Thank you, demagogic_schizoid, for FINALLY saying it.

[nfinityi]

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=615450&postcount=10

Thank God. No one ever agrees with me when I say it. Is he conservative? Well, he's a neoconservative, which is about as anti-paleoconservative as they come.

Wether financially or socially speaking, this man is just about anything but a traditional American conservative.

I just wanted to take this thread to finally cybershake the hand of the man who put it out there. Good on you.

[nfinityi]

PS:

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=616037&postcount=35

I laughed so hard at that I woke my mother up, and she's downstairs. Thanks alot, MacGuffin <_<

[demagogic_schizoid]

you're welcome

[nfinityi]

you're welcome
You're not so bad after all. I find that the more I read your stuff with an open mind, the more I find myself agreeing with you.

...Can I hug you?

[SolitaryWalker]

You're not so bad after all. I find that the more I read your stuff with an open mind, the more I find myself agreeing with you.

...Can I hug you?

Who knows... maybe when you try reading my posts with more of an open mind... maybe it will turn out that seawolf isnt so bad after all?

[hereandnow]

Who knows... maybe when you try reading my posts with more of an open mind... maybe it will turn out that seawolf isnt so bad after all?

:popcorn:

[demagogic_schizoid]

You're not so bad after all. I find that the more I read your stuff with an open mind, the more I find myself agreeing with you.

...Can I hug you?

I'm flattered, but let's not rush into anything. There could be many more "polite disagreements" ahead. :)

BTW - did someone hack Seawolf's account or was that for real?

[nfinityi]

Who knows... maybe when you try reading my posts with more of an open mind... maybe it will turn out that seawolf isnt so bad after all?
Don't get me started, thank you.

[MacGuffin]

I laughed so hard at that I woke my mother up, and she's downstairs. Thanks alot, MacGuffin <_<

I didn't do nuthin'!

P.S. I saw that deleted post SW. That was actually funny.

[SolitaryWalker]

I didn't do nuthin'!

P.S. I saw that deleted post SW. That was actually funny.


Lol....I thought it would get deleted for the same reason as my INTPc condescending member thread did on MBTIc.

[bluebell]

Lol....I thought it would get deleted for the same reason as my INTPc condescending member thread did on MBTIc.

Damn it. I should have quoted it so it couldn't be deleted.

You can be hysterically funny SW when you let it out. More pls...

[SolitaryWalker]

Damn it. I should have quoted it so it couldn't be deleted.

...


Ok I will repeat that...



Don't get me started, thank you.

Then dont be saying that you want to have pity sex with SolitaryWalker.

[Hermione]

maybe i'm half asleep here and not reading carefully, but he said 'can i hug you' not 'do you', am i right? if you only get a hug you can't be as pitiful as if you were getting teh pity sex. would you rather be right or be happy? oh, no, quoting dr. phil is a bad bad sign.

[outmywindow]

would you rather be right or be happy? oh, no, quoting dr. phil is a bad bad sign.

Answer: Right. Dr. Phil can kiss my ass.

[Hermione]

i know and it just came uuurrbling out my mouth when i ws typing and taking a big chug of leftover reheated coffee... it's my second favorite kind, btw. anyway, the point i was not making was... sw i hope you are happy with all the gratuitous hugs and sex or just happy.

[nfinityi]

Then dont be saying that you want to have pity sex with SolitaryWalker.
Note to MacG and others, please make sure it's worth the hype before you hype it up.

Thank you.

[SolitaryWalker]

Note to MacG and others, please make sure it's worth the hype before you hype it up.

Thank you.


And why dont you answer to me directly? And while you're at it go back to MBTIc to wipe that shit out.

[nfinityi]

And why dont you answer to me directly? And while you're at it go back to MBTIc to wipe that shit out.
Because I put your name down as a joke. I have standards, thank you.

...And no, you don't meet them.

[SolitaryWalker]

Because I put your name down as a joke. I have standards, thank you.

...And no, you don't meet them.

How could I even be commensurable to your standards given that I am heterosexual?

[nfinityi]

How could I even be commensurable to your standards given that I am heterosexual?
Well, given that most women have standards as well, I don't think it matters what your orientation is, you probably shouldn't be choosy.

[bluebell]

Note to MacG and others, please make sure it's worth the hype before you hype it up.

Thank you.

If anyone else had said it, it probably wouldn't have been anywhere near as funny. But coming from SW... =))

[SolitaryWalker]

If anyone else had said it, it probably wouldn't have been anywhere near as funny. But coming from SW... =))

Why so?

[outmywindow]

Knock it off you two... :rolleyes2:

[Wolf]

Brendan: I've been telling people that he's a freaking authoritarian socialist (democrat) since he flipped in 2001 in the aftermath of 9/11/01. He's certainly not conservative on any rational person's scale. Even his war in Iraq looks suspiciously like every war some democrat has got us into that a conservative had to get us out of.


Answer: Right. Dr. Phil can kiss my ass.
I wouldn't want that creepy guy anywhere near my ass, let alone allow him to touch it as required for kissing.

[outmywindow]

I wouldn't want that creepy guy anywhere near my ass, let alone allow him to touch it as required for kissing.

Touche.

[Serotonin]

The right wing is traditionally fascist. Neoconservatives, realising that fascism didn't work, present themselves as freemarket libertarians and deny the skeletons in their closet. IMO, the fervency with which they push their idea of economic freedom is to conceal their desire of restricted social freedom.

[MacGuffin]

Note to MacG and others, please make sure it's worth the hype before you hype it up.

Thank you.

Sorry the delay and analysis/context ruined it.

[booyalab]

The right wing is traditionally fascist.

have you been taking politics lessons from seawolf?

[cjs55]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

Note the first paragraph. Certainly common usage of the word conservative leads itself to saying that extreme conservatism would be extreme nationalism or fascism.

But this isn't really accurate. Facsim doesn't have that much to do with current politics. I'd say it's probably more of a third position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology

Interesting quote:

"The definitions of "left" and "right" are themselves quite fluid. There are a number of conservative and libertarian scholars who argue that fascism was actually a left-wing movement - among them Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and John T. Flynn. Their argument is based on a view of the political spectrum that equates "left" with support for increased government power and "right" with opposition to the same. Under this view, fascism would be left-wing and anarchism, for example, would be right-wing. However, there are many other competing interpretations of the left-right spectrum."

[Serotonin]

have you been taking politics lessons from seawolf?

Uh, no. Reading a lot of comments on rightist blogs, though.

[demagogic_schizoid]

These definitions don't mean much. Fascism is distinct from conservatism.

You can argue that fascism is left or right wing, but I prefer third position as cjs says, with left and right variables within it. Either way, there is no one "right" or "left", and even if you decide to call fascism "right-wing" then it doesn't mean all people defined as right-wing have a propensity to fascist beliefs, just as if you call liberalism left-wing it won't mean everyone generally seen as on the left is a liberal (or that eveyrone who calls themself a liberal is left-wing).

I'd rather view it as if liberalism/conservatism/fascism/socialism are distinct schools of thought, with their own "left vs right" battes within them.

[booyalab]

These definitions don't mean much. Fascism is distinct from conservatism.

You can argue that fascism is left or right wing, but I prefer third position as cjs says, with left and right variables within it. Either way, there is no one "right" or "left", and even if you decide to call fascism "right-wing" then it doesn't mean all people defined as right-wing have a propensity to fascist beliefs, just as if you call liberalism left-wing it won't mean everyone generally seen as on the left is a liberal (or that eveyrone who calls themself a liberal is left-wing).

I'd rather view it as if liberalism/conservatism/fascism/socialism are distinct schools of thought, with their own "left vs right" battes within them.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Conflict-Visions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465081428 you should read this

in the US, at least, there's more overlap between liberalism and socialism than there is between conservatism and fascism.

[Serotonin]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Conflict-Visions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465081428 you should read this

in the US, at least, there's more overlap between liberalism and socialism than there is between conservatism and fascism.

Dubious call.

John Ralston Saul puts it better than I could.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/multinet/saul.htm


Now listen to the first three aims of the corporatist movement in Germany, Italy and France during the 1920s. These were developed by the people who went on to become part of the Fascist experience:

(1) shift power directly to economic and social interest groups;

(2) push entrepreneurial initiative in areas normally reserved for public bodies;

(3) obliterate the boundaries between public and private interest that is, challenge the idea of the public interest."



This sounds like the official program of most contemporary Western governments.

[Wolf]

Note the first paragraph. Certainly common usage of the word conservative leads itself to saying that extreme conservatism would be extreme nationalism or fascism.

But this isn't really accurate. Facsim doesn't have that much to do with current politics. I'd say it's probably more of a third position.
Much like true communism. Fascism and communism are not right/left things, but they can coexist within a right/left leaning government. Most would call the communists in Russia, who fought the Germans in WWII, left-wing. However, it's interesting to note that they agreed to such an extent that they were allies at the start of the war. Really, they were very similar in most respects, mainly varying only in implementation, mentality, and terminology.

[booyalab]

Dubious call.

John Ralston Saul puts it better than I could.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/multinet/saul.htm

it sounds like you subscribe to the fallacy that corporatism is the natural result of free market capitalism.

[Serotonin]

it sounds like you subscribe to the fallacy that corporatism is the natural result of free market capitalism.

So what's it really caused by?

Qualifier after doing a bit more reading: It's difficult to argue against corporatism being helped greatly by a free-market environment. How is the genesis of corporatism (as we see in today's economies) independent of free-market capitalism (as you imply)?

[demagogic_schizoid]

Corporatism is when the state acts as ajudicator betwen varios differences, trying to get them to co-operate - the word comes from the latin for "body", because society is seen as a body. So let's turn that question on its head - how can corporatism be seperate from an expansion in state interference in the economy?

[Serotonin]

Corporatism is when the state acts as ajudicator betwen varios differences, trying to get them to co-operate - the word comes from the latin for "body", because society is seen as a body. So let's turn that question on its head - how can corporatism be seperate from an expansion in state interference in the economy?

I suppose it's a question of definitions. I always saw any sort of "ism" being defined as who ultimately wields power - corporatism being defined as power that lies in private corporations. You're defining it as power wielded by a state that is presumably sympathetic to these corporations - yet your "state interference in the economy" suggests that it's not sympathy at all; it's detrimental. So your definition has contradicted itself. Care to clarify?

Also, i'd be interested in your opinion of what is a more beneficial attitude for a government to have. Leaning towards which one more?:

a) Hands off. Period.
b) Positive interference e.g. corporate welfare, bail-outs, etc.

[demagogic_schizoid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

I think we meant different things. In Europe that's what corporatism means.

Re corporations, I'd prefer a hands off approach, so that only the efficient ones survive.

[Serotonin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

I think we meant different things. In Europe that's what corporatism means.

Re corporations, I'd prefer a hands off approach, so that only the efficient ones survive.

Okay. Hmm in that case you could have a highly socialist, even communist corporate state. Not being the greatest on political theory, I always assumed corporatism was private businesses.

[demagogic_schizoid]

I don't want to get tied down on political definitions, because to be honest, they're a guilty pleasure of mine, and I fear scaring people off, because I've ever met anyone else who really enjoys discussing them. I f you want to sit here defining corporatism, I'd love to, however...

I assume you were talking about coroprate corruption, right? Well, I've got no experience in the field, so I can't state specifically what should be done about it. I can speculate though...

I don't see how in the long run a corrupt company in a free market would be viable - you can't trick people into doing business with you forever if they realise they aren't benefitting - without the collusion of the state in some way, through contracts, favourable laws etc. I think as you increase government influence in the economy, you increase incentive to lobby, for various reasons.

1.) because the government is a more powerful actor in the economy, so investing resouces into lobbying them is worthwhile

2.)because reguation reduces mobility of capital, so a companies assets become inevitably more tied to one sector as regulation increase, thereby increasing the importance of regulations regarding that sector for companies, and making lobbying and collusion more worthwhile and necessary.

In short, the more a government can affect business, he more business tries to affect government. So I think a freer market is less corrupt, generally speaking.

However, there are still instances of cartelisation and monopoly in a free market, but I would hope that the competitive nature of capitalism would lead to enouh mistrust between rivals in order to make thse arrangements unviable in the long run, and self-defeating, in a way that government regulation could never achieve.

Who knows though, maybe in some cases anti-monoploy regulation is necessary. I know Margaret Thatcher, famously pro-free market, was very tough with enforcement against monopoly practices, so maybe by decreasing regulation in other areas you can devote more to this area.

[C.J.Woolf]

I think as you increase government influence in the economy, you increase incentive to lobby, for various reasons.

...In short, the more a government can affect business, he more business tries to affect government. So I think a freer market is less corrupt, generally speaking.
As I see it, business always tries to affect government. Favorable laws (or enforcement of laws) give a competitive advantage, so naturally business will seek them. The question is how well government insulates itself from undue influence by business.

We cannot trust business to keep the free market free (assuming it ever was). It's human nature to want to slam the door of opportunity behind you, or to saw the rungs under you on the ladder of success. (Pick your favorite metaphor.) Government is the ultimate guarantor of a free market. We as citizens must keep government honest.