Socialism VS Capitalism Vs Liberal VS Conservative

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 34tuforlunch, Jan 27, 2011.

  1. 34tuforlunch

    34tuforlunch New Member

    I would say I am a Liberal Capitalist because I believe people should have no control over other peoples shit.
    Discuss
  2. MrIMStoned

    MrIMStoned |BIG BROTHER|

    I don't subscribe to a liberal/conservative mindset. I am however pro-free market capitalism.
    4 people like this.
  3. Crosiss

    Crosiss New Member

    knock knock
















    whos there
















    rece
















    rece who















    resource based economy
    4 people like this.
  4. OrangeJuiceandKush

    OrangeJuiceandKush Sr. Member

    COMMUNISM .... nah but has anybody really followed the communist manifesto human greed NEVER fails its kind of sad.

    Anyway...I'm pro capitalism but it has to has its checks capitalism when unhinged is a perfect example of the U.S. now the super rich are WAY to rich and the poor are becomer poorer, while the middle class is being destroyed.
  5. pwner289

    pwner289 New Member

    I am left wing on social issues and right wing on fiscal and national issues, that is what a political quiz I took said. But I do not buy in to the left/right liberal/conservative paradigm they force us into.

    Although I do believe everyone should be equal on a social level, I believe that everyone should be given the same opportunities, and then we go from there in a competitive economy to see really who is the better man and who is more successful in business and commerce.

    Also, regarding Communism the problem with it is that throughout history the leaders at the top of the society always get greedy and corrupt with all their powers and they eventually degrade the communist country into a dictatorship.
    2 people like this.
  6. Grass-Smoka

    Grass-Smoka 303% Acid

    RBE will never work, get over it.
    2 people like this.
  7. Kushy

    Kushy down

    I am a conservative libertarian who believes that government tends to screw up things more than it helps. Not that I don't think that they should regulate some things like safety, protection, law enforcement, etc, but government follows human nature in that they will spend money very frivolously because it is not theirs to spend. It is ours, and they have put us 14 trillion in the hole. I believe in real capitalism, not the perverted artificial 'stimulus market' we have where we inject all of this artificial stimulation at the expense of the people's taxpayers. I am also extremely against Keynesian and socialist tactics such as redistribution of wealth. And of course I am against government spending. We need to spend less, cut programs, cut the income tax, audit and abolish the Federal Reserve and the IRS (or at least offer monetary competition like Gold to invest in the mean time), and of course stop invading other countries and building a world empire with tons of money that we don't have.
    6 people like this.
  8. pwner289

    pwner289 New Member

    What do you think about pulling all American military presence from Europe?

    As for the wars, I am pro Afghan war but anti Iraq war. The Iraq war was based on a lie, but I know exactly why the Afghan war is happening and I know what the Taliban wish to do with Afghanistan if they can ever get it back again, and I don't like it.

    Also, how else would we get ourselves out of the debt, if we do not raise taxes on the citizens? Spreading the wealth seems to be one of the only solutions to mass poverty in America right now.
  9. Kushy

    Kushy down

    I think it's absurd to even spend that much money to put troops there to begin with, not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of bases we have built and established not only in Europe and the Middle East but all around the world. it doesn't matter if you think we should or shouldn't be the police of the world (I don't), even if you do, we don't have the money for it!

    Unfortunately yes the Taliban are a dangerous group but think about this long term. What exactly are we going to do, chase them around the middle east? Follow them from Afghanistan to Pakistan all the way around the globe? If the government truly cared about the world it would deploy troops to stop the genocides in Africa or the oppressive totalitarian Iranian government. Look, I wish, I honestly wish we had the resources to help these parts of the world, but when we're spending so many trillions on building our empire around the world, we don't have any to sustain our country and economy back home!

    We get ourselves out of debt the natural way. Saving. I'm not talking about pinching a few programs here and there. A lot of govt. programs are extremely bloated and work extremely inefficiently, not to mention completely bankrupt and ridiculous programs like Social Security (a ponze-scheme run by the government, the baby-boomers haven't even taken their share out of the pot and the government has already raided and bankrupted the fund and the entire program.) Even if we abolished the Federal Reserve we would no longer depreciate our dollar, we would go back to a stable currency, and the government wouldn't take trillions of our income tax dollars to pay the interest only on the money we borrow from the fed and the national debt. I'm not saying get rid of taxes, I'm saying get rid of the income tax, apply a 1% fair tax on everything, get rid of the Federal Reserve, cut spending, start producing more and consuming less, and save save save.
    6 people like this.
  10. pwner289

    pwner289 New Member

    Your rhetoric reminds me VERY much of Ron Paul and his rantings.

    I agree with you on many things, but I think we may have to stay in Afghanistan a long, long time. History repeats itself, we cannot leave and let extremists take over again. And yes, we should chase them to Pakistan with drones and bomb their hideouts to smitherines, it's working right now and I can send you the article where the Al Qaeda commander actually admits it, if you want to read it.

    Besides, you are so radical in your beliefs that only a massive revolution would be able to implement what you wish to see on the policy level.
  11. MrIMStoned

    MrIMStoned |BIG BROTHER|

    I would say it's the other way around. The reason the rich get richer is because it isn't a true free market. The rich have instigated checks and bounds that favour them and create monopolies and artificial economic environments. A true free market balances itself.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ2U2Lym0_o]YouTube - Ron Paul: Allow The Free Market, Not The Fed, To Set Interest Rates[/ame]
    5 people like this.
  12. Kushy

    Kushy down

    I am in full favor of using drones to weaken Al Qaida. The difference between drones is that a) we are not sending away American men to die for an originally unjust War b) drones are much, much cheaper than paying infantry. I would be in favor of compromising with you to say that we should bring home a large portion of our troops, keep a small amount there, but mostly rely on drones and bombs to weaken them.

    But what you have to understand also is why they do not like us. They do have some fucked up beliefs such as women cruelty, but it's not just that, it's that we have also pissed them off numerous times... It's not like they don't NOT have a reason to hate us, they certainly do... It's an unintended consequence of our empire building.

    Call me radical all you want, but what's radical is keeping the status quo, especially 14 trillion dollars in debt (which WE are going to have to pay for), and 4 trillion of which has been spent away in only the last TWO years of Obama's presidency. What should we do, just not try to change the system and accept the mediocre bureaucracy we have now?
    2 people like this.
  13. pwner289

    pwner289 New Member

    Yes, I know that our actions are somewhat a part of their hatred for us, but it's also their religious views and the society around them that incites them to commit violence.

    Right now we have 130,000 troops there. The plan is to pound them as much as we possibly can, and believe me we are, and then draw down this July. And then we will leave 50,000 NATO troops to train Afghan soldiers and engage in the remainder of combat missions. And yes, the plan is that even 10 years after we leave, there will still be drones buzzing around in the sky raining bombs on their heads.

    The "radical" thing wasn't an insult. But the people in power seem to have a bubble around them where tactics such as yours will not even reach their train of thought. And also, do you protest? It'd be much more effective if you repeated what you told me to your representatives, if you protested it, if you made your voice heard in a massive way. That has always been more effective than just saying it on the Internet.

    Some people think that the debt we owe is really fake derivatives from China and other private banks. Do you really think we should pay that off, or scrap the system and go back to gold and silver as the sources of currency, like the constitution says?
  14. 4 Pounds

    4 Pounds New Member

    Theoretically. But in fact the whole world is obviously imperfect and so are society and economy. Therefore idealized theories do not work in the real world the way they are supposed to. An "invisible hand" destroyed Russia's economy in early 90s just because there were no certain rules as to how to run business etc.

    It means, everything depends on people who are involved in commercial activity. If they don't strive to build a monopoly, gain superprofits and are not ready to commit frauds/other crimes in order to achieve their commercial goals, they don't need any regulations at all. And quite the reverse if the businessmen are ready to kill each other for additional profit, lack of regulation is likely to result in massacre as it used to in Russia throughout 1990s (as well as in a number of other countries which adopted "shock therapy" proposed by IMF).

    Imho there must be some different approach to running business. And the US as the world leader should take certain measures to apply new, less self-interested model of society as a whole and economy as its part.
  15. OrangeJuiceandKush

    OrangeJuiceandKush Sr. Member

    Like the person above me said in theory it would but your still counting out human corruption just like anybody who tries communism. In early 1900's to 1920's there was VERY little government control especially by Harding and Calvin Coolidge they believed in a complete Laissez-faire market. Instead of being equal you had the rich factory owners and the workers working 15 hours a day and children working at the age of 5. Then in the 20's one of the reason we went into depression was because of the free market Margin Buying caused people to lose all their money and buying on credit and only putting down 10 % and couldn't afford the rest. Staff in the White House under Harding? I believe was drilling oil out of our emergency oil reserves and selling it and pocketing the money he made millions all because nobody cared to look.

    Without some government regulations company owner or politicians will steal and steal and steal from the average man. With everybody turning a blind eye
  16. pwner289

    pwner289 New Member

    I hope you realize this will never happen willingly. No country with the wealth, land and influence America has would ever give up it's own position on purpose to help others climb up the ladder.

    This is the true way the world has and always WILL work: Every entity for itself.
  17. 4 Pounds

    4 Pounds New Member

    It used to be in the wild. Society is a great deal of mutual assistance.

    Peacefully or not this sort of changes will definitely occur in the future unless the whole society collapses, because atomisation and self-absorption are fatal (fact).
  18. pwner289

    pwner289 New Member

    And it still is. "Mutual assistance" is null when you have 1 +billion people starving and billions more dying of curable diseases.

    What proof do you have that this will just happen in the future? You're not living in reslity. The world has always been every man for himself and it always will be, it is a rough world out there and if you honestly think that we have "progressed" to a point of all being happy and sharing everything then you have a lot to see and learn about the world.
    2 people like this.
  19. John Doe

    John Doe New Member

    If a conservative doesnt like guns, he simply wont buy one.
    If a liberal doesnt like guns, he wants all guns banned for all people

    If a conservative is a vegetarian he simply wont eat meat
    If a liberal is a vegitarian he wants all meat products banned for all poeple

    If a conservative gets this, he'll pass it on to his friends for a good laugh
    If a liberal gets this he'll delete it because hes "offended"

    Liberals want their ideas in effect only. They dont care that other people like to shoot guns or go hunting. Conservatives just dont give a damn. Real freedom is making your own choices, not pressuring others into your own beliefs.
    4 people like this.
  20. 4 Pounds

    4 Pounds New Member

    Mutual assistance exists in all complex societies. And if it does not, it is a solid evidence of previous collapse (eg. google the Ik tribe, that's real mess!). Question is to what extent people are ready to be helpful and conscientious.

    The elites are those who are responsible for what is going on. "The power which we possess is but one side of the coin; the other is responsibility. There is no power or authority without responsibility". But it's also up to everyone to change his mind. I understand, it sounds idealistic, but if you want to change the world change yourself.

    What we now have is a really really really strong disbalance which has to be fixed, otherwise the world will be thrown into turmoil. There is no firm evidence that the mentioned changes will happen, because it is just an option. The other is atomization followed by the downturn.

    P.S. We will never progress to the point of everyone being happy, because happiness is not about this world (in this respect I agree with Arthur Schopenhauer). What I said, is that the material wealth should not be deemed to be a priority anymore. We need to find other approaches in order to survive.

Share This Page