This topic is locked from further discussion.
libertarian. so im part of the right wing.
Â
right wing = freedoms
left = communism and socialism (related to nazism mind you)Â
libertarian. so im part of the right wing.
Â
right wing = freedoms
left = communism and socialism (related to nazism mind you)
Childish_Spot
right wing = patriot act = no freedoms.Â
libertarian. so im part of the right wing.
Â
right wing = freedoms
left = communism and socialism (related to nazism mind you)
Childish_Spot
You've got it wrong.
Yes, left is Communism and SOME socialism, but National Socialism falls under right wing ideals. I'm not bashing either, Communism is equally as bad. Libertarian is also in the center, I believe it's social liberalism and economic conservatism.
Â
I don't know or care, but somewhere there is an optimal tax rate. Now it's clearly not 0% and it's clearly not 100%. So what is it? That is a good question.
I'd also like to say that "free markets" are a myth.Â
Wow, so you don't understand political ideology at all do you?libertarian. so im part of the right wing.
Â
right wing = freedoms
left = communism and socialism (related to nazism mind you)
Childish_Spot
Nazism is a far right wing ideology in which rights are severly restricted, communism and socialism are left wing ideology that support mixed or non capitalistic economys, and the left supports greater social freedoms.
Free market for some things isn't a myth.I don't know or care, but somewhere there is an optimal tax rate. Now it's clearly not 0% and it's clearly not 100%. So what is it? That is a good question.
I'd also like to say that "free markets" are a myth.
SpaceMoose
[QUOTE="Childish_Spot"]Wow, so you don't understand political ideology at all do you?libertarian. so im part of the right wing.
Â
right wing = freedoms
left = communism and socialism (related to nazism mind you)
yoshi-lnex
Nazism is a far right wing ideology in which rights are severly restricted, communism and socialism are left wing ideology that support mixed or non capitalistic economys, and the left supports greater social freedoms.
Yep. Pretty much.Communism is great :), *Ding Dong* government at my door again :(Flow4UIt's just me selling Commie cookies. :)
I support socialist economic policys and liberal social policys, it provides the greatest freedom and benifit for people at both ends.yoshi-lnex
I've seen few examples of socialist countries where their economies allow people freedom. Maybe some of the scandinavian countries, but they really aren't socialist.
right wing = freedoms
left = communism and socialism (related to nazism mind you)Â
Childish_Spot
Was that a serious comment?
[QUOTE="Childish_Spot"]right wing = freedoms
left = communism and socialism (related to nazism mind you)
the_leet_kid
Was that a serious comment?
Lets hope not.[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]I support socialist economic policys and liberal social policys, it provides the greatest freedom and benifit for people at both ends.sonicare
I've seen few examples of socialist countries where their economies allow people freedom. Maybe some of the scandinavian countries, but they really aren't socialist.
socialism might work if the US ever gave it a chance. president allende (elected by the people) of chile was a stanch socialist and he was improving the country without destroying the economy. too bad the CIA helped replace him with one of the most ruthless dictators the world has ever seen.
[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]I support socialist economic policys and liberal social policys, it provides the greatest freedom and benifit for people at both ends.sonicare
I've seen few examples of socialist countries where their economies allow people freedom. Maybe some of the scandinavian countries, but they really aren't socialist.
Economic freedom is complicated. Socialism rests on the principle that competition shouldn't be abolished but played on an equal level (allowing more social mobility). Clearly you think that restrictions placed on people to achieve this results in less freedom, but I disagree. Free markets lead to a maldistribution of wealth.I don't care anything but communism is fine with me oscar530Fascism is fine with you, but communism isn't?Â
Socially speaking, I am mostly conservative...for example, I will never vote for a candidate who supports abortion or gay rights (that's right, I might not be voting in 2008 ). However I am against the death penalty, in principle.
Economically, I am also mostly conservative. The only issue I am liberal on is corporate control of the media.
Global warming, etc....I don't really care. I'll drive what I want, eat what I want, and break all the damn styrofoam I want.
I'm a whig. Ohhhh yeah. 8)
Â
The_Ish
I'm the anti-masonry party. Fine, don't teach us the secret handshake.
[QUOTE="Childish_Spot"]libertarian. so im part of the right wing.
Â
right wing = freedoms
left = communism and socialism (related to nazism mind you)
Greatgone12
You've got it wrong.
Yes, left is Communism and SOME socialism, but National Socialism falls under right wing ideals. I'm not bashing either, Communism is equally as bad. Libertarian is also in the center, I believe it's social liberalism and economic conservatism.
Â
Yeah, that's what Libertarianism is. Socially liberal and economically conservative. Which is what I am; but, unlike some, I'm not Anti-Communist.[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]I support socialist economic policys and liberal social policys, it provides the greatest freedom and benifit for people at both ends.danteswrath2000
I've seen few examples of socialist countries where their economies allow people freedom. Maybe some of the scandinavian countries, but they really aren't socialist.
Economic freedom is complicated. Socialism rests on the principle that competition shouldn't be abolished but played on an equal level (allowing more social mobility). Clearly you think that restrictions placed on people to achieve this results in less freedom, but I disagree. Free markets lead to a maldistribution of wealth.By definition, restrictions lead to less freedom. Capitalism is an imperfect system, full of flaws. There certainly needs to be some regulation to promote a more equal distribution of assets. However, it's just better than the alternative.
 Also, for clarification, my reference to less freedom had less to do with legal restrictions and more to do with the economic situations of many/most socialistic countries. The people of the USSR, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, etc. haven't really benefitted from the "social revolution" that their countries governments were all founded on. Many proponents of communism/socialsim state that this is because those countries never developed into the socialistic utopia. But what they fail to realize is that's the underlying problem with sociaism -> it's purely idealistic and not readily attainable on any large scale.
By definition, yes; practically, not always. In this case, restricting corporations prevents a minority (compay) from have an absorbitant amount of power over a majority, thereby depriving them of power (freedom).By definition, restrictions lead to less freedom.
sonicare
I bet most of you guys who are anti-communists/socialists don't even know what it is......
I saw one write "anything but communism"......what an idiot
I bet most of you guys who are anti-communists/socialists don't even know what it is......
I saw one write "anything but communism"......what an idiot
jointed
It's an unattainable ideal. Every major country that has tried to adopt true communism, has only had it corrupted ala Stalinism or maoism. I even have issues with the ideal communist or socialist state because I think that it takes to much away from the individual, but that's not even the main problem.
Certainly, on small scales it can work. And some countries can implement forms of it, i.e. many european governments have many socialistic policies - but none of them are true socialistic states.
Socialism is not communism; they're very different concepts. Communism is now impossible because we no longer live in an agricultural society. Communism, the original idea of it, doesn't stifle the individual at all, not my concept of it at least. I'm essentially talking about communes like the famous Kabutz in Israel, that kind of operation.It's an unattainable ideal. Every major country that has tried to adopt true communism, has only had it corrupted ala Stalinism or maoism. I even have issues with the ideal communist or socialist state because I think that it takes to much away from the individual, but that's not even the main problem.
Certainly, on small scales it can work. And some countries can implement forms of it, i.e. many european governments have many socialistic policies - but none of them are true socialistic states.
sonicare
[QUOTE="sonicare"]Socialism is not communism; they're very different concepts. Communism is now impossible because we no longer live in an agricultural society. Communism, the original idea of it, doesn't stifle the individual at all, not my concept of it at least. I'm essentially talking about communes like the famous Kabutz in Israel, that kind of operation.It's an unattainable ideal. Every major country that has tried to adopt true communism, has only had it corrupted ala Stalinism or maoism. I even have issues with the ideal communist or socialist state because I think that it takes to much away from the individual, but that's not even the main problem.
Certainly, on small scales it can work. And some countries can implement forms of it, i.e. many european governments have many socialistic policies - but none of them are true socialistic states.
quiglythegreat
They're not different concepts. Communism is a form of socialism, a branch of it in sense.
Communism is based on a mutual ownership of property/capital - eliminating any sense of difference or advantage between people.  In a sense, emphasis on the group rather than the individual. There are good and bad points to that, but I stand by our individual rights.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Socialism is not communism; they're very different concepts. Communism is now impossible because we no longer live in an agricultural society. Communism, the original idea of it, doesn't stifle the individual at all, not my concept of it at least. I'm essentially talking about communes like the famous Kabutz in Israel, that kind of operation.It's an unattainable ideal. Every major country that has tried to adopt true communism, has only had it corrupted ala Stalinism or maoism. I even have issues with the ideal communist or socialist state because I think that it takes to much away from the individual, but that's not even the main problem.
Certainly, on small scales it can work. And some countries can implement forms of it, i.e. many european governments have many socialistic policies - but none of them are true socialistic states.
sonicare
They're not different concepts. Communism is a form of socialism, a branch of it in sense.
Communism is based on a mutual ownership of property/capital - eliminating any sense of difference or advantage between people. In a sense, emphasis on the group rather than the individual. There are good and bad points to that, but I stand by our individual rights.
Socialism is when the government heavily regulates the economy. Communism is when there is no government.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment