Aynd Rand was the greatest philospher. Ever.

ricechickie · #**231** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

>>>Both are hyperbole. Neither are possible. It's dime store philosophy.

It seems to me both are possible. Not probable, but possible.

smart makes a comeback · #**232** (**permalink**) 05-20-2008, 11:38 PM

Quote:

You can either chose to live your life for yourself or to be a slave to everyone else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

>>>Both are hyperbole. Neither are possible. It's dime store philosophy.

Not only hyperbole and dime store philosophy, but a total pez despenser naive view, and totalmisrepresentation of the human condition

As if atruism and collective responsibilty and "living you life for yourself" are mutually exclusive

How amazingly fucking stupid

This is exactly the kind of dunderhead rhetoric you hear from the simpletions who buy into Randist pig vomit.

The idiots MUST have sold AMWAY at some point in their life, and still probably have a closet full of tupperware samples

Such total stupidity

Dom1 · #**233** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Nazism was founded, among other things, upon ANTI collectivism.

Ummm . . . . nope, wrong fatty.

In fact, you said the exact opposite of what was correct, so you weren't even a little close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

What advocates of altruism were gassed? Don't say communists, because they weren't advocates of altruism (see Bolsheviks).

Not only that, fascism is associated with collectivism . . . . . nice job fatty! You really did a great job there!

Not only was fascism NOT founded as an anti-collectivism, it is associated with collectivism. Look it up, I am right.

This is why I enjoy it when you keep posting on yoru losing arguments, because when you are given enough rope you eventually hang yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

That is correct, Mussolini considered it a collectivist movement, but NOT a socialist movement.....

It had strong elements of NATIONALISM which, really is the core of it IMO.
Being as the fascists were rabidly anti communist, it is kind of hard to equate them with most modern leftists movements....

It's funny that both the left and right use fascist as a slam against the other.....and even funnier that it actually works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

Collectivism:

any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism, in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized

You are impressively wrong, fatty. Fascism is a form of collectivism and you, as you usually do, got it completely reversed.

You said fascism was anti-collectivism . . . . BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now, I fully expect you to try to dig yourself out of this hole and then, inevitably, dig yourself a bigger one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom1

I am not even talking about left and right, that is what fatty was trying to do and maybe tht is part of the reason she has such a screwed up argument.

I didn't use fascism as a slam against anyone, all I am stating is the fact that fascism is a form of collectivism, which goes to show that fatty doesn't know very much about the things she talks about.

Being a collectivist movement, Rand would be diametrically opposed to fascism. Again, the opposite of what fatty contends.

Turns out if you are looking for the right answer to something you just look at what the exact opposite of what fatty posts and you will find it.

Hey fatty, how could you be so wrong?

nathanbforrest45 · #**234** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

Many German companies have had to apologize for their complicity with the Nazis......good capitalist entities one and all.....

Sorry Heck, anytime a company turns to the government to insure its continued existance it ceases to be a capitalistic endeavor and becomes something entirely different.

There is a company (in Oregon I think) that has developed a method to serialize every bullet manufactured. The bullet makers won't buy it because (1) its too expensive and they will not be able to sell ammunition and (2) it won't work for its intended purpose. To get around this opposition by his market Mr. Ford has attempted to get state legislatures to pass laws requiring all bullets to be so serialized thereby forcing the manufacturors to purchase his technology. He claims to believe in capitalism but this is in no way capitalism.

Corporations are not automatically capitalistic just because they claim to be so.

Heckler · #**235** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

Sorry Heck, anytime a company turns to the government to insure its continued existance it ceases to be a capitalistic endeavor and becomes something entirely different..

So Boeing and other American companies that have government contracts aren't capitalist?

.

Quote:

Corporations are not automatically capitalistic just because they claim to be so.

If they are privately owned (individual, stock ownership) and in production for profit then I would call them capitalist.

nathanbforrest45 · #**236** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

So Boeing and other American companies that have government contracts aren't capitalist?

.

If they are privately owned (individual, stock ownership) and in production for profit then I would call them capitalist.

Having a government contract and getting bailed out by the government are two different things. Having governments pass laws to insure your company has a market is not capitalism, having laws passed that limit your competition is not capitalism. I would agree with you regarding the second part until they dirived thier markets or insured their financial security by government fiat.

In the early part of the 20th century it was the era of the "muckrackers". One of the targets of these writers and activist were the alledged unsanitary conditions in slaughterhouses. The biggest backers of legislation for slaugherhouse inspections and certification was the largest meat packing companies. They knew they were large enough they could easily absorb any additonal cost coming from this legislation. They also knew thier smaller competitors could not and would be forced out of business, regardless of how sanitary or wholesome they might be. That is not capitalism.

Heckler · #**237** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

Having a government contract and getting bailed out by the government are two different things. Having governments pass laws to insure your company has a market is not capitalism, having laws passed that limit your competition is not capitalism. I would agree with you regarding the second part until they dirived thier markets or insured their financial security by government fiat.

In the early part of the 20th century it was the era of the "muckrackers". One of the targets of these writers and activist were the alledged unsanitary conditions in slaughterhouses. The biggest backers of legislation for slaugherhouse inspections and certification was the largest meat packing companies. They knew they were large enough they could easily absorb any additonal cost coming from this legislation. They also knew thier smaller competitors could not and would be forced out of business, regardless of how sanitary or wholesome they might be. That is not capitalism.

Rules to enforce some standards are necessary, since there are so few enlightened individualists, or responsible collectivists, in the world today.....

Same with clean air/water standards.....

So unless it is Laissez Faire (I still like calling it lousy fare better, always makes me smile) you don't consider it capitalism?

TakuanSoho · #**238** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

So Boeing and other American companies that have government contracts aren't capitalist?

.

If they are privately owned (individual, stock ownership) and in production for profit then I would call them capitalist.

Selling to the government for a legitimate purchase is fine, in this the government is like any other vendor.

The issue is whether or not what the government is purchasing is necessary to provide legitimate government services.

TakuanSoho · #**239** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heckler

Rules to enforce some standards are necessary, since there are so few enlightened individualists, or responsible collectivists, in the world today.....

Same with clean air/water standards.....

So unless it is Laissez Faire (I still like calling it lousy fare better, always makes me smile) you don't consider it capitalism?

Depends. There are two ways to regulate the market. One is to make the penalties on non violation so strict as to discourage anyone from doing it, the other is to mandate non productive costs on all providers regardless of whether or not they are in compliance.

The first is fine in nearly all cases, the second has great potential for abuse and can be non-capitalistic.

nathanbforrest45 · #**240** (**permalink**) 05-21-2008, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Depends. There are two ways to regulate the market. One is to make the penalties on non violation so strict as to discourage anyone from doing it, the other is to mandate non productive costs on all providers regardless of whether or not they are in compliance.

The first is fine in nearly all cases, the second has great potential for abuse and can be non-capitalistic.

Good point and you don't even need the government to establish those penalties. This could be handled thru civil court (as is the case in many "class action lawsuits - its not illegal to make certain drugs but they may lead to injury or death, which you can then be sued for). The threat of civil penalties will cause reputable companies to insure they are not harming the public. Disreputable companies will do disreputable things regardless of laws in place