Legalize weed. Ban campaign contributions. Buy gold now.
Here's a wikipedia article I googled.
A question for all who frequent this thread, as I'm curious to see varied PoV on this topic:
What are your perspectives on 'libertarian-socialism'?
No, you don't seem to get it. You're addressing my point about the article being a failure to prove instants where a place is better by being outdated, but that was all you had when I asked my original question. You haven't provided any other examples, so it no longer applies...if there is a different aspects that proves otherwise, it has yet to be provided. I also don't agree that freedom even has to equate to 'has the best everything', so this entire line of argument won't likely go anywhere.
Capitalism doesn't do this. Also, 'believers' of capitalism are anyone who has ever been in a supermarket. I swear this line reads like something you could actually say about socialism or its counterparts and it would prove far more accurate...
Without actually clarifying, I honestly question if even you knew exactly what all that word salad was supposed to be saying...
I've asked (several times now) for a real-world (or at this point, any) example of what you're talking about. Which I've yet to receive, and I don't take "lul, giving a shit" as an example of this ideal in practice.
Disregarding that there is two options presented, and the idea of their being more options is redundant. Because the two options are broad. So, are speaking about isolationism and globalism being 'useful in conditions and context'? Because that seems to be what is being answered, though specifically some of it had to do with free trading. If so, it's absurd to say "Sometimes, having no/next to no free trade will prove great for a nation's economy." It's a middle ground you're presenting that shouldn't even exist...
I refuse to take anything said seriously, because of arguments like this. (I also kind-of refuse to believe you're actually that misinformed on such a thoroughly dismantled talking point...)
I mean it doesn't apply. If something is more free because it has less tax that means it isn't more free if there was more tax. That was the base of the article.
Are you saying that national debt can be a major contribute to things like the creation of terrorism? I suppose I just don't see the connection between having debt and not having a free people as a nation. I'm sure there are people with less national debt than the United States but they are nowhere near as free as we are. That's not getting into wealth either, but a wealthy man in Canada has less freedom than a poor man in America because of poor man in America cannot get jailed for speech.
I don't know how much those numbers will particularly help with the foregone conclusion. At least as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think capitalism particularly relates to any of those three things you mentioned. Nor do I think those equate or even that similar.
"The situation's mimetic and neurochemical effects" I'm just going to assume that this is relating to people kick-starting potato salad, because that was a bit of a word salad...
Elaborate on the sentence in question. I don't think that has much with care or lack thereof.
So - A or B is better than A or B...(I can only assume that was meant both is better than one?) Which one of those things would that be? Isolation or Free Trade?
Short answer: Irrelevant Long answer: Read The Federalist Papers.
I do not believe that word is an accurate representation of why it is a failure. My comments were regarded to how the healthcare system is not a free-market system. And how it is a horrible hybrid of systems, Obamacare being my example. You said there are many things that could improve. Do you have any particular examples of this? Mixed market systems that are not capitalist systems that just happened to have some social elements. An actual mixed political economy?
I'd love an further explanation on that, specifically saying that it can actually be the free-market that makes a bushiness fail 'under the right conditions/it depends on the situation' when I think that couldn't be any further from the truth. Under the free-market, the stupidest ideas of the individual can actually be produce results and have people invest their money. Just think of the most ridiculous examples...people kickstarted a guy who was making potato salad...
Are you really going to blame capitalism for an individual/groups failure when stuff like that can prove lucrative?
Understanding others views as in your typical consumer? We already do that, their focus groups and I certainly wouldn't make a case that those have lead to great things, if anything the stifle the niche product.
I think most business failures aren't because not enough people said "Yes" but because no one was around to say, "No, don't do that." Conflict and compromise is absolutely required in life and it's not at all always a negative result.
I'm also not quite sure what the last sentence leads to, or means in the broad context of what we we're discussing...can you provide an example of what you may be discussing, or what you're looking for?
I'm not quite sure what this statement is leading to or implying. The first part is stating globalization in America is causing our problems, which seems to have an Isolationist bent. But the second seems to be implying, people getting to choose products from all over the world would proof to be beneficial...which doesn't seem supportive of the former statement.
While I can agree in one case that people should be able to choose where they go for care. Getting experimental drugs not in your country, that aren't by all definitions legal there. It's -your- life. But I feel the idea the government "grants" that, is a backwards thought that can get you into a mess.
The government shouldn't be the one granting you rights. The Constitution wasn't the government granting us the ability to speak our minds, with the knowledge they can strip it away if they so decide. It was a 'god given' right, that they understood the government shouldn't meddle with. That applies to many things, and frankly is the strongest argument against most socially conservative types that want to use government law to restrict freedoms. Give the government the ability to choose what drugs you can or cannot have, it doesn't matter you correct you are, you just rolled the dice and your fate is no longer in the individuals hand. If weed could magically cure cancer, (it can't), but if it did. Too bad, Bob Thorpinstein says you can't have it.
But my libertarian digression aside, I don't really understand the idea globalization being too blame for shitty things like Obamacare. I can think of many more examples of why that failed that don't involve anything outside of the United States...
Well the chart for GDP, seems to be in favor of the United States. While the 'freedom' chart seems very sketchy and not substantiated. How is Canada, a place where you can go to jail for hate speech. Or Australia, who had to forcefully give their guns back to the government. Any more free than the US?
Isn't disagreement and conflict inevitable with large groups of people? Can't exactly achieve a hive-mind. Also do you think most people would act with their own interests first, over others?
That's what I was asking. Is it or nah?
Are you implying capitalism can sometimes be the reason companies fail?
Like it would imply under socialism or elsewhere, failed kickstarter disasters or farce solar panel projects would work...but competition and the free-market held them back? Or is the onus on the individuals who made a bad investment/idea and should rightfully fail as a result of their own poor decisions?
May be revealing a bit of my hand on the matter, but I was curious what you thought on the situation.
I mean, I suppose I don't have much to disagree with what you said. I'm not sure if the statement replied to was exactly addressed? But I'm okay with leaving it there. If that's your two cents on the subjects.
I guess I just kind of wish America would do the opposite. Because we're currently pushing to be like everyone else, when everyone else is pushing to be like us. Canada is getting more privatized healthcare. More countries are switching to market/capitalistic economies. I'd rather not have another Obamacare boondoogle.