Rand Paul's Guide to Improving the Grand Old Party - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;40040035]??? (I mean, I'm pretty sure yawmen is an anarchist. Then again i was pretty sure he was a left-libertarian like Scorp so I have no idea)[/QUOTE] I've long given up trying to understand what yawmen is. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. A lot of times I'm just confused by what he says from post to post :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40040091]You realize that a great deal of the Nazi regime's economic plans were fueled by fortunes completely seized from Jews and other minorities, right? It wasn't good planning, it was outright theft and murder of who they stole it from.[/QUOTE] Yes, the initial punch to get the ball rolling came from that seized wealth. I highly doubt that that seized wealth alone funded the entire war machine until 1945. There was absolutely excellent economic planning by Nazi Germany.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40040052]i'm a libertarian socialist aka a leftist anarchist aka a dirty commie[/QUOTE] Libertarian socialist seems contradictory given that socialism is the part where the state takes over to transition into communism and libertarianism is telling the state to stay in the background. Though I don't know much about libertarianism so I'm probably just making this up as I go.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40040092]You ignored the rest of my argument. Again. Slowly and clearly this time. Your war-of-the-roses-esque power struggle will happen EVERY TIME there is a power vacuum, because when the government isn't present enough, the dollar becomes king, and whomever has the most wealth has the most power. Unfortunately for all of us, people in the United States or anywhere in the world who have massive wealth generally like to keep that massive wealth, and so they'll do whatever they have to to make sure the system protects their interests - At the cost of everyone else. Remove government and you're inviting someone to barge in and set up their own. And please, for fuck's sake, look at WHY Somalia is a failed state.[/QUOTE] what if you are mixing up cause and effect? is it that there is a power struggle because of less government? or is it that these power struggles erode the power of government until they devolve into full scale civil war? i mean anarchist societies like the ones in spain didn't cause a giant power vacuum and bloody civil war, they were born and flourished amidst a very bloody civil war.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40040031]so freedom cannot exist because humans can't be free? are you coming from the assumption that humans need people to rule over them?[/QUOTE] Yes. People are assholes. You may think you're a good person, but you're an asshole too, and you don't know it. I think I'm a good person sometimes, but I know that there's one hell of a dark side to me, too. I can be one hell of an asshole. Take away government, take away the basic regulation, and anyone with any power at all will use it to get more power and to keep everyone else down. Take away law and the streets will be rivers of blood. Just. Like. Somalia. We've seen it happen. This isn't fantasy, we've seen this happen in real life, with a real country. If you think human beings are nice enough to respect each other's boundaries and their agency out of the goodness of their own hearts, you've been living under a rock.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;40040120]Libertarian socialist seems contradictory given that socialism is the part where the state takes over to transition into communism and libertarianism is telling the state to stay in the background. Though I don't know much about libertarianism so I'm probably just making this up as I go.[/QUOTE] that's socialism in marxist theory and i'm no marxist. libertarian socialism is basically the other side of the socialist coin. you have the planner socialists/communists like marxists, leninists, etc. and you have the libertarian socialists who believe that stuff like vanguard parties and dictatorship of the proletariat are also oppressive and coercive. [editline]26th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=archangel125;40040132]Yes.[/QUOTE] then there is very little middle ground we will be able to meet on. our worldview is fundamentally different since i believe humans do not need to be ruled over by other humans, that we are happiest ruling over our own lives.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40040039]freedom to work and associate freely. the ability for workers to form their own democratic unions, people to own their work, etc.[/QUOTE] There's no requirement that the government has to infringe upon these freedoms. The way I see it, the difference between ideal communism and anarchism is that, in anarchism, no one is the government, while in ideal communism, everyone is the government. With ideal communism, there's still people whose job it is to protect other people's freedoms, and there's still a legal system, so that still counts as government, even if everyone is involved.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40040109]I've long given up trying to understand what yawmen is. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we disagree. A lot of times I'm just confused by what he says from post to post :v:[/QUOTE] i'm very scatter-minded. i can't tell if it's a sign of intelligence or a sign of complete lack of focus. sometimes i can't even keep up with myself post to post.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40040144]that's socialism in marxist theory and i'm no marxist. libertarian socialism is basically the other side of the socialist coin. you have the planner socialists/communists like marxists, leninists, etc. and you have the libertarian socialists who believe that stuff like vanguard parties and dictatorship of the proletariat are also oppressive and coercive[/QUOTE] Ah so anarchists just co-opted the term? Makes way more sense then. I'll stick with my social democracy (Maybe with a bit of tweaking) though.

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;40040158]There's no requirement that the government has to infringe upon these freedoms. The way I see it, the difference between ideal communism and anarchism is that, in anarchism, no one is the government, while in ideal communism, everyone is the government. With ideal communism, there's still people whose job it is to protect other people's freedoms, and there's still a legal system, so that still counts as government, even if everyone is involved.[/QUOTE] government invariably violates these rights by regulating and forming the economy in the same ways capitalists violate these rights by regulating and forming the economy. it might not be outright government planning, but through regulatory practices they remove choice and create classes of people who have a hard time freely associating.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;40040178]Ah so anarchists just co-opted the term? Makes way more sense then. I'll stick with my social democracy (Maybe with a bit of tweaking) though.[/QUOTE] See, there's where we agree. I think regulation is very necessary, but not to the point that doctors and cleaners make the same wages, naturally. People should be free to get rich, but NEVER at the cost of those less fortunate.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;40040178]Ah so anarchists just co-opted the term? Makes way more sense then. I'll stick with my social democracy (Maybe with a bit of tweaking) though.[/QUOTE] socialism comes from the french revolution. technically marx co-opted the term.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40040144]then there is very little middle ground we will be able to meet on. our worldview is fundamentally different since i believe humans do not need to be ruled over by other humans, that we are happiest ruling over our own lives.[/QUOTE] We can't all "simply rule over our own lives". If you have society and human interaction, you have interdependence. People need to protect eachother's freedoms. It sounds like you're against people specifically having power over other people. I think a lot of people can agree with that.

ahhh my automerge why

[QUOTE=archangel125;40040116]Yes, the initial punch to get the ball rolling came from that seized wealth. I highly doubt that that seized wealth alone funded the entire war machine until 1945. There was absolutely excellent economic planning by Nazi Germany.[/QUOTE] "The draining of Germany's gold and foreign exchange reserves inhibited the acquisition of materiel, and the Nazi economy, focused on militarisation, could not afford to deplete the means to procure foreign machinery and parts. Nonetheless, towards the end of the 1930s, Germany's foreign reserves were unsustainably low. [B]By 1939, Germany had defaulted upon its foreign loans and most of its trade relied upon command economy barter.[/B] However, this tendency towards autarkic conservation of foreign reserves concealed a trend of expanding official reserves,[B] which occurred through looting assets from annexed Austria, occupied Czechoslovakia, and Nazi-governed Danzig.[/B] It is believed that these three sources boosted German official gold reserves by US $71m between 1937 and 1939. To mask the acquisition, the Reichsbank understated its official reserves in 1939 by $40m relative to the Bank of England's estimates. During the war, Nazi Germany continued the practice on a much larger scale. Germany expropriated some $550m in gold from foreign governments, including $223m from Belgium and $193m from the Netherlands. [B]These figures do not include gold and other instruments stolen from private citizens or companies. The total value of all assets stolen by Nazi Germany remains uncertain.[/B]" [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gold[/url] "[B]Nearly 120 billion Reich marks – over £12 billion at the time – was plundered from German Jews by laws and looting.[/B] The official study commissioned by the ministry examined the years from 1933 to 1945. Hans-Peter Ullmann, a Cologne history professor, said the tax authorities under the Nazis actively worked to "destroy Jews financially" and to loot wealth in the nations the Germans occupied. Even Jews who managed to escape from Germany before the Holocaust had to leave part of their wealth behind in the form of an "exit tax". Tax laws discriminated against Jews from 1934 onwards." [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8119805/Confiscated-Jewish-wealth-helped-fund-the-German-war-effort.html[/url] [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] Fantastic Nazi Economy Planning!

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;40040191]We can't all "simply rule over our own lives". If you have society and human interaction, you have interdependence. People need to protect eachother's freedoms. It sounds like you're against people specifically having power over other people. I think a lot of people can agree with that.[/QUOTE] anarchism and socialism don't rule out the idea of organization or interdependence, or even authority when necessary. the contrast between anarchy and the state is that anarchy has people [i]choose[/i] who has authority, and are able to choose to get rid of that authority as they see fit. if i don't like the management, i can either choose new management or choose to leave without fear of starvation or imprisonement. the state, on the other hand, is default. it doesn't matter if you like the president or not because he has authority whether you recognize it or not.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;40040185]government invariably violates these rights by regulating and forming the economy in the same ways capitalists violate these rights by regulating and forming the economy. it might not be outright government planning, but through regulatory practices they remove choice and create classes of people who have a hard time freely associating.[/QUOTE] You seem to mistake things that all governments have to do, with things that current governments do. If the government's regulatory practices infringe on the people's "choice" to make the economy crash and burn (even if they don't realize they're making that choice), do you really have such a problem with that? [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;40040225]anarchism and socialism don't rule out the idea of organization or interdependence, or even authority when necessary. the contrast between anarchy and the state is that anarchy has people [i]choose[/i] who has authority, and are able to choose to get rid of that authority as they see fit. if i don't like the management, i can either choose new management or choose to leave without fear of starvation or imprisonement. the state, on the other hand, is default. it doesn't matter if you like the president or not because he has authority whether you recognize it or not.[/QUOTE] What you're describing sounds a lot like democracy. Otherwise what you're describing could be: 1. A government where a small minority, if they're not happy with it, can go and get rid of them and put whoever they want in place, leading to rule by violent extremists; or 2. A situation where you can choose which government to use and therefore which laws to follow, so if you don't like how your current "authority" doesn't allow you to rape your neighbor, you can go follow a different one that does?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40040196] Fantastic Nazi Economy Planning![/QUOTE] Don't be naive. You're only focusing one one tiny aspect of their income. 120 billion could never have been enough to fund a war like WWII. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany[/url] Also, what's with the dumb ratings? Seriously. Don't you have any arguments to respond to me with instead?

[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;40040227]You seem to mistake things that all governments have to do, with things that current governments do. If the government's regulatory practices infringe on the people's "choice" to make the economy crash and burn (even if they don't realize they're making that choice), do you really have such a problem with that?[/quote] well yea because i don't think it's right for a small group of people to decide that everyone else is "doing it wrong". [quote]What you're describing sounds a lot like democracy.[/QUOTE] direct, free democracy is the cornerstone of anarchism. proportional/consensus democracy is as well.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40040286]Don't be naive. You're only focusing one one tiny aspect of their income. 120 billion could never have been enough to fund a war like WWII. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany[/url] Also, what's with the dumb ratings? Seriously. Don't you have any arguments to respond to me with instead?[/QUOTE] Do you just ignore things or don't know how to read articles? "Jewish wealth confiscated by the Nazis paid for [B]almost a third of the German war effort[/B], a new study has found." Yeah, never enough to fund.

Since we're on the subject of Nazi Germany, let's go a step beyond here. How did Hitler rise to power? Why is the Golden Dawn currently so popular in Greece? In both these cases, the stage is set by a failing economy, and weak government that isn't taking the regulatory measures necessary to resuscitate it. Along comes a party that pledges action and has a plan that seems to work. It gives the people, frustrated by the lack of progress and the weakness of their government, hope, and gives them an enemy - The Jews made a very convenient scapegoat. That enemy in Greece is the immigrant population. Nothing screams 'weak government' like libertarianism, and nothing sets the stage for an authoritarian or theocratic takeover like a libertarian state. Because if you know anything at all about economics, you know just how well a country's economy does when the government is too small. [editline]25th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40040330]Do you just ignore things or don't know how to read articles? "Jewish wealth confiscated by the Nazis paid for [B]almost a third of the German war effort[/B], a new study has found." Yeah, never enough to fund.[/QUOTE] A third =/= all of it.

A third is a pretty big fucking chunk, especially when considering the size of that war.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40040359]A third is a pretty big fucking chunk, especially when considering the size of that war.[/QUOTE] Yes, but where, pray tell, did the rest of that money come from? Germany certainly didn't have enough in their coffers when Hitler rose to power.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40040367]Yes, but where, pray tell, did the rest of that money come from? Germany certainly didn't have enough in their coffers when Hitler rose to power.[/QUOTE] creating a war economy can certainly help for a limited time. it wasn't really sustainable though as i believe scorpius' sources imply. [editline]26th March 2013[/editline] idk if the german economy would have lasted till 1950 before collapsing. it's pretty widely agreed that the german economy wasn't really healthy.

The German economy was using a Keynesian model that controlled inflation by disbanding trade unions, setting wages, arresting anybody who objected, and lying about economic figures. Plus they removed women and jews out of the workforce to give the illusion of low unemployment, along with hiring loads of people to join the army or build all those motorways. Hitlers economic policy was not only geared towards war, but was doomed to collapse in the end.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40038915]So basically, become the Democratic Party :v:[/QUOTE] If my local party wasn't the exact opposite of the party of a whole, I'd be a democrat.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40039249]Here's the problem with conservative fiscal policy - Their response to an economic crisis with high unemployment is to give more money to huge corporations and hope they use it to create jobs. Meanwhile, they scrap policies meant to protect the environment, regulate corporations, and ensure that consumers and workers are not exploited. So with less holding them back, the big corporations take the money they get in their tax breaks, give their CEOs bonuses, then close down manufacturing plants and outsource to China, India and the Phillipines. That way, they return bigger profits for their shareholders while cutting labor costs. Those entering the industry who offer their goods and services at lower prices are bullied into conformity by the big businesses with the price standards they set. Competitive pricing is a pretty myth. The conservative government, in their infinite wisdom, then begins to cut spending to essential programs. Public education, healthcare, and social security all go down the shitter. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Taxes are lowered as an incentive to gain the votes of the working class, and more of the government's budget is dumped into the military - That way, the military can start and sustain another fresh war with dubious motives that acts as a very convenient way to keep the local population distracted and to create a nationalist movement in support of the current government. With reduced revenue from the population through taxation, the debt starts to skyrocket. There's a tiny boom followed by a long fall every single goddamn time. Democrat and Republican governments alike adopt conservative fiscal policy, but Republicans are the worst. And the whole ideology is just a big, bullshit excuse to line the pockets of the rich while pretending the wealth will 'trickle down'. Bah. It's not sustainable, it's not logical, and it's very, very, very convenient for certain parties - Especially those from whom the largest campaign donations come.[/QUOTE] muh protectionism

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;40043852]muh protectionism[/QUOTE] It's not like your alternative is proving any good for us common folk.

[QUOTE=archangel125;40039249]Here's the problem with conservative fiscal policy - Their response to an economic crisis with high unemployment is to give more money to huge corporations and hope they use it to create jobs.[/QUOTE] Republicans don't support this. This is the definition of liberal fiscal policy. Seriously, look it up. I hope you understand the 2009 stimulus, which did EXACTLY THIS was a DEMOCRATIC plan? [QUOTE]Meanwhile, they scrap policies meant to protect the environment, regulate corporations, and ensure that consumers and workers are not exploited.[/QUOTE] This, however IS a part of the republican fiscal policy. So, perhaps you shouldn't blend the two parties, trying to take the worst parts from each and blaming them on the Republicans?

Er... Morcam. The idea is called Liberalism, coined by Adam Smith, but it's a hallmark of conservative policy. Look it up. Neither the Democrats nor Republicans are truly liberal. What you see under liberal governments is an increase in taxes, especially to corporations, and increased regulation, putting the buying power in the hands of consumers and improving social security.