You keep saying so but I don't believe it for a second.
He's not wrong though.
Most people confuse communism with totalitarianism.
The single biggest flaw (and it's a critical one) in communism is that it is usurped by totalitarianism long before you get to find out if it's viable or not.
Certain people who claim to be libertarians just want the government to go away so they can get on with the business of screwing people over themselves.
More cutting out the middleman than promoting liberty.
Then how is Reagan era politics which cut back the state,welfare and government services not libertarianism.
That is only one part of libertarianism. There may have been an element of economic libertarianism to the Reagan years but not so social libertarianism. That is the problem with many US 'libertarians'. They espouse the ideals of economic liberty but not social liberty.
That is only one part of libertarianism. There may have been an element of economic libertarianism to the Reagan years but not so social libertarianism. That is the problem with many US 'libertarians'. They espouse the ideals of economic liberty but not social liberty.
And others want social liberties but not economic ones.
That is only one part of libertarianism. There may have been an element of economic libertarianism to the Reagan years but not so social libertarianism. That is the problem with many US 'libertarians'. They espouse the ideals of economic liberty but not social liberty.
Yes i agree and it comes down to negative and positive liberty which equally applies to UKIP.
You keep saying so but I don't believe it for a second.
How do you enforce this communist ideal without a State to do the enforcing? Otherwise there is nothing to stop anyone setting up a private profit making company.
It's not me saying it - it's what it is.
Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state
Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state
Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state
We're not discussing that - we're discussing what Communism is.
You earlier gave a description of its exact opposite!
You can define it however you want but until is actually exists in the real world it is nothing but fanciful student politics. We are more likely to see SantaClausism or rule by the Lizard People than anything remotely resembling proper Communism. Your "absence of social classes, money and the state" can only exist where everyone supports it and that's never going to happen in a free and liberal society.
Very true. One without the other is not true liberty.
Exactly, Economic freedom whether it be pro-business low taxation, less regulation along with social liberties such as free movement, meritocracy and evidence policy based on the long term not short term. Politically hard to achieve!
Immigration is one such example of backward social and economics. It's actually beneficial to have a supply of a highly mobile workforce to fill vacancies for new business. Socially it's useful to a have younger generation to increase the birth rate. Politics aside Immigration is important to Maintain .
Drugs policy as I mentioned in a previous post is another clear example of backward thinking when there could be so much scope for government, business to clean up the market/create a market they want rather have criminals dictate the image of intoxicants (Alcohol and Tobacco both being legal intoxicants).
There are countless other examples of how liberalising society can open doors to massive positive social changes. Privatisation being a tool, that when used properly - could be very beneficial.
You can define it however you want but until is actually exists in the real world it is nothing but fanciful student politics. We are more likely to see SantaClausism or rule by the Lizard People than anything remotely resembling proper Communism. Your "absence of social classes, money and the state" can only exist where everyone supports it and that's never going to happen in a free and liberal society.
I am not defining it how I want but what it actually is.
Do you accept that Communism is typified by a stateless society, not by "everyone does what the state wants", as you claimed earlier?
Exactly, Economic freedom whether it be pro-business low taxation, less regulation along with social liberties such as free movement, meritocracy and evidence policy based on the long term not short term. Politically hard to achieve!
Immigration is one such example of backward social and economics. It's actually beneficial to have a supply of a highly mobile workforce to fill vacancies for new business. Socially it's useful to a have younger generation to increase the birth rate. Politics aside Immigration is important to Maintain .
Drugs policy as I mentioned in a previous post is another clear example of backward thinking when there could be so much scope for government, business to clean up the market/create a market they want rather have criminals dictate the image of intoxicants (Alcohol and Tobacco both being legal intoxicants).
There are countless other examples of how liberalising society can open doors to massive positive social changes. Privatisation being a tool, that when used properly - could be very beneficial.
Couldn't agree more (although I would call myself pro free market rather than pro business).
Immigration and drugs are two examples of non evidence based policy making but these are hot button issues so evidence and rational argument inevitably gets replaced with rhetoric and hyperbole.
The war on terror and internet piracy are another two examples.
I am not defining it how I want but what it actually is.
Do you accept that Communism is typified by a stateless society, not by "everyone does what the state wants", as you claimed earlier?
Yes or no?
We are going around in circles with this and getting nowhere.
Communism may claim to be "stateless" (whatever that means) but any country which has tried to implement it has immediately developed a more powerful state with the loss of personal liberties . As for having no social classes and no money, that hasn't happened anywhere.
We are going around in circles with this and getting nowhere.
Communism may claim to be "stateless" (whatever that means) but any country which has tried to implement it has immediately developed a more powerful state with the loss of personal liberties . As for having no social classes and no money, that hasn't happened anywhere.
No, you are failing to acknowledge that you completely misrepresented what a Communist society is.
No country has tried to implement it, as none came out of the (mainly flawed attempts at ) Socialist phase.
When will you ever understand the difference between Socialism and Communism?
That is only one part of libertarianism. There may have been an element of economic libertarianism to the Reagan years but not so social libertarianism. That is the problem with many US 'libertarians'. They espouse the ideals of economic liberty but not social liberty.
Also an excess of economic liberty paradoxically leads to less liberty.
Comments
He's not wrong though.
Most people confuse communism with totalitarianism.
The single biggest flaw (and it's a critical one) in communism is that it is usurped by totalitarianism long before you get to find out if it's viable or not.
Then how is Reagan era politics which cut back the state,welfare and government services not libertarianism.
I don't understand -what do you mean
Certain people who claim to be libertarians just want the government to go away so they can get on with the business of screwing people over themselves.
More cutting out the middleman than promoting liberty.
That is only one part of libertarianism. There may have been an element of economic libertarianism to the Reagan years but not so social libertarianism. That is the problem with many US 'libertarians'. They espouse the ideals of economic liberty but not social liberty.
And others want social liberties but not economic ones.
Very true. One without the other is not true liberty.
Yes i agree and it comes down to negative and positive liberty which equally applies to UKIP.
It's not me saying it - it's what it is.
Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterized by the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
And where has this ever been successfully implemented? It's nothing but make-believe nonsense.
It is true that actual communism is free from social class, money and the state; but this is just not achievable in reality.
We're not discussing that - we're discussing what Communism is.
You earlier gave a description of its exact opposite!
Yes it is - but we're not discussing that, I was correcting somebody who obviously has no idea as to what Communism actually means.
You can define it however you want but until is actually exists in the real world it is nothing but fanciful student politics. We are more likely to see SantaClausism or rule by the Lizard People than anything remotely resembling proper Communism. Your "absence of social classes, money and the state" can only exist where everyone supports it and that's never going to happen in a free and liberal society.
Exactly, Economic freedom whether it be pro-business low taxation, less regulation along with social liberties such as free movement, meritocracy and evidence policy based on the long term not short term. Politically hard to achieve!
Immigration is one such example of backward social and economics. It's actually beneficial to have a supply of a highly mobile workforce to fill vacancies for new business. Socially it's useful to a have younger generation to increase the birth rate. Politics aside Immigration is important to Maintain .
Drugs policy as I mentioned in a previous post is another clear example of backward thinking when there could be so much scope for government, business to clean up the market/create a market they want rather have criminals dictate the image of intoxicants (Alcohol and Tobacco both being legal intoxicants).
There are countless other examples of how liberalising society can open doors to massive positive social changes. Privatisation being a tool, that when used properly - could be very beneficial.
I am not defining it how I want but what it actually is.
Do you accept that Communism is typified by a stateless society, not by "everyone does what the state wants", as you claimed earlier?
Yes or no?
Couldn't agree more (although I would call myself pro free market rather than pro business).
Immigration and drugs are two examples of non evidence based policy making but these are hot button issues so evidence and rational argument inevitably gets replaced with rhetoric and hyperbole.
The war on terror and internet piracy are another two examples.
We are going around in circles with this and getting nowhere.
Communism may claim to be "stateless" (whatever that means) but any country which has tried to implement it has immediately developed a more powerful state with the loss of personal liberties . As for having no social classes and no money, that hasn't happened anywhere.
No, you are failing to acknowledge that you completely misrepresented what a Communist society is.
No country has tried to implement it, as none came out of the (mainly flawed attempts at ) Socialist phase.
When will you ever understand the difference between Socialism and Communism?
Pity your teacher didn't tell you the difference between totalitarian Socialism and Communism then, isn't it?
Also an excess of economic liberty paradoxically leads to less liberty.
I don't think we have to worry about that. We are so far away from an excess of economic liberty that it isn't even a dot on the horizon.
Still enough for businesses to screw people over.