Congressman: American schools should be modeled after madrassas

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

The common ideological thread that unifies the contemporary left to Nazism is the perception of the supremacy of the collective over the individual. To the contemporary right wing, this attitude is antithetical to our core beliefs. Without this attitude, such tyranny cannot come into existence. The very immunity that the West enjoys from tyranny is the contemporary right wing, where the left with happily play "follow the leader" and swallow all sorts of erosions of personal freedom (and responsibility) in order to accomplish the so-called "greater good".

Ah, I see: so it's all about the slippery slope fallacy: that any erosion of personal freedom in the service of society or the greater good (a concept that is pretty much the basis of civilization itself) inevitably leads to tyranny.

You also exposed your own leftism when you stated in clear English that government spending as a share of GDP has nothing to do with freedom. This tells us that you don't view economic freedom as a valid component of broader freedom.

I said nothing of the sort. Here's my exact words in clear English:

You know what government spending as percentage of GDP tells us? How big the government is. That's all. On all other factors it stands mute. It does not tell us anything on the extent of the centralisation of government control over an economy, which you claimed previously. All you have to do is look at the internatonal rankings to see there's no correlation between "freedom" and the size of government.

Clearly you have issues with reading comprehension.

That was another great moment I can take credit for in getting a leftist to expose him or herself.

Quick: run upstairs and tell your mom!

kraychik · July 12, 2012

No. You just haven't any subtlety of thinking. You don't understand the complexities and nuance of political theories or the way they've been implemented historically. You want to re-write political philosophies to suit your unsophisticated in-group, out-group mentality that sees everyone who doesn't hold your extreme views as being adherents to the absurd strawman philosophy of the Left that you've created. The world is more complicated than Left and Right, which you've acknowledged but have shown you're completely incapable of reconciling with your beliefs or actually understanding. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone whose MO is to just troll the hell out of message boards looking to incite people to anger with insults and lies to actually care about having an intelligent and rational discussion.

You're just revealing yourself to be incapable of addressing anything I've said. Your leftist mythologies are being broken by me everywhere I go on this board and it distresses you. It's fine, I'm used to having this effect on socialists and communists like yourself.

kraychik · July 12, 2012

Supremacy of the collective? Except for the political dissidents, the homos, the disabled, the Gypsies, and the Jews. But collectively everyone else.

All of that oppression was done in the name of the best interests of the collective. The Jews were described as an evil and exploitative force on society, plotting a global takeover and subjugation of the non-Jews. The disabled were an economic liability to be cleansed lest they be permitted to send their flawed DNA to the next generation, and so forth. All of this was done in order to satisfy the interests of the collective as defined by the political masterminds.

We see this to a lesser degree with contemporary leftists. Socialists such as yourself regularly call for intrusions into the economic and social freedoms of others to serve the "greater good" as you define it. I understand this reality makes you uncomfortable.

cybercoma · July 12, 2012

What you don't understand is that socialism and fascism are essentially the same thing. The bigger the government, the smaller the individual. The more leftist the political establishment, the more of this corruption you're going to see (Obama bailing out GM, absolving GE of paying taxes, fraud through Solyndra, buying off unions to fuel his campaign, etc). Leftism is statism, and fascism and socialism belong to this family of anti-individual ideologies.

What you don't see and it's hilarious is that you're practically advocating for anarchy. You know what kind of political thinkers are usually anarchists? Socialists.

In fact, I don't even think you're capable of wrapping your mind around social anarchism.

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

Well, you're making a pretty absurd comparson here if you're comparing Myanmar/Burma to Denmark or Sweden. There are factors that Myanmar/Burma deal with that are unique to it when comparing it to Denmark or Sweden. If you want to compare similar countries (geography, resources, population, cultural homogeneity, etc) with varying degrees of governmental intervention into the economy and then examine freedom and prosperity, we can do that. It is clear that have no intention to, or are incapable of, having a serious and honest discussion about this.

What's that? Context matters? There's a multiplicity of factors that determine whether a nation is free? That government spending as percentage of GDP is but one, limited way of measuring this? Thanks, you just made my point. :lol:

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

All of that oppression was done in the name of the best interests of the collective. The Jews were described as an evil and exploitative force on society, plotting a global takeover and subjugation of the non-Jews. The disabled were an economic liability to be cleansed lest they be permitted to send their flawed DNA to the next generation, and so forth. All of this was done in order to satisfy the interests of the collective as defined by the political masterminds.

We see this to a lesser degree with contemporary leftists. Socialists such as yourself regularly call for intrusions into the economic and social freedoms of others to serve the "greater good" as you define it. I understand this reality makes you uncomfortable.

Yeah it's called civilization. Feel free to drop out whenever you please.

kraychik · July 12, 2012

I never said that government spending as a share of GDP was the be-all and end-all of measuring economic freedom in a country, but it is a very important detail. I provided greater context which you were unaware of, as well, as you ignored deferred taxation as a consequence of government borrowing.

cybercoma · July 12, 2012

All of that oppression was done in the name of the best interests of the collective.

Your definition of "collective" does not include everyone and is therefore not a collective. This isn't too difficult to understand.

kraychik · July 12, 2012

What you don't see and it's hilarious is that you're practically advocating for anarchy. You know what kind of political thinkers are usually anarchists? Socialists.

In fact, I don't even think you're capable of wrapping your mind around social anarchism.

I never advocated for anarchy. I am not a libertarian. I am a conservative. You are very desperate to attack me, as you're now back to resorting to strawman arguments. Recognising the two primary dimensions of freedom (economic and social), and recognising the the circle of freedom we enjoy is tightened when government encroach on these freedoms doesn't translate to me being an anarchist or libertarian. I am neither of those things.

cybercoma · July 12, 2012

I never advocated for anarchy. I am not a libertarian. I am a conservative.

You don't know what you are. You say the government needs to be shrunk so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub, to quote Norquist. You say you're all about personal freedom above all else. You deride any government work as socialism. You're an anarchist and you don't even know it.

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

I never said that government spending as a share of GDP was the be-all and end-all of measuring economic freedom in a country, but it is a very important detail.

And I never said you did. Derp.

kraychik · July 12, 2012

Your definition of "collective" does not include everyone and is therefore not a collective. This isn't too difficult to understand.

It was not my definition of the collective, it was the definition of the collective from Nazi ideology. Various iterations of leftism (Nazism, communism, Islamism, socialism, the NDP) always exclude certain group from their vision of the collective. I am not responsible for the internal contradictions of various definitions of the collective from the left.

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

I never advocated for anarchy. I am not a libertarian. I am a conservative. You are very desperate to attack me, as you're now back to resorting to strawman arguments. Recognising the two primary dimensions of freedom (economic and social), and recognising the the circle of freedom we enjoy is tightened when government encroach on these freedoms doesn't translate to me being an anarchist or libertarian. I am neither of those things.

So as a conservative, do you acknowledge limitations on social and economic freedom are necessary for the function of society: yes or no?

kraychik · July 12, 2012

You don't know what you are. You say the government needs to be shrunk so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub, to quote Norquist. You say you're all about personal freedom above all else. You deride any government work as socialism. You're an anarchist and you don't even know it.

There's a big range between saying government needs to be reduced from its current levels, both economically and socially, and bringing about anarchy. Predictably, you need to use this absurd hyperbole because you cannot really address anything I've said. You're presenting a false choice, between socialism as you see it and complete anarchy. Intelligent forum participants know this is an absurd premise. I do not need to further address false characterisations of my political philosophy.

cybercoma · July 12, 2012

Various iterations of leftism (Nazism, communism, Islamism, socialism, the NDP)

Hook.

cybercoma · July 12, 2012

There's a big range between saying government needs to be reduced from its current levels, both economically and socially, and bringing about anarchy. Predictably, you need to use this absurd hyperbole because you cannot really address anything I've said. You're presenting a false choice, between socialism as you see it and complete anarchy. Intelligent forum participants know this is an absurd premise. I do not need to further address false characterisations of my political philosophy.

Gee, krazychick... lacking self-awareness much? I used this as a way to illustrate your nonsense to you and you can't even see it because, as I pointed out before, you suffer from the out-group homogeneity bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgroup_homogeneity_bias

Edited July 12, 2012 by cybercoma

DogOnPorch · July 12, 2012

You don't think the Nazi government had regular meetings with manufacturing firms to keep them abreast of exactly what their military needs were? More basically, the entire manufacturing industry was dependent on government demand. At its core, this is leftism.

No they didn't. Thus the problem the Third Reich ran into.

DogOnPorch · July 12, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXRdjLtXDLU

The day that the Nazi Party envoked 'Total War'. Before that day, Germany maintained a peacetime capitalist economy...still making toothpicks and high fashion...selling them in department stores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportpalast_speech

Signals.Cpl · July 12, 2012

The same is not true for Nazi Germany, which admittedly had a relatively short reign of control. Also, government spending as a share of GDP in Nazi Germany was substantially higher than in the USA.

Nazi Germany was taking on the two most powerful nations in the world at the time and a host of other lesser powers, in a time of war every nation increases government spending as much as they can in order to win. But is your argument here that the Nazi's were not rightwing because they did not decrease their spending postwar?

Canuckistani · July 12, 2012

You don't think the Nazi government had regular meetings with manufacturing firms to keep them abreast of exactly what their military needs were? More basically, the entire manufacturing industry was dependent on government demand. At its core, this is leftism.

This just shows how confused you are and you're actually arguing against yourself. Governments that want arms have two choices: they can own the means of production, ie socialism, or they can buy the arms from the private sector, ie capitalism. The Nazis did not make their own arms, they weren't socialist.

The entire manufacturing industry was dependent on govt demand? Did you mean arms manufacturing? Because otherwise this statement is patently rediculous. If you did mean arms manufacturing, then it's patently obvious.

You use leftism and socialism interchangeably. Maybe that's where you get into trouble. Leftism is a much more broad category. Social democrats are left. They're not socialists, they just see a little more room for state involvement in the economy than the (sane) rightists do. No state can function without some involvement in the economy.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Canuckistani

Canuckistani · July 12, 2012

Nazi Germany was taking on the two most powerful nations in the world at the time and a host of other lesser powers, in a time of war every nation increases government spending as much as they can in order to win. But is your argument here that the Nazi's were not rightwing because they did not decrease their spending postwar?

The Nazis decreased their spending to 0, post war. Totally right wing, got rid of the Nazi state altogether.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Canuckistani

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

There's a big range between saying government needs to be reduced from its current levels, both economically and socially, and bringing about anarchy.

Is that a bigger or smaller range than the one between employment equity programs designed to encourage the hiring of women, people with disabilities and visible minorities and programs designed to exterminate same? :lol:

Shady · July 12, 2012

Indeed. Industry was privately owned and not controled by the government or the army. I believe it was Churchill who famously bought stock (or joked about it) in Krupp Steel after hearing of the appeasement. Krupp, a foe of the Nazis, turned to Hitler once he promised to destroy the unions. A very socialist act, that!

As if any private business could operate without the approval of the government. :rolleyes:

DogOnPorch · July 12, 2012

As if any private business could operate without the approval of the government.

So your position is that Hitler didn't destroy the trade unions and Churchill didn't invest in Krupp? You fellows turning Nazism into a Socialist movement are too funny!

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

As if any private business could operate without the approval of the government.

That's not really up for debate. However, the fact that private businesses and syndicates existed at all is one of the things that makes fascism distinct from other forms of socialism where the state outright owns and operates the means of production and the movement of labour.