-->
@prefix
Where socialism sought totalitarian control
this is not socialism
and your appeal to authority
is meaningless
if you can't identify logic
definition of "fascism"
Posts
Total:
357
-->
@prefix
fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners
this is also EVEN MORE OBVIOUSLY not socialism
-->
@prefix
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright
this never happened
-->
@prefix
Where socialism abolished money and prices
this ALSO never happened
-->
@3RU7AL
your appeal to authority is meaningless if you can't identify logic
Richman is an "authority" and therefore this is not a logical fallacy. The "appeal to authority fallacy " requires citing someone out of their area of expertise. ( like an astrophysicist talking about climate change ).
You fail to understand the definition of "totalitarianism". Per Oxford.."Totalitarianism is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."
Socialism requires centralized government. All capital rests with the state.....all power rests with the state....human nature then kicks in. There is the logic.
Examples include Germany, Italy and Argentina.
Now you must cite a work that supports your view. Otherwise it is just your opinion, and should be labeled as such.
You must cite real world examples of a socialist nation that meets your standard of "good" socialism. Otherwise it is just your opinion, and should be labeled as such.
-->
@prefix
You fail to understand the definition of "totalitarianism". Per Oxford.."Totalitarianism is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."
yeah, we already agree on this
-->
@prefix
Richman is an "authority"
wrong again
-->
@3RU7AL
You argued against my citation ....."fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners" by saying
this is also EVEN MORE OBVIOUSLY not socialism
You must give an example where socialism did not seek domination of nominally private owners.
Perhaps what you think is socialism is really something else.
-->
@prefix
Socialism requires centralized government. All capital rests with the state.....all power rests with the state....human nature then kicks in. There is the logic.Examples include Germany, Italy and Argentina.
this is not the essential definition of socialism
public schools are a form of state socialism
public libraries are a form of state socialism
public roads are a form of state socialism
public utilities are a form of state socialism
public mail service is a form of state socialism
there is absolutely zero "requirement" for 100% state ownership
-->
@prefix
Now you must cite a work that supports your view. Otherwise it is just your opinion, and should be labeled as such.
now i see how your mind works
you don't care about logic
you only care about published opinions
-->
@prefix
You must cite real world examples of a socialist nation that meets your standard of "good" socialism.
we already agreed that THE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT
is
to manage PUBLIC RESOURCES for the
BENEFIT OF ALL CITIZENS
-->
@prefix
You must give an example where socialism did not seek domination of nominally private owners.
i hope you realize you've just asked me to PROVE A NEGATIVE
-->
@3RU7AL
List the market relations that were not "nationalized" in a socialist state. ( #93)
List where money and prices were not "nationalized" in a socialist state. (#94)
The YouTube video you cited in #95 is not well sourced.
You question Richman's authority in #98.
Sheldon Richman is the former editor of The Freeman and a contributor to The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. He is the author of Separating School and State: How to Liberate America's Families and thousands of articles. " (1)
Now you need to find an authority of at least equal stature in support of your opinions.
-->
@prefix
You question Richman's authority in #98.
i don't give a flying fuck about THE OPINION of some random guy who wrote a book
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #100....
public schools are a form of state socialism
Wrong again. This is a sub-state function. You do not realize that we are talking about actual socialist states.
public libraries are a form of state socialist
Wrong again. This is a sub-state function. You do not realize that we are talking about actual socialist states.
public roads are a form of state socialism
Wrong again. This is a sub-state function. You do not realize that we are talking about actual socialist states.
public utilities are a form of state socialism
Wrong again. This is a sub-state function. You do not realize that we are talking about actual socialist states.
public mail service is a form of state socialism
Wrong again. This is a sub-state function. You do not realize that we are talking about actual socialist states.
there is absolutely zero "requirement" for 100% state ownership
Wrong again. You are thinking about socialism with some form of veneer.
You examples above are more in line with "infrastructure" which can occur in most forms of nation states.
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #101
now i see how your mind works
and it works quite well thank you
you don't care about logic
I care so much about logic that I understand its limits.
you only care about published opinions
Opinions are one thing but opinions that are researched and published are at a higher level.
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #102
we already agreed that THE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT is to manage PUBLIC RESOURCES for the BENEFIT OF ALL CITIZENS
This was too broad to be an acceptable definition. Cite which comment number indicates that agreement. Perhaps it is one of many government functions.
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #103
I said ..."You must give an example where socialism did not seek domination of nominally private owners."
i hope you realize you've just asked me to PROVE A NEGATIVE
How you conclude that is asking you to "prove a negative"is illogical.
All you need do is to find an example of a socialist nation state that allowed the veneer of private ownership.
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #105
You question Richman's authority in #98. You said ...
i don't give a flying ( intercourse) about THE OPINION of some random guy who wrote a book. ( Comment edited for decorum )
So in your mind a publisher took some "random guy" and said "write a book and I will publish it" . Seriously.
It appears that the fantasy land in which you live is a bit more "clinical" than I first imagined.
Opinions are one thing but opinions that are researched and published are at a higher level.
So Richman's published opinions trump your shallow unpublished thoughts.
-->
@prefix
You examples above are more in line with "infrastructure" which can occur in most forms of nation states.
private schools are capitalist
public schools are socialist
private mail service is capitalist
public mail service is socialist
socialism is a form of ownership
not a form of government
-->
@prefix
Opinions are one thing but opinions that are researched and published are at a higher level.
wrong again
nobody is "king of words"
we agree on some key points
but our main disagreement
seems to be
the definition of socialism
-->
@prefix
This was too broad to be an acceptable definition.
then propose a modification if you can't even remember agreeing to it
-->
@prefix
All you need do is to find an example of a socialist nation state that allowed the veneer of private ownership.
you mean like every single government on earth ?
-->
@prefix
So Richman's published opinions trump your shallow unpublished thoughts.
i'm ever so glad you've found your personal KING OF WORDS
i don't happen to be a disciple of the great and powerful "rich-man"
if you want me to take any of their OPINIONS seriously
you are going to have to provide some logic
the key disagreement again, with all the quotes you've regurgitated
is a fundamental disagreement about the DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM
and i'm pretty certain "rich-man" doesn't own words
-->
@3RU7AL
@prefix
Any debate which argues over definitions is pointless, since you are arguing about two different things.
In order to debate, you very much have to agree to same definitions.
-->
@3RU7AL
On comment #111
private schools are capitalistpublic schools are socialist
Mostly public schools are owned by the school system. They are not owned by the public.
private mail service is capitalistpublic mail service is socialist
generally the postal system owns the mail service.It is not owned by the public.
socialism is a form of ownershipnot a form of government
Again we are talking about socialist states.
You don't own a national park.
-->
@Best.Korea
In order to debate, you very much have to agree to same definitions.
bingo
-->
@3RU7AL
On #112
I said ...."Opinions are one thing but opinions that are researched and published are at a higher level. "
wrong again
No. Epistemologically you are entirely WRONG.
but our main disagreementseems to bethe definition of socialism
NO. We are defining "socialist states"
P.S. Bernie sanders has a net worth of $5 million. Is he then a "successful socialist?
-->
@prefix
Mostly public schools are owned by the school system. They are not owned by the public.
the public has meaningful input (buy in) over who runs the school board and what policies they support
public schools are managed by the government for the BENEFIT OF CITIZENS