vertices said:
Then please explain how Obama, through mandating insurance, is taking control of the economy. How is this owning, or as you say, controlling the means of production?
Mandating=control. It's not that complicated. My claim was about greater control, not complete control. And mandating the purchase of health care plans is economic control, even if not directly controlling "means of production". (The phrase "means of production" does not have "special" meaning to libertarians for obvious reasons, BTW. But that's a whole other issue). And notice I used "health care plan" instead of "medical insurance". The policies mandated are comprehensive "Cadillac" health care plans, the kind the insurance companies couldn't sell to most people voluntarily. And all policies that consist of only medical insurance are outlawed under Obamacare, except for a temporary grandfather clause for some. So Obama's plan outlaws the type of policy I choose, then fines me for not buying the kind that I don't want. Can you seriously say that's not "controlling" people economically?
Okay, atleast you are being consistent here. Does it not then follow that Bush, by bailing out the banks to a tune of however many billions, was much more of a socialist than Obama has thus far been, in terms of the most concrete measurable, ie. money?
No, the bank bailout in terms of dollars was a drop in a bucket compared to the cost of Obama's agenda already enacted. But that being said, Bush certainly was "much more of a socialist" than I like. And monetary cost might be "concrete measurable" but is only part of the issue.
And incase you didn't know, socialism, like most other political idealogies, is complex with many different facets to it - indeed, there is an idealogy within Socialism known as Libertarian Socialism, where people (rather than the state) control the means of production.
Yes, there was a very long thread about it recently. The problem is that some socialists use the word "libertarian socialism" to refer to authoritarian socialism for the purpose of misleading people about their agenda. I have no problem with any voluntary system anyone chooses to participate in in a free society.
Do you seriously think Obama is lurching closer to this version of socialism, honestly?
His policies are closer to that version of socialism than historical U.S. economic policies. But inching or sliding might be more accurate than "lurching". You shouldn't need to put words in my mouth, my stated beliefs are extreme enough, OK?
Fine: how about the policy of "cracking down on fradulent lenders and brokers and investing in financial literacy" or the policy of "demanding transparency and fair competition in the marketplace". Even you, must admit these policies, which only serve to help the market remain free, cannot be possibly be described as socialist?
Notice that each of those policies is a combination of a libertarian policy and what actually refers to socialist policy. "Fair competition in the marketplace", when used by Democrats, refers to government regulation of the marketplace in ways other than transparency and fraud prevention. But that was a close one, you could have just quoted "cracking down on fraud..." as a single policy and I would have had to admit a Democrat's stated policy was not socialist.
"Socially conservative" policies are by definition in the "authoritarian" half of the political spectrum.
That depends on the issue. It's true of abortion, for example, but false on gun control, for example. That's why I pointed out that "authoritarian" would be an appropriate word in some cases of "socially conservative" but not others. If the issue is gun control, "socially conservative" is synonymous with "libertarian".
What you are saying is that any moderate political position, which is minutely to the right or left of the centre gets immediately pulled to the extreme, and labelled either authoritarian or socialist.
No, you are the one assuming authoritarian and socialist are all or nothing extremes. A policy can be fairly socialist or moderately authoritarian.
So a policy that is against stemcell research is "authoritarian", the policy of social security is "socialist"
Yes and yes, assuming the policy against stem cell research is a law restricting or banning it. But I wouldn't refer to either as "extreme" authoritarianism or "extreme" socialism.
nevermind that SS has been part and parcel of the American fabric since Roosevelt's presidency
Yes, and it was called socialist then by opponents because it was a major platform plank of U.S. socialist parties at the time.
Langauge is meant to convey meaning - by crassly labelling all leftwing economic policies as 'socialist', you'd be epically failing at this.
I'm pretty sure most, including you, knew exactly what I meant by the word "socialist". But you may still feel free to substitute "economic authoritarianism" in all my posts. And perhaps it's a better choice.
But all this is just sidetracking the issue of the billboard you referenced. It called Obama a socialist, not a fascist or mass murderer. Hitler was all three, but the ad specifically clarified that socialist was the common factor, not the other two.
It's also interesting that, to you, the Bush administration was both socialist and authoritarian...
Yes. But just to make it a little less interesting, Bush was only "fairly" socialist and authoritarian, not "extremely" so.
I am simply making the point that unfettered markets can't be free; the concept is a paradox.
I would agree if you are using the term "unfettered" to mean the absence of laws against force and fraud. But if you are using "unfettered" to mean the absence of laws restricting economic liberty, then your statement is paradoxical.
Then who are you claiming is racist?
Erm no one, you're the only one who is getting hot and bothered over this non-issue for no apparent reason.
OK, I must have just imagined all your claims of racism in this thread.
