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.
Nice foot shot.
Ok, so now I’m curious. If we cannot use “socialistic” as shorthand for “increased government intervention in the social sphere in order to achieve equitable outcomes,” what term should we use?
Nice foot mouth. I no longer favor the verb, “protect?” LOL
Anybody can google and post someone else's opinion.
Looking up one word in the dictionary made you "informed," but you can't elaborate on it?
I've read that there is a stop sign in front of the village police station. That's controlling the flow of commerce! And controlling is kind of like owning! And government ownership is socialism!
It's an outrage!
When Reagan did it, you smeared him as socialistic.
Or, one can ask about stopsigns, and then make up the opinions you think you hear.
So Reagan believed in free-trade. Got it.
And in protecting the American economy through the use of tariffs and quotas, as needed.
I provided you the definition from the dictionary when I saw how misguided use of the word “socialism” was on this thread.
I can’t speak of countries that I’m not familiar with.
What tariff do we have today that you think ...
Does that somehow relate to your conversation with mojave?
I said nothing about stop signs.
Well, tariffs are an interesting thing, at least in the US. When you import goods, there is actually a Government lien on your goods until you pay the duties, meaning that the Government does, in fact, own your product.
The shipper also has a lien on the product, so that if you fail to pay your freight then they can sell the product since they do own it.
I’d say it’s really a fascist-socialist mix, if you want to get to the nitty-gritty.
Hey why not add drug user, satanist, and puppy kicker to that list since you’re making stuff up... Feel free to add to it as you wish, since it’s all figments of your imagination anyway!
Oh, he makes stuff up for people. That way he can argue your position AND his position by himself. He’s done that plenty for me!
It’s really pretty sad, to see such a waste of a mind. Reminds me of the old NAACP advertisements...
But the delusion must go on!
Oh no, that won't do! We who plaster ourselves with Reagan-hate (as you claim) get to drive Monster Trucks equipped with chain guns so we can blow apart other drivers and crush everyone else on the road, a la Mad Max style!
Come on, Mojave, if you're going to be delusional and just make crap up, at least make it entertaining!
You need to educate yourself about what is free trade:
Now, what do ALL those have in common? Hmmm... That's right - NO TARIFFS OR DUTIES!
So, how can you be a free trade advocate yet use tariffs?
Unless, of course, in your own warped little mind there is some alternate definition of free trade where you can't use tariffs unless you can, thus allowing black to be white, up to be down, and your newspeak pervade the world.
So come on, Mojave, explain how you can support the use of tariffs and support free trade. Seems the world at large pretty much agrees you can't, at least by the definitions used by the world at large. Shake yourself out of your illusions and try giving a straight answer!
I know, hope springs eternal... I hope you will actually give a straight-forward answer one of these days!
I can't answer that question until you respond to my #722. For the second (or third, or fourth) time on this thread I'm stating my desire to assume something in order to move the conversation forward. In other words, let's assume that my use of the term "socialistic" is inaccurate. What term should we use that is accurate?
I observed very early, here on this thread, that there's no point in having a reasoned argument if people cannot agree to common terms. If they don't, the argument devolves to a meaningless tit-for-tat . . . of which we have plenty.
I like the Economist's dictionary. Easy to find, use, and navigate. And simple, which is sorely needed here . . . I'm not about to pull my three different dictionaries of economics out of the basement.
SOCIALISM
The exact meaning of socialism is much debated, but in theory it includes some collective ownership of the means of production and a strong emphasis on equality, of some sort.
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.