The New New Communism

[Mac1958]

The right has abandoned the principal of liberty, and no longer holds the high ground of principled governance. They now only offer an alternative version of authoritarianism. If they would get back to a "liberty" for all message, it would greatly help their case.

They have been taught to conflate "liberty" with "every man for himself".
.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right has abandoned the principal of liberty, and no longer holds the high ground of principled governance. They now only offer an alternative version of authoritarianism. If they would get back to a "liberty" for all message, it would greatly help their case.

They have been taught to conflate "liberty" with "every man for himself".
.

And refused to recognize any liberty that makes baby Jesus cry.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

And there is the other weapon of the Left to stop conversation when it makes too much logic and defeats their ideas. Thank you for proving my point.

Here's what interests me so much.

You have posted to me several times now about my opinion that the Right is making it easier for the Left to advance socialism, etc. Correct?

Not one time have you asked me how. You're not curious enough to even ask such an obvious question.

This problem permeates political discussion in this country. Everyone is attacking and spinning, no one is curious to hear something outside of their ideological bubble. No one is listening.

If you want to claim victory for this tedious little conversation of ours, I'm fine with that.
.

It’s not the “Right” it’s people being envious of the wealthy and indoctrination by our schools. I see it in my kids. Most 20 year olds are Liberals but many become Conservatives once they hit 40.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The right has abandoned the principal of liberty, and no longer holds the high ground of principled governance. They now only offer an alternative version of authoritarianism. If they would get back to a "liberty" for all message, it would greatly help their case.

They have been taught to conflate "liberty" with "every man for himself".
.

Survival of the Fittest. How much of my earned monies should someone else get and why?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Calls for socialism and even communism will continue and increase, as long as the Right does such a shabby job of "promoting" their vision of capitalism. Absolutely guaranteed.

No, it will always continue because evil people will always exist and convince idiots of greener grass.

And that's a perfect example of the problem. Insulting people won't help your case.

Hillary and the Democrats found that out in 2016. The GOP still has not figured it out.
.

Normies will kill us all .

their is no talking the high road with the left .
we've tried that ...dosnt work

Keep voting for the fake nicey nice phonies of the Uniparty establishment left and the right .
look where thats gotten us

 

[Mac1958]

The right has abandoned the principal of liberty, and no longer holds the high ground of principled governance. They now only offer an alternative version of authoritarianism. If they would get back to a "liberty" for all message, it would greatly help their case.

They have been taught to conflate "liberty" with "every man for himself".
.

Survival of the Fittest. How much of my earned monies should someone else get and why?

Yes, "every man for himself", "survival of the fittest", that's the message.

Clearly it's losing.
.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right has abandoned the principal of liberty, and no longer holds the high ground of principled governance. They now only offer an alternative version of authoritarianism. If they would get back to a "liberty" for all message, it would greatly help their case.

They have been taught to conflate "liberty" with "every man for himself".
.

Survival of the Fittest. How much of my earned monies should someone else get and why?

That is the right question to ask.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The right has abandoned the principal of liberty, and no longer holds the high ground of principled governance. They now only offer an alternative version of authoritarianism. If they would get back to a "liberty" for all message, it would greatly help their case.

They have been taught to conflate "liberty" with "every man for himself".
.

Survival of the Fittest. How much of my earned monies should someone else get and why?

Yes, "every man for himself", "survival of the fittest", that's the message.

Clearly it's losing.
.

Yep. That answer is probably not going to cut it.

If we want the free market to prevail, when free-market solutions present themselves, they can't be rejected without any sort of dialogue and consideration.

Otherwise..."the free market sucks...I want commie."

.

 

[martybegan]

Why is it that stupid college professors are still supporting an unworkable economic system? If socialism (aka communism) worked they would have a few models to point to, like Norway, or Sweden. Those countries are having problems, not as bad as Venezuela, but bad.
Socialism rising: Universities and ‘radical’ profs helping steer leftward shift in politics, critics say

Norway and Sweden are Welfare States, not Socialist States. The means of production are still in private hands, and usually less regulated than ours are.

They are just taxed to death.

 

[Mac1958]

The right has abandoned the principal of liberty, and no longer holds the high ground of principled governance. They now only offer an alternative version of authoritarianism. If they would get back to a "liberty" for all message, it would greatly help their case.

They have been taught to conflate "liberty" with "every man for himself".
.

Survival of the Fittest. How much of my earned monies should someone else get and why?

Yes, "every man for himself", "survival of the fittest", that's the message.

Clearly it's losing.
.

Yep. That answer is probably not going to cut it.

If we want the free market to prevail, when free-market solutions present themselves, they can't be rejected without any sort of dialogue and consideration.

Otherwise..."the free market sucks...I want commie."

.

Sure, binary thinking doesn't work.

The question is the definition of "free market". Many on the Right look at any kind of regulation as a bad thing. I think that regulation is a critical component of capitalism.

I'm a capitalist, and I hate seeing what the Right is doing to it. It's making it ripe to be replaced.
.

 

[martybegan]

The right has abandoned the principal of liberty, and no longer holds the high ground of principled governance. They now only offer an alternative version of authoritarianism. If they would get back to a "liberty" for all message, it would greatly help their case.

They have been taught to conflate "liberty" with "every man for himself".
.

Survival of the Fittest. How much of my earned monies should someone else get and why?

Yes, "every man for himself", "survival of the fittest", that's the message.

Clearly it's losing.
.

Yep. That answer is probably not going to cut it.

If we want the free market to prevail, when free-market solutions present themselves, they can't be rejected without any sort of dialogue and consideration.

Otherwise..."the free market sucks...I want commie."

.

Sure, binary thinking doesn't work.

The question is the definition of "free market". Many on the Right look at any kind of regulation as a bad thing. I think that regulation is a critical component of capitalism.

I'm a capitalist, and I hate seeing what the Right is doing to it. It's making it ripe to be replaced.
.

Regulation has turned into a bad thing because it is sometimes used not to regulate, but to shadow ban, and we have too many layers of regulation made by lawyers instead of the people who work with what is being regulated.

The bigger problem is some regulators see themselves as designed to stop work, as opposed to regulate it. Dealing with the FDNY trying to get a Fire Alarm panel approved has taught me that one.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The right has abandoned the principal of liberty, and no longer holds the high ground of principled governance. They now only offer an alternative version of authoritarianism. If they would get back to a "liberty" for all message, it would greatly help their case.

They have been taught to conflate "liberty" with "every man for himself".
.

Survival of the Fittest. How much of my earned monies should someone else get and why?

Yes, "every man for himself", "survival of the fittest", that's the message.

Clearly it's losing.
.

In 2016 it won. We'll see in 2020.

 

[Mac1958]

They have been taught to conflate "liberty" with "every man for himself".
.

Survival of the Fittest. How much of my earned monies should someone else get and why?

Yes, "every man for himself", "survival of the fittest", that's the message.

Clearly it's losing.
.

Yep. That answer is probably not going to cut it.

If we want the free market to prevail, when free-market solutions present themselves, they can't be rejected without any sort of dialogue and consideration.

Otherwise..."the free market sucks...I want commie."

.

Sure, binary thinking doesn't work.

The question is the definition of "free market". Many on the Right look at any kind of regulation as a bad thing. I think that regulation is a critical component of capitalism.

I'm a capitalist, and I hate seeing what the Right is doing to it. It's making it ripe to be replaced.
.

Regulation has turned into a bad thing because it is sometimes used not to regulate, but to shadow ban, and we have too many layers of regulation made by lawyers instead of the people who work with what is being regulated.

The bigger problem is some regulators see themselves as designed to stop work, as opposed to regulate it. Dealing with the FDNY trying to get a Fire Alarm panel approved has taught me that one.

Well, it all depends on the nature and the quality of the regulation. Less is not necessarily better, more is not necessarily better.

One major problem is that, since our politicians are no longer allowed to cooperate or collaborate or innovate, all we get are piecemeal regulations, band aids that stop the bleeding here and there. What we end up with, then, is both ridiculous redundancies and gaping holes. I can tell you first hand that's the case in financial services.

This appears to be what we want.
.

 

[Moonglow]

Now that Bernie Sanders and AOC have opened the door to the possibility of Socialism, now come the nutters proposing Communism.

Only they’ll do it right this time.

Quite who Bastani thinks he’s fooling is unclear to me. Historically, Communism has been unable to produce satisfactory supplies of bread, let alone wish the world of Star Trek into reality. If the products and approaches he covets are to come to fruition, it will be by the hand of the market, not as a result of his five — nay, five hundred — year-plan. Worse still, he seems to regard the fact that people have noticed this by now as some sort of chronic failure on their part.

Aaron Bastani's New York Times Article on Communism | National Review

Capitalism didn't build the railroads without govt. money to do it with in the US....

 

[martybegan]

Survival of the Fittest. How much of my earned monies should someone else get and why?

Yes, "every man for himself", "survival of the fittest", that's the message.

Clearly it's losing.
.

Yep. That answer is probably not going to cut it.

If we want the free market to prevail, when free-market solutions present themselves, they can't be rejected without any sort of dialogue and consideration.

Otherwise..."the free market sucks...I want commie."

.

Sure, binary thinking doesn't work.

The question is the definition of "free market". Many on the Right look at any kind of regulation as a bad thing. I think that regulation is a critical component of capitalism.

I'm a capitalist, and I hate seeing what the Right is doing to it. It's making it ripe to be replaced.
.

Regulation has turned into a bad thing because it is sometimes used not to regulate, but to shadow ban, and we have too many layers of regulation made by lawyers instead of the people who work with what is being regulated.

The bigger problem is some regulators see themselves as designed to stop work, as opposed to regulate it. Dealing with the FDNY trying to get a Fire Alarm panel approved has taught me that one.

Well, it all depends on the nature and the quality of the regulation. Less is not necessarily better, more is not necessarily better.

One major problem is that, since our politicians are no longer allowed to cooperate or collaborate or innovate, all we get are piecemeal regulations, band aids that stop the bleeding here and there. What we end up with, then, is both ridiculous redundancies and gaping holes. I can tell you first hand that's the case in financial services.

This appears to be what we want.
.

What we get are bureaucrats going outside their legislative boundaries to expand their little empires. The "Waters of the United States" Rule that Trump is trying to roll back is a perfect example of this.

 

[DustyInfinity]

And there is the other weapon of the Left to stop conversation when it makes too much logic and defeats their ideas. Thank you for proving my point.

Here's what interests me so much.

You have posted to me several times now about my opinion that the Right is making it easier for the Left to advance socialism, etc. Correct?

Not one time have you asked me how. You're not curious enough to even ask such an obvious question.

This problem permeates political discussion in this country. Everyone is attacking and spinning, no one is curious to hear something outside of their ideological bubble. No one is listening.

If you want to claim victory for this tedious little conversation of ours, I'm fine with that.
.

That's the problem Mac. You NEVER give your position. You just say Republicans are stupid and move on. Kind of like Whoopi on the View. You've mentioned how much you love regulation, how you wrote papers on it, but other than that, zilch. I don't think I've run across anyone who wants zero regulation. Maybe if you gave a position, it would seem less like trolling.

 

[Mac1958]

And there is the other weapon of the Left to stop conversation when it makes too much logic and defeats their ideas. Thank you for proving my point.

Here's what interests me so much.

You have posted to me several times now about my opinion that the Right is making it easier for the Left to advance socialism, etc. Correct?

Not one time have you asked me how. You're not curious enough to even ask such an obvious question.

This problem permeates political discussion in this country. Everyone is attacking and spinning, no one is curious to hear something outside of their ideological bubble. No one is listening.

If you want to claim victory for this tedious little conversation of ours, I'm fine with that.
.

That's the problem Mac. You NEVER give your position. You just say Republicans are stupid and move on. Kind of like Whoopi on the View. You've mentioned how much you love regulation, how you wrote papers on it, but other than that, zilch. I don't think I've run across anyone who wants zero regulation. Maybe if you gave a position, it would seem less like trolling.

My specific positions on the issues are in the link at the end of the second line of my sig.

If you have a question on any position of mine, just ASK. I'll be happy to provide it.

You sure do complain about my posts a lot. Either ASK, or don't read them. Sheesh.
.

 

[DustyInfinity]

And there is the other weapon of the Left to stop conversation when it makes too much logic and defeats their ideas. Thank you for proving my point.

Here's what interests me so much.

You have posted to me several times now about my opinion that the Right is making it easier for the Left to advance socialism, etc. Correct?

Not one time have you asked me how. You're not curious enough to even ask such an obvious question.

This problem permeates political discussion in this country. Everyone is attacking and spinning, no one is curious to hear something outside of their ideological bubble. No one is listening.

If you want to claim victory for this tedious little conversation of ours, I'm fine with that.
.

I have also heard you mention everything exists on a scale, but you never tell us where you are on the scale. You imply you want more government involvement, and then you say you are not a winger like everyone else. Again, maybe some position would be useful for a discussion.

 

[Mac1958]

And there is the other weapon of the Left to stop conversation when it makes too much logic and defeats their ideas. Thank you for proving my point.

Here's what interests me so much.

You have posted to me several times now about my opinion that the Right is making it easier for the Left to advance socialism, etc. Correct?

Not one time have you asked me how. You're not curious enough to even ask such an obvious question.

This problem permeates political discussion in this country. Everyone is attacking and spinning, no one is curious to hear something outside of their ideological bubble. No one is listening.

If you want to claim victory for this tedious little conversation of ours, I'm fine with that.
.

I have also heard you mention everything exists on a scale, but you never tell us where you are on the scale. You imply you want more government involvement, and then you say you are not a winger like everyone else. Again, maybe some position would be useful for a discussion.

I'm a Left-leaning Independent.

Otherwise, please see post 37.
.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Calls for socialism and even communism will continue and increase, as long as the Right does such a shabby job of "promoting" their vision of capitalism.

Absolutely guaranteed.

No, it will always continue because evil people will always exist and convince idiots of greener grass.

When you think about it, don't we rent our home off the Government with taxes we pay every year?