I'm pro-capitalist because it works in reality. I like Freddie because he's a (dreaming) idealist Socialist who has really good critiques of clearly false and/or non-working policies of the Left/ Democrats, AND he writes so well it's a pleasure to read him even when I disagree.
Market Capitalism = "Private property, freely made contracts, freedom to buy and sell. Fraud prohibited, contracts enforced." Depends on anti-fraud & contract & private property enforcement = essentially a gov't. (Could be Home Owners Association security).
Certainly NOT "public (=gov't) ownership". All regulations reduce freedom, including the freedom to harm or excessively risk harm.
I'm glad drunk driving is illegal (tho I wish there were more private roads), because I understand the risk is "high" that drunks cause accidents.
Most people want Freedom. And Security. It's an inevitable tradeoff on the Pareto optimal curve that more freedom means less security. BUT, there are actually 330 million (+-) different trade-off curves in the USA, so many millions can want more of either, and even more of both.
General changes to increase security almost always reduce freedom.
Even my proposal for subsidizing jobs, and having a National (or State) Service corps to employ "everybody", needs to be paid for by taxes and reduces the freedom to not pay those taxes.
Eco? You want to argue Marxism, as in China, or USSR or commie Hungary has less pollution than capitalism?
"Mango you ignorant slut"
China is full, full, full of enviro horror shows. Degradation of environment, and dirty water, was endemic thru all commie countries - Hungarian protests in '89 were strongly against the eco problems of commies.
Yeah, Democrat Deep State government workers in the USA, like in Flint, seem too often willing (not equally, but too often) to pollute when they can get away with it. $600+ million judgement, finally, from the 2014 Democrat gov't fiasco.
Admittedly, if you asked these poor folk how much they'd pay for less pollution, it would be really really small. The poor need more, and better, jobs before much Green luxury beliefs.
You canтАЩt have freedoms without liberties, or else at some point someoneтАЩs freedom will impose itself on anotherтАЩs, which can become irreconcilable. This necessitates a balance between the two in the form of regulations of some sort, which is why laws even exist at all.
Laws are, unfortunately, prone to manipulation and corruption when left to the devices of narcissistic people who do not recognize the importance of others needs, and where they intersect with their own.
"You canтАЩt have freedoms without liberties," - don't you mean without limits?
Most laws are specifications of harms, and "just" punishment for those convicted of doing harm. Tho there are lots of victimless crimes where one or both of the consenting adults is considered the victim of their own decision, like drugs or prostitution.
Drug addition harms the addict. Drug legalization increases addiction. Drug laws increase criminal behavior, corruption, gang violence; but decrease harmful addition.
Should we have drug laws? Good arguments both ways.
(One of the few areas my wife and I disagree; with me accepting legalization and more harmful addiction.)
I'm pro-capitalist because it works in reality. I like Freddie because he's a (dreaming) idealist Socialist who has really good critiques of clearly false and/or non-working policies of the Left/ Democrats, AND he writes so well it's a pleasure to read him even when I disagree.
Market Capitalism = "Private property, freely made contracts, freedom to buy and sell. Fraud prohibited, contracts enforced." Depends on anti-fraud & contract & private property enforcement = essentially a gov't. (Could be Home Owners Association security).
Certainly NOT "public (=gov't) ownership". All regulations reduce freedom, including the freedom to harm or excessively risk harm.
I'm glad drunk driving is illegal (tho I wish there were more private roads), because I understand the risk is "high" that drunks cause accidents.
Most people want Freedom. And Security. It's an inevitable tradeoff on the Pareto optimal curve that more freedom means less security. BUT, there are actually 330 million (+-) different trade-off curves in the USA, so many millions can want more of either, and even more of both.
General changes to increase security almost always reduce freedom.
Even my proposal for subsidizing jobs, and having a National (or State) Service corps to employ "everybody", needs to be paid for by taxes and reduces the freedom to not pay those taxes.
Eco? You want to argue Marxism, as in China, or USSR or commie Hungary has less pollution than capitalism?
"Mango you ignorant slut"
China is full, full, full of enviro horror shows. Degradation of environment, and dirty water, was endemic thru all commie countries - Hungarian protests in '89 were strongly against the eco problems of commies.
Yeah, Democrat Deep State government workers in the USA, like in Flint, seem too often willing (not equally, but too often) to pollute when they can get away with it. $600+ million judgement, finally, from the 2014 Democrat gov't fiasco.
https://www.michiganradio.org/criminal-justice-legal-system/2022-02-04/federal-judge-trims-attorneys-fees-request-in-flint-water-settlement
Admittedly, if you asked these poor folk how much they'd pay for less pollution, it would be really really small. The poor need more, and better, jobs before much Green luxury beliefs.
But he reads and subscribes to Freddie. As you noted originally. People are more complicated than the labels you want to throw on them -- both of you.
You canтАЩt have freedoms without liberties, or else at some point someoneтАЩs freedom will impose itself on anotherтАЩs, which can become irreconcilable. This necessitates a balance between the two in the form of regulations of some sort, which is why laws even exist at all.
Laws are, unfortunately, prone to manipulation and corruption when left to the devices of narcissistic people who do not recognize the importance of others needs, and where they intersect with their own.
"You canтАЩt have freedoms without liberties," - don't you mean without limits?
Most laws are specifications of harms, and "just" punishment for those convicted of doing harm. Tho there are lots of victimless crimes where one or both of the consenting adults is considered the victim of their own decision, like drugs or prostitution.
Drug addition harms the addict. Drug legalization increases addiction. Drug laws increase criminal behavior, corruption, gang violence; but decrease harmful addition.
Should we have drug laws? Good arguments both ways.
(One of the few areas my wife and I disagree; with me accepting legalization and more harmful addiction.)
Liberties are limits to freedoms. тАЬFree fromтАЭ means that a freedom cannot impede upon something, which is a liberty.
ItтАЩs hard-baked into the US constitution, yet not many people seem to understand that.
Yes, but considering that the top 10% of the people pay 90% of all the taxes, it kind of evens out.
Yes, Reading Freddie is like reading Trotsky. Completely wrong solutions, great rhetoric.
Go checkout Marxists.org. They have a great online library.