Posted on 05/09/2009 12:47:21 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Yesterday I happened upon a post by a fellow FReeper. In retrospect, I am sorry for responding rudely to their post - and I hope they happen upon this apology.
The post was presenting their heartfelt opinion that American industry and our system itself must be allowed to come apart so that something better can replace it.
It was a Rand-ian position. The system is becoming oppressive, therefore we must weaken it.
I’d have to look around. Maybe tomorrow. Goodnite.
Sure took ya a long time to work up the courage to answer.
"So you're making claims about Reagan with no comprehensive data, interesting."
Interesting article. Thanks for posting.
Have you ever read about GHWB’s “Enterprise for the Americas Initiative”?
Sounds like an SPP predecessor, on the surface.
I don’t remember hearing much about it at the time.
I see... So not having the figures is the same as saying no? Maybe he knew the answer generally but not specifically? Is requests for clarification or being definitive the same as lying?
You certainly have a strange vocabulary!
If you diagram the sentence, you’ll find the object referred to by “he” is actually Reagan. And the smiley at the end indicates an (apparently poor) attempt at humor.
Contrary to what you apparently believe, the thread and the world do NOT all revolve around you!
Excuse me, I'M the one that first stated management of trade was socialistic! Don't leave me out of your hate-fest!
Free trade is capitalistic; any time you start managing it you start adding a little bit of socialism. If you're managing everything you end up at the Communist end of things.
It's called a continuum - the more Government interference and "management" the more socialist you become.
Ideally, I'd say we should have zero managed trade; that would be pure free market capitalism. Can that be a political reality? Probably not. But it does not mean we shouldn't strive for it.
You may now continue with your 2 minutes of hate for 1rudeboy...
Well, you got 668 as well... The neighbor of the beast...:) I used to have that as an address on the house I lived in during college. Somehow, the “heck house” worked out right given the address (right next door to “Hell”), and 6 college guys living in a 3 bedroom, 1 bath house!
No.
As I stated, if you don't know the numbers, how can one possibly say whether they are higher or lower?
Saying "I don't know the the figures were for 1988" clearly said "I don't know" to a reader with basic skills in logic.
On the far continuum, I believe you must mean fascism, not socialism. Tariffs or other protectionist measures do not represent ownership of the means of production, a basic element of socialism.
So you're adding "socialistic" to your own list of smears against Ronald Reagan?
You must be proud of yourself.
Reagan haters aren't known for their honesty or rationality.
The question was an attempt to insinuate, without any evidence, that the numbers were lower. When the question was turned back on them, they punked.
Well, if we go back to the word I used in my comment, "socialistic," I think you looked up the wrong word.
I was speaking of degrees. And if you consider that "socialism" also involves some form of government control of the economy in order to ensure "fair" outcomes (as determined by the collective, in theory), then it is not unreasonable to call tariffs "socialistic."
I should probably also add that, if we were on a different thread this wouldn't be much of an issue: it's just that we (collectively, there's that word again) have been playing semantics on this one.
Is there another way to explain the following?
poster 1: Was Reagan A when he did A?
poster 2: Yes.poster 2: Was Reagan B when he did B?
poster 1: [remains silent]poster 1: Poster 1 said Reagan was A!
So by your "reasoning", are stop signs socialism?
Almost like Reagan's, "North American Accord."
Only if a protectionist chanced along and try to add some fine print such as, "American autos excluded."
It certainly wouldn't be out of place given the other convoluted things that you and your free-trade cohorts have said.
If you take your definition, I'd say free trade agreements were more "socialistic" than tariffs as FTAs are largely directing the kind and nature of production through controlling supply and suppliers. But then, that would be convoluted because that isn't what socialism or socialistic means.
Again... socialism is where the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government. Neither is true with respect to our current "managed trade" practices.
How would you describe Sweden, out of curiousity? Socialistic, or not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.