White people...

[Scrapiron]

Sadly, humanity consumes itself with the questions of who should be the ruler. Meanwhile, those bold enough to claim no need for a ruler are shunned.

[Nihilist_santa]

A hierarchy will form within any system. Just look at p99.

[Raev]

I specifically told you that my ideas on democracy vs special interest groups are right out of Mancur Olson. Since you believe anything that is published by a professor, here you go: http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Decline-N...3085986&sr=1-1

Originally Posted by JurisDictum

It's not surprising conservatives find my ideas convoluted. Conservatives value intellectual closure, and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They mistrust new sources of information and like to keep things in a world view narrative rather than delve down into details. We're getting to the point where we can identify if someone is a conservative by their brain.

I guess when you are losing an argument you go for the long, boring insults.

[Nihilist_santa]

These new school commies dont even bother to read Marx and Engels these days. Posers really.

[Swish]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

These new school commies dont even bother to read Marx and Engels these days. Posers really.

Probably hold meetings in Starbucks

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Swish [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Probably hold meetings in Starbucks

Starbucks has been designated a SafeSpace™ and micro-aggresion free zone.

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Starbucks has been designated a SafeSpace™ and micro-aggresion free zone.

sick buzzwords my man, you must be pretty sharp

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

sick buzzwords my man, you must be pretty sharp

Oh man a one liner from pokeman. Im going places.

[Lune]

Modern conservative ideology is largely based on a set of simplistic, widely-discredited economic principles, such as Austrian economics.

Raev says the things that made America great were limited government and individual liberty, and yet the golden age of our civilization occurred in the middle of the last century when even conservatives recognized the need for a safety net, expansive regulations, and government intervention in general:

Originally Posted by Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

At the time, Republicans like Ike were reasonable. Even Nixon allowed the establishment of the EPA. Their platform wasn't about selling out the country to corporate interests. (Note right here that I'm not singling out Republicans in that regard, modern Democrats are just as culpable). It was the Supply-Side, libertarian swing this country took after Reagan that truly threw this country into the shitter. Those "Texas oil millionaires" and "Business men" got into positions of power, and they haven't left. And to this day, people like Raev, confident in the junk-science that is their faction of economics, advocate on their behalf.

I'd also like to put an end to this "Soviets as a demonstration of socialism not working" idiocy right here and now. If you attribute socialist politics to the failure of the Soviet Union, which:
-Had just weathered the purge of tens of millions of people, including a famine in which millions died
-Suffered a scorch and burn invasion of its most productive territory and near capture of Moscow by Nazis
-Has a culture of corruption and mistrust
-A heterogeneous population of many different cultures far in excess of what the US had

Then I really don't know what to tell you. Are you telling me things would have turned out better for them if they had gone the free market direction? They'd still have fucked it up. They aren't doing well now even after market reform, in spite of the fact that they are an energy superpower. It's like saying Democratic-Socialism doesn't work because one time a group of retards living under a bridge tried a particular adaptation of full-blown socialism and it didn't work. It completely ignores any complexity behind the issue. It's reductive for purposes of rhetoric. It's just bad. But I'm not going to cite Sweden and Germany as reasons why socialism would work in the US, because that's bad too, at the other end of the spectrum.

Instead, I'm going to cite FDR and Dwight Eisenhower, and the American state we had until Reagan came along. Safety nets, labor laws, collective responsibility, massive infrastructure investment, trust-busting, robust financial regulation-- they are all good ideas, and they've worked before... here.

[Nihilist_santa]

Of course socialist have to account for the past failures of the applications of socialism. You guys wiggle all you want but regardless of how authoritarian those regimes were their economic theory was socialism. They went bankrupt except where they integrated capitalism heavily like in China.