The "horrors" of Socialism Explained

And that's the way the IMF is expected to keep it.

 

Actually no. The IMF is expecting to keep statism, in violation of capitalism.

 

No. Legislation promoting opportunities equal to the ones others already have.

 

But that's not what the legislation does. It promotes some individuals over others. That's not equal opportunity. That's preferential opportunity.

 

I guess the crimes committed by socialist is being committed in the name of socialism then?

 

Wrong! The IMF is expecting to keep the IMF and it's dominating capitalist interests in control of these states. That is precisely the nature of the "horrors" that have been committed in the name of capitalism..

 

The IMF members are states, not capitalists.

 

States that seek to perpetuate capitalism.

You are absolutely clueless.

 

We clearly have different conceptions of what capitalism means, so I will let you use it in whatever sense you wish. I don't support the IMF or states. I support free markets and people being secure in their person and their material possessions. States could not exists under such circumstances.

So I grant you that states and the IMF have done what you have said, and I don't support them. As I have said, I consider the IMF to be a statist tool and therefore unjust and unethical. So I guess we're on the some side on that score.

 

You have the weird idea that governments are somehow the opposite of capitalism. Nothing further from the truth. There are very few governments in the world that do not favor capitalism. And their numbers haven't stopped dwindling since the fall of the USSR. With ups and downs but, overall, on the way out. Capitalism has triumphed in the world. Nothing will change that within any foreseeable time. The few nations that still embrace anything even close to communism are all in complete disarray. So the world's financial system is settled. It's capitalism. The world's social system is what still needs to be established.

 

duplicate post

 

I'm not going to defend what you consider to be capitalism, because that's not what I consider to be capitalism.

I consider capitalism to be free markets and respect for individual property rights. You obviously have some different definition of capitalism, then I have no intention of defending your definition.

So if you're unhappy with the IMF, I'm not going to defend the IMF, because I am of the opinion that the IMF ought not to even exist.

 

The reality is a lack of Perfect Knowledge to run a better economy. We still have homeless in the largest economy in the world.

 

+Yeah...that's pretty slick of you. You don't have to explain why affirmative action is not about skin color because it's....."off topic". Really smooth. But you couldn't do it!

 

64% of venezuelans have lost an average of 24.2 pounds in the last year because theres no food.

 

Do you honestly believe, given human nature, that an economy exists where there would be no homelessness? Especially in a free economy where drugs are a part of life's choices? Among other choices??? Choices to not be a productive member of society?? As for the mentally ill, at what point does a society step in and say we are over riding your free will and you are going into an institution? Perhaps there is an elite that has the "perfect knowledge" that can tell us how to live and what freedoms we can maintain. I think there are about 14 candidates in the Democrat party that will tell you they have that "perfect knowledge" but no solutions.

 

No, but there are absolutely economies/societies that take positive measures to minimize such problems and their human costs. The United States is most emphatically not one of those, in spite of being the richest and "freest" nation on earth.

 

My point is this.....when you have" freedom" that would include the "freedom" to make choices that can lead to homelessness. We could have a gestapo to round them up and institutionalize them. Instead, we have cities like LA that actually encourage the lifestyle and provide them spaces in the inner city where they can indulge their lifestyle bringing typhus and other disease along with them. Freedom has it's costs. Until we once again teach "individual responsibility" we suffer the consequences.

 

Except none of the countries I referred to use either tactic and and actually achieve positive results without infringing on the freedom or wellbeing of their citizenry. How do you explain that?

 

Recently I watched a film of my hometown in Indiana of main street in the early 1930's. All the rural areas came to the county seat on the weekend and it was full of hustle and bustle. Of all the hundreds of men, women and children I would defy anyone to point out one overweight person!

 

I would explain it this way..... you point out this is the most economically advanced and "freest" nation. So what freedoms do we infringe upon to be like the nations that are superior you mentioned? (Sorry, I missed the post where you mentioned those nations)

 

They didn't have corporations making billions feeding them fast food and processed foods loaded with high fructose corn syrup and trans fats, did they?

 

I am not an infant. Corporations don't feed me. I feed myself with the foods I choose.

 

The reason for putting any references to "freedom" in quotes is that the US has the highest incarceration rate - both in number and per capita - on the planet. North Korea is freer than we are by that standard.

The very idea of "freedom" in the United States is a sick, twisted joke.

 

Yeah, statism sucks.