 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Odd
I would be right wing in Brazil and left wing in America. Brazil has plenty of ultra left-wings that believe that the "international speculators" corrupted the coutry, like Hitler blamed "jewish bankers" for corrupting Germany. That makes me sick. I do believe that the state shouldnīt mess with non essential things (e.g. be a socialist with capitalist clothes and subsidy agricuture and steel industries), and I hate deficts... so Iīm an economic right wing. I like a lot of stuff related to american culture, and agree with their vision about democracy.
I believe that americans should remember that France has a trauma of war deeper than the trauma americans have with terrorism. In fact, justifing a war towards Iraq based on their evil regime sounds as bad as using a dictatorship as an excuse to blow up embassies using suicide bombers. Thatīs plain wrong, even if the embassies actually belonged to an evil regime.
Bah, I shouldnīt have brought in this subject. Letīs wait ten years, then we will see if Bush was right. Right now is just speculation. |
Odd, my wife is Brazilian. According to here, American "investment" in Brazil is the source of all Brazil's problems.
Also, your bit about dictators being a justification for blowing up embassies is so different from Iraq as to not be an apt analogy. Actually, WWII and Britain's declaration of war on Germany is more apt. Sure we liberated the Germans, but we also eliminated a real, demonstrated threat to international peace and security.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
Fez, as usual you are advocating completely contradictory positions without having a clue as to why. You denounce communism and socialism (fine), claim "the freer the market, the freer the people", advocate "law enforcement" and "monitoring" of corporate activities, don't see anything socialist about government spending on healthcare, education and transportation, and want greater limitations on personal freedom. Do you really not see how amazingly flawed these positions, taken in total, are?
A free market isn't about taxation, it's about government regulation/interference. If you want monitoring on corporations and strong "law enforcement" (which laws in particular, BTW, and who makes up these laws?), then you only want a free market to a limited extent. If you're going to spout off things like "the freer the market, the freer the people", then you have to realize that putting regulations in place would necessarily limit the freedom of the people. Which, I guess, would be ok for you since you want less personal freedoms anyway (which begs the question, why even say "the freer the market, the freer the people" in the first place?).
If you don't see government spending on healthcare, education and transportation as socialist, then what do you see as socialist? These are extremely socialist things. It doesn't make them wrong, but you can't call them anything but socialist. And if you want to see these things, where do you propose to get the money from? You are going to have to collect revenues somehow, presumably from taxes. Would you prefer those to come from individuals or corporations? Maybe both? That's what we have in Canada (and pretty much everywhere else in the western world, to varying degrees). You can't have minimal taxes and still have government funded health care, education and transportation, to say nothing of any other government services.
So what do you really want? It seems to me that you do really do want social democracy, but wouldn't be able to actually admit that to save your life. If you really want a completely right-wing (economically) free market, then you'd be much closer to the libertarian position. However, you don't seem to want this, and you do like some socialist policies, and favor limiting personal freedoms to boot.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:27
|
|
Imran... he said "as usual" so it's not a surprise to him nor anyone
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
Kontiki, I am like Menem. A person with a double edge to try to change people from illogical leftism.
I do not support strong law enforcement and heavy interference with the economy. It is either the free market or coercion. I want a fragmented private owned healthcare, education systems with government subsidies as a possiblitity.
As socialism is an illegal form of government, I would rather see a transparency, not a heavy handed Stalinist system as you propose.
I HATE all socialist policies. They will send things to hell in the handbasket. |
I'm not proposing any system, let alone a "heavy handed Stalinist system". I'm just citing you. YOU claimed you supported monitoring of corporations and strict law enforcement. YOU said, and I quote, "I don't see anything socialist about governent spending in healthcare, education and transportation....I never advocated against it".
Now, you are claiming "either free market or coercion" as if it were an either or option. So which is it? A free market with no government intervention - in which case, Enron did nothing illegal (remember, they didn't kill anyone or steal any property, they violtated securities legislation)- or coercion? And if you HATE all socialist policies, how can you possibly support any form of government subsidies in education, health care or transportation? You'd have to be a libertarian and support the exclusive use of user fees - anything else, by definition, is a socialist policy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
I supported strict law enforcement? Okay.. lets get this down right the first time.
What I support... whatever I said before that contradicts this is invalid.
1) Privatized Health and Education Systems
2) Privatized Insurance
3) Reduced State Size
4) Decentralized State
5) Reduced Pensions for civil employees, but marginally more benefits for them during their service
6) Minimal Government interference.. only busting a corp exec when they do something bad.. in the case of Enron.
7) ZERO coercion
8) Defamation of Socialism
9) Forget it... no subsidies... only for business.
So this is what I want.
A strong corporatist system. |
Alright, so just to be clear, this is now your position? Everything you've said up until this point is crap then? Should we assume that this trend will continue into other threads?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-04-2003 13:45
This is true only for the "speculative capital" (I don't know if I'm calling this by its correct name... My broken English doesn't help 
). I mean, we need capital. But we need this money in the productive sector. Your money is wellcome, I'm not against the globalization... I promise to you we'll take good care with these dollars... 
|