Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Svip

Has the Iron Curtain been reborn?

Recommended Posts

Svip

It seems the issues in EU is caused by the relations between West and East Europe, cause EU is without doubt in serious trouble, most people in the West are afraid of the Eastern Europeans, since they do not know anything real about them.

 

So an Iron Curtain seems to be reforming, but not in political interrest, but in the eyes of the populations of Europe.

 

Or am I completely wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz

Not at all wrong - very correct in fact. smile.gif

 

Prior to enlargement it was termed 'The France Question'. Basically, look at a map of the EU with 15 members. Who is geographically central? France (and Germany). Now look at it with 25 members. The geographic centre moves to the East, over to Germany and nearer to Poland.

 

This upsets a large portion of the W. European contingent - France and Netherlands being examples to put under the spotlight following their recent EU Constitution rejections.

 

Despite being a firm EU supporter, I always knew that enlargement before an agreed constitution would be problematic, and my fears have been confirmed. Seems like the pissed off W. European nations like France and the UK have decided to take on each other.

 

- The UK is pissed off that it's contibutions are so high (hence the rebate).

- France is pissed off cos it's no longer the big player in Europe (hence wanting to negotiate the rebate).

- The rest of Europe is pissed off cos the EU is in crisis and no resolution is in sight - especially annoying for the 10 new members whose first real EU experience is serious infighting.

 

 

Has an Iron Curtain descended - not really sure about that, as it appears to be the UK and France at logger-heads rather than an East-West divide, but the EU has certainly descended into crisis from which no resolution is present at the moment. confused.gifsad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

The EU is the most socialist idea since the New Deal. So yes, in a sense, the Iron Curtain has been reborn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz
The EU is the most socialist idea since the New Deal. So yes, in a sense, the Iron Curtain has been reborn.

Care to justify how the EU is socialist?

 

Internally a free trade area, nation states still maintaining huge control over their own affairs (not to mention being able to withdraw from the EU if they wish), no powerful centralised governing force in the EU... I fail to see how it's socialist...

 

So please, take your one line nugget elsewhere unless you can think of something more intellectual to add. sly.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck
The EU is the most socialist idea since the New Deal. So yes, in a sense, the Iron Curtain has been reborn.

Care to justify how the EU is socialist?

 

Internally a free trade area, nation states still maintaining huge control over their own affairs (not to mention being able to withdraw from the EU if they wish), no powerful centralised governing force in the EU... I fail to see how it's socialist...

 

So please, take your one line nugget elsewhere unless you can think of something more intellectual to add. sly.gif

The idea of the EU is to centralize to unionize, which is socialist.

 

-The EU thinks rights come from the government

-It talks about a sh*t form of free trade which is kind of like a carbon copy of old mercantilism

-Everything is regulated against discrimination and the EU can intervene any time

-Supports Social Security benefits and other handouts(which I understand, Europeans call "entitlements" lol!)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flashback666

I would suggest that not only is there a new iron curtain, but also an onion-filled chasm.

 

I of course refer to the French, and their desire to send the UK packing. I do not wish to bleat on about history here, but they have never forgotten that we bailed them out of two wars, and this fact makes them crazy. Their infriority complex is reaching quite astounding levels, and I personally think the Uk would be better off to be shot of them, and the rest of the whining back-stabbing countries that have the unfortunate presence within Europe.

 

Let's face it - the concept of a united Europe is a seriously flawed one. Every country is too different. Every country has its own interests. We all speak different languages for crying out loud. In this sort of arena, there is no way that a union of good will and sharing will ever develop, let alone last.

 

So, the Uk should simply leave them. A separate union with some of the Scandinavian countries could possibly work. But, ideally, we should just go it alone. That's what we do now anyway, effectively, so I fail to see the point in trying to be friends with the frog eaters, or dilly dally with the Eurovision buddies within the Eastern bloc. At least we have managed to keep our own currency, and not take up some devalued botched effort called the Euro.

 

Independence rules.

 

The obly issue stopping this is the man called Tony Blair, who quite clearly wants to be president of Europe some day so will hardly let the issue drop. Quite clearly this man needs to be removed from power, but in our current state of complete apathy this will never happen, as all the main party opposition is about as potent as a fart in a wind tunnel. So, I sit at my keyboard in despair, and wonder whether I should set up the Flashback party.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz

Ah, now that's a lil better. I know from your 'American History' topic that you are a person of some intellect, so let's use it and not post one liners from now on in D&D. wink.gif Cheers. smile.gif

 

 

The idea of the EU is to centralize to unionize, which is socialist.

 

Not necessarily. Is the United Nations socialist? Not really... it is a union of independent nation states that convene, discuss global issues and if possible take action to help resolve them. Its peacekeepers intervene in a neutral capacity in areas of conflict, and it overseas resolution on long standing disputes such as Cyprus and various African areas.

 

What about NATO? Originally setup to combat Communism / Socialism in the aftermath of the Second World War. The thought that this union of states may be socialist in it's creation is ridiculous to say the least!

 

The original creation of the EU was the European Coal and Steel Community. A trade agreement intended to tie the nations of Europe together through trade, so that Europe would never war with itself again. Since Maastricht (1992), yes, it has spiltover into the political sphere (which I will address below), but it's original inception was conflict prevention and trade between independent nations, not the creation of a socialist bloc.

 

 

 

-The EU thinks rights come from the government

 

Uh... it's difficult to respond intellectually to such vague statements, but I'll try.

 

Firstly, why is it a bad thing for Government to guarantee rights to its citizens. Granted there are certain human rights that every human should be entitled to, but the fact is they're not. The EU seeks to protect the rights of its citizens.

 

When there are nations across the world in which genocide and the infringement of rights takes place, the EU, whilst not being the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), protects its citizens - I can't see why that is a bad thing, or a socialist thing.

 

 

-It talks about a sh*t form of free trade which is kind of like a carbon copy of old mercantilism

 

Well, I guess that it's a difference of oppinion on whether you prefer unrestricted free trade or slightly regulated trade. Bear in mind however that the European Court of Justice once ruled against the British attempting to regulate Spanish ships in British waters - an example of promoted free trade.

 

The ECJ also once ruled against the French when they imposed branding restrictions on German wine sold within France.

 

Whilst the ECJ does sometimes rule in a protectionist stance for the benefit of the peoples of Europe, it is also a force to encourage free trade within the EU. I'm sure I can dig up some literature on other examples if you want.

 

 

-Everything is regulated against discrimination and the EU can intervene any time

 

Uh... what?

 

Are you supporting discriminatory policy? Don't suppose you can re-word that and be a bit more specific can you?

 

 

-Supports Social Security benefits and other handouts(which I understand, Europeans call "entitlements" lol!)

 

Supporting social security and controlling social security are two very different things - and it's important to remember that independent nation states still have full control over this area as far as I'm aware.

 

Secondly, the provision of social security systems to the disadvantaged peoples of Europe is testament to good governance. Why do you oppose the provision of aid to the disabled, poor, homeless - the lower socio-economic groups? It's a fine feat that mechanisms are in place to help people like this, and it's almost barbaric not to provide a security net for them.

 

 

 

 

 

@ Flashback - Needless to say, I disagree with your views on the EU and will argue with you. Unfortunately, it's now 00:45 and I'm exhausted and going to bed, so I'll reply when I next have a moment. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

@ Flashback - Needless to say, I disagree with your views on the EU and will argue with you. Unfortunately, it's now 00:45 and I'm exhausted and going to bed, so I'll reply when I next have a moment. smile.gif

 

Ah, now that's a lil better. I know from your 'American History' topic that you are a person of some intellect, so let's use it and not post one liners from now on in D&D. wink.gif Cheers. smile.gif

 

 

The idea of the EU is to centralize to unionize, which is socialist.

 

Not necessarily. Is the United Nations socialist? Not really... it is a union of independent nation states that convene, discuss global issues and if possible take action to help resolve them. Its peacekeepers intervene in a neutral capacity in areas of conflict, and it overseas resolution on long standing disputes such as Cyprus and various African areas.

 

What about NATO? Originally setup to combat Communism / Socialism in the aftermath of the Second World War. The thought that this union of states may be socialist in it's creation is ridiculous to say the least!

 

The original creation of the EU was the European Coal and Steel Community. A trade agreement intended to tie the nations of Europe together through trade, so that Europe would never war with itself again. Since Maastricht (1992), yes, it has spiltover into the political sphere (which I will address below), but it's original inception was conflict prevention and trade between independent nations, not the creation of a socialist bloc.

 

I should have specified, unionizing is not what makes it socialist, unionizing and centralizing with the intent to govern more powerfully through centralization, however, is very socialist. That seems to be the primary goal here.

 

 

-The EU thinks rights come from the government

 

Uh... it's difficult to respond intellectually to such vague statements, but I'll try.

 

Firstly, why is it a bad thing for Government to guarantee rights to its citizens. Granted there are certain human rights that every human should be entitled to, but the fact is they're not. The EU seeks to protect the rights of its citizens.

 

When there are nations across the world in which genocide and the infringement of rights takes place, the EU, whilst not being the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights), protects its citizens - I can't see why that is a bad thing, or a socialist thing.

 

Guarenteeing rights via the government is great, very classical liberalism. But the EU thinks that rights COME from the government. The government does not grant rights, it ensures them. For a better understanding of rights, you can watch the 7 hour Constitution class by Michael Badnarik: http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

 

Let's take a classic liberal document, such as the Declaration of United States Secession(or Independence):

 

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

 

This demonstrates the libertarian belief that rights are given to you by your creator(whichever creator you believe in), and that governments are made to protect these rights.

 

In contrast, the EU thinks that rights come from the government, a high opinion of itself indeed. And nothing is more statist than believing in the almighty power of the state to make, give, and take away rights as it pleases

 

 

-It talks about a sh*t form of free trade which is kind of like a carbon copy of old mercantilism

 

Well, I guess that it's a difference of oppinion on whether you prefer unrestricted free trade or slightly regulated trade. Bear in mind however that the European Court of Justice once ruled against the British attempting to regulate Spanish ships in British waters - an example of promoted free trade.

 

The ECJ also once ruled against the French when they imposed branding restrictions on German wine sold within France.

 

Whilst the ECJ does sometimes rule in a protectionist stance for the benefit of the peoples of Europe, it is also a force to encourage free trade within the EU. I'm sure I can dig up some literature on other examples if you want.

 

Mercantilism and protectionism are slight forms of sociialism under the veil of a "free society"

 

 

 

-Everything is regulated against discrimination and the EU can intervene any time

 

Uh... what?

 

Are you supporting discriminatory policy? Don't suppose you can re-word that and be a bit more specific can you?

 

 

Surely, discrimination is a very stupid way of thinking, but the freedom to discriminate is a freedom nonetheless. The free market can handle discrimination by itself, it needs no regulatory laws. Take this as an example:

 

A man creates a store, but only allows men to shop there.

In a society with discrimination laws, his freedom is suppressed and he is hauled off to jail

In a society that honors a free market, he loses half of his customers due to his discrimination and the other half that are eligible to shop there will probably shun his store because of its age old discrimination policy. Or women could form groups to protest the store by urging male customers not to shop there. The man's store will probably leave him broke, he learns his lesson his, and everybody else's freedoms are intact.

 

 

 

-Supports Social Security benefits and other handouts(which I understand, Europeans call "entitlements" lol!)

 

Supporting social security and controlling social security are two very different things - and it's important to remember that independent nation states still have full control over this area as far as I'm aware.

 

Secondly, the provision of social security systems to the disadvantaged peoples of Europe is testament to good governance. Why do you oppose the provision of aid to the disabled, poor, homeless - the lower socio-economic groups? It's a fine feat that mechanisms are in place to help people like this, and it's almost barbaric not to provide a security net for them.

 

 

Social security is a very socialist program created from the heighth of socialism in America, the New Deal. I am against it because it violates people's rights obviously. If people want to invest in the government, let them do so freely. If they think they can control their money better, let them. The idea that the government knows what's best for every single person better than themselves is proposterous and should never be considered in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

If the EU is socialists, then... so what? I prefer Socialism over anything else. Socialism is good for whole nations, and unions for that matter.

 

Socialistic governments take care of it's citizens, make sure there is food and room enough for everybody. In Denmark, there are so few homeless, that you can have them all in a news report.

 

Why? Cause Denmark is a socialistic state, I must admit though, that our current government is turning our nation a bit much to the right.

 

So if EU is a socialistic union, and therefore tries to make sure that the citizens of the union is taken care of, then where is the problem? Take Spain for instance, when they joined back in the 70's, Spain was a very poor country, you can take a long most Eastern European countries today. Because they joined the EU, the EU supported Spain, helped them with money, economy and trade. And today, Spain is as wealthy as the other Western European countries.

 

Is that a bad thing? I cannot really see your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck
If the EU is socialists, then... so what? I prefer Socialism over anything else. Socialism is good for whole nations, and unions for that matter.

 

Socialistic governments take care of it's citizens, make sure there is food and room enough for everybody. In Denmark, there are so few homeless, that you can have them all in a news report.

 

Why? Cause Denmark is a socialistic state, I must admit though, that our current government is turning our nation a bit much to the right.

 

So if EU is a socialistic union, and therefore tries to make sure that the citizens of the union is taken care of, then where is the problem? Take Spain for instance, when they joined back in the 70's, Spain was a very poor country, you can take a long most Eastern European countries today. Because they joined the EU, the EU supported Spain, helped them with money, economy and trade. And today, Spain is as wealthy as the other Western European countries.

 

Is that a bad thing? I cannot really see your point.

Because socialism is the antithesis of freedom. Its been disproven as an actual theory many times by the likes of Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, etc. Socialism relies on the state to do everything, and by the way I see people criticizing the state around here, I'd like to see what they would do in a socialist state. With power comes corruption, everybody knows that. As the great libertarian Lord Acton said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

 

Capitalism is freedom. Socialism is enslavement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Communism is "enslavement", Socialism is also freedom, just with help from the government.

 

Please get your ideals right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

If you knew anything about the ideology you support, you'd know that Communism is, in fact, the unrealistic utiopian idea of peaceful anarchy with a commune as the only source of power. Socialism is the regulations and intervention of a government enslaving its people.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

If you knew anything about the ideology you support, you'd know that Communism is, in fact, the unrealistic utiopian idea of peaceful anarchy with a commune as the only source of power. Socialism is the regulations and intervention of a government enslaving its people.

I remain: Get your ideals right.

 

You say Socialism is about enslavement? How enslavement? As in "slaves"? You are seriousely suggestion that Socialist states force their people to work without being payed anything?

 

Are you nuts? I live in a Socialistic state, and I do almost whatever I want. Because Socialism isn't about enslavement.

 

Take the Soviet Union for instance; a Socialist state? Indeed. Enslavement of it's people? Not really, they did pay high taxes, but they could more or less do whatever they wanted, but since the Soviet Union forcused on a more Communistic based government, people had less control of their doing.

 

But enslavement? Never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck
If you knew anything about the ideology you support, you'd know that Communism is, in fact, the unrealistic utiopian idea of peaceful anarchy with a commune as the only source of power. Socialism is the regulations and intervention of a government enslaving its people.

I remain: Get your ideals right.

 

You say Socialism is about enslavement? How enslavement? As in "slaves"? You are seriousely suggestion that Socialist states force their people to work without being payed anything?

 

Are you nuts? I live in a Socialistic state, and I do almost whatever I want. Because Socialism isn't about enslavement.

 

Take the Soviet Union for instance; a Socialist state? Indeed. Enslavement of it's people? Not really, they did pay high taxes, but they could more or less do whatever they wanted, but since the Soviet Union forcused on a more Communistic based government, people had less control of their doing.

 

But enslavement? Never.

How free can one really call himself when the government owns and controls the market? The core of Socialism is about enslavement because the only way for a government to increase its power is to increase its hold on its citizens.

 

Capitalism is true freedom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

 

How free can one really call himself when the government owns and controls the market? The core of Socialism is about enslavement because the only way for a government to increase its power is to increase its hold on its citizens.

 

It is possible, you could get further from the truth.

Seriously, just because a country has socialist programs like; public schools,public health care, public roads, and welfare programs, does not mean thier government is trying to enslave it's people.

Don't get communism and socialism confused with fascism, totalitarianism and various forms of authortarian governments. And don't call China and Soviet Union communist and or socialist, because, they are not. China and the soviet union were never communits they may have claimed to be, but they were or are totalitarian/authortarian governments.

A government with a ruling class that lives like kings while the poor scrape a living out of the gutter does not count as communist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck
How free can one really call himself when the government owns and controls the market? The core of Socialism is about enslavement because the only way for a government to increase its power is to increase its hold on its citizens.

 

It is possible, you could get further from the truth.

Seriously, just because a country has socialist programs like; public schools,public health care, public roads, and welfare programs, does not mean thier government is trying to enslave it's people.

Don't get communism and socialism confused with fascism, totalitarianism and various forms of authortarian governments. And don't call China and Soviet Union communist and or socialist, because, they are not. China and the soviet union were never communits they may have claimed to be, but they were or are totalitarian/authortarian governments.

A government with a ruling class that lives like kings while the poor scrape a living out of the gutter does not count as communist.

You can argue about them being communist or not all you want. The bottom line is that in an attempt for communism and socialism, totalitarian regimes arise instead. A little flaw with giving governments power is this exactly. There's no need for social programs or the pork barrel spending that accompanies it. Taking people's money to give it to other people is wrong. And "taking it from the rich people and giving it to the needy" is no vice. Governments were instituted among men to protect their rights, not to make them equal. Leave the equality issue up to humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz

So your argument is that if any kind of Government or form of governance implements some kind of left-wing policy, they're immediately socialist? confused.gif That's a pretty warped view if you don't mind me saying.

 

Look at the current British labour Govt - brought in policies such as the National minimum wage in 1997, yet have taken us into conflict 4 or 5 times in the last few years, practices Tory style spending plans and has part-privatised systems such as the London underground and privatised national rail. They've also passed the terrorism act to arrest people without charge. Is this still a socialist government?

 

On the other hand, you have Conservative governments (many of them) who have been in power since 1945, yet not a single one has removed the National Health Service. Does that make them socialist?

 

(Call Thatcher a socialist and you'd better sleep with one eye open wink.gif )

 

Every nation (or the EU) has policies that are wide ranging - some of which fall onto the left-wing spectrum, but to go around branding them socialist is just pretty misguided, and generally is the attitude I'd expect of a 'Sun' reader, and not someone who clearly has brains. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

So your argument is that if any kind of Government or form of governance implements some kind of left-wing policy, they're immediately socialist? confused.gif That's a pretty warped view if you don't mind me saying.

 

The kid with the communist signature even said it was socialist.

 

 

Look at the current British labour Govt - brought in policies such as the National minimum wage in 1997, yet have taken us into conflict 4 or 5 times in the last few years, practices Tory style spending plans and has part-privatised systems such as the London underground and privatised national rail. They've also passed the terrorism act to arrest people without charge. Is this still a  socialist government?

 

Minimum wage and arresting people without charge are signs of an overpowered government. Yes it's socialist.

 

 

On the other hand, you have Conservative governments (many of them) who have been in power since 1945, yet not a single one has removed the National Health Service. Does that make them socialist?

 

Im not sure what conservative governments you are talking about and whether they are paleo-conservative(classical conservative) or neo-conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

ISuck, I am getting extremely tired of your black and white political system.

 

Capitalism nations can be as totalitarian as any other form of ideal.

 

The policital system is not just left and right. Left and Right is how your business, money, services, etc. are blanced.

 

Up and Down is how much power the government grands themselves.

 

So, you're assume that anything with totalitarian systems are socialists? Then I don't want to argue with you, you lack a complete idea of how the whole thing works, and thus not worth even argueing with.

 

We are kinda all of us saying, that you are wrong in your opinion that totalitarian systems are socialists.

 

Look at Nazi Germany, they said they were "National Socialists". However, truth is, they were not, they were more Right wing than most other systems.

 

Their ideas was that every citizen should have a job, how did they do that? They didn't sudden achieve all the companies within Germany, no, they forced the company to hire them, and left it to them. So Nazi Germany was a capitalist nation, cause they gave the people the right to mainly their own business, but because the Nazi Government were so Facists too, they were of course limitations on what they were allowed to.

 

Socialists? No. Capitalists? They were. Facists? Oh yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

ISuck, I am getting extremely tired of your black and white political system.

 

Capitalism nations can be as totalitarian as any other form of ideal.

 

Name one.

 

 

The policital system is not just left and right. Left and Right is how your business, money, services, etc. are blanced.

 

Up and Down is how much power the government grands themselves.

 

If you're going by the internet political compass, left and right is social beliefs and up and down is power of government

 

 

So, you're assume that anything with totalitarian systems are socialists? Then I don't want to argue with you, you lack a complete idea of how the whole thing works, and thus not worth even argueing with.

 

Most totalitarian states arise from a socialist government because giving the government a little bit of power is like getting somebody a little bit pregnant, government and government power is more "all or nothing" than you think.

 

 

We are kinda all of us saying, that you are wrong in your opinion that totalitarian systems are socialists.

 

Look at Nazi Germany, they said they were "National Socialists". However, truth is, they were not, they were more Right wing than most other systems.

 

Godwin's Law, but just to appease you:

 

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions

-Hitler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

ISuck, I am getting extremely tired of your black and white political system.

 

Capitalism nations can be as totalitarian as any other form of ideal.

 

Name one.

 

Well, I said any form of ideal, doesn't that make any ideal? I could mention your Socialism or Communism, I might aswell mention Conservatism, Capitalism, etc.

 

 

The policital system is not just left and right. Left and Right is how your business, money, services, etc. are blanced.

 

Up and Down is how much power the government grands themselves.

 

If you're going by the internet political compass, left and right is social beliefs and up and down is power of government

 

Thanks for repeating what I just said.

 

 

So, you're assume that anything with totalitarian systems are socialists? Then I don't want to argue with you, you lack a complete idea of how the whole thing works, and thus not worth even argueing with.

 

Most totalitarian states arise from a socialist government because giving the government a little bit of power is like getting somebody a little bit pregnant, government and government power is more "all or nothing" than you think.

 

Okay, you said it yourself; A Socialist government is not a totalitarian, totalitarian governments arises from them, but is not them.

 

 

We are kinda all of us saying, that you are wrong in your opinion that totalitarian systems are socialists.

 

Look at Nazi Germany, they said they were "National Socialists". However, truth is, they were not, they were more Right wing than most other systems.

 

Godwin's Law, but just to appease you:

 

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions

-Hitler

 

Oh, and you believe Hitler?

 

Let me tell you something; saying is one thing, doing is another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz
ISuck, I am getting extremely tired of your black and white political system.

 

Capitalism nations can be as totalitarian as any other form of ideal.

 

Name one.

Does the current US Govt count? Patriot act? Guantanamo? Yet surely the US is one of the leading capitalist nations of this world...?

 

 

I'm shocked that someone who clearly has such wide ranging knowledge is so restricted on their political views and fails to see past these pre-set conceptions of socialism and other ideals, not to mention branding anything that falls into certain spheres 'socialism'.

 

 

Let's discuss me for a second. I normally think of myself as predominantly central and slightly left leaning in my political views. While I agree with social policies of progressive taxation, a social security system etc etc. At the same time I support the economic free-market system (as it's the only one that proven to work, although with regulation), and come down on the right wing in other areas I can't be bothered to detail at the moment.

 

But that doesn't mean I'm a left-wing extremist who supports total govt control of all industry and means of production, nor do I support complete re-distribution of income. All the same, I bet you're gonna brand me a socialist now... right? sly.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

ISuck, I am getting extremely tired of your black and white political system.

 

Capitalism nations can be as totalitarian as any other form of ideal.

 

Name one.

 

Well, I said any form of ideal, doesn't that make any ideal? I could mention your Socialism or Communism, I might aswell mention Conservatism, Capitalism, etc.

 

I just want a name of a capitalist state that is totalitarian. If you can't name one just say so.

 

 

The policital system is not just left and right. Left and Right is how your business, money, services, etc. are blanced.

 

Up and Down is how much power the government grands themselves.

 

If you're going by the internet political compass, left and right is social beliefs and up and down is power of government

 

Thanks for repeating what I just said.

 

Which is weird because I never suggested there were only two sides to the political spectrum

 

 

So, you're assume that anything with totalitarian systems are socialists? Then I don't want to argue with you, you lack a complete idea of how the whole thing works, and thus not worth even argueing with.

 

Most totalitarian states arise from a socialist government because giving the government a little bit of power is like getting somebody a little bit pregnant, government and government power is more "all or nothing" than you think.

 

Okay, you said it yourself; A Socialist government is not a totalitarian, totalitarian governments arises from them, but is not them.

 

Thank you socialism.

 

 

We are kinda all of us saying, that you are wrong in your opinion that totalitarian systems are socialists.

 

Look at Nazi Germany, they said they were "National Socialists". However, truth is, they were not, they were more Right wing than most other systems.

 

Godwin's Law, but just to appease you:

 

We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions

-Hitler

 

Oh, and you believe Hitler?

 

Let me tell you something; saying is one thing, doing is another.

 

Only a socialist would deny such a straightforward quote. Again, Godwin's Law, but if you won't listen to Hitler's words, listen to those of one of the smartest men to ever live, Ludwig Von Mises

 

 

 

The Nazis have not only imitated the Bolshevist tactics of seizing power. They have copied much more. They have imported from Russia the one-party system and the privileged role of this party and its members in public life; the paramount position of the secret police; the organization of affiliated parties abroad which are employed in fighting their domestic governments and in sabotage and espionage, assisted by public funds and the protection of the diplomatic and consular service; the administrative execution and imprisonment of political adversaries; concentration camps; the punishment inflicted on the families of exiles; the methods of propaganda. They have borrowed from the Marxians even such absurdities as the mode of address, party comrade (Parteigenosse), derived from the Marxian comrade (Genosse), and the use of a military terminology for all items of civil and economic life. The question is not in which respects both systems are alike but in which they differ...

 

This isn't wan't of those things up for debate, Hitler was a leftist.

 

 

ISuck, I am getting extremely tired of your black and white political system.

 

Capitalism nations can be as totalitarian as any other form of ideal.

 

Name one.

Does the current US Govt count? Patriot act? Guantanamo? Yet surely the US is one of the leading capitalist nations of this world...?

 

Guantanamo Bay is a difficult situation, I won't argue it because I don't think anybody really knows what the f*ck is going on there and so they just insert whatever they want.

 

The Patriot Act is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation in our time. The US government has been transforming over to a socialist state since Abraham Lincoln instated the American System(a euphemism of Henry Clay's that was really what we would see today as socialism). FDR's New Deal was the second installment of socialism in America. Since him, it's been a steady progression of nation building. What people think of today as the right wing is not the right wing at all. Neo-Conservative has its roots in Trotskyism. Bush is an example of people confusing the left winger for a real right winger. Granted Bush is to the right of, say, Ralph Nader, but he is still left wing nonetheless.

 

 

I'm shocked that someone who clearly has such wide ranging knowledge is so restricted on their political views and fails to see past these pre-set conceptions of socialism and other ideals, not to mention branding anything that falls into certain spheres 'socialism'.

 

 

Let's discuss me for a second. I normally think of myself as predominantly central and slightly left leaning in my political views. While I agree with social policies of progressive taxation, a social security system etc etc. At the same time I support the economic free-market system (as it's the only one that proven to work, although with regulation), and come down on the right wing in other areas I can't be bothered to detail at the moment.

 

But that doesn't mean I'm a left-wing extremist who supports total govt control of all industry and means of production, nor do I support complete re-distribution of income. All the same, I bet you're gonna brand me a socialist now... right? sly.gif

 

Sorry to disappoint you. But if you believe in progressive taxation, social security and the likes, you don't believe in a free market. It's an oxymoronic view to say you are in favor of a free market and be in favor of regulation. What you are thinking of is protectionism or mercantilism, which is really no better than socialism. In my view, giving the government a little bit of power like the power to regulate the economy leads to total control of the industry because governments have proven time and time again that if you give them a little power, they give themselves more. So what's the difference if you support high tariffs or if you support pure socialism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

So. If I may understand, you are saying the following:

 

Socialism == totalitarian.

 

Any other ideal is not.

 

Oh?

 

Well, then tell my country they are doing something wrong, cause I don't want to live in a totalitarian, but I still get health care, a lot of puplic services, etc., which makes my country a socialist nation.

 

And the UN states Denmark and other Scandinavian countries as Socialists.

 

But you are saying our governments are Totalitarian? You know what, then perhaps you should define "Totalitarian" for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck
So. If I may understand, you are saying the following:

 

Socialism == totalitarian.

 

Any other ideal is not.

 

Oh?

 

Well, then tell my country they are doing something wrong, cause I don't want to live in a totalitarian, but I still get health care, a lot of puplic services, etc., which makes my country a socialist nation.

 

And the UN states Denmark and other Scandinavian countries as Socialists.

 

But you are saying our governments are Totalitarian? You know what, then perhaps you should define "Totalitarian" for us.

Socialism leads to totalitarianism.

 

I think a socialist pretty much defined totalitarian the best,which is ironic, read 1984

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Swarz

 

Granted Bush is to the right of, say, Ralph Nader, but he is still left wing nonetheless.

 

I'm gonna remember that quote for a loooong time.

 

Lemme ask you what is so wrong with the New Deal? Granted my knowledge of American history is kinda rusty, but weren't the previous Govts (Truman was it?) policies of 'laissez faire' not working? Wasn't unemployment still stupidly high, with the economy stagnant and no signs of improvement. Then FDR brings in the New Deal, and despite high Govt spending, people get back to work and the situation improves.

 

 

Sorry to disappoint you. But if you believe in progressive taxation, social security and the likes, you don't believe in a free market. It's an oxymoronic view to say you are in favor of a free market and be in favor of regulation. What you are thinking of is protectionism or mercantilism, which is really no better than socialism. In my view, giving the government a little bit of power like the power to regulate the economy leads to total control of the industry because governments have proven time and time again that if you give them a little power, they give themselves more. So what's the difference if you support high tariffs or if you support pure socialism.

 

I don't believe in a 'pure' free market in the sense of everything being provided through supply and demand. I mean, what state would honestly have things like the military or police force provided by the private sector? (although the recent rise in mercenaries is worrying). Similarly, a completely free market is open to abuse - you get monopolies that can exploit the consumer, and it's in areas like this that I support regulation.

 

It doesn't mean I'm a socialist. These are the policies of the current British Govt, and despite being 'Labour', they've proven in a whole range of issues that they are not socialist in the slightest.

 

 

In my view, giving the government a little bit of power like the power to regulate the economy leads to total control of the industry because governments have proven time and time again that if you give them a little power, they give themselves more.

 

Ya know, after WWII, the elected British Labour Govt enacted 10 bills of Nationalisation. A whole heap of industry and commerce came under government control. In the past 50 years since, these areas have made their way gradually back into control within the private sector. Some areas that have proven not to work privately (e.g. railways) have gone back under Govt control - the fact that they're also doing a sh*te job is irrelevant.

 

Even in 1997 when the current Labour government was elected, they gave up... (yes! Gave up) the power to control national interest rates to the Bank of England, an independent authority.

 

So saying that all Govts are always trying to seize as much power as possible just isn't true - maybe in theoretical terms, but not in real life.

 

 

EDIT: As well as being a socialist, I'm apparently pretty bad at spelling. tounge.gif (x2)

Edited by Swarz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Bush? Left wing? Good laugh.

 

Anyways, you did tell us that the difference between the government having all the power, and the government having "none" is not very big.

 

Let me tell you something, no government has ever had "none" or all. ( I put none in "", since a government can't really have none.) Tell me one nation that has a complete free market as Swarz was refering to.

 

In America, monopols are not allowed, huh? Back in the 20's or 30's, there were huge companies within America, one of them owned all the Gas Stations in America, the government then put the foot in the wheel, and forced the company to sell out, cause no company could be so big.

 

Is that a "pure" free market? No. Oh, then America is socialist... at least according to your statements.

 

But America doesn't have Health Care and such, so it's not really a socialist state, but they do have some force and power on the market, for instance, the new system that allows small communities to close down people's small businesses without reason. Is that... free market?

 

Cause in my opinion, the most free market currently is America. For the Danish one has very limitations, not that the government closes us down, but the government taxes us lots, and thus not allowing every single Dane to be rich, but this also means that there are very few poor people in Denmark.

 

Not to mention the fact that Denmark is the 5th richest country in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leftcoast

ISuck, look, I'm not going to quote you and restate what I have already said. I will say that I will argue with you later after you mature a little and think about your positions, over half the things you say are just plain incorect. It's not worth my time to argue with you when you won't listen. I hope you can soak in what other people are saying here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

Granted Bush is to the right of, say, Ralph Nader, but he is still left wing nonetheless.

 

I'm gonna remember that quote for a loooong time.

 

Bush is indeed left wing. Deny it all you want, I don't really care but just look at his stances and try to prove to me that he is right wing. Right wing is libertarianism and constitutionalism or jeffersonian liberalism, not neo-conservatism. Neo-conservatism is traditionally "fight large government, unless we can use it to help ourselves"

 

Lemme ask you what is so wrong with the New Deal? Granted my knowledge of American history is kinda rusty, but weren't the previous Govts (Truman was it?) policies of 'laissez faire' not working? Wasn't unemployment still stupidly high, with the economy stagnant and no signs of improvement. Then FDR brings in the New Deal, and despite high Govt spending, people get back to work and the situation improves.

 

Truman, was after FDR. Hoover was before. Hoover was not true laissez faire, he instated many government intervention programs. Coolidge was before Hoover and was a true laissez faire capitalist. A great man indeed, Coolidge is one of my favorite presidents. He was called the "do-nothing president". Because he literally did nothing. He worked about 4 hours a day and spent the rest doing whatever he wanted. Mostly he just vetoed bills from Congress. Under this policy, the economy in America expanded at rates higher than it ever has in this country. The economy of the Coolidge years was one of a strong, free trade system. This is off topic, but I want to tell a story about Coolidge:

 

Coolidge was a pretty depressed guy, his wife had died and he had become famous for not talking at all. At the dinner table a servant whispered to another servent, "I bet you I can get him to say more than two words by the end of the night". Coolidge heard the lady and said "You lose".

 

Anyways, one fault of Coolidge was howq he allowed credit to expand. Credit was very popular in the 1920s and would come back to haunt America in the form of The Great Depression.

 

Now onto FDR. Now if anyone disagrees that FDR's policy were socialist then stop here and leave the forum. Now, FDR's New Deal offered little relief but did NOTHING for the economy. After years of New Deal programs, unemployment was still hitting record lows and I believe there was yet another Stock Market crash in 1938-1939. Productions and industry boosts during WWII is what brought us so rapidly out of Depression, not the AAA or the AAA2 or the CCC or the WPA or FERA or Social Security or any other of FDRs programs.

 

 

Sorry to disappoint you. But if you believe in progressive taxation, social security and the likes, you don't believe in a free market. It's an oxymoronic view to say you are in favor of a free market and be in favor of regulation. What you are thinking of is protectionism or mercantilism, which is really no better than socialism. In my view, giving the government a little bit of power like the power to regulate the economy leads to total control of the industry because governments have proven time and time again that if you give them a little power, they give themselves more. So what's the difference if you support high tariffs or if you support pure socialism.

 

I don't believe in a 'pure' free market in the sense of everything being provided through supply and demand.

 

Then you don't believe in a free market at all. It's like saying "well I believe slaves should have the freedom to eat what they want" and then calling yourself an advocate of individual freedom.

 

I mean, what state would honestly have things like the military or police force provided by the private sector? (although the recent rise in mercenaries is worrying).

 

A free market does not mean that the military is left up to the private sector, thats anarchy. Im not an anarcho-capitalist. I believe that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

 

Similarly, a completely free market is open to abuse - you get monopolies that can exploit the consumer, and it's in areas like this that I support regulation.

 

Lol, governments are the number one supporter of monopolies. Similarly, governments regularly practice monopolies themselves, ie public education.

 

In my view, giving the government a little bit of power like the power to regulate the economy leads to total control of the industry because governments have proven time and time again that if you give them a little power, they give themselves more.

 

Ya know, after WWII, the elected British Labour Govt enacted 10 bills of Nationalisation. A whole heap of industry and commerce came under government control. In the past 50 years since, these areas have made their way gradually back into control within the private sector. Some areas that have proven not to work privately (e.g. railways) have gone back under Govt control - the fact that they're also doing a sh*te job is irrelevant.

 

So would you argue that the size of the British government has diminished in the past 50 years?

 

Even in 1997 when the current Labour government was elected, they gave up... (yes! Gave up) the power to control national interest rates to the Bank of England, an independent authority.

 

So saying that all Govts are always trying to seize as much power as possible just isn't true - maybe in theoretical terms, but not in real life.

 

Just look at the size of governments when they start, and compare them to what they are presently. From the Jeffersonian small government America formed in the 1700s, to the current all powerful state that can sieze your property and jail you without trial is a good example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ISuck

 

Bush? Left wing? Good laugh.

 

prove me wrong.

 

Anyways, you did tell us that the difference between the government having all the power, and the government having "none" is not very big.

 

I said that giving the government a little bit of power eventually leads to the government giving itself a lot of power.

 

Let me tell you something, no government has ever had "none" or all. ( I put none in "", since a government can't really have none.) Tell me one nation that has a complete free market as Swarz was refering to.

 

There has been no true laissez-faire capitalist country. I guess the closest would be America in it's earliest stages. Today, there is no such thing that exists. Now tell me a capitalist country that is totalitarian.

 

In America, monopols are not allowed, huh? Back in the 20's or 30's, there were huge companies within America, one of them owned all the Gas Stations in America, the government then put the foot in the wheel, and forced the company to sell out, cause no company could be so big.

 

As stated before, the US government has been a HUGE supporter of monopolies. Monopolies have existed and thrived with government intervention. This is called mercantilism or protectionism. It's the idea of "protecting" your companies from foreign competition by imposing tariffs. Thus, a government monopoly is born. Check out my thread on Lincoln's protectionist tariffs.

 

Is that a "pure" free market? No. Oh, then America is socialist... at least according to your statements.

 

America is quickly in the stages of becoming socialist

 

But America doesn't have Health Care and such, so it's not really a socialist state, but they do have some force and power on the market, for instance, the new system that allows small communities to close down people's small businesses without reason. Is that... free market?

 

Nope, mercantilism. Once again, you prove that government intervention sucks.

 

Cause in my opinion, the most free market currently is America. For the Danish one has very limitations, not that the government closes us down, but the government taxes us lots, and thus not allowing every single Dane to be rich, but this also means that there are very few poor people in Denmark.

 

Singapore has a pretty free market environment, along with many Asian markets. Interesting enough though, asian markets are slowly trading(pun) their free markets in for government interventionist legislation and *surprise* currency crises have popped up all throughout the Asian markets.

 

Not to mention the fact that Denmark is the 5th richest country in the world.[/color]

 

That's a pretty dead statistic.

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.