism Freedoms Inc - Biggest Blunders in History

 

[acptulsa]

Its like I am afraid(and I shouldn't) of what you are going to say...

Why not? I am. Some days I'd swear it's stormfront.bot

No expert on lures of socialism but some of it could be reactive, sort of like election of socialist Barack Hussein Obama as a result of stunning performance of last major Capitalism Freedom team that led the country.


Capitalism Freedoms Inc - Biggest Blunders in History

Are you blaming it on propaganda? Because only propagandists call neocons "capitalists".

Quite right. Only propaganda can ever sell it. Nobody ever turns to the stuff because of its actual track record.

 

[euphemia]

Nobody doubts the dangers of socialism. We just doubt that the Libertarian Party will ever get their stuff together so they can be known as the Libertarian Party, or field a candidate with any kind of legitimacy whatsoever. That’s why socialists keep getting elected.

 

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I guess I should ask what you mean by 'superpower' at this point, because they didn't have one acre more territory in 1950 than in 1970.

No, but their influence was waning. 1950 was before the Suez Crisis, which (among other things) solidified that the Empire part of the British Empire was truly at an end. If you read people who were alive at the time after World War II was finally in the rearview, many hoped that Britain would return to its place as a world leader. They didn't because they couldn't.

No? So the British East India Co. and the Hudson's Bay Co. weren't two of the most profitable and successful enterprises the world had ever seen at that time?

Gee, if the colonies weren't producing, how did they pay all those sailors?

Of course, certain corporate entities were enriched significantly. No one denies that. But that was not why the British were rich. Plundering resources was old hat, even at the time. The Spanish did it. The Portuguese did it. The French did it. And yet, the British Empire was a different animal from the rest. Moreover, the cost to Britain as a whole has been debated, with many arguing the colonies were a net resource drain.

The dawn of capitalism in England predates the Bronze Age. It may predate the Stone Age.

It works so darned well cave men can do it.

I'm using a more specific definition of capitalism in that post.

 

[pcosmar]

You got that backwards. I'm the OP and I'm saying it's entirely the fault of Chavez and Maduro and their socialist policies. Not a US conspiracy.

And you would be FULL of $hit//

This was an orchestrated overthrow. That began when the last US Backed Fascist Dictator died.

 

[pcosmar]

Here's a few. Cuba,

US Government installed Castro.