Wal-Mart employees should be thankful they have a job

[Cruella]

It makes sense that a wealthy person who wants the wealthy to give to the poor would simply bypass government and go to private charity, much like Mitt Romney did in his personal life.

It differs. Some rich give to charity because they can write it off their taxes, rather than give it to the government in the form of taxes.

But the people who vote for socialism are statists. They want Big government to take money from others by force, not free will.

 

[PLC1]

It differs. Some rich give to charity because they can write it off their taxes, rather than give it to the government in the form of taxes.

But the people who vote for socialism are statists. They want Big government to take money from others by force, not free will.

Even the rich don't get back everything that they donate to charity in the form of tax writeoffs, but, that could be a factor. Better to have some control of where your donations go than none at all. Romney actually gave more to charity than he paid in taxes, and probably still does.

Now, the other terms: Socialism to me means state ownership of the means of production, while statism is the same as Johnny and I have defined liberalism: Belief in the benefits of a large and powerful government. Do you see a difference between liberalism, statism, and socialism?

 

[steveox]

I say FIRE THEM ALL IF THEY FAIL TO SHOW UP!

 

[dogtowner]

Excellent. Then we agree.

Now, where do people with that belief live? Where do they fall in the socio economic totem pole? It seems to me that some are on the bottom, some in the middle, and others on the top. Do you agree with that also?

there are liberals as you describe and there are those that benefit from the policies they promote. you could say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and carry that forward to say that while I may not be happy with the lack of any improvement in my circumstances (and actual worsening) I may still think it to be better than the alternative. that explains the lower classes and some of the middle.

 

[Cruella]

Now, the other terms: Socialism to me means state ownership of the means of production, while statism is the same as Johnny and I have defined liberalism: Belief in the benefits of a large and powerful government. Do you see a difference between liberalism, statism, and socialism?

I see little if any differences between today's liberals, socialists and statists. There is no real definitive description of them that I can find either.

 

[PLC1]

there are liberals as you describe and there are those that benefit from the policies they promote. you could say that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and carry that forward to say that while I may not be happy with the lack of any improvement in my circumstances (and actual worsening) I may still think it to be better than the alternative. that explains the lower classes and some of the middle.

So, then, it is not accurate to think of liberals as people living in housing projects and living from food stamps, nor is it accurate to think of them as living in upscale gated communities. Some of the people in both circumstances may favor large government for different reasons.

At least, that's how I'm interpreting the conversation.

Now, as for the people in the executive suite who depend on government to subsidize their industries, are they liberals as well?

 

[PLC1]

I see little if any differences between today's liberals, socialists and statists. There is no real definitive description of them that I can find either.

OK, I can understand that. The classic dictionary definition of socialism is different, but the term has been used so much that it has come to have several meanings. Statism is defined as favoring big, powerful government. Liberalism has as many meanings as people using the term, but could be the same as statism.

Now, is liberalism, statism, socialism the opposite of conservatism, or the opposite of libertarianism?

 

[Cruella]

OK, I can understand that. The classic dictionary definition of socialism is different, but the term has been used so much that it has come to have several meanings. Statism is defined as favoring big, powerful government. Liberalism has as many meanings as people using the term, but could be the same as statism.

Now, is liberalism, statism, socialism the opposite of conservatism, or the opposite of libertarianism?

eh, not sure. I can sort of see some liberalism in libertarian, but more on a social than economic level. To me liberals talk about personal freedoms, but then seem to support socialist policies, that take away personal freedoms. I think the words have changed from their earlier meanings, right along with progressive and conservative.

 

[dogtowner]

So, then, it is not accurate to think of liberals as people living in housing projects and living from food stamps, nor is it accurate to think of them as living in upscale gated communities. Some of the people in both circumstances may favor large government for different reasons.

At least, that's how I'm interpreting the conversation.

Now, as for the people in the executive suite who depend on government to subsidize their industries, are they liberals as well?

they are opportunists. you have only so much control over how the game is structured but you play the game as well as you can to your advantage. government chooses to subsidize might as well be you than the next guy. I suspect most would have no issue if the government shut off the flow to the gravy train (the whole gravy train) tomorrow as they will adjust and move on. those who cannot adjust and they know it would feel otherwise. Big Oil would survive, Big Green would not.

but government will not shut it off voluntarily maybe not when they have no choice. this Rome was not built in a day and undoing it by design may not be possible.

 

[dogtowner]

OK, I can understand that. The classic dictionary definition of socialism is different, but the term has been used so much that it has come to have several meanings. Statism is defined as favoring big, powerful government. Liberalism has as many meanings as people using the term, but could be the same as statism.

Now, is liberalism, statism, socialism the opposite of conservatism, or the opposite of libertarianism?

I would say that libertarian overlaps more with conservatism than um, in shorthand, the other. but it is it's own thing. most people can identify with much of libertarian thought, few can take it 100%.

 

[PLC1]

they are opportunists. you have only so much control over how the game is structured but you play the game as well as you can to your advantage. government chooses to subsidize might as well be you than the next guy. I suspect most would have no issue if the government shut off the flow to the gravy train (the whole gravy train) tomorrow as they will adjust and move on. those who cannot adjust and they know it would feel otherwise. Big Oil would survive, Big Green would not.

but government will not shut it off voluntarily maybe not when they have no choice. this Rome was not built in a day and undoing it by design may not be possible.

Yes, they are opportunists, just as everyone dependent on government handouts, whether it is welfare or subsidies, are opportunists.

 

[PLC1]

See, now we have two differing takes on the question of libertarians.

Seems to me that the libertarian philosophy is the opposite of the big powerful government model.

But, then we introduce the "social conservatism", in which the Libertarians will side with liberals (or at least Democrats) but what has that to do with the size, scope, and expense of government?

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, they are opportunists, just as everyone dependent on government handouts, whether it is welfare or subsidies, are opportunists.

key difference is that the business that will succeed either way is playing the game to better improve while the rest are parasites.

 

[cashmcall]

Really?

Then, you must believe that the famous 47 million who depend on government assistance must live in lily white, upscale, gated communities, and not in housing projects or so so neighborhoods.

My definition of "liberal" is someone who believes in big, powerful government as a solution to problems rather than a problem in and of itself.

What's yours?

It’s an axiom of politics that he who robs Peter to pay Paul can count on Paul’s vote and that’s fine if your main purpose in life is to retain BIG government at all costs, but it does nothing for the nation the liberals are plundering.The politics of envy and divide has brought nothing but misery to the human race. It’s so far away from genuine values like healthy competition, freedom and the reward of real achievement. These values build up an economy and a society, whereas envy, stifling dissent and rewarding incompetence and laziness all tear it down.

 

[dogtowner]

It’s an axiom of politics that he who robs Peter to pay Paul can count on Paul’s vote and that’s fine if your main purpose in life is to retain BIG government at all costs, but it does nothing for the nation the liberals are plundering.The politics of envy and divide has brought nothing but misery to the human race. It’s so far away from genuine values like healthy competition, freedom and the reward of real achievement. These values build up an economy and a society, whereas envy, stifling dissent and rewarding incompetence and laziness all tear it down.

words to live by