Is there anyone left who doubts we live under corporate fascism??

Balbus:

I've already answered this in one thread, but here it is again, and if it helps, you appear to believe that governments purpose and/or duty is to free people from failure, and I simply believe that people should be allowed the freedom to fail, and everyone should be free to come to the assistance of those who do. It benefits no one, except for government and its wealthy supporters, to perpetuate a class warfare between the middle and lower classes, who in the end are the only ones affected.

1. I've not claimed there should be NO taxes, only taxation adequate to perform the Constitutionally enumerated functions of government. Additionally, I don't think the Federal government should tax individuals or incomes, and that should be a function of the States alone, as it was originally.

2. Regulations, like all laws, should be minimal, and applicable equally to all.

3. Welfare should not in any way be a function of the Federal government.

4. Nothing at all with a free market, people should remain free to produce goods and services and price them as they wish, and uninhibited by government, free market competition allows consumers to control prices. Competition produces jobs and brings down prices for the consumers.

5a. Parents, not governments or unions, should have greatest control over the schools and what their children are being taught.

5b. Health care, is not a right that all are entitled to, but something that is available with costs like anything else, and the private sector insurance industry allows those who wish to reduce their financial risks by purchasing policies to protect them from unforeseen circumstances. It's a choice of purchasing a policy, saving, or face the consequences of bad decisions.

Freedom is a lack of constraint, the ability to make choices unhindered by others or government, to be responsible and take responsibility for ones actions, to engage in legal pursuits which can make one rich or poor. It has nothing at all to do with outcome, or for that matter income.

Take away governments ability to create laws that can be written to the advantage of some, but not all equally, and wealth would find little ability to influence government.

Nothing at all that you've written indicates that it would reduce the influence of wealth on government, in fact it would likely increase it, and result in reducing the middle classes with minimally improving, if at all the poorest members of society, ending what social mobility that now exists creating a ruling and a ruled class.

Ron Paul could turn the country around if elected, and most all the other candidates would do little more than slow down the certain economic collapse we've been headed toward for nearly 100 years.

 

Indie-

No you didn’t - if people wish to see the posts in question go here –

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=418102&page=8

Post 71 to 82

*

Basically all you did was tell me I was wrong and then taking it point by point I explained just why my list seemed to be correct - you still have not addressed the criticism set out in that post – by the way here it is again

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

Instead once more you fell back on evasion, getting all huffy and running off with a -

Meaning you had no counter argument so you ran away.

 

Indie

LOL – you are repeating a view BUT NOT addressed the criticisms already levelled at that view.

What failure is the child born into disadvantage guilty of? What did the child successfully do to be born into advantage?

I want a system that gives everyone the possibility of tapping their potential and having a healthy and fulfilled life, by increasing the number of choices and opportunities of those that otherwise wouldn’t have them.

You seem to be want a society where most people’s life choices are limited and where they’d have the ‘freedom’ to suffer unto dead if through no fault of their own or due to circumstance beyond their control they found themselves in hardship.

As to charitable assistance the problem is that it didn’t work (there are many outstanding criticisms on that subject that you haven’t addressed yet).

 

Indie

But as pointed out your ideas would give wealth vastly more power and influence, on top of what they have already, giving them even more dominance over governance, a claim you refuse to address let alone refute, you just come out this seemingly scripted sales pitch.

Claiming you are opposed to wealth when everything points to the opposite seems to me extremely dishonest.

 

Indie

OK once again -

This is contradicted by your often repeated assertions along the lines that nothing has the right to take from another without the express consent and willingness of the person(s) providing? Not even government.

Effort or Luck? Post 223

Which would mean replacing taxes with voluntary contributions? I’ve begged you to address this apparent contradiction in your thinking but you’ve refused to do so.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

But you do believe in deregulation - that is getting rid of or reducing the number of existing regulations.

So yes - 2) deregulation
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

Also as you have already admitted many of the regulations you would seem to want to ‘deregulate’ would be those that protected the majority of people from exploitation by wealth.

You have stated many times that you believe that if someone falls into hardship, even if it is through no fault of their own or due to circumstances beyond their control; they should be allowed to die of want.
I think that means - 3) Little or no welfare
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

You have stated – “I DO promote a highly competitive free market/laissez faire based economic system”

So yes 4) Free market/laissez faire based economics
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

You also know that there never has been and never will be a ‘free market’ because any move toward it inevitably leads to a wealth dominated system. But that is seemingly what you want and are aiming for.

And I’ve pointed out that this is Social Darwinist and you are not contending that.

So yes - 5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc."
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

Pointed out here –

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7045414&postcount=33

And as I’ve pointed out – that boils down to the Social Darwinist based idea that if someone falls into hardship, even if it is through no fault of their own or due to circumstances beyond their control; they should be allowed to die of want. Something you are not contending.
So again 5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc."
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

 

Indie

Again the sale pitch (‘freedom’ ‘choice’) but again complete failure to address your critics.

But the ideas you promote would in fact reduce freedom by reducing the number of choices open to most people while increasing the choices available to a few. Accusations and criticisms of your views that you refuse to address, which point to your ideas being guilty as charged.

But the ideas you promote would seem to working toward the opposite, giving wealth much more power and influence so it can even more easily dominate society in its own interests rather than in the interests of the majority. A criticism you refuse to address.

Fine if that is you opinion – the problem is you make statements like this but in the past when I’ve asked you to back them up you refuse.

 

Indie

As I pointed out some time about and which you still haven’t addressed –

The neo-liberal ideas that you promote (as does Paul) give more power and influence to wealth which gives them much more freedom to exploit the system and the majority in their own interests through the promotion of neoliberal ideas such as –

1) low or no tax
2) deregulation
3) Little or no welfare
4) Free market/laissez faire based economics
5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc.


In what way does that enhance the ‘freedom’ of the majority? Or put an end to 'crony capitalism'?

 

Balbus:

You should try reading each of my posts once more without trying to interpret them to say what you want them to say.

 

Indie

Another evasion trick you’ve used before – claim you have been misinterpreted, the problem is that when asked to explain your interpretation you either refuse - or just repeat the same thing that has criticisms still outstanding against it.

I have read your posts, often many times, that’s why I can so easily quote them, because I take note of what you write.

The problem is that you often evasive contradict yourself or on occasion seemingly lie outright about what ideas you do or do not have.

I mean an honest debater (an honest person) would just address the criticism or admit they just don’t have any counter arguments they wouldn’t use trick after trick like you to try and get out of giving an answer.

 

Balbus:

What is there I need to explain? I simply have tried to make it clear to you that I value freedom above all else, and don't feel threatened at all by those who are wealthier than me. I do have a problem with government assuming powers over me which diminish my freedom to make decisions. The greater the power and authority of government, the more it will be used by those who can most afford to buy it.
Period.

 

Indie

I know your views you’ve repeated them enough times the question is can you defend them from criticism and so far the answer is a resounding NO.

So why are you trying to promote views you cannot defend?

 

Balbus:

Same question, same answer as in the other thread.

Just curious, but are you being paid by the post, or number of words posted?

 

Indie

And again evasion not answers.

I find it very strange.

Wouldn’t someone who genuinely believed in a set of ideas so much that they’d present and promote them on a political forum want, no, be eager to show how strong and stable their ideas were by defending them from criticisms, criticism that so undermines them that they seem weak and rickety?

I just couldn't let that happen, I do believe in the ideas I present and will try to defend them and if I find I can’t I’d realise they needed a re-think.

So why are you so unwilling?

You don’t even seem to try to defend your ideas, often going into evasion mode at the slightest hint of criticism, it is just so bizarre.

It would in fact be a lot more understandable if you were being paid (as you accuse me of been). An advertiser doesn’t need to believe in the product they are trying to sell. It would also explain why criticisms are not being addressed, an advertiser wouldn’t have the inclination or the knowledge to do so, they’d do exactly what you do, desperately evade while continuing to push the sales pitch.

 

Balbus:

You look at things too simplistically, and promote the idea of one size fits all solution is the best way to resolve things. I, prefer to look at things on a case by case basis which is much more reasonable and rational when dealing with problems in the 'real' world.

Your views might work in an agrarian society, but in todays modern world income inequality is unavoidable, yet in the end even the poorest in the developed world societies who complain of inequality benefit much more than those who live in third world countries where income disparity is small.

 

I'm hardly convinced.

 

Spexxx:

What might be the alternative?

 

Indie

LOL – You accuse me of being simplistic then throw out a clichéd slogan like criticism such as ‘one size fits all solution’

Actually I don’t think I’ve ever advocated a ‘one size fits all solution’, I‘m not even sure what a ‘one size fits all solution’ is. In fact I often explain that things are complicated and that’s why things need to be understood rather than having ideas based on assertion that can’t be back up or defended, like you do.

But I’m not against a case by case basis and virtually all the places where there is a state welfare and benefits system it is based on individual need.

My criticism of your views on that subject is that your implication that you are not against a viable state welfare and benefit system is contradicted by the ideas you promote, the Social Darwinist and charity only based ideas you have been pushing for some time now.

Again you are hilarious – As pointed out to you - in detail - some six months ago one of my criticism of your ideas was that they might be suitable for in an agrarian society, but not in a modern one. As can be seen you evaded addressing what I said then can you now?

If anyone what to see the sequence themselves start here – Post 195, Page 20 of the ‘What to do in the mad, mad world?’ thread.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=425761&page=20

That’s the problem others explain you assert, and when your assertions hit the wall of criticism you run away.

 

Indie

As I’ve pointed out to you numerous times - I don’t think there will ever be a totally equal or completely perfect society.

But -

As pointed out already

“Britain and the United States have the lowest levels of intergenerational mobility, or the highest levels of intergenerational persistence. The Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland) and Canada tend to have high rates of social mobility. Norway itself proved to be the most mobile. Germany was also included in this study and was found to be in the middle of the scale.”

Basically the countries which had taken the more neoliberal route (that you support) had the worst levels of social mobility.

Now according to a study using the Gini coefficient (0 expressing total equality and 100 maximal inequality) Sweden was the most equal (23), Norway came third with 25 and Germany was eleventh with 27. The US I believe has a rather mediocre score of around 40-45.

*

One of the many criticisms of your ideas (another that you still refuse to address) is that the neo-liberal ideas you seem to support seem to vastly increase economic inequality while not really seeming to benefit wider society and can actually have a detrimental effect on a country (e.g. bringing about corporate cronyism and financial crashes).

 

Balbus:

I find the GINI and other mathematical formulas of little rational value other than their ability to produce interesting charts and graphs when talking about human societies.

You can find all kinds of studies to make a case for a view you support, but you continue to illuminate what you see as the problem of society, but how would you eliminate or reduce it, justly and fairly?

 

Indie

LOL – and yet more of your evasion tricks.

Dismiss something you have no counter argument for doesn’t make that criticism go away.

Asking me to repeat myself, again, and again and again….to get out of actually addressing the criticisms of your views.