Ever heard of the DPRK? That would be the Democratic Republic of Korea. Guess which Korea it is? Don’t know? It’s North Korea. Yeah they’re Democratic alright, at least according to your line of thinking. Also, the “People’s Republic of China”, suggests that the people run that nation. Incorrect. Your theory is very poorly developed.

I must say I’m not at all surprised that a “conservative” would make the mistake of taking a political party at acronym face value rather than making critical observations of its ideals and its history. Conservatives tend to be closed minded and poorly educated, so I don’t hold it against you.

Also note that Hitler rose to power in part by calling his opponents “communists”, whether they were or not. And questioning their patriotism. As soon as he had enough people believing this, you were “with us or against us”, or you were dead. There’s a reason people refer to your line of thinking as trending toward “fascist.” It’s not because you killed millions of people in a death camp somewhere. It’s because you exhibit the same qualities that allowed someone like Hitler to rise to power in the first place.

It’s not hyperbole, it’s a measurable trait of attitudes that is worrisome to those that pay attention.

be makiread political parties literally. Especially when they suppose You note that NAZI says “socialist” in it, and by your very l\og
ic North Korea is guess what a democracy. Becaues they are

If you remember your biology classes, you’ll know that man traditionally lived in plains and jungles. He is still today, in fact, adapted for those conditions. In such an environment there was no need for rational thinking, intuition sufficed. However, mankind now lives in a very different environment. irrationalism is rampant; you can’t convince, much to Descartes misfortune, an individual through reason alone. He requires punishment, most unfortunately (and the fear of). In the words of Hank Hill : ” .. he had an anger problem…I have an idiot problem.”

Here are some modern works on the Soviet Union (Based upon the previously closed archives).

Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1 was published by the Russian Academy of Science and is available at the NY Public Library Slavic Studies division

Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5931651071.

(P.S. Be respectful to Russians, the reason being Gazprom)

Oh, I’m sorry. Was that a bit too provocative? A little over the top? Quite a bit totally unnecessary?

Of course it was, though at least 50% of it is probably true. You can try to push my buttons all you want. I’m reasonably sure the intent of your post was to be outrageous and provoke a flailing angry response on my part. The only way you could have honestly meant any of what you said was if the only book you had ever read was a Soviet “history” book from the 1950s. If so, congratulations. Russian is a notoriously difficult language to master.

What I’m saying, in essence, is that no one is stupid enough to actually hold the views you profess. Not even you.

Please respond,
and know that people like me control this world, whatever the socio-economic system.

Exactly. Exept, of course, that Nazis and fascists doens’t believe in going back to earlier laws and neither are they intent on preserving individual property.

Or, and of course, liberals were considered left far into the 20th century, and still are considered left in the US. Why? Because they opposed monarchy, and because they worked together with the socialists for democracy.

So, thanks for playing, but you are completely wrong. Sorry.

Nazis, fascists, conservatives and in Europe also liberals are seen as right, becuase socialism has put itself in the far left, and right is since long simply considered as the antithesis of socialism. The more socialists dislike you, the further right you are.

All this shows, of course, is how completely useless a concept that is based on where people sat in the french parliament 200 years ago is today.

It’s so bloody annoying.

Can we invent a new word? Freedomism?

Anyway, it’s been fun.

I used to be just like you. There is an old saying, on my side of the political spectrum, a conservative is just a liberal who got mugged by reality. That’s pretty much what happened to me.

Incidentally, I really don’t consider myself a conservative. I only use that label because 99% of people in this country don’t know what classical liberalism is. I live by and for Age of Enlightenment thought and values.

I can’t speak for the others, but I’m not out to change your mind. Decades of arguing with modern liberals has shown me that this is an exercise in futility. I’m pushing 50 now, so I really don’t feel any obligation to waste my remaining time in a fruitless effort to save modern liberals from themselves.

My attitude on the whole thing can be summed up with a paraphrase of a famous Winston Churchill quote: If you’re not a liberal by the time your 15, then you have no heart; if you’re still a liberal at 30, then you have no brain.

But, even though you started out with an insult to me and a mindless rant against liberalism, it turns out that when you explained your position a little bit more clearly, then I agreed with you. You were even persuasive.

So I guess my question is, why were you trying to insult instead of persuade from the beginning??

No, it was a counter argument against your claim that schools should be public. In fact, it’s a “reductio ad absurdum”. Showing that your argument was absurd.

“People who otherwise can’t afford them will still get them. It’s not the Invisible Hand because government still steps in with a helping hand where it is needed.”

It’s still the invisible hand if people are allowed to choose on a free market. As mentioned, people choosing on a free marker *is* the invisible hand.

“These might be small differences to you, but they make an enormous difference to the people who couldn’t afford it without the government.”

No, they are not small differences to me. But you made a false assumption when you grouped them together with the issue of privatization. It’s a common false assumption, but it’s still false.

“If you’d like, we could stop using the Invisible Hand metaphor.”

It’s a deal!

“Well, sure. So, shouldn’t we make sure the health system and the education system are as good as possible and available to every one?”

Agreed.

Good. And how do we make sure they they are as good as possible? By having private companies competing on a free market. And how do we make sure they are available to everyone? By voucher systems and universal health insurance.

And this isn’t a weird pipe dream either. This has been tested, We know it works. I have seen it work.

“I don’t know about you, but I’m having fun here. You’re clearly not the nutcase that I thought you were at first. ”

Thanks, I guess.

Privatizing the car industry just sounds like another way to place making a lousy buck more important than the transports.

Privatizing the food industry just sounds like another way to place making a lousy buck more important than the food.

Privatizing the music industry just sounds like another way to place making a lousy buck more important than the culture.

Privatizing the computer industry just sounds like another way to place making a lousy buck more important than the maths.

That was in an attempt to argue for privatization of schools. Those examples aren’t subsidized. They have basic and luxury goods and services that they sell. If you don’t have the money for those goods and services, you don’t get them.

Schools and healthcare that are subsidized don’t fall into that category. People who otherwise can’t afford them will still get them. It’s not the Invisible Hand because government still steps in with a helping hand where it is needed.

These might be small differences to you, but they make an enormous difference to the people who couldn’t afford it without the government.

““The invisible hand” (I hate that wording) is what happens when people make individual choices on a free market. There is no requirement in this that the money has to come directly from your wallet.”

If you’d like, we could stop using the Invisible Hand metaphor. Sorry for using it. In any case:

“Well, sure. So, shouldn’t we make sure the health system and the education system are as good as possible and available to every one?”

Agreed.

I don’t know about you, but I’m having fun here. You’re clearly not the nutcase that I thought you were at first.

So? The schools are still private. And if you take a public school and make it private, that’s privatizing. Or do you suggest another word for it?

“If you want me to not make false assumptions, you have to get your terminology correct.”

Well, that can be a bit hard if you have a secret “correct” terminology.

“True. But cutting the hospitals free from government support, and letting the invisible hand take over, would make them worse.”

More wrong assumptions: That goverment money is not “the invisible hand”. “The invisible hand” (I hate that wording) is what happens when people make individual choices on a free market. There is no requirement in this that the money has to come directly from your wallet. As long as you are allowed to choose the the money, the invisible hand is at play.

And we *want* the invisible hand to take over. Because the invisible hand is *us*. You and me. As opposed to when the state decides, which means that some official in a bureaucracy decides.

“Yes, rephrase it however you like, but modern capitalism and society in general work better with healthy and educated people who are actually doing the hands-on work.”

Well, sure. So, shouldn’t we make sure the health system and the education system are as good as possible and available to every one?

“““Yet, as philosophical ideals, they’re both all about the people, above all else.” All political ideals are.”

No, not all. Go visit a dictatorship or monarchy.”

I already have. I guess you don’t realize that few monarchies or dictatorships today are ruled by any sort of political ideal.

Ohhhh. Except that’s not privatizing – that subsidizing schools. Tax dollars – from the government, are still paying for it.

If you want me to not make false assumptions, you have to get your terminology correct.

“I don’t know anybody who can afford hospitals without some sort of health insurance. Now, did I suggest that we outlaw health insurance, or scrap medicare? No, I didn’t. I’m for a universal health insurance. But you claimed profit making makes hospitals worse. They don’t.”

True. But cutting the hospitals free from government support, and letting the invisible hand take over, would make them worse.

“Why do you think capitalism requires middle managers, or for that matter “skilled labour”? Capitalism is just private ownership + free markets.
Yes, modern *companies* (and society in general) work better with healthy people that are well educated (middle class or not). But that’s not “capitalism”, per se.”

Yes, rephrase it however you like, but modern capitalism and society in general work better with healthy and educated people who are actually doing the hands-on work.

““Yet, as philosophical ideals, they’re both all about the people, above all else.” All political ideals are.”

No, not all. Go visit a dictatorship or monarchy.

If they have vouchers: All of them.
See, that was your first incorrect assumption: That private schools and persona choice in school means you have to pay for it yourself. You don’t. Public schools are not free. They cost just as much money to run as private schools. They are just lower quality, because there is not competition. This is easily solved by privatizing all schools and paying for this by vouchers instead.

Voucher, you realize, is a liberal invention. Yes, really. Problem is that in the US the concept was first raised by republicans, and of course, all democrats decided that they should be against vouchers. That’s a stupid gut reaction of automatically hating everything that comes from the other camp.

Vouchers are a fantastic, liberal and liberating idea for fixing the school system. They have been implemented in some European countries with great success.

“Hospital visits without Medicare?”

I don’t know anybody who can afford hospitals without some sort of health insurance. Now, did I suggest that we outlaw health insurance, or scrap medicare? No, I didn’t. I’m for a universal health insurance. But you claimed profit making makes hospitals worse. They don’t.

“Who do you think would run our economy if our middle managers and skilled laborers were sick and incompetent?”

Why do you think capitalism requires middle managers, or for that matter “skilled labour”? Capitalism is just private ownership + free markets.
Yes, modern *companies* (and society in general) work better with healthy people that are well educated (middle class or not). But that’s not “capitalism”, per se.

“Right – sorry about that, I forgot we already had King George (Bush) with his abuse of executive privilege.”

You are losing it.

“Yet, as philosophical ideals, they’re both all about the people, above all else.”

All political ideals are.