In jail for being in debt

[Calabrio]

.... or perhaps, it demonstrates the problem with some primarily conservative states that cater to and give extreme power and freedom to businesses, who then twist and manipulate that power to use a system that wouldn't otherwise have this kind of power over an individual.

No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all.

First, Minnesota, home of Al Franken isn't a "primarily conservative" state. So we can shoot down that premise right there.

Next you speak of the "extreme freedom" to twist and manipulate the power of the state. That only works if the state has too much centralized power in the first place, and that basically confirms that point I was making.

Shag has addressed this point very articulately and thoroughly in the previous post. Your shocking refusal to acknowledge it demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity on your part. If you can't respond to something as simple as what he wrote, why should anyone even recognize you in the future?

 

[FIND]

No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all.

First, Minnesota, home of Al Franken isn't a "primarily conservative" state. So we can shoot down that premise right there.

Next you speak of the "extreme freedom" to twist and manipulate the power of the state. That only works if the state has too much centralized power in the first place, and that basically confirms that point I was making.

Shag has addressed this point very articulately and thoroughly in the previous post. Your shocking refusal to acknowledge it demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity on your part. If you can't respond to something as simple as what he wrote, why should anyone even recognize you in the future?

1: just because a liberal is in Minnesota does not mean it is NOT generally primarily conservative. This whole area is. Despite that, there are still some liberals and democrats that serve in office. Tom Daschle was a senator here in south dakota for quite a long time, and he was very much a democrat...... Now, can you name for me the last time this states electorate voted blue for the president? Are you going to tell me that South Dakota is a liberal state? Hell, this state personifies conservatism and "christian ideals." Though, I will admit, Minnesota has had a tendency to go democrat in recent years, the ideology, laws and political structure in Minnesota is primarily conservative. Strange that they vote democrat, but if you lived there, you would understand rather quickly.

2: Shag was trying to make a point that some big business does not like a lassaiz-faire environment, however, that is a separate issue from conservative ideals. Big businesses practice pragmatism. They only care about what is best for the bottom line. Their economic ideals have little to do with political ideals. They only borrow and finance whatever ideals are most convenient in a situation. This is why you are so hard pressed to find lobbyists with any extreme party loyalties.

3: I said business has extreme freedom and more legal power than individuals. The power the state has has little to do with that. The state does not have any additional power when a corporation twists a legal system so that they can use minor powers of the courts to arrest individuals, such as a bench warrant for failure to appear at a hearing.

4: Corporatism is no more akin to liberalism than Buddhism is to communism. It is an entirely different idea. Only when one stretches those ideas to the EXTREME can one make any link at all. Corporatism is more of a system of ordered social collectivism. At the same types of extremes you can link liberalism directly to Corporatism, you can link conservatism, or nearly any other political ideology save anarchism and extreme libertarianism. Shag knows this, it appears he hopes that no one will notice and they will just follow along with what he is saying.

5: I shouldn't have to spell these types of things out every time someone wants to start one of these silly arguments. He knew damn well he was misrepresenting what I said, and I didn't feel like playing that dumb game. ie, his later comment:

You haven't made a disprovable statement yet.

I had hoped to avoid giving him ammunition to start some silly war of attrition where he digs up a bunch of random crap articles, then uses circular logic and straw-man platforms to prove his point. It gets old, and it is senseless. Besides, according to him, he knows enough about political sciences that I believe his comments were just an effort to start a pissing contest where he knows very well that he is wrong, but believes he can argue it until he looks right.

6: The states have NO additional power in this area. They are affording additional power to businesses and creditors, who in turn use that power to manipulate the minor powers of the court to accomplish their goals. The states also GIVE UP power over personal debt in many cases, as is the example of the lack of statutes of limitations in these areas and the absence of many of the rules and regulations governing collection activities in other, more progressive areas. One could even view it as an extreme example of the government giving up power and control over collectors. The argument that this is an example of government abuse of power is just stupid and has no grounding in fact or reality.

 

[Calabrio]

1: just because a liberal is in Minnesota does not mean it is NOT generally primarily conservative.

Let's all take astep back from what we have previously understood, and let's examine what we mean by "conservative."
Let's make sure that when you say conservative, it means the same things as it does when Shag or I do.

The same goes for liberal, or progressive, or socialist, or fascist....

Because the language has been bastardized this past century so that the words really have no set meaning. I know I have, and I think Shag has also, been attempting to address this language problem repeatedly here. The dictionary definitions don't apply because the political applications have deliberately been changed over the past century.

As you go deeper into the history and philosophy of this stuff, past the surface, past the contemporary political debate, you find out that we're all being manipulated, and much of what we took for granted or presumed was true actually isn't as it seems.


So, when you use the term conservative-
does that mean the same thing as I do?
Do you use that term to mean a classical liberal or someone who wants to use the power of the state to impose their own moral values on the population?

 

[ford nut]

1: just because a liberal is in Minnesota does not mean it is NOT generally primarily conservative. This whole area is. Despite that, there are still some liberals and democrats that serve in office. Tom Daschle was a senator here in south dakota for quite a long time, and he was very much a democrat...... Now, can you name for me the last time this states electorate voted blue for the president? Are you going to tell me that South Dakota is a liberal state? Hell, this state personifies conservatism and "christian ideals." Though, I will admit, Minnesota has had a tendency to go democrat in recent years, the ideology, laws and political structure in Minnesota is primarily conservative. Strange that they vote democrat, but if you lived there, you would understand rather quickly.

When is the last time Minnesota has voted red for Pres....1972??
Its been blue since 1932 for the most part.
Christian ideals do not make a conservative Republican voter in MN.
I know I live there.

 

[shagdrum]

Corporatism is more of a system of ordered social collectivism.

How do you reach that conclusion?

At the same types of extremes you can link liberalism directly to Corporatism, you can link conservatism, or nearly any other political ideology save anarchism and extreme libertarianism.

Conservatism is not a political ideology:

Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term "liberal" in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.

-Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek in an essay titled "Why I am not a Conservative" published in his book The Constitution of Liberty (1960)​

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries...

...The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

-Russell Kirk (1957)​

John Kekes calls Conservatism more of a political morality. This may seem like semantics but it is a very important and relevant distinction to be able to understand what Conservatism is and is not.

 

[FIND]

Conservatism is not a political ideology:

Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term "liberal" in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.

-Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek in an essay titled "Why I am not a Conservative" published in his book The Constitution of Liberty (1960)​

Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries...

...The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.

-Russell Kirk (1957)​

John Kekes calls Conservatism more of a political morality. This may seem like semantics but it is a very important and relevant distinction to be able to understand what Conservatism is and is not.

Yeah yeah, and Emo isn't a fad, it's a way of life.

Try again, next time without so much stupid. If I wanted to see you cut and paste a conservative blog saying Conservative is the only correct way of thinking and all Liberals are socialists, I would have read the other thread.

Besides, you are going WAY off topic on this thread..... Trying to distract from the fact you were entirely wrong?

 

[shagdrum]

Trying to distract from the fact you were entirely wrong?

Wrong about what, specifically?

You also have yet to explain why, "Corporatism is more of a system of ordered social collectivism"? Is that simply conjecture on your part or do you have some reasonable basis for that statement that you can articulate? At face value, it doesn't make much sense.

 

[FIND]

You also have yet to explain why, "Corporatism is more of a system of ordered social collectivism"? Is that simply conjecture on your part or do you have some reasonable basis for that statement that you can articulate? At face value, it doesn't make much sense.

I say that because it is true. If it doesn't make sense to you, I suggest hitting those freshman level government books instead of quoting blogs to pretend you are a scholar. Besides, your asinine post made me miss the other comments. Of course, these types of posts are why I didn't give you serious responses earlier. Honestly, if I wanted to read someones opinion blog, or propaganda blog, I am quite capable of finding them myself

As to what you are wrong about.... Well, the insistence that this is an example of giving the state too much power for starters. We can dig up the laws, but I think you will find that Minnesota as a state has LESS power and control over these types of matters. This is just an example of people and businesses manipulating a system that has LESS control than in many other places.

When is the last time Minnesota has voted red for Pres....1972??
Its been blue since 1932 for the most part.
Christian ideals do not make a conservative Republican voter in MN.
I know I live there.

So are you saying Minnesota is a Liberal state? Because as far as I can see, it isn't. Just because it does not have the republican vote usually, doesn't make it a liberal state. It is a bit more progressive than states like South Dakota and North Dakota, but, still very conservative. I have lived in north and south dakota for the past ~8 years, and I have a lot of friends in Minnesota, not to mention, the hour drive it takes me to get there now is the farthest I have lived from minnesota since moving to the dakotas. I don't know how many liberal states you have traveled to, but, I can't think of many states you could even consider Minnesota liberal in comparison to.

Let's all take astep back from what we have previously understood, and let's examine what we mean by "conservative."
Let's make sure that when you say conservative, it means the same things as it does when Shag or I do.

The same goes for liberal, or progressive, or socialist, or fascist....

Because the language has been bastardized this past century so that the words really have no set meaning. I know I have, and I think Shag has also, been attempting to address this language problem repeatedly here. The dictionary definitions don't apply because the political applications have deliberately been changed over the past century.

As you go deeper into the history and philosophy of this stuff, past the surface, past the contemporary political debate, you find out that we're all being manipulated, and much of what we took for granted or presumed was true actually isn't as it seems.

So, when you use the term conservative-
does that mean the same thing as I do?
Do you use that term to mean a classical liberal or someone who wants to use the power of the state to impose their own moral values on the population?

I haven't been trying to morph or distort the meanings of any of these political ideologies. When I say facism, I mean facism, when I say conservatism, I mean conservatism, when I say liberalism, I mean liberalism, and when I say socialism, I mean socialism. I do not use them as attack words, and I do not use them to smear the positions of those with opposing views.

As for whether I mean the same as you..... idk, probably, assuming you lean towards the more objective contemporary definitions, then I would say we are on the same page. As far as whether I use them in the same way as shag.... probably not, but then again, I have the feeling he has no idea what he is copy-pasting a lot of the time. The problem with the bastardization of these words is the fact that everyone wants to pick sides then associate everything bad with the other side, instead of accepting the fact that at any extreme of an ideology, there is bad.

Then it just turns into one of those arguments like shag's quote above, where someone makes a hasty generalization, ad hominem, repetitive propaganda, some type of bandwagon argument, or they just find a straw man to attack.

 

[Calabrio]

I haven't been trying to morph or distort the meanings of any of these political ideologies.

I didn't say that you did, nor did I imply that.
I said that others, those in academia and the political class, have done so.
Frankly, I think you're politically naive and not "sophisticated" (ie. twisted, dishonest, politically connected) to be involved in such a thing.

As for whether I mean the same as you..... idk, probably, assuming you lean towards the more objective contemporary definitions, then I would say we are on the same page.

Before we go any farther, before we make any more presumptions, why don't we just touch base on these issues.

There really aren't any "objective contemporary definitions." And that's one of the obstacles to any honest or clear discussion right now. All of the contemporary definitions have been distorted and manipulated.

As far as whether I use them in the same way as shag.... probably not, but then again, I have the feeling he has no idea what he is copy-pasting a lot of the time.

That's an absurd to charge to make and it reflects poorly upon you. While you may differ with Shag's conclusion, it makes you look foolishly to claim that he's ignorant.

The problem with the bastardization of these words is the fact that everyone wants to pick sides then associate everything bad with the other side, instead of accepting the fact that at any extreme of an ideology, there is bad.

The problem with the "bastardization" of the words is that the definitions have been changed so that they have no understood meaning. Why is a classic liberal now a conservative? Why is a statist progressive now a liberal? Why is a Fascist associated with conservatism, when conservatism has nothing in common with it and the Fascists were socialist?

Then it just turns into one of those arguments like shag's quote above, where someone makes a hasty generalization, ad hominem, repetitive propaganda, some type of bandwagon argument, or they just find a straw man to attack.

Again, your intention to attack Shag reflect poorly upon you. It demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part, not his.
Shag, myself included, aren't interested in battling straw men. Neither of us are inclined or limited to "bandwagon arguments."

The ultimate goal is to engage in a dialog that honestly challenges our ideas and understanding of things in the world. It's only through that kind of honest debate that you develop a clear understanding of not only what you believe to be true, but WHY.

In the meantime, I want to focus on the language and meanings.
I get the impression that you are intensely personalizing your defense of things because of how you identify yourself based upon your understanding of the contemporary labels. I would bet that once the language barrier is removed, you, Shag, and myself would agree with about 80-90% of things related to federal government.

Let me ask this question again.
When you use the term "conservative," which description is more accurate- a "classical liberal" or "someone who wants to use the power of the federal government to enforce morality upon you?" Does a conservative want smaller government or a big government that regulates your behavior?

 

[FIND]

I didn't say that you did, nor did I imply that.

I didn't accuse you of such either. I made a statement to avoid being lumped in.

Though, I should say for the record, viewing me as naive is silly..... I am just more of a keep things basic kind of guy. I tend to avoid the arguments of academia and the elite because it is generally self-serving rhetoric. The fact that I do so, does not mean I lack understanding. The fact that I don't constantly repost other peoples opinions, blogs, or writings does not mean I have not read them. It just means that I was trying to show you the courtesy of giving you my own thoughts, opinions, and observations, instead of behaving like an elitist snob. This is why I tend to keep my language and writing to a level that most people would understand. (though I make this statement while ignoring the fact that most highschool graduates today lack a highschool education) Anyways, I digress. My attempts are to write and communicate more as a common man, than attempting to appear as a scholar. I would think you of all people would appreciate that, given the fact that I generally observe you communicating on this forum in the same fashion, and I did not want to assume that you were only doing so because you lack the ability to communicate or think above that level.

That's an absurd to charge to make and it reflects poorly upon you. While you may differ with Shag's conclusion, it makes you look foolishly to claim that he's ignorant.

I formed this opinion having consistently observed him posting slanted opinion blogs and asking that they are accepted as objective facts, among other behaviors. His earlier response in this thread that I dismissed out of hand is in fact a perfect example though of him making a hasty response without fully understanding what he was talking about, then again, you made similar assumptions, then when he posted something that agreed with what you said, you accepted it for fact. Whether you believe it makes me look foolish is irrelevant. You tend to side with shag because he shares your opinions and views of the world. That is not an intellectual relationship, that is a relationship formed out of a bias and feelings.

I will not say that he is unintelligent, or that he does not have some grasp of political concepts. The charge I am making is that he is naive in his approach, and lacks any semblance of objectivity due to interference by his personal feelings, and the fact that he is only willing to give any credence or consideration to opinions or material that do not run contrary to his own. Therefore, he accepts many things for face value, without fully understanding the actual value or meaning of what he is posting.

As for your response to the straw man or bandwagon arguments - well, that is certainly an interesting opinion you have of yourselves.... Lemme give you a hint, Shag's avatar is a pretty good example of a bandwagon statement. The Nazi or facist references I see thrown around constantly, another good one. I hate when people apply a double standard, but I hate it even more when they don't even realize that they have a double standard.

Let me ask this question again.
When you use the term "conservative," which description is more accurate- a "classical liberal" or "someone who wants to use the power of the federal government to enforce morality upon you?" Does a conservative want smaller government or a big government that regulates your behavior?

Your other assumptions aside... Neither one of those descriptions is accurate.

Generally speaking, the conservative mentality fits neither of those descriptions fully. Modern conservatives are generally for small government. (when it is convenient)

Now, that being said, here is where the confusion comes in:

Conservatives are against more "liberal" behaviors, such as gay marriage for instance. Now, while they don't generally view it as government control to not legalize gay marriage, it is a form of government control IMO. It is a more underhanded way of enforcing moral or behavioral control, while claiming the government is not involved. Their behavior becomes more contradictory when they argue for some of their more "libertarian" ideals, in their belief that government does not have the right to regulate behavior. Although you try and interconnect the two, conservatives and big business follow different ideals. Conservatives, generally are for Libertarian style policies when it comes to business, and this includes a lassaiz-faire business environment, however business generally wants a very stable, very predictable environment with as little competition as possible, and adopts a more corporatist view of economics and politics. Granted, this is a very generalized description, and I don't really feel like posting a novel, or ripping off someones blog or wikipedia like some other people would do.... I am just trying to give you a ball-park of how I view conservative mindset, fairly in-line with the modern republican mindset. Granted you can be a liberal republican as well, but yeah, I think you are getting what I mean when you say that.

Of course, generally speaking, contemporary liberals have the same mindset that they should "have their cake and eat it too" as conservatives, but I really don't feel like arguing about what a liberal is, since the past few threads suggest that the terms, Nazi, Facist, socialist, or communist, will be hastily applied and that will start a whole big mess of arguing.

Though, I will offer you this as well. In most cases, I would consider myself conservative..... Immigration is a prime example, but I certainly have my liberal tendencies as well, which tend to show more on this board since the board is so heavily biased towards the conservative republican end of the spectrum.


One other minor note. Facists are not equivalent to socialists. One can be a facist and a socialist at the same time, however, it is generally a straw man tactic to associate facism with socialism as if the two could not exist mutually exclusive of eachother. Yes, Nazis were Facists. Yes they had many socialists practices. But, they were not really socialists. To call Nazis socialists (yes I am aware they were the national socialist party, but there is more to it than just a name) would be the equivalent of calling Canada a socialist country.

Now I will wait for you or shag to rip apart my post and attack it sentence by sentence as usual, with the normal straw man tactics, misrepresentations, and arguments with little more merit than immense verbosity.

 

[shagdrum]

I say that because it is true

Yet you can't show why or how it is true and can only cast aspersions on those who either don't understand what you are saying or don't agree with what you are saying.

As to what you are wrong about.... Well, the insistence that this is an example of giving the state too much power for starters.

Where did I state that?

I did point out that, even under the most orthodox free market perspective, contract enforcement is a proper roll for the government:

...[Adam]Smith said that the government had a vital roll to play in protecting against fraud, including contract enforcement.

How those contracts are enforced are another matter entirely.

Is there something I am overlooking here?

We can dig up the laws, but I think you will find that Minnesota as a state has LESS power and control over these types of matters.

Yet, (apparently) unlike many states, this one is leveraging police to impose certain laws. Considering that fact, your claim seems counter intuitive.

This is just an example of people and businesses manipulating a system that has LESS control than in many other places.

If the government had "LESS control", as you say, then it would also have less influence/power and couldn't be manipulated to this degree.

 

[FIND]

Yet you can't show why or how it is true and can only cast aspersions on those who either don't understand what you are saying or don't agree with what you are saying.

Why is it my responsibility to define something that you are too lazy to read yourself? I am not one of your professors.

Where did I state that?

I did point out that, even under the most orthodox free market perspective, contract enforcement is a proper roll for the government:

​

How those contracts are enforced are another matter entirely.

Is there something I am overlooking here?

post 19.

Yet, (apparently) unlike many states, this one is leveraging police to impose certain laws. Considering that fact, your claim seems counter intuitive.

Ok, I'll bite. Why don't you tell me what laws?

If the government had "LESS control", as you say, then it would also have less influence/power and couldn't be manipulated to this degree.

Once again, they have less control and regulation over business and creditor practices. This enables creditors to take advantage of minor functions of courts, such as bench warrants. If you can name 1, ONE law in effect in minnesota that is giving the government more power under these circumstances, I will take it back.

 

[fossten]

Why is it my responsibility to define something that you are too lazy to read yourself? I am not one of your professors.

I've read this entire thread. It appears that you are the one too lazy to support your claims that Shag is wrong. If you are going to make a claim, you have a responsibility to explain why you think you are right - otherwise you are just being dismissive and demonstrating gross laziness and/or sophistry.

 

[shagdrum]

Why is it my responsibility to define something that you are too lazy to read yourself? I am not one of your professors.

If you are going to make a claim in any honest political discussion it is rude to not back it up with reason and/or facts (when appropriate). To not do that suggests both a lack of good faith in the discussion as well a lack of any reasonable foundation for your claim. That is why it is necessary to support a claim with reason and/or facts (when appropriate).

post 19.

Again, you will have to be more specific. Where did I say that, "this is an example of giving the state too much power"?

I said that contract enforcement was a legitimate function of the government. However, this specific example is one of legitimate government power in a legitimate government function being abused. That has more to do with how the state has grown, the incentive structures involved and the varying interests.

Ok, I'll bite. Why don't you tell me what laws?

why is that necessary? Show the relevance.

I never said anything about bad legislation. I was focused more generally; on an corrupt and likely bloated government. That may have been precipitated by bad legislative direction in any number of laws but that is beside the point. Your demand for specific law(s) changes the focus of the debate to "bad" legislation (unintentionally, I assume) which is not what I was talking about.

Once again, they have less control and regulation over business and creditor practices. This enables creditors to take advantage of minor functions of courts, such as bench warrants.

Repeating a seemingly absurd notion doesn't make it any less absurd to those who view it as such. Your statement still seems counter intuitive.

The bigger a government (or government organization) gets, the more it develops it's own set of interests that don't necessarily line up with the will of the people. Incentive structures change due to those differing interests and deception/corruption necessarily get interjected into the mix. The closer ties the government has to businesses through excessive regulation often lead to similar interests between the two and results in corporatism. Less "control" or regulation, leads to less corporatism, less government corruption and less abuse of power.

This case seems to be a prime example of that. No single specific law can confirm or disprove that; demanding one is absurd and only distracts from the point. Your the one who made the claim, your the one who needs to justify it. Simply repeating the claim doesn't make it seem any more reasonable.

How does a lack of government "control" lead to abuses of government power by the private sector? If the government isn't tied to business through regulation, they are not as likely to have similar interests that conflict with the interests of the people generally.

 

[fossten]

Ok, I'll bite. Why don't you tell me what laws?

Too lazy to read yourself? Shag is not one of your professors.

 

[Calabrio]

Though, I should say for the record, viewing me as
naive is silly.....

I did say "(ie. twisted, dishonest, politically connected)"

Most people, even those who follow politics and current events, don't understand how it's being used. The political culture is vastly outside the experience of anyone in real life.

People, literally, spend their entire careers developing ways to better trick and manipulate the public. To do things against the will of the people "for their own good." The ends justify the means.

Most normal people tend to project their own awareness and motivations on politicians when trying to understand them and why they make the decisions they do. This is a mistake. It's a different, foreign culture.

I am just more of a keep things basic kind of guy. I tend to avoid the arguments of academia and the elite because it is generally self-serving rhetoric.

I totally agree with you, but I don't think the popularly accepted "basic" is truthful or even universally agreed upon or understood. And I think that all of us will enjoy the conversation is we're all agree upon the language and understand the other person.

And if we're using short hand that mean different things, we end up spending countless pages arguing definitions.

Again, I'm not insulting you in this thread.
And I wouldn't be investing the energy to clarify things if thought it wasn't worth the time.

The charge I am making is that he is naive in his approach, and lacks any semblance of objectivity due to interference by his personal feelings, and the fact that he is only willing to give any credence or consideration to opinions or material that do not run contrary to his own. Therefore, he accepts many things for face value, without fully understanding the actual value or meaning of what he is posting.

You will find that this charge is false.
Shag is exceptionally well read and have a very deep understanding of what he speaks about. When someone (who does know what they are talking about) choses to Cut/Paste, it's usually done because-

1. There's little point in putting a well written article in your own words when it's already been crafted. That's a waste of time.
2. And especially in Shag's case, you've become tired of writing extremely long, detailed, and thoughtful posts only to have the entire post disregarded or completely misrepresented. We have a member here who does not discuss things in good faith and engages in the very kind of political manipulation I do not attribute to you.

If you really think that Shag is a cut/paste kind of person lacking a deep understanding, go look at his past posts. His writing and understanding of political philosophy alone will make your head spin.

Shag's avatar is a pretty good example of a bandwagon statement. The Nazi or facist references I see thrown around constantly, another good one. I hate when people apply a double standard, but I hate it even more when they don't even realize that they have a double standard.

No, Shag's avatar is a political statement, one that is supported by political fact. That's not bandwagon. And it's certainly not bandwagon when the person who makes the statement can explain to you what it means at a scholarly level.

Before you dismiss the "Nazi or fascist" references, why don't you approach the discussion with an open mind, because there are stark and undeniable similarities there.

But that's difficult to discuss if you're using the basic, commonly used definitions in use today.

Generally speaking, the conservative mentality fits neither of those descriptions fully.

And this is why we need to agree upon some language, or at least understand where the other person is coming from.

One other minor note. Facists are not equivalent to socialists. One can be a facist and a socialist at the same time, however, it is generally a straw man tactic to associate facism with socialism as if the two could not exist mutually exclusive of eachother. Yes, Nazis were Facists. Yes they had many socialists practices. But, they were not really socialists. To call Nazis socialists (yes I am aware they were the national socialist party, but there is more to it than just a name) would be the equivalent of calling Canada a socialist country.

Unfortunately, you're incorrect.
Nazis WERE German socialist.
Fascists WERE Italian socialists.

Again, the problem with definitions is that these philosophies all take a slightly different shape or form when they conform to a countries philosophy and culture.

Personally, all of the philosophies (Italian Fascism, German socialism, Soviet communism, American Progressivism) are all statist,liberty stealing ideologies, that centralize power and are taking us in the direction of totalitarianism.

Now I will wait for you or shag to rip apart my post and attack it sentence by sentence as usual, with the normal straw man tactics, misrepresentations, and arguments with little more merit than immense verbosity.

You're very defensive and confrontational. It's totally unnecessary.
I still think we're going to agree on far more than we disagree on if we have honest communication and challenge.

Once again, they have less control and regulation over business and creditor practices. This enables creditors to take advantage of minor functions of courts, such as bench warrants. If you can name 1, ONE law in effect in minnesota that is giving the government more power under these circumstances, I will take it back.

This seems like circular reasoning-
you want to see laws in effect that make it illegal to use the power of the government? That seems like a request to prove a negative. If this is an issue, why isn't such recourse possible in the rest of the country? Either way, I'm not interested enough to read scores of legal documents from Minnesota to understand the history and defense of the action. For the sake of an internet thread, we should keep this discussion more hypothetical and focused on the principle.

When the centralized power is too strong, it can be manipulated like this. If the court did not have the power or authorization to engage in this behavior, it couldn't be manipulated by business men and lawyers to harass, intimidate, and terrorize citizens.

When the central Government becomes too powerful, people will work to find ways to harness, corrupt, and abuse that power for their own personal gain.

 

[FIND]

Shag, as to your post, I'll respond tonight when I have more time.

Cal, I'd get to more of yours as well, but I just thought I would view it quickly over my lunch hour.

This seems like circular reasoning-
you want to see laws in effect that make it illegal to use the power of the government? That seems like a request to prove a negative. If this is an issue, why isn't such recourse possible in the rest of the country? Either way, I'm not interested enough to read scores of legal documents from Minnesota to understand the history and defense of the action. For the sake of an internet thread, we should keep this discussion more hypothetical and focused on the principle.

When the centralized power is too strong, it can be manipulated like this. If the court did not have the power or authorization to engage in this behavior, it couldn't be manipulated by business men and lawyers to harass, intimidate, and terrorize citizens.

When the central Government becomes too powerful, people will work to find ways to harness, corrupt, and abuse that power for their own personal gain.

This is not an attempt to prove a negative. What I am stating is that there are no laws governing the behavior of businesses in this matter. The collection agencies are using the normal functions of government. I'd love to hear your justification for the belief that this is an example of bloated government systems.

Should law enforcement not have the power to enforce bench warrants? Should the courts not have the power to compel a person to appear? This is all that is going on in Minnesota. Between that, and lax consumer protection standards, there is nothing else. There is no additional powers available to the government of minnesota than there are ANYWHERE else.

I've read this entire thread. It appears that you are the one too lazy to support your claims that Shag is wrong. If you are going to make a claim, you have a responsibility to explain why you think you are right - otherwise you are just being dismissive and demonstrating gross laziness and/or sophistry.

I defined it using common terms. If he does not understand that definition, then there is no use explaining it to him. Otherwise, I cannot see what he is asking for. I said that Corporatism is an ordered form of social collectivism. How is this being dismissive? My only claims that he has been wrong are directed toward the insistence that this is an example of overbearing government. The only thing that this issue is an example of is lax consumer protection standards, and lax regulation over these types of civil matters. There is an insistence in this thread that there is a bloated government power that is causing these results, where the truth is it is nothing more than greedy business practices with little to no oversight, that are able to manipulate the same system that is in effect in any other state because they are not bound by the rules that are in effect in other states. I am not speaking of a government not bound by rules, I am speaking of individuals, collection agents, and businesses.

 

[fossten]

I defined it using common terms. If he does not understand that definition, then there is no use explaining it to him. Otherwise, I cannot see what he is asking for. I said that Corporatism is an ordered form of social collectivism. How is this being dismissive? My only claims that he has been wrong are directed toward the insistence that this is an example of overbearing government.

With all due respect, you didn't define squat. Re-reading this thread, all I've seen you do is assert and re-assert that corporatism is an ordered form of social collectivism. When Shag asked you to explain why you said this, you dismissed him and insulted him using words like 'stupid' and 'asinine,' and then attempted to poison the well by sneeringly predicting that Shag would come back with a blog post.

Some of your more concise posts have included "no" and then a followup of "that covered it" which denotes a fundamental laziness and condescension rather than a respectful, honest, good faith interest in discussion.

It appears that you've waltzed into this forum and made a snap judgment about Shagdrum after only being here a couple of weeks. That's unfortunate, premature, and ignorant, as he's probably the finest debater in here and has a strong track record. The only reason you've demonstrated to attack Shag as much as you have is that you disagree with him. That's pretty lame.

You've also been very defensive and routinely poison the well, trying to preempt a legitimate response. Even Calabrio has had to gently chide you about your demeanor, which comes across as very hostile.

If you keep bulling in this china shop you're only going to marginalize yourself and end up with no credibility whatsoever.

 

[shagdrum]

Should law enforcement not have the power to enforce bench warrants? Should the courts not have the power to compel a person to appear? This is all that is going on in Minnesota. Between that, and lax consumer protection standards, there is nothing else. There is no additional powers available to the government of minnesota than there are ANYWHERE else.

No one is saying that government shouldn't have those powers. In fact, I thought I made it clear that those powers were unquestionably legitimate. Still, everyone in this thread agrees that this example is a clear abuse of power toward the clear benefit of creditors that flies in the face of the will of the people. So, if those powers are legitimate (and they unquestionably are), how did this happen?

To me (and many others here) it seems very simplistic to simply say "we need another law". That is not a self-evident truth. It is also uncertain how (or even if) legislation can be crafted that can prevent this sort of abuse (at least without heavy trade-offs).

It needs to be understood why this happened in the first place; is it because of too much regulation, not enough? Is specific legislation even a major factor?

What was the nature of the incentives for both the government and the business in this instance? With business, I think their incentive in this is rather clear; enforcing a contract so they can get their money back. But why would the government uncharacteristically act in such a heavy handed fashion on this?

Is this even an institutional problem or simply the case of a few corrupt individuals in the private sector and/or in governmental positions of power?

Was it a lack of checks that lead to this? If so, in what area(s)? Where are checks needed to prevent this abuse of power in the future? On the businesses in question? On government officials? Both? Neither? Are checks to prevent this type of abuse even possible (realistically)? What are the trade-offs of different "solutions" to this problem?

 

[FIND]

No one is saying that government shouldn't have those powers. In fact, I thought I made it clear that those powers were unquestionably legitimate. Still, everyone in this thread agrees that this example is a clear abuse of power toward the clear benefit of creditors that flies in the face of the will of the people. So, if those powers are legitimate (and they unquestionably are), how did this happen?

To me (and many others here) it seems very simplistic to simply say "we need another law". That is not a self-evident truth. It is also uncertain how (or even if) legislation can be crafted that can prevent this sort of abuse (at least without heavy trade-offs).

It needs to be understood why this happened in the first place; is it because of too much regulation, not enough? Is specific legislation even a major factor?

What was the nature of the incentives for both the government and the business in this instance? With business, I think their incentive in this is rather clear; enforcing a contract so they can get their money back. But why would the government uncharacteristically act in such a heavy handed fashion on this?

Is this even an institutional problem or simply the case of a few corrupt individuals in the private sector and/or in governmental positions of power?

Was it a lack of checks that lead to this? If so, in what area(s)? Where are checks needed to prevent this abuse of power in the future? On the businesses in question? On government officials? Both? Neither? Are checks to prevent this type of abuse even possible (realistically)? What are the trade-offs of different "solutions" to this problem?

So, then WHY do you feel that this is an example of TOO much government power? What is it that leads you to this conclusion? As for why it is happening, I have tried to tell you several times in this thread.... There is just less regulation in Minnesota. Filing these types of things in the courts are easier. There is less red tape. There is a very lax consumer protection system and consumer protection laws in the state.

Government takes away freedom for their power, then certain businesses can leverage that power through the government for their own ends.

Am I mistaken in interpreting you as saying that this is an example of an overbearing government with too much power?



Also, since I am apparently not understanding what you are getting at here. What precisely do you want me to explain about my statement that Corporatism is an ordered form of social collectivism. You are familiar with the government under Mussolini correct? Corporatism is probably closer to defining the government of Nazi Germany than socialism even. Corporatism in its most basic form is a system of political and social order, that is much like a large business. There is a top, and from there down it branches off into subgroups. Everyone is expected to have their place and there is an absolute authority to those above. Branches and individuals work individually and are semi-autonomous, but all are expected to work for the benefit of the collective. Everything revolves around the power and influence of the collective.

Did you ever hear Ronald Reagan's statements about the New Deal Program? Hoover too wrote in his memoirs that the New Deal program represented a move by the US to a corporatist state, and called the movement, "pure facism."

Corporatism applied in a different direction is just as dangerous as FDR pointed out: "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

And no, liberalism is not socialism, and corporatism is not directly related to liberalism. Liberalism is the cause of pursuit of individual liberties, much like libertarians, however their approach to garnering liberties is very different of course.

 

[shagdrum]

So, then WHY do you feel that this is an example of TOO much government power?

I would not say this is an example of too much government power. I would say this is an example of an abuse of power, but the power the government had was legitimate, even if it was poorly applied in this situation.

I know it seems like semantics, but it is a very important distinction when looking for the cause(s) for this incident. If it was too much government power, then you would look toward bad legislation based on foolish and/or corrupt interests. If it is a legitimate government function, then you focus more on how the process was abused (which may still lead back to bad legislation, but maybe not).

On this incident, I would still want more information before drawing too many firm conclusions.

As for why it is happening, I have tried to tell you several times in this thread.... There is just less regulation in Minnesota. Filing these types of things in the courts are easier. There is less red tape. There is a very lax consumer protection system and consumer protection laws in the state.

I don't really see how more red tape would have prevented this. Yes, it would add cost for the creditor, so they would wait longer before pursuing legal action. But once they decide to pull the trigger on that option, how would the red tape have prevented this?

Also, not so sure how the consumer protection laws would play in this. The main issue here was a protection of business interests in a legal contract for which they were left holding the bucket and entitled to remedy; through legal means if necessary.

Am I mistaken in interpreting you as saying that this is an example of an overbearing government with too much power?

I am saying that it is very possibly an example of a government (or a governmental institution) that has grow to the point that it's own interests have become detached from it's original mission (mission creep) and detached from the best interests of the society it serves. In an environment like that, which often comes about due to too much regulation, that separate interest leads to corporatism when the interest lines up more closely with that of a business or industry.

Also, since I am apparently not understanding what you are getting at here. What precisely do you want me to explain about my statement that Corporatism is an ordered form of social collectivism.

Sorry, I was misreading "collectivism" as "conservatism". My mistake.

Corporatism is a form of collectivism. On that we seem to agree. I think the descriptor of "social" threw me off; I kept reading "social conservatism".
Again, my mistake.

I wouldn't draw a distinction between corporatism and socialism as you do. They are distinct ideas from different areas of thought that overlap greatly. Socialism is an ideology before it has any economic implications. The more orthodox forms of that ideology go with a "Command and control" style economy, while newer forms tend to employ a corporatism approach to varying degrees. Both economic approaches are a form of collectivism and collectivism is necessary for social justice which socialism of any stripe seeks to maximize; means (collectivism) and goals (maximizing social justice).

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

This FDR quote ties back into the different understandings of certain concepts by different social viewpoints; something myself and others have alluded to numerous times on this forum. Concepts like justice, liberty/rights, freedom, power, etc. all have different understandings under the different viewpoints. Hence, the language can get very confusing and different sides typically end up yelling past each other, in large part because these differences are overlooked. To understand a point of view, you have to first know it's understanding of these concepts; what the functional definition of the concept is for the viewpoint(s) in question.

 

[FIND]

I wouldn't draw a distinction between corporatism and socialism as you do. They are distinct ideas from different areas of thought that overlap greatly. Socialism is an ideology before it has any economic implications. The more orthodox forms of that ideology go with a "Command and control" style economy, while newer forms tend to employ a corporatism approach to varying degrees. Both economic approaches are a form of collectivism and collectivism is necessary for social justice which socialism of any stripe seeks to maximize; means (collectivism) and goals (maximizing social justice).

I draw distinction since the only socialism you see in real world practice is generally not socialism or socialism light. For socialism to actually be socialism, it cannot exist under totalitarian rule or fascist government. Those types of systems, such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany are far more akin to corporatism than socialism. Socialism is strongly rooted in democracy and could only exist properly in a democratic republic. When you have a large gap in income between the top earners and bottom earners, it goes against the fundamental ideals of socialism. I know it sounds like semantics, but I really hate the blending of terms, even if it is for the sake of convenience, because that leads to far too much rhetoric and confusion. It is like calling China a communist country. I mean, they say they are communist, because it is a friendly sounding word if you know what communism really is, but you know they really aren't, because communism could only really exist in a pure democratic Utopian society.

I don't really see how more red tape would have prevented this. Yes, it would add cost for the creditor, so they would wait longer before pursuing legal action. But once they decide to pull the trigger on that option, how would the red tape have prevented this?

Also, not so sure how the consumer protection laws would play in this. The main issue here was a protection of business interests in a legal contract for which they were left holding the bucket and entitled to remedy; through legal means if necessary.

On these issues:

That is the primary reason they so willingly follow through on litigation in this area. Low cost, whether it is low cost for filing, and low cost in man hours, creditors love it. That is what makes their margins. Most other places, that is the entire reason they do not take small private debts to litigation. It costs them more than the debt is worth.

As to consumer protection, most states have laws requiring waiting periods between filings, venue is more strict, and a few other things. I can't think of them all right now. They are really minor issues. As far as providing greater protection to business interests in a legal contract... I can't think of anything in particular that provides greater protection to creditors, aside from the fact that most of the states in this area do not have a statute of limitations on debt. You know how in many states, after so many years, they can no longer collect? Yeah, not the case here.

 

[foxpaws]

I draw distinction since the only socialism you see in real world practice is generally not socialism or socialism light. For socialism to actually be socialism, it cannot exist under totalitarian rule or fascist government. Those types of systems, such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany are far more akin to corporatism than socialism. Socialism is strongly rooted in democracy and could only exist properly in a democratic republic. When you have a large gap in income between the top earners and bottom earners, it goes against the fundamental ideals of socialism. I know it sounds like semantics, but I really hate the blending of terms, even if it is for the sake of convenience, because that leads to far too much rhetoric and confusion. It is like calling China a communist country. I mean, they say they are communist, because it is a friendly sounding word if you know what communism really is, but you know they really aren't, because communism could only really exist in a pure democratic Utopian society.

Shag just doesn't seem to get the whole idea that socialism is based on a classless society with the workers/public owning the means of production - hardly the case in Mussolini's or Hitler's case. Once again - I am with you FIND - there are reasons you have different terms-Fascism and Nazism are not Socialism. They are made up of tiered societies. With Fascism and Nazism, not only do you not have democracy - the governmental arm necessary for socialism, but you don't have the economic factor either.

Sorry I know I hijacked - but they need to start to get this and quit spreading lies about how they are the same - they aren't.

However, about this thread - what happened to debtor's prisons? Looking that up might lead to some insight on why locking up debtors doesn't work - on a practical note...

 

[shagdrum]

I draw distinction since the only socialism you see in real world practice is generally not socialism or socialism light

That is a false distinction because:

• It too narrowly defines socialism
• It paint with too broad a brush to be useful
• It is rooted in equivocation, and
• It is ultimately an arbitrary standard that ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology in order to justify dismissing a notion that is "unfavorable"

It too narrowly defines socialism because it essentially says that any form of socialism that is not orthodox Marxism, it is not socialism. Therefore, no form of socialism can ever be enacted in the real world because there have always have to be real world concessions in the enacting of any ideology in creating or changing a form of government; including this country.

That standard paints with such a broad brush that it would exclude Leninism, Maoism, Fabian Socialism or any other form of socialism which is unquestionably socialism. As a standard by which to judge weather or not something is or is not socialism, it is entirely useless. It that same standard is applied to classical liberalism, then any country founded on that ideology would not be founded on that ideology; including this one. By redefining it so narrowly, this "standard" of judgment is effectively equivocating by narrowing the definition of socialism to a point that is inappropriate and (with good reason) is not accepted by most scholars or most of society.

This standard is rooted in equivocation because it ignores the distinction between socialism (defined as orthodox Marxism) and socialism (defined as a broader ideological school of thought). In fact, as will be shown when I get to it, one of the justification echoed in this post shifts to the broader definition of socialism. This is an almost textbook example of equivocation because it mislead through a term with different meanings by simply glossing over which definition is used at what time. There is also a straw man element and a red herring element here because the notion that is being rejected is not that Nazism and Facism are socialism in the narrow, orthodox Marxist, sense, but that they are socialism in the broader, ideological school of thought sense.

The standard is completely arbitrary. We all know who injected this standard into the debate (in another thread), in fact she has a post just above this one. This is a typical trick she employs; injecting a false premise (in this case an absurd, arbitrary and self serving standard) to delegitimize any ideas that she disagrees with. That type of habitual dishonestly and lack of good faith is why she has absolutely no credibility on this forum. In fact, attempting to redefine socialism narrowly as, basically, orthodox Marxism is something she attempts to do almost every time this issue is brought up; even after the deceptive and disingenuous nature of her argument is pointed out.

The standard is a false one, in addition to the reasons explained above, because it intentionally ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology. This conveniently avoids using those peculiarities as a standard by which to judge. Socialism (as an ideological school of thought) is defined by it's unique conception of justice ("social" justice), it's overriding focus on maximizing justice (as opposed to other values, like individual liberty) and the collectivism it has to employ to achieve that goal.

Focusing on the peculiarities that set apart an ideology is what is what is typically focused on in judging an ideology and is ultimately the only reasonable standard in judging something like this. In fact, political philosophers of any stripe would laugh at the absurd notion that Foxy is injecting and (as I have shown) with good reason.

The false standard Foxy is injecting would be like saying a Mustang GT is not Mustang, or saying that a black man and a white man are not both men. Her standard rejects the notion that two things can be essentially the same thing even if there are superficial differences.

I know that the immediate challenge to that will be that the differences between orthodox Marxism and Leninism (for example) are, realistically, more then superficial, but when looked at from an ideological/theoretical point of view, they, essentially, are superficial; the core of the ideology is the same. Lenin attempted to impose orthodox Marxism is, arguably the purist form that has ever been attempted. It was only when that pure form of the ideology was shown not to comport with reality that he started modifying some things to better fit the circumstances on the ground. But that doesn't mean what was being applied wasn't still socialism.

Foxy's self-serving standard rejects the notion of a socialist school of thought (under which Leninism, Maoism, etc. would all be). There is only orthodox Marxism. Her standard is not, in any way, objectively reasonable; it is simply a means to disregard an idea she doesn't want to believe.

For socialism to actually be socialism, it cannot exist under totalitarian rule or fascist government.

This statement is, again an arbitrary and absurd standard to serve the same function the previous standard from which it is derived. Socialism always ends in tyranny because of the inherent flaws in socialism theory, not because it changes into something else.

Those types of systems, such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany are far more akin to corporatism than socialism.

Again, that distinction is inappropriate. Socialism is an ideology. Collectivism is not an ideology but simply a means to achieve the goals of an ideology. That is like saying that a 2005 Mustang GT is wholly separate from it's power plant; the modular 3-valve V8.

When you have a large gap in income between the top earners and bottom earners, it goes against the fundamental ideals of socialism.

Socialism works toward (and, hopefully achieves) a classless society, but income gaps between classes are not, in and of themselves, inconsistent with socialism.

This is the difference between socialism and communism; communism is the Utopian society that Marxism (and more orthodox forms of socialism) aims to achieve. Ignoring that distinction (which is something Foxy has done in the past) serves to distort that two ideas and selectively apply a broad definition of socialism, even though the standard at the top of this thread defines socialism in a way that is inconsistent with this definition. This is the textbook example of equivocation I refereed to earlier.

I know it sounds like semantics, but I really hate the blending of terms, even if it is for the sake of convenience, because that leads to far too much rhetoric and confusion.

Ignoring any and all overlap in terms/ideas/concepts and ignoring how those ideas fit together, their lineage and how they are distinct injects at least as much confusion into things.

Basically, if one don't have an accurate understanding of these various concepts, how they interact, the thought process behind them (including their lineage) then there is confusion and an opening for tricksters and propagandists to play off of the ignorance of others.

This is why attempts are made to "define down", delegitimize and destabilize concepts; it injects a lot of subjectivity that an opportunistic propagandist can exploit. Objective truth is the biggest threat to a liar.

There are people that work tirelessly to deceive and play off of other's ignorance in this fashion. Foxy is one of them (even though she has a rather weak grasp of the actual ideas herself).

 

[FIND]

That is a false distinction because:

• It too narrowly redefines socialism (equivocation)
• It paint with too broad a brush to be useful, and
• It is ultimately an arbitrary standard that ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology in order to justify dismissing a notion that is "unfavorable"

It too narrowly defines socialism because it essentially says that any form of socialism that is not orthodox Marxism, it is not socialism. Therefore, no form of socialism can ever be enacted in the real world because there have always have to be real world concessions in the enacting of any ideology in creating or changing a form of government; including this country.

That standard paints with such a broad brush that it would exclude Leninism, Maoism, Fabian Socialism or any other form of socialism which is unquestionably socialism. As a standard by which to judge weather or not something is or is not socialism, it is entirely useless. It that same standard is applied to classical liberalism, then any country founded on that ideology would not be founded on that ideology; including this one.

The standard is completely arbitrary. We all know who injected this standard into the debate (in another thread), in fact she has a post just above this one. This is a typical trick she employs; injecting a false premise (in this case an absurd, arbitrary and self serving standard) to delegitimize any ideas that she disagrees with. That type of habitual dishonestly and lack of good faith is why she has absolutely no credibility on this forum.

The standard is a false one, in addition to the reasons explained above, because it intentionally ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology. This conveniently avoids using those peculiarities as a standard by which to judge. Socialism is defined by it's unique conception of justice ("social" justice), it's overriding focus on maximizing justice (as opposed to other values, like individual liberty) and the collectivism it has to employ to achieve that goal.

Focusing on the peculiarities that set apart an ideology is what is what is typically focused on in judging an ideology and is ultimately the only reasonable standard in judging something like this. In fact, political philosophers of any stripe would laugh at the absurd notion that Foxy is injecting and (as I have shown) with good reason.

The false standard Foxy is injecting would be like saying a Mustang GT is not Mustang, or saying that a black man and a white man are not both men. Her standard rejects the notion that two things can be essentially the same thing even if there are superficial differences.

I know that the immediate challenge to that will be that the differences between orthodox Marxism and Leninism (for example) are, realistically, more then superficial, but from an ideological/theoretical point of view, they, essentially, are superficial. Lenin attempted to impose orthodox Marxism is, arguably the purist form that has ever been attempted. It was only when that pure form of the ideology was shown not to comport with reality that he started modifying some things to better fit the circumstances on the ground. But that doesn't mean what was being applied wasn't still socialism.

Foxy's self-serving standard rejects the notion of a socialist school of thought (under which Leninism, Maoism, etc. would all be). There is only orthodox Marxism. Her standard is not, in any way, objectively reasonable; it is simply a means to disregard an idea she doesn't want to believe.



This statement is, again an arbitrary and absurd standard to serve the same function the previous standard from which it is derived. Socialism always ends in tyranny because of the inherent flaws in socialism theory, not because it changes into something else.



Again, that distinction is inappropriate. Socialism is an ideology. Collectivism is not an ideology but simply a means to achieve the goals of an ideology. That is like saying that a 2005 Mustang GT is wholly separate from it's power plant; the modular 3-valve V8.



Socialism works toward (and, hopefully achieves) a classless society, but income gaps between classes are not, in and of themselves, inconsistent with socialism.

This is the difference between socialism and communism; communism is the Utopian society that Marxism (and more orthdox forms of socialism) aims to achieve. Ignoring that distinction (which is something Foxy has done in the past) serves to distort that two ideas and selectively apply a broad definition of socialism, even though the standard at the top of this thread defines socialism in a way that is inconsistent with this definition. This is an almost textbook example of equivocation.



Ignoring any and all overlap in terms/ideas/concepts and ignoring how those ideas fit together, their lineage and how they are distinct injects at least as much confusion into things.

Basically, if one don't have an accurate understanding of these various concepts, how they interact, the thought process behind them (including their lineage) then there is confusion and an opening for tricksters and propagandists to play off of the ignorance of others.

This is why attempts are made to "define down", delegitimize and destabilize concepts; it injects a lot of subjectivity that an opportunistic propagandist can exploit. Objective truth is the biggest threat to a liar.

There are people that work tirelessly to deceive and play off of other's ignorance in this fashion. Foxy is one of them (even though she has a rather weak grasp of the actual ideas herself).

meh, maybe I wasn't clear enough on all my points. Socialism is a system advocating social and economic equality. This is why it cannot exist in a fascist state. Yes, there is totalitarian government control, but under socialism, individualism and individual identity is respected as long as there is social equality. There is technically no separation of classes, because in a true socialist society, there are no capitalist or monetary transaction, all people are "given" an equal amount based upon their needs and all people are expected to contribute evenly based upon their ability. Granted, that goes against human nature, so that is why socialism, in and of itself, does not exist. Instead you only have the implementation of some socialist ideas or people twist the principles to create something else that they call socialism. That and it would be entirely impossible to have a pure socialist state, without them closing themselves off from the rest of the world, since the individuals would not be able to interact financially, and a purely democratic state like communism would require would have the same problem as the socialist, plus the inherent problems that a pure democracy would have once it reaches any reasonable size or amount of diversity.

Fascism has the view that citizenry should share a collective identity and individualism is repressed. There also must be a strong head of state in a fascist regime, and there is a separation of classes that are generally difficult if not impossible to move out of. Facism is opposed to liberalism, marxism, socialism and other "enlightened" views. There is NO social equality in fascism, fascists believe in ethnic purity, and they believe in union control of industry. They see liberals as Bourgeoise and marxism or socialism as systems created to serve only the proletariat. Once again, diametrically opposed, because as I said, the collective should work for the head of state under a fascist regime, not the collective as marxism and socialism say.

I'm not saying to ignore the common traits or connections between the ideologies, because then the line is harder to see when one is close to crossing it. But, one must make distinction, otherwise it is just pointless rhetoric. Also, Marxism and Socialism are really not bad things, it would just be impossible for them to exist in the real world, and they don't blend organically with other forms of government, therefore problems usually arise (insert bad stuff here) when one does try to blend them.