Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

And I repeat it, by a long time - Spain needs next General Franco.

You made me spit my coffee. And I don't even drink coffee.

Is it really necessary that you keep on saying such retarded things? Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing, but I recommend you start using it to add content to a discussion instead of making it clear for all other human beings that you are completely retarded every single time you open your mouth.
(editado)

This might be a bit offtopic since it's not connected directly with a certain ideology, but I didn't know where to put it else and it's a very interesting subject :)

ajjajajajajaj

you kill him!

maybe he was trying to be funny or something :P

And I repeat it, by a long time - Spain needs next General Franco.

LOL


yeah, a general that agrees that Poland should belong to Germany would be the solution, definitly

It only depends on how the state actually organizes what it identifies as goods and services of special interest that often get abused more if left unregulated to the free market. In some industries there are simply more important criteria than those that market regulates itself. These are healthcare (moral criteria), culture (obviously cultural), financial services (economic stability), natural monopolies (economies of scale), etc.

- Your defense of universal healthcare is a moral criteria (which is a valid one), but I consider universal healthcare itself immoral, so we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

- Why is it obvious that culture should be publicly financed?

- Economic stability. That's a good one. Were you living on Pluto for the last couple of years? ;-)

- What natural monopolies are you talking about?

E.g. healthcare can be universally guaranteed to all citizens through a government fund financed by taxes.

I have two objections against that. One, I consider taxes immoral. You know why, I've explained this a thousand times. Two, I consider forcing people to buy a certain good or service (health care) immoral, regardless of it being in their advantage or not (maybe they don't see it as an advantage).

The state's business should be defining criteria and regulation and never participation on the market.

This is in conflict with you wanting the government to provide universal health care (even if hospitals are ran privately).

And this is exactly the same with all social and legal regulations. The state always needs to be an authority on those principles as well. If you remove the state's authority, you just enable the "one rotten apple" principle to do its business.

Exactly. We let people free to live by their own principles (apart from accepting the natural law, which is a basic condition to form a society).

Hey, you're discriminating discrimination. :) Anyway, it's the same in public media. Few people are aware of your brilliantly impractical ideas of separate journalism criteria for public and private ownership. :)

I don't want to separate journalism in two branches. I want to abolish the public media.

So, what's the difference?

Homophobic is really just a description of the situation. There is no less offensive word to describe it. With faggot, that's different. Gay or heterosexual for instance.

So, who's rights are violated here?

Nobody's. I'm not forbidding anyone to use the word faggot. I'm just advising not to.

I think every step taken in this direction in whole history, has always made huge damages, and taken no real advantages at all.

Yes. Free-market capitalism hasn't brought the world any real advantages. Read some history books, will you?

I think Hayek (and his "libertarian" friends) start their theories from the WRONG statement that market makes the best allocation of resources. It's false (and it's been proven) but still people believe it. I can't understand why..

Please, tell me more about the (objective!) proof.

Yes. Free-market capitalism hasn't brought the world any real advantages. Read some history books, will you?

I didn't wrote it,
read again please.

Please, tell me more about the (objective!) proof.

seriuosly?
I thought even you would agree on it..

by the way: the funniest part is when the state (that must taken out from any control of economy) must avoid the creation of monopolistic positions..

You didn't get the main points of what I wrote. I think it's because you're focused on ideology instead of practicality of certain ideas. I have some managerial experience in finances of financial and healthcare sectors and so I imagine to understand the practical challenges there. What I wrote is just my vision of how things have the best chance of working ideally. I have no proof that it would work. These are just my educated guesses. Anyway, educated guesses are what all the systems that civilization has so far established or will establish in the future are always based on. Post festum it's always easy to point at the mistakes and there always are mistakes, some more and some less important. The difficult parts are evaluating mistakes' importance and discerning which mistakes didn't work due to ideology and which because of malpractice. That's why we still have the crazy communists who claim that inefficiencies of communism are not so important and that it collapsed because of malpractice. :)

- Your defense of universal healthcare is a moral criteria (which is a valid one), but I consider universal healthcare itself immoral, so we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

!? How could investing into health of all citizens be immoral? Notice that I have used the word "invest".

- Why is it obvious that culture should be publicly financed?

I didn't say that. I said that the most important criteria for culture is obviously cultural and not financial. That's why e.g. I would never live in the USA. I don't want to live in a country without a Department of Culture.

- Economic stability. That's a good one. Were you living on Pluto for the last couple of years? ;-)

LOL So you think that regulation was adequate? It was exactly deregulation that made "the hell break loose"! Financial industry needs uncompromisable regulation by applying "keep it simple, make it short" principles. Go to hell with embedded derivatives and shit even the people working in the industry still don't understand. They're not necessary and they just opened door to various manipulation of turning market principles to work for the short-term selfish interests.

- What natural monopolies are you talking about?

Natural monopoly.

I have two objections against that. One, I consider taxes immoral. You know why, I've explained this a thousand times. Two, I consider forcing people to buy a certain good or service (health care) immoral, regardless of it being in their advantage or not (maybe they don't see it as an advantage).


Well, I already explained why I consider your ideology as nonsense. I am sure you will never learn in practice that it's as wrong as communism was. You will probably come to your senses on micro level by trying to apply your principles in starting a business or having a family.

This is in conflict with you wanting the government to provide universal health care (even if hospitals are ran privately).

That's just complete nonsense. It's not in conflict. You're acting as if UEFA and its referees participate in gameplay. Yes, they participate in football but not in gameplay. The market is only gameplay and the economy is football in general.

Exactly. We let people free to live by their own principles (apart from accepting the natural law, which is a basic condition to form a society).

You completely misunderstood what I wrote about "one rotten apple" principle. We need a common authority that is authorised to take care of the "rotten apples". And yes, this authority will not be objective but we still need it very much.

Homophobic is really just a description of the situation. There is no less offensive word to describe it. With faggot, that's different. Gay or heterosexual for instance.

1st it's a poor description cause it's not a phobia at all let alone of a human (homo) and 2nd, there is always a less offensive word. If we have invented the "physically challenged" idiom, we can do wonders. It's all a question of good will. But the problem is the agenda behind the word homophob. Which brings me again to the part I have already wrote and you have ignored: insult is in the intention and not the word itself.

Nobody's. I'm not forbidding anyone to use the word faggot. I'm just advising not to.

If you forbid nothing and only use advice, you're actually going towards anarchy. Good luck with raising your children. My educated guess is that, if you have only 1 child, you might get away with only mild consequences to her/his character.

I thought even you would agree on it..

You thought wrong.

You didn't get the main points of what I wrote.

I just disagree with them. That's a difference.

!? How could investing into health of all citizens be immoral? Notice that I have used the word "invest".

For the 274th time: because you obligate people to buy that product/service. And for that, you need to have taxes. You're making - as the government - a choice people should be able to make themselves. The government shouldn't chose what clothes I ware, what food I eat or if I use drugs. Just like they shouldn't choose in my place if I want health care.

I didn't say that. I said that the most important criteria for culture is obviously cultural and not financial. That's why e.g. I would never live in the USA. I don't want to live in a country without a Department of Culture.

Yes, it is for cultural reasons. That is no problem. The problem is the financial aspect. Let people decide themselves on what culture they want to spend money. Why would the government be in a better position to judge what is 'good' culture and 'bad' culture. Culture is a product. It should be sold on the free market.

So you think that regulation was adequate? It was exactly deregulation that made "the hell break loose"!

No, the regulation wasn't adequate. There was too much and too absurd regulation. Deregulation isn't what caused this crisis. Government intervention (backing up big banks if they fail) and monetary policy (Fed) are the causes of this crisis.

Financial industry needs uncompromisable regulation by applying "keep it simple, make it short" principles. Go to hell with embedded derivatives and shit even the people working in the industry still don't understand. They're not necessary and they just opened door to various manipulation of turning market principles to work for the short-term selfish interests.

All we need is less politicians involved in the financial world. Right now, the ties between the financial sector and politics are way to close. Conflict of interests.

Natural monopoly.

You know I'm an economist. I know what a natural monopoly is. I just asked you to give some examples of those natural monopolies where the government should intervene.

That's just complete nonsense. It's not in conflict. You're acting as if UEFA and its referees participate in gameplay. Yes, they participate in football but not in gameplay. The market is only gameplay and the economy is football in general.

It seems like you refuge to acknowledge that health care is a product. Health care is an insurance. An insurance is a product. So yeah, health care is a product. And a product should not be produced and/or provided by the government, apart from maybe (partly) justice, (partly) security and defense (the real public goods).

We need a common authority that is authorised to take care of the "rotten apples".

If that rotten apple is violating the basic rights (law of nature), then I agree. If not, he can do whatever he likes. In that case, we don't need to have an authority that can 'deal' with the 'problem'. The rotten apple is neither a problem nor does it has to be dealt with.

1st it's a poor description cause it's not a phobia at all let alone of a human (homo)

Homo in homophobia and homosexuality isn't Latin but Greek. In Greek, homo means 'the same'. It's a different homo than in Homo Sapiens. For being homophobic, you know little about the word itself ;-)

Apart from that, tell me, how should I describe (in one / a few words) somebody who has negative feelings about homosexuality and who wants to limit their rights because of their sexual preference? If it's a decent alternative (that covers the same meaning), I'll start using it.

But the problem is the agenda behind the word homophob. Which brings me again to the part I have already wrote and you have ignored: insult is in the intention and not the word itself.

When somebody uses the word 'faggot', the intention is very clear. The intention is to insult. That's different with the word homophobic. See above.

If you forbid nothing and only use advice, you're actually going towards anarchy. Good luck with raising your children. My educated guess is that, if you have only 1 child, you might get away with only mild consequences to her/his character.

It seems like you still don't understand a clue of what (social) libertarianism is all about. My parents were quite sever when raising me, and I'm very happy for that. I'll do the same if I get kids.

Basically: you're comparing the government and the citizens with a parent and his children. That comparison is wrong. The relationship between the government and a citizen is fundamentally different of that of a parent and his kid.

Ok, it all comes down to your idea that taxes are immoral because they enable a common authority to distribute money differently than the sum of individuals would do by themselves. And that's just plain stupid especially if the same sum of individuals authorized the government to do so by means of election. It's not that someone pulled a gun on this sum of individuals and took away some natural right from them. No, they voted on elections and chose a group of people not having an agenda to abolish taxes for being evil. I really don't see what could possibly be immoral about taxes.

Health and culture are not only products. They are also basic human rights.

I feel obliged to help my neighbor if he gets terminally ill and has no insurance. It's the right thing to do. It would be immoral of me to turn my head away. People who are able to do that shouldn't get economic benefits from such an "ability". So, I prefer if a common authority decides that it's the right thing to do and that we will all participate in providing some degree of health insurance, ideally universal. I don't want that the government leaves this problem to "the kindness of strangers". That way the kindness actually gets economically penalized.

Insurance is anyway an idea where we all contribute so that some who will suffer from a risk can mitigate it. When on the market, it depends on how many people recognize insurance as a necessity but in fact, everybody needs health insurance. Being without it is quite irresponsible. It is moral to force it upon people and to make it illegal to be without it.

About culture, my wife is an artist and so I know quite a bit about the problems of culture. Culture is shitty when it's on the market. When marketing principles are applied in the culture, then marketing principles become the culture. We cannot prioritize art based on market success. Just take music for example. Classical music which has the greatest and most lasting value and which takes the most talent and effort to produce would never exist if left solely to the market criteria. We would only have it in the form of film music for shitty Hollywood. If we can protect the endangered species, we should protect the endangered culture as well. Since the market endangers both, a government intervention is necessary to compensate.

The comparison of government to parent is not wrong. The only difference is that we can change the government if we don't like what it does to us so it is more motivated to please us which is actually a blessing in disguise. It is best to have a government that knows what it's doing and that doesn't want to please the public which is basically the same a good parent does.

And I don't want to open another front discussing what caused the crisis. I will just say that my views on key issues are completely different than yours. You have replaced the cause and the consequence which is a usual mistake when analyzing complex organisms such as the economy.

Homo in homophobia and homosexuality isn't Latin but Greek. In Greek, homo means 'the same'. It's a different homo than in Homo Sapiens. For being homophobic, you know little about the word itself ;-)

Apart from that, tell me, how should I describe (in one / a few words) somebody who has negative feelings about homosexuality and who wants to limit their rights because of their sexual preference? If it's a decent alternative (that covers the same meaning), I'll start using it.

I stand corrected for etymology of this insulting word. You are right about it.

Still, this describes its correct meaning and purpose: Homophobia. There is no need to use this word. If you call me a Catholic, this also defines my attitude towards homosexuality. Would you like being called a heterophob?

If that rotten apple is violating the basic rights (law of nature), then I agree. If not, he can do whatever he likes. In that case, we don't need to have an authority that can 'deal' with the 'problem'. The rotten apple is neither a problem nor does it has to be dealt with.

A rotten apple is always a problem and it always needs to be taken care of. It always spoils the barrel and the barrel is more important.
(editado)

Searching for the meaning of homophobia on an American conservative variant of Wikipedia. That's like asking to a hippie what neoliberalism is. You know the answer will not be trustworthy.

Did the description of homophobia on Wikipedia didn't suit your story?

I just stumbled upon this page. I didn't check the source nor I know anything about it. I just read it and found it to be completely true. So, do you have any comments on the substance or is it so true that there's nothing left to say except the ad hominem arguments.

If you call me a Catholic, this also defines my attitude towards homosexuality.

Actually, it doesn't. On the Belgian forum, we have somebody who is Catholic, but who has totally different opinions. He's a progressive Catholic, they do exist. Luckily.

Would you like being called a heterophob?

People who say that only make themselves look like fools. I don't want heterosexuals to have less rights, I don't want to shoot in my own foot.

About the definition of homophobia, I prefer the one of Wikipedia over Conservapedia, yes.

Wikipedia: Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, and may be based on irrational fear.

Conservapedia: Homophobia would be an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals, if it really existed. The current usage of terms like "homophobic" and "homophobe" imply that all opposition to homosexuality is crazy.

A rotten apple is always a problem and it always needs to be taken care of. It always spoils the barrel and the barrel is more important.

That is why the healthy apples can push the rotten apple out themselves of the barrel. For instance by social boycott.

And no, the rotten apple will not rotten the other ones. I do not follow the logic that allowing people to be selfish will make more people selfish, or that allowing people to use drugs will make more people to use drugs.

(I'll now answer your long post.)