Pliny Posted September 21, 2011 Report Posted September 21, 2011 Well....That explains ol' Herr Shickelgruber... What about Benito Mussolini??? What about General Francisco Franco??? Oliviera Salazar??? General Augusto Pinochet??? Fulgencio Batista??? Alfredo Stroessner??? Anastasio Samoza??? Mobuto Sese Seko??? Were they also "anti-Jewish Leftists"? Only one totalitarian can rule at a time no matter their ideology. Any argument; and you face the firing squad. You aren't a communist because you oppose Pinochet I am not a fascist because I oppose Castro. If I should demonstrate opposition to any totalitarian I am no less likely to be a candidate for the firing squad than a Communist would in Nazi Germany or a Nazi would in the old USSR. They wouldn't say I was just a pacifist even if I was - they just won't admit to being that evil themselves but the other guy is and would shoot a pacifist without thinking twice You are expecting under a totalitarian regime that perhaps some democratic recognition of opposing ideologies is allowed? No - and the best defence to justify killing is to call those who faced the firing squad were Nazis or communists, whatever comprises your opposition. As you know Hitler was becoming more popular, perhaps through thuggery, and some other socialists were joining his national socialist party. The ploy by commnists/socialists, in order to not lose further poltical ground, was to then proclaim that Nazism wasn't socialism - to a degree they were correct but as I pointed out Hitler's manifesto wasn't that different from other socialist platforms. It differred economically and was nationalistic rather than internationalistic as is most socialism - working for a borderless world. That was the basic difference. All in all they were totalitarian regimes. It is what is common about them that should be recognized and not just what their differences were. Each totalitarian will have his own idea of how things should run. The similarities of socialism and fascism are; there is a central authority, society is centrally engineered, economically everything is mandated and controlled by the State. Did Pinochet become a multi-billionaire like Castro. Did he have his own hospital? Pinochet wanted to try capitalism. Socialists, of which there seems to be no shortage of in South America, opposed that idea. Other political parties just opposed his regime. What did Unions do with scabs before there were laws to keep them out of factories? They beat the crap out of them, if they were lucky. One might find him swinging in the nearest oak tree, right? I think that would be a similar concept. Do you condone Union thuggery and violence? I seem to recall ion another thread you had a taste for it. I certainly don't condone the cold-blooded brutality of Pinochet. With Unions, numbers give you power, with Pinochet bullets gave him power. And power corrupts. Unions, Pinochet, just different levels of power and thus different levels of corruption. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
jacee Posted September 21, 2011 Report Posted September 21, 2011 Excellent! perhaps the greatest thing to understand is why people trade. One of course has to realize that most economics today deals with macro-econometrics. However, individual human behavior is the single upredictable variable that is the failing of macro-econometrics. It cannot be plugged into a mathematical formula. Hmm... maybe we should work on that. There are people with multivariate understanding of human behaviour, but they're not economists. What ibehavoiurs are we talking about? Well, make the rich pay isn't a new idea - but it is always a bad idea. How about make the richEST pay their fair share? Quote Rapists, pedophiles, and nazis post online too.
netspawn Posted September 21, 2011 Report Posted September 21, 2011 Why is making the rich pay a bad idea? Squeeze em till they howl, eye say! . The rich get richer, and the poor get ... children! Quote "Most people are wrong. The world is stuffed with fools, which is why we must change it." -- the sorceror Camaban (c.2000 BCE)
Pliny Posted October 14, 2011 Report Posted October 14, 2011 (edited) Hmm... maybe we should work on that. There are people with multivariate understanding of human behaviour, but they're not economists. What ibehavoiurs are we talking about? The basic behavior of individuals which is to improve their lives and is entirely dependent upon their needs and wants and the objectives they set for themselves. The entrepreneur probably has a better understanding of human behavior than those in the humanities. Like Freud said, before you diagnose yourself with depression or introversion check around and make sure you aren't surrounded by assholes How about make the richEST pay their fair share? What's a fair share? Most likely they are the richest because they have already contributed to society - Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Henry Ford come to mind. They have increased the standard of living of many people. Edited October 14, 2011 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.