Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
That I did.
That would depend on the reason I was defining it.
That all depends on what you mean by the word "socialist." The word is absurdly ambiguous, as it is used these days.
Where did Jaggerbot earn his pretend fortune?
- Thread starter Mick Jagger
- Start date
Well, you are claiming Sowell used it do describe government run healthcare and Sowell is not "ambiguous" in his usage of the word or in the writing.
However, you still haven't been able to show that Sowell claimed what you said he claimed.
Socialism is well understood. That is why you have to lie and smear in order to define it down and try and nullify it as a criticism.
If socialism is as "ambiguous" in it's usage,as you claim, then how can you claim that socialism is responsible for the success of the country? It could simply be factors mistaken attributed to socialism (due to it's ambiguity and flawed understanding) that are responsible for the success of this nation and not factors that are properly attributable in any way to socialism.
Or are you trying to define down socialism to distort it and be able to claim that socialism is good? If you have to deceive and lie to make a point, then you have not made your point.
Just because you want to paint the term socialism as ambiguous doesn't mean that it truly is ambiguous.
Shag, I realize that you often lie prostrate upon the alter of Thomas Sowell… But, really – get up once in a while…
So, let’s go back to where you stated that a government entity could 'facilitate' wealth – the military.
So, certainly 2 things happen regarding wealth creation with the military – it allows wealth creation to continue down this happy path (it secures our borders) and it creates new technology which is then passed on to the private sector.
The government is the catalysis. A team member as it were. If you credit one member of the team – the contractor that now has that new technology and is creating wealth with that technology, then you need to credit the other member of the team – the government which paid the contractor to create that technology. No different than if Warren Buffet approached Bill Gates to create some life altering software. They are a team- Buffet’s money and Gate’s knowledge. You credit both with creating the wealth that follows from Windows 8 – otherwise known as MacOSXI. Buffet has created wealth.
So where the wealth was created in the private sector – how it was created was by efforts and seed money by the Gates and Buffet team. Without the seed money no wealth would have been generated.
Oh, by the way – on your other subject that has crept in here…
Socialism for the rich
By Thomas Sowell
Sorry…He isn’t a nut – but he has stated that eminent domain is socialism. I read a lot by Sowell - he is a very smart man, that doesn't mean though that he is infallible... However, as you said, he certainly should know the meaning of the word socialism...
So, now I will work on your statement that Mr Jagger rapes malnourished puppies - will just a textual account work - or do you think I should go for visual proof?
Oh, Peter - we do aim to entertain here...
So, let’s go back to where you stated that a government entity could 'facilitate' wealth – the military.
So, certainly 2 things happen regarding wealth creation with the military – it allows wealth creation to continue down this happy path (it secures our borders) and it creates new technology which is then passed on to the private sector.
The government is the catalysis. A team member as it were. If you credit one member of the team – the contractor that now has that new technology and is creating wealth with that technology, then you need to credit the other member of the team – the government which paid the contractor to create that technology. No different than if Warren Buffet approached Bill Gates to create some life altering software. They are a team- Buffet’s money and Gate’s knowledge. You credit both with creating the wealth that follows from Windows 8 – otherwise known as MacOSXI. Buffet has created wealth.
So where the wealth was created in the private sector – how it was created was by efforts and seed money by the Gates and Buffet team. Without the seed money no wealth would have been generated.
Oh, by the way – on your other subject that has crept in here…
Socialism for the rich
By Thomas Sowell
<snip> Meanwhile the rich get rid of lower-income folks without having to pay them the value of their homes and businesses that will be demolished. As in so many other cases, eminent domain is socialism for the rich. <snip>
Sorry…He isn’t a nut – but he has stated that eminent domain is socialism. I read a lot by Sowell - he is a very smart man, that doesn't mean though that he is infallible... However, as you said, he certainly should know the meaning of the word socialism...
So, now I will work on your statement that Mr Jagger rapes malnourished puppies - will just a textual account work - or do you think I should go for visual proof?
Oh, Peter - we do aim to entertain here...
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Dude, if what to know if I think Medicare has components that are Socialistic, you need to tell me exactly what you mean by "Socialistic." Are you using the word as it is used in the context of an academic discussion of various economic systems or as used by Right Wing Nut Jobs to include everything from the Interstate Commerce Act (An example of regulating commerce) to the Social Security Act (An example of the Social Safety Net) ?
It's probably much more interesting and relevant to hear what YOU think of it, rather than your warped, deranged, opinion of what other people might think of it as.
You have repeatedly been claiming that we live in a socialist country for the past week. Based upon YOUR understanding of socialism, are those programs socialist in nature.
And if they aren't, what programs are you talking about when you repeatedly say that this country has been socialist since 1870?
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
I think Medicare is great.
Dude, "socialism" is nothing but a word, a symbol that signifies an intellectual idea or concept. The meaning of the symbol is whatever intellectual idea or concept you were trying to covey when you used it. Since you won't tell me what intellectual idea or concept you were trying to covey when you used it, I'm unable to answer your question.
The ones the right wing nut jobs have labeled "socialism" to scare people.
Deary, I have already shown how you are not interested in the truth here but are only interested is distorting and rationalizing your unrealistic world view.
That is all that I can hope to do. The general direction of your distortions are clear for all to see on this issue. You have been reduced basically to continued spamming of your false premises and trying to find new ways to rationalize them; throwing arguments against the wall to see what sticks, effectively. I have no desire to go through that waste of time with you, again. Therefore, I see no reason to continue engaging you here. We all know you won't see reason.
Better luck next time.
"A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the final outcome. It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid."
You have yet to show that there is a difference between the "academic" understanding of socialism and the understanding used by the "right wing nut jobs" you are attempting to smear.
All we have to go on are claims by you that range from overly simplistic, hyperbolic distortions to blatant lies. We have absolutely nothing that verifies what you claim; except for the research foxpaws did for you that shows you blatantly distorting what Sowell was saying.
You said:
Thomas Sowell is a nut who thinks eminent domain is socialism.
What Sowell said was:
Meanwhile the rich get rid of lower-income folks without having to pay them the value of their homes and businesses that will be demolished. As in so many other cases, eminent domain is socialism for the rich.
Theoretically, those whose homes and businesses are demolished will get the "just compensation" to which the Constitution says they are entitled.
In reality, just announcing plans to demolish the homes in an area will immediately demolish part of their market value. Even if homeowners are compensated for whatever value remains when their homes are actually demolished -- which can be years later -- they have still been had.
For businesses, compensating them for the value of their physical assets -- which may or may not include ownership of the place where their businesses are located -- does nothing to compensate them for the often much larger value of the clientele they have built up over the years but who are now scattered to the winds by neighborhood demolition.
This game doesn't work the same way in rich neighborhoods. Not only can the rich hire big-bucks lawyers to fight city hall, why would city hall want to get rid of upscale taxpayers, who are often also big donors to political campaigns?
Theoretically, those whose homes and businesses are demolished will get the "just compensation" to which the Constitution says they are entitled.
In reality, just announcing plans to demolish the homes in an area will immediately demolish part of their market value. Even if homeowners are compensated for whatever value remains when their homes are actually demolished -- which can be years later -- they have still been had.
For businesses, compensating them for the value of their physical assets -- which may or may not include ownership of the place where their businesses are located -- does nothing to compensate them for the often much larger value of the clientele they have built up over the years but who are now scattered to the winds by neighborhood demolition.
This game doesn't work the same way in rich neighborhoods. Not only can the rich hire big-bucks lawyers to fight city hall, why would city hall want to get rid of upscale taxpayers, who are often also big donors to political campaigns?
(I included the full argument Sowell gave so people could understand what he was saying and how he was using the term in question)
What is abundantly clear is that Sowell is using the term "socialism" METAPHORICALLY in that context. But your claim implies that he is meaning it literally. By ignoring that distinction, you are inherently mischaracterizing him.
So, the question is; are you simply too dumb and/or sloppy to realize your mistake or are you intentionally mischaracterizing him?
Either way, it is clear that your interpretations on these claims of "socialism" can not be trusted; further demonstrating the need for you to provide some means of verification of the claims you make for those claims to be taken at all seriously.
Shag - well, I certainly am willing to stand on my evidence - you can stand on yours... this is simple... You have to distort 'creating wealth' using exceptions, misdirection and promoting some odd idea that bankrolling invention doesn't create wealth, it merely 'facilitates' it...
And now - I find the exact quote regarding Sowell, eminent domain, and socialism, and suddenly it is a metaphor for something - what is it a metaphor for shag? You are the one that keeps stating that if anyone would know what socialism is, it would be Sowell. Do you really think he would make a statement like socialism for the rich and then not tie in this fictional metaphor you speak of...
How about looking at the paragraphs above your snip of the article (I at least indicate my snips shag... truth in snipping I call it...)
Looks like he his specifically referring to adapting socialist policies... isn't an adapted socialist policy still a socialist policy, just 'reworked' to fit a particular situation?
And now - I find the exact quote regarding Sowell, eminent domain, and socialism, and suddenly it is a metaphor for something - what is it a metaphor for shag? You are the one that keeps stating that if anyone would know what socialism is, it would be Sowell. Do you really think he would make a statement like socialism for the rich and then not tie in this fictional metaphor you speak of...
How about looking at the paragraphs above your snip of the article (I at least indicate my snips shag... truth in snipping I call it...)
<snip>The rich have learned to adapt socialist policies to their own benefit. For example, the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, is planning to demolish a working class neighborhood under its power of eminent domain, in order to prepare the way for a marina for yachts, luxury condominiums and an upscale shopping district.
What will the city of Riviera Beach get out of all this? More taxes from higher-income people, enabling local politicians to spend more money on programs to attract votes.
Meanwhile the rich get rid of lower-income folks without having to pay them the value of their homes and businesses that will be demolished. As in so many other cases, eminent domain is socialism for the rich...<snip>
What will the city of Riviera Beach get out of all this? More taxes from higher-income people, enabling local politicians to spend more money on programs to attract votes.
Meanwhile the rich get rid of lower-income folks without having to pay them the value of their homes and businesses that will be demolished. As in so many other cases, eminent domain is socialism for the rich...<snip>
Looks like he his specifically referring to adapting socialist policies... isn't an adapted socialist policy still a socialist policy, just 'reworked' to fit a particular situation?
Actually, you are right.
I simply skimmed the article until I found your original quote (which, in that context seemed purely metaphorical) and read from their. I was sloppy.
Sowell is literally saying that eminent domain is socialistic. So I looked into this a little and found a few interesting articles on this. Here is the basic gist of the reasoning behind this idea...
Eminent domain is synonymous with expropriation and expropriation is a core tenant of Marxism (and especially the Trotskyism form of Marxism); specifically for the purposes of redistribution. I should have realized this because private property is abolished under Marxist orthodoxy. Again, I was sloppy. I am sorry for that.
Here is an interesting article from a Marxist publication on this:
Communists fight for the nationalization of the major corporations. This means expropriating (taking away the property of) the banks, finance companies, landowners and the key industries, including transport, energy, food, healthcare and pharmaceuticals, construction, media, telecommunications and armaments (“defense”).
Leon Trotsky wrote the following:The program of the equal distribution of the land thus presupposes the expropriation of all land, not only privately-owned land in general, or privately-owned peasant land, but even communal land.
There is also this article that makes some good points:The original purpose of eminent domain was to enable government officials to acquire property to establish places from which to run the government. The idea was that in order for the government to operate, it would need, for example, courthouses. Thus, eminent domain supplied government officials with the power to seize a person’s property for that purpose but on the condition that government officials paid the owner for it.
While the “public use” and “just compensation” limitations serve as a check on the power of eminent domain, over time the power has increasingly been abused, especially with respect to the concept of “public use.” In an era of confiscation and redistribution of wealth through the welfare-state functions of government, public officials have increasingly expanded the meaning of “public use” to the point where they are now using the power of eminent domain to take one person’s property in order to give it to another person albeit by paying “just compensation” to the original owner.
This article is also a good read on the subject, IMO.While the “public use” and “just compensation” limitations serve as a check on the power of eminent domain, over time the power has increasingly been abused, especially with respect to the concept of “public use.” In an era of confiscation and redistribution of wealth through the welfare-state functions of government, public officials have increasingly expanded the meaning of “public use” to the point where they are now using the power of eminent domain to take one person’s property in order to give it to another person albeit by paying “just compensation” to the original owner.
So it would seem that eminent domain is (or, more accurately has been abused, distorted and manipulated to become) an (effectively) socialist policy.
Jagger-bot, I am sorry for mischaracterizing you as inherently distorting Sowell. However, you were still wrong to characterize Sowell as a "nut job" for thinking what you do mischaracterize as an "absurd notion". There are clearly very logical and sensible reasons to view eminent domain as a socialistic policy, at least as it stands today.
Shag - so here we have a 'socialist policy' that has been adapted to basically steal from the poor to enrich the wealthy.
Often we think of socialist policy as stealing from the wealthy or even middle class to enrich the poor.
Odd to think that it could work the other way...
Could there be other socialist policy that could be adapted to work in the same manner - to work in reverse?
Often we think of socialist policy as stealing from the wealthy or even middle class to enrich the poor.
Odd to think that it could work the other way...
Could there be other socialist policy that could be adapted to work in the same manner - to work in reverse?
The more relevant question is weather or not certain policies can be manipulated toward more socialist ends.
Marxist orthodoxy does benefit the elites at the expense of everyone else and there is a lot of overlap between the elite and the rich.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
McCarthy had the power of the government behind him, Beck only has his media presence.
Also, McCarthy was correct to work to reveal the soviets and communists who had infiltrated the government and media. They are subversive and deceitful.
Are you, and the people who made the picture, acknowledging that Beck is exposing radicals and communists in the White House? Is that a bad thing? Isn't it the job of the media to act as a watch dog? Should it be kept a secret?
It's interesting, there's a lot of hate directed at Beck, but little explanation specifically explaining what he's saying that is untrue or wrong. Was it wrong to expose Van Jones? Was it wrong to expose the NEA/White House propaganda link? Was it wrong to expose the network surrounding ACORN? And is it wrong to draw attention to the associations and organizations that are influencing the President?
I wonder if Obama paid for that picture's creation with NEA grants?
Also, McCarthy was correct to work to reveal the soviets and communists who had infiltrated the government and media. They are subversive and deceitful.
Are you, and the people who made the picture, acknowledging that Beck is exposing radicals and communists in the White House? Is that a bad thing? Isn't it the job of the media to act as a watch dog? Should it be kept a secret?
It's interesting, there's a lot of hate directed at Beck, but little explanation specifically explaining what he's saying that is untrue or wrong. Was it wrong to expose Van Jones? Was it wrong to expose the NEA/White House propaganda link? Was it wrong to expose the network surrounding ACORN? And is it wrong to draw attention to the associations and organizations that are influencing the President?
I wonder if Obama paid for that picture's creation with NEA grants?