“i just dont particularly feel like wasting my breath anymore” indicates that you are going to dogmatically believe what you believe now, no matter what argument are presented against it. When you say “explain” as opposed to “argue” or “defend”, you make it sound as though Nobel laureates aren’t having the same debate. Taking a condescending tone on a topic that is clearly undecided is just kind of absurd, and I’m not looking for a dada discussion of economics. I’m just asking you to be realistic: the question is still a live one.
And, since arguments were made in this thread in favor of socialism, to which you didn’t respond, dismissing them all by saying that the people making them don’t understand what ‘socialist’ and ‘capitalist’ mean, is ad hom. Consider it this way: every argument presented here could be a good one, even if the people making those arguments have gravely misunderstood what the terms they were using meant; a rejection of the argument on those grounds is ad hom because the arguments aren’t defeated by the orator’s lack of knowledge.
i was talking to paine in my OP here about my experience with any person who thinks they are a socialist, or who holds socialist ideas. i was talking about these peoples perception and undestanding of socialism and capitalism, as i see it debated and talked about every day on TV, radio, among friends, in my college, and on ILP… i was not ad hom dismissing any specific argument put forth by anyone on this thread, because i skipped most of them anyways. i dont need to nitpick through every little point and analyze it to show them here what they actually mean, what a colossal waste of time. i was only speaking to PAINE, thats why my post began “paine,”…
and yes, unfortunately i do need to “explain” this to people here. the issue of freedom vs oppression is not an issue that any serious freethinking and intelligent person considers “undecided”. irrationalist and statist mentalities still rule a wide majority of academia, media and popular political dialogue, so just because someone is recognized with a nobel prize or whatever doesnt necessarily mean anything. Hayek got the nobel prize in economics too, if youre going to use it as an indicator of intelligence or clear-sightedness. then again, so did al gore… so you see what i mean?
lets deal with rational critical arguments, historical example, political ideals/principles and logical reasoning here, not just “he said she said”… of course, experts play an important role in helping us discover knowledge, im just saying that its a secondary role: first and foremost, we need to think for ourselves.
OK, I see how I misinterpreted what you were saying. It seemed to me as though you were stating that the only reason anyone believes socialism is because they don’t know what it means. I apologize for that.
But I didn’t point to Stiglitz to bolster the case in favor of socialism, just to show that there are people who reject free-market theories who do not do so because of a misunderstanding of socialism or capitalism. Again, that was addressing the point I thought you were making, not the point you were actually making.
Although, a distinction should be made between the Nobel Prize in economics and the Nobel Peace Prize. The latter is bound to be fluffy, but that doesn’t make the former fluff.
The Royal Swedish Academy lives in ground zero for European socialism. And the prize for economics wasn’t given until ‘69, just as Western Socialism was hitting its stride with America’s “War on Poverty” leading the way. The impetus for this stuff started in academia and the mainstream media. We’re seeing the results of almost 2 generations of indoctrination. The parallels between socialism and revealed religion are incredible, and I think the source for that is Jesus’ attitude toward wealth.
There is an interesting link. It’s paradoxical that most mainstream Christianity is capitalist, and most socialism is secular/atheist. But when you consider that socialism is a theory about how government should act, and Christianity is one about how an individual should act, it makes sense. Christianity wants people to be good, and if people are good, there’s not need for government intervention: people won’t do evil, so why have an institution that prevents them from doing evil? From my perspective, socialism is a sort of cynical position, that rejects homo economicus and maintains that people are selfish and irrational most of the time, and government regulation can prevent their selfish and irrational acts from hurting everyone else around them. The market is a great system for aggregating data on what people value, and a good way to quickly allocate resources to those things, but regulation prevents the kind of run-away irrationality that could result from people’s poor decisions.
One of Christianity’s biggest problems since it became the state religion of Rome is hypocrisy, which really isn’t a paradox. And I’m saying that socialism is a like religion in the blind faith by which its adherents cling to its tenants. It’s a parallel, not equivalent, and even an offspring, if you will.
Yes, regulation via the law protecting life, liberty and property from violation through force or fraud, not manipulation via the law in the name of protecting us from ourselves.
PT, to others, your beliefs may appear stubborn and religion-like. Such accusations are unproductive, because they are basically empty assertions that “xyz belief doesn’t make sense”, which lead into a full discussion of whose position makes the most sense. And that discussion continues.