Freedom is not safe

Cello

And if you had read any history, even a little bit, you would know that the history of capitalism is filled with horrors. Things like manifest destiny and imperialism caused the death of millions upon millions – just to mention the slave trade talked about above was a capitalistic endeavour that people defended as such. The thing is that capitalism’s history is every bit as bloody and horrific as those of Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot

I’d ask again what are you basing your view of history on, what books have you read on the subject?

I mean why the random pick of national leader all Americans, all Democrats and all in just the last 60 years?

You do realise that capitalism has had a longer history than that?

Even if you are comparing the time frame of Stalin, Mao and Pot it makes little sense Stalin came to power in 1927 Mao in 1949 and Pot during the 1970’s so your time frame is way out and if you take US presidents that covers Coolidge to Ford meaning only one of your three fits in.

I really can’t understand your thinking or methodology it seems all over the place.

Can you please explain?

 

Cello

Ok are you willing to look at history in a different way? I can help you if you are willing – although I can only help, you will need to do some study on your own.

The thing is that capitalism’s history is every bit as blood as those of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot its just that in capitalistic societies where the medium of propaganda has traditionally been in the hands of the wealthy benefactors of the system capitalisms blood history is glossed over while even the smallest of supposed misdemeanours of ‘socialism’ are loudly trumpeted

I used Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot because they are the ones most often cited as bloody handed socialists by right wing pro-capitalist propagandists and why socialism is 'bad' and should be dismissed out of hand.

Thing is if you look at the three dictators, they more closely resemble the traditional Emperor model (Russian Czar the Chinese Son of Heaven). In many right wing histories such leadership (especially strong leadership) of non ‘socialist’ Kings, Queens, Emperors, etc is often praised, even leaders that oversaw bloody repressions, conducted bloody wars or caused death through famine have been praised.

*

So if you take say the publication of Marx&Engels Communist Manifesto as the crystallisation of Communism in 1848 then socialist ideas are very young some 170 - even younger that the existence of the US. And the first supposedly 'socialist' state only happened in 1917 some 100 years ago.

If you take the history of capitalism as dating from, say the later middle ages to 16th and 17th century Britain and Holland, it does have a longer history and as some have argued ‘Much of the history of the past 500 years is concerned with the development of capitalism in its various forms’.

*

OK if you just accept the right-wing propaganda and blame any death under any type of supposed ‘socialist’ system on socialism then you would have to also blame any death under any type of supposed ‘capitalist’ system on capitalism.

So the slavery system, imperialism, the killing of indigenous people, the famines in Ireland and India, forced migrations and segregations and so on and so on are all the fault of capitalism because they all took place where capitalism was the main economic and social model.

Thing is that blaming in such a blanket way – is silly – such an approach takes no account of the complexities or the nature of the actual rule or ruler – but propaganda often doesn’t make sense. Few modern capitalists would praise the US plantation slavery system just as no Democratic Socialist would praise Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.

*

Cello stop just accepting the history that has been spoon feed to you (from the sources you are clearly getting them from) and begin to question and think for yourself.

You could begin by actually trying to answer the questions put to you by others and address their criticism of your views.

 

It's really nothing to be worried about and wrap oneself up in. Because God will ensure that in the end Truth and Justice will prevail. All we can do is our best, and that should be our aim. There's two or more sides to every argument/discussion/issue. And there's hidden ulterior motives. Reasons and excuses. People with blind spots - and when we're honest with ourselves, we'll consider ourselves among them. Understanding and compassion are something to be worked towards and that includes trying to see things from others' points of views. There's no end to things to learn. Life is a crazy journey full of adventure and we do make some headway as long as we don't give up. And seek God's guidance.

 

That's not a world any of us want to live in. It doesn't seem to me like "sensible and just" applies to that. Oddly though, in some states people can ride on public roads without a helmet and be within the law. But would those states have seat belt laws? Drunk driving laws? Building inspection laws? Sometimes it's hard to know where personal responsibility ends and state responsibility begins.

 

That's just an emotional argument. There's no logic behind it.

 

Trud

All I’m ‘getting’ is that you clearly don’t understand the concept of equality of opportunity?

And you are also looking at outcomes not the process.

Imagine a 100 metre race and two runners of equal potential - but you only place one runner at the 100 metre line while putting the other on the 300 metre line. There is no equality of opportunity in the race.

You are standing at the finish line of the race described above and declaring that the runner that was advantaged from the start was the more worthy athlete while lambasting the loser for not working hard enough.

So let us say you have two people with the potential to become a doctor one is born into disadvantage and all the draw backs that brings and another born into advantage and the greater opportunities that brings.

Both have the potential to be doctors, but one is going to have a tougher race than the other.

To me right wing libertarian ideas and policies would make the disadvantaged even more disadvantaged and make the already advantaged even more advantaged – they are the enemies of equality of opportunity – and since the disadvantaged are less likely to find equality in law as the advantaged right wing libertarians are also the enemies of equality before the law.

LOL – how?

It seems to me you haven’t got a rational or reasonable counter argument so you are just running away

 

-What books have you read on the subject?

--oh let's see, Thomas Sowell, Rush Limbaugh, Thomas DiLorenzo, I'll have to go see and remind myself of the other authors.

-hahahaha all of those people are looking at things the wrong way, they are (insert label here) so clearly they have nothing of value to offer.

 

Where does debating feelings get anyone?

 

Personal responsibility has purely personal consequences public government has to look at the wider consequences for other people and society.

For example a study by Jeffrey Coben, M.D., a researcher at West Virginia University, on helmet laws by states concluded - “Our research shows that a large proportion of patients with severe brain injuries will require long-term care. Hospitalized patients in states without universal helmet laws are also more likely to lack private health insurance, which leaves the public to bear the brunt of the resulting financial burden associated with choosing to not wear a helmet.”

 

Trud

LOL - As I’ve said you still haven’t shown how it is a supposedly an emotional argument so it does seem like you are just running away because you have no real counter argument

 

trud

-What books have you read on the subject?

Sorry three extreme right wingers, a right wing libertarian economist an even more right wing anarcho-capitalists economist and an extremely right-wing shock jock.

So, these are the ‘historians’ you base your objective view of history on?

With such poor sources and lack of rational or real argument to fall back on I can see why you so often have to run away from debate.

 

Which is why I'm saying the public should have no responsibility for the financial burden associated with not wearing a helmet. Let the assholes and their families bear the responsibility. It will teach them a lesson and serve as an example to others who think it would be cool to follow their example. A market-based libertarian solution to a libertarian "free rider" problem. If they and their families aren't up to the task, nature will solve the problem.

 

You left out Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. Too deep for you?

 

For libertarians and Retrumplicans, all opinions are matters of feelings. The concept of reasoned argument is outside their experience.

 

Trud

You have got your knowledge of history from these people?

I haven’t found any history books by Sowell I suppose his books on culture are closest but from what I’ve read of them they don’t seem very well researched and certainly don’t appear on any reputable history lists.

Thomas DiLorenzo has some polemical titles that don’t really seem about history as a reviewer says of one that claims to be history says - Don't be misled by this book's subtitle: rather than a work of history, it's a work of ideology cross-dressing as history. And goes on to point out - the author's notes and bibliography give the game away. There are scarcely any references to works of history. Instead, he cites the great theorists of capitalism, such as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. There's nothing wrong with that, but it leads one to suspect that the book aims less to enrich historical understanding than to score points’

Then we get Rush Limbaugh who’s main contribution to historical study seems to be a series of historical fiction aimed at 7 – 12 year olds with title like Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims, Rush Revere and the First Patriots, Rush Revere and the American Revolution....

Honestly mate are these the people you really wish to pin your knowledge of history on, given you lack of historical knowledge i'm not surprised by finding this out, I am surprised you would admit it.

 

How do you define "right wing" and "left wing"? We'll start from there.

 

Point proven.

 

It was a hypothetical example to make a point. A point which was subsequently substantiated.

 

I predicted your reaction accurately.
Try reading some books instead of randomly accepting some reviewers' opinions.
The vision of the anointed
Lincoln unmasked

Have you read Rush's book? I forget what it was called and all he covered but it certainly had some irrefutable points.

Anyway, it's your refusal to investigate alternative aspects to your settled opinion on matters which makes you impossible to "debate" (which oddly enough appears to be something you pride yourself in being able to do well).

Guess who else wrote a good book -- Bill Cosby! On fathers.

 

Pond scum, one and all!