Know-Nothing Conservatism

[nicky10013]

I don't know what they taught you in school, but the german economy was a centrally planned economy. Does Goering's 4 years plans ring a bell. They told factories what to make, installed supporters as owners and so on. They allowed private ownership if you towed the party line otherwise you wouldn't own it any more another party supporter would.

What they taught me in school was clearly superior to what you read in questionable books. There was only one 4 year plan, and it had to do with building up the military. Towing the party line isn't called socialism. It's called authortarianism and the two aren't synonymous.

Edited August 23, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

It was private only if it benefited the Reich. With Private Property; you could not purchase land and own it privately if it did not benefit the Reich in some form or another. In National Socialist Germany, private property was still regulated and monitored by the Government. It was not "private" as we know it today.

An example of this government-regulated private business would have been "Junkers" the plane company. Where Junkers was arrested for not allowing the government permission to oversee his work. He was paid for his Nationalized business later on however.

Repression is different from that of central planning. The Nazis watched everything for signs of unorthodoxy. He was arrested for not wanting to sell to the government for military purposes. Something quite different.

[Alta4ever]

What they taught me in school was clearly superior to what you read in questionable books. There was only one 4 year plan, and it had to do with building up the military. Towing the party line isn't called socialism. It's called authortarianism and the two aren't synonymous.

It was a centrally planned economy and so sorry hear you are a typical historical revisionist.

Edited August 23, 2010 by Alta4ever

[M.Dancer]

Hahahah and there it is. Hitler was a socialist leftist because his party name had socialist in it. Wow. Making fun of my education when you clearly have none; classy.

The National Socialists were socialist because of their platform and policies.

11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.

19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/naziprog.html

Nazi control of business retained a diminished investment profit-incentive, controlled with economic regulation concording a company’s functioning with the Reich’s national production requirements. Government financing eventually dominated private investment; in the 1933-34 biennium, the proportion of private securities issued diminished from more than 50 per cent of the total, to approximately 10 per cent in the 1935-38 quadrennium. Heavy profit taxes limited self-financing companies, and the largest companies (usually government contractors) mostly were exempted from paying taxes on profits—in practice, however, government control allowed “only the shell of private ownership” in the Third Reich economy. [45]

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Nazi_Germany?t=2.#3.

No longer could the economy be described as a capitalist one. True enough, the forms of private ownership were preserved. The government did not nationalize the means of production, as in Soviet Russia. But the ostensible owners could not set prices on their own volition. The government made all essential decisions. As Mises said,

The second pattern [of socialism] (we may call it the Hindenburg or German pattern) nominally and seemingly preserves private ownership of the means of production, and keeps the appearance of ordinary markets, prices, wages, and interest rates. These are, however, no longer entrepreneurs, but only shop managers (Betriebsführer in the terminology of the Nazi legislation). These shop managers are seemingly instrumental in the conduct of the enterprises entrusted to them; they buy and sell, hire and discharge workers and remunerate their services, contract debts and pay interest and amortization. But in all their activities they are bound to obey unconditionally the orders issued by the government's supreme office of production management. This office (the Reichswirtschaftsministerium in Nazi Germany) tells the shop managers what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. It assigns every worker to his job and fixes his wages. It decrees to whom and on what terms the capitalists must entrust their funds. Market exchange is merely a sham.

http://mises.org/daily/3274

[nicky10013]

It was a centrally planned economy and so sorry hear you are a typical historical revisionist.

No it wasn't. The government would put out a contract for so many tanks, private companies would bid, private companies would win. The government ordered a lot of military equipment and a lot of companies switched to supply equipment because they could easily make more money supplying the army. If you think that's a centrally planned economy, then, well, every state to ever procure goods and services through contracts is a centrally planned economy. Which clearly, is hilarious and wrong.

There's a strong history of centrally planned economies in the world. If you want to look at what they are, look at the USSR, East Germany, Poland, Hungary and even today North Korea. Read about those economies then compare and contrast to Nazi Germany. I think you'll be quite surprised. Then again, I'd never expect you to read about all that. Hell, you're always right.

[nicky10013]

The National Socialists were socialist because of their platform and policies.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/naziprog.html

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Nazi_Germany?t=2.#3.

http://mises.org/daily/3274

Funny, how many of those policies did the Nazis actually bring in?

[M.Dancer]

No it wasn't.

Facts prove you wrong.

See above

[M.Dancer]

Funny, how many of those policies did the Nazis actually bring in?

Tell me.

[nicky10013]

Tell me.

Why? You're the one making the argument. Shouldn't you be the one to prove it?

[M.Dancer]

Why? You're the one making the argument. Shouldn't you be the one to prove it?

Actually I think you are making the argument they didn't bring in those policies or that they didn't bring in all of them. I maintain their platform was not altered and they brought in enough of their polices to be re-elected.

If you wish to clainm they didn't bring their policies to fruition, have at it.

[Keepitsimple]

No, no he's not. Private companies flourished. The only example of any state owned industry was volkswagon, but even then that's arms length. Everything in Germany at that time was private. All their war materials was built on contract by private industry. Not very left wing at all.

Nicky....you seem to be fairly smart but in some areas, you continue to be a bit naive.....but this subject is a bit dangerous for you to get smitten by thinking that Hitler did not promote Socialism. Lets put aside the ugly side of Nazi-ism and deal with the point at hand. Do yourself a favour and talk to your professor - ask him if what we've been saying is true:

Germany took control of many corporations during the reign of Hitler. They took corporations and businesses that were private and they installed their own control mechanism to run them. Many of the entrepreneurs and industrial capitalists who had put all their money at risk to build the company's were forced to work as managers to run them, but not to receive all their profits.

The concept was to pay the workers higher wages, not for the company to make money. What they were doing is very common in totalitarian regimes, and with socialist governments.

[segnosaur]

On the use of the U.N. survey to compare statistics, vs. police reported statistics...

In other words, if both Canada's and the U.S. figures are over-reported by 10%, and Canada's numbers are higher than the U.S. numbers, once the numbers are corrected Canada's should still be higher than the U.S. numbers.

Well, that may be, and that may not be. We can't really say.

You're right, there are problems with both the U.N. reported statistics and the police-reported statistics.

Violent crime is lower here, even if victim crime is higher here.

Once again, you're assuming that your statistics (i.e. ones that come from the police) are correct and the statistics I've provided (from the U.N. survey, that show Canada also leads in violent crime) are the incorrect ones.

However, I have already given one possible reason why your statistics might be wrong (i.e. different countries will have different ways to classify and report various crimes). The only reason you gave for my statistics to be wrong (i.e. over-reporting based on self-selection) would not justify dismissing the U.N. statistics because its likely the same self-selection will happen in both countries.

Similarly, crime is shown to be going down by almost all stats....expect for these surveys.

Ummmm... I'm not disagreeing that crime is going down. And those particular surveys don't suggest that either.

Did you even look at the data?

Those surveys are valid for only one period of time (the early 2000s, when they were taken). They do not make any attempt to track crime over any particular time period. (The studies are recent enough, in my opinion, to give them at least some relevance to today.)

[segnosaur]

...Yet the figures I pointed out in another post (based on a United Nations study) indicated the opposite... that the U.S. had a lower crime rate of "victim oriented" crime, for both non-violent and violent crime. So, 2 sets of data, giving opposite results. So, which is right? (As I pointed out before, the U.N. study has the advantage in that they dealt directly with individuals, bypassing any issues regarding classifications of various crimes.)

...

Some studies say things like needle exchange programs are beneficial, some say they have no effect, and others say they are harmful. So, you can't necessarily claim that you are correct in your analysis because the data is not clear.

...

And before you go assuming that the safe injection sites are somehow preventing crime merely by their existence, shouldn't you at least consider the fact that the police may have actually stepped up their presence in the area immediately surrounding the safe injection site as a way to prevent problems?

...

So, you suggested that shutting down "safe injection sites" is wrong and ideologically driven, yet:

- There is no conclusive proof that it prevents the spread of disease

- There is no proof that it reduces crime rates (since there are other factors which offer a reasonable explanation)

See the Macleans article I've posted in a new thread.

Ummm... First of all, while I'm sure the author of that article may be quite happy with what he's written, it still is just an opinion piece, certainly nothing that should be considered definitive proof of anything.

Secondly, even if I wanted to challenge the author, I don't have the ability to engage him in any sort of debate. You, on the other hand, posted a reference to his work with the idea that you supported his writings. Therefore, it is up to you to either defend his work, or admit that you cannot defend what he wrote.

Lastly, even if I wanted to use that article as some sort of 'proof', it doesn't go into enough detail over many of thie issues.

So, tell me, why are you assuming that the 'experts' are correct in their belief that safe injection sites reduce crime, when the police have come out and said they've increased police presence in that area? Wouldn't the higher number of officers explain the drop in crime in the area?

Also, the crime statistics came straight from the US. Don't know how UN numbers would be better than US numbers.

Ummm... I've already explained that multiple times.

The U.N. numbers use the same methodology to compare the crime rates in both countries. On the other hand, statistics reported by the U.S. or Canadian governments may use different methods for classifying/reporting crimes, making comparisons difficult.

The article (and by extension you) have implied that "experts" believe that the crime rate is not lowered due to harsher penalties. Yet the U.S. does not have things like mandatory release (and other elements that make our criminal system seem lenient) and according to the U.N. numbers their crime rate is lower than ours.

[Smallc]

victim crime and violent crime are not the same thing. That explains the difference in the numbers. Canada has more robberies and more property crime.

[Topaz]

I don't really think the Tories are Conservatives,its name only, to win seats. His thinking is so difference of the PC's, and if after Harper is gone they still act and perform like him then they will never get a majority. Someone from the media should ask Harper was he consider himself as politically,and if he says Conservative, asked compared to who?

[segnosaur]

victim crime and violent crime are not the same thing. That explains the difference in the numbers.

Once again, did you actually look at the U.N. Data? From the looks of things, I'd have to say 'no'.

The U.N. survey looked only at victim crime, but it provided further divisions to look at violent vs. property crime. They had separate categories for property crime, bribery (non-violent 'victim' crime), assault and sexual assault (violent crime). In each of those categories, a higher portion of Canadians are victims.

And they use the same categories for each country.

By the way, the term 'victim crime' is one that I kind of made up, to differentiate robberies and assaults from things like drug possession, gambling, etc.

Canada has more robberies and more property crime.

Yes we do, and according to the U.N. we also have more assaults and sexual assaults. They actually separate those crimes out!!!!

[Smallc]

I'm sorry, but I don't see these surveys as more reliable than actual data from police forces. It is illogical that we would have fewer murders but more violent crime. There are also important social differences that make it illogical that we (and European countries) would have higher violent crime.

I don't put much stock in the surveys, and I was simply going by what you had reported from the link.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Smallc

[segnosaur]

I don't really think the Tories are Conservatives,its name only, to win seats. His thinking is so difference of the PC's....

Are you trying to imply the conservatives are too "left wing" to be considered "conservative", or too "right wing" (and thus out of touch with what the old Progressive Conservative party was.)

Of course, it does seem like you're assuming the PCs were the 'true conservatives'. Of course, many PC leaders (e.g. Joe Clark) would probably be just as home in the Liberal party as they were in the PCs.

...and if after Harper is gone they still act and perform like him then they will never get a majority.

Possibly, but then, it may just be a case of keeping the same policies and "selling" themselves better. Its possible that many Canadians may actually prefer conservative policies, but vote Liberal/NDP/Bloc for historical or other reasons.

Take for example same sex marriage. At the time the Liberals brought in the law legalizing it, the majority of Canadians either opposed any sort of legal recognition, or favored the conservative idea of 'Civil Unions'. Most Canadians actually opposed the Liberal plan. (This doesn't necessarily mean I'm against gay marriage; just pointing to what the 'average' Canadian believed at the time, and how the Conservative policy was closer to what Canadians wanted.)

Someone from the media should ask Harper was he consider himself as politically,and if he says Conservative, asked compared to who?

The only important comparison is that they are Conservative compared to the Liberals and other mainstream parties. Given the fact that they have: A: increased military spending, B: killed things like the gun registry and Liberal daycare program hints that they are more 'conservative' than the other parties. (And yes, they did greatly increase spending during the economic crisis; however, given the fact that all parties wanted greater spending, it doesn't necessarily make the Conservatives less right wing than other parties.

[segnosaur]

I'm sorry, but I don't see these surveys as more reliable than actual data from police forces.

Strangely enough, the Canadian government doesn't necessarily agree. (At least when it comes to comparing the crime rates between countries)

From: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0035x/85f0035x2001000-eng.pdf

Due to significant definitional differences, it is impossible to compare sexual assault in Canada to forcible

rape in the United States.

...

Level one assault, the most frequently occurring violent crime in Canada, is described as applying force to another person, without the presence of a weapon and without involving severe injury. Although the FBI does not have the same category, it does collect arrest data on “other assaults (simple)”. Despite the fact that the American definition of “other assaults” resembles the Canadian category of level one assault, it encompasses more offences, such as injury caused by culpable negligence and intimidation. Canada scores these offences separately. Thus, it is not recommended to compare this offence

Note: This particular document does suggest that some comparisons are possible, but with a lot of conditions and some massaging of the data.

It is illogical that we would have fewer murders but more violent crime.

Well, many of the homicides in the U.S. are hand-gun related. While the number of guns in Canada is comparable to total gun ownership in the U.S., we have a lower portion of handguns. That might be part of the higher murder rate in the U.S.

I don't put much stock in the surveys, and I was simply going by what you had reported from the link.

Well, I told you specifically what the survey said, multiple times... I pointed out the categories it dealt with, so some of your mistakes in understanding are confusing.

Edited August 24, 2010 by segnosaur

[Alta4ever]

I'm sorry, but I don't see these surveys as more reliable than actual data from police forces. It is illogical that we would have fewer murders but more violent crime. There are also important social differences that make it illogical that we (and European countries) would have higher violent crime.

I don't put much stock in the surveys, and I was simply going by what you had reported from the link.

Violent crime isn't just murder.

[Smallc]

Violent crime isn't just murder.

Well good for you. Countries with higher murder rates have higher violent crime rates. Countries with more poverty and less generous social safety nets have higher violent crime rates. That's why this doesn't make sense.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Smallc

[segnosaur]

Well good for you. Countries with higher murder rates have higher violent crime rates.

While it makes some sense that there might be some correlation, I've already given at least one factor (eg. availability of handguns) that might cause the U.S. values to be skewed.

So, since you seem to be dismissing the U.N. statistics, I still have to ask... why? (Well, other than the fact that it conflicts with your pre-conceived stereotypes.) The only excuse you gave (self-selecting leading to over-reporting) will likely affect both countries, so that's not likely to cause Canada's rate of violent crime to appear higher than the U.S. even if its lower. So what other excuses/rationalizations do you want to make?

[Smallc]

Because I believe the stats can numbers. They are collected in a method that is understand and known, and they are the numbers that are used by...everyone...to talk about Canada's crime rate. The other numbers may or may not be true, but are questionable as they are self reported surveys that don't appear to make sense.

[Wild Bill]

I'm sorry, but I don't see these surveys as more reliable than actual data from police forces. It is illogical that we would have fewer murders but more violent crime. There are also important social differences that make it illogical that we (and European countries) would have higher violent crime.

I don't put much stock in the surveys, and I was simply going by what you had reported from the link.

No you don't, Smallc! If you can dismiss my logic as merely anecdotal then the same must be said for yours!

Sauce for the gander! Don't be a hypocrite!

[Smallc]

Well, maybe I'm not being logical. On the other hand, these aren't widely used statistics that statisticians rely on. The other ones are.