You committed no crime, but an officer is knocking on your door. More Minnesotans are surprised to find themselves being locked up over debts.

By CHRIS SERRES (http://www.startribune.com/bios/10645926.html) and GLENN HOWATT (http://www.startribune.com/bios/10645091.html), Star Tribune staff writers
Last update: June 9, 2010 - 7:58 AM

http://www.startribune.com/investigators/95692619.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU


As a sheriff's deputy dumped the contents of Joy Uhlmeyer's purse into a sealed bag, she begged to know why she had just been arrested while driving home to Richfield after an Easter visit with her elderly mother.

No one had an answer. Uhlmeyer spent a sleepless night in a frigid Anoka County holding cell, her hands tucked under her armpits for warmth. Then, handcuffed in a squad car, she was taken to downtown Minneapolis for booking. Finally, after 16 hours in limbo, jail officials fingerprinted Uhlmeyer and explained her offense -- missing a court hearing over an unpaid debt. "They have no right to do this to me," said the 57-year-old patient care advocate, her voice as soft as a whisper. "Not for a stupid credit card."

It's not a crime to owe money, and debtors' prisons were abolished in the United States in the 19th century. But people are routinely being thrown in jail for failing to pay debts. In Minnesota, which has some of the most creditor-friendly laws in the country, the use of arrest warrants against debtors has jumped 60 percent over the past four years, with 845 cases in 2009, a Star Tribune analysis of state court data has found.

Not every warrant results in an arrest, but in Minnesota many debtors spend up to 48 hours in cells with criminals. Consumer attorneys say such arrests are increasing in many states, including Arkansas, Arizona and Washington, driven by a bad economy, high consumer debt and a growing industry that buys bad debts and employs every means available to collect.

Whether a debtor is locked up depends largely on where the person lives, because enforcement is inconsistent from state to state, and even county to county.
In Illinois and southwest Indiana, some judges jail debtors for missing court-ordered debt payments. In extreme cases, people stay in jail until they raise a minimum payment. In January, a judge sentenced a Kenney, Ill., man "to indefinite incarceration" until he came up with $300 toward a lumber yard debt.


How often are debtors arrested across the country? No one can say. No national statistics are kept, and the practice is largely unnoticed outside legal circles. "My suspicion is the debt collection industry does not want the world to know these arrests are happening, because the practice would be widely condemned," said Robert Hobbs, deputy director of the National Consumer Law Center in Boston.
Debt collectors defend the practice, saying phone calls, letters and legal actions aren't always enough to get people to pay.

"Admittedly, it's a harsh sanction," said Steven Rosso, a partner in the Como Law Firm of St. Paul, which does collections work. "But sometimes, it's the only sanction we have."
Taxpayers foot the bill for arresting and jailing debtors. In many cases, Minnesota judges set bail at the amount owed.

In Minnesota, judges have issued arrest warrants for people who owe as little as $85 -- less than half the cost of housing an inmate overnight. Debtors targeted for arrest owed a median of $3,512 in 2009, up from $2,201 five years ago.

Those jailed for debts may be the least able to pay.
"It's just one more blow for people who are already struggling," said Beverly Yang, a Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation staff attorney who has represented three Illinois debtors arrested in the past two months. "They don't like being in court. They don't have cars. And if they had money to pay these collectors, they would."

The collection machine
The laws allowing for the arrest of someone for an unpaid debt are not new.
What is new is the rise of well-funded, aggressive and centralized collection firms, in many cases run by attorneys, that buy up unpaid debt and use the courts to collect.

Three debt buyers -- Unifund CCR Partners, Portfolio Recovery Associates Inc. and Debt Equities LLC -- accounted for 15 percent of all debt-related arrest warrants issued in Minnesota since 2005, court data show. The debt buyers also file tens of thousands of other collection actions in the state, seeking court orders to make people pay.

The debts -- often five or six years old -- are purchased from companies like cellphone providers and credit card issuers, and cost a few cents on the dollar. Using automated dialing equipment and teams of lawyers, the debt-buyer firms try to collect the debt, plus interest and fees. A firm aims to collect at least twice what it paid for the debt to cover costs.

Anything beyond that is profit.

Portfolio Recovery Associates of Norfolk, Va., a publicly traded debt buyer with the biggest profits and market capitalization, earned $44 million last year on $281 million in revenue -- a 16 percent net margin. Encore Capital Group, another large debt buyer based in San Diego, had a margin last year of 10 percent. By comparison, Wal-Mart's profit margin was 3.5 percent.

Todd Lansky, chief operating officer at Resurgence Financial LLC, a Northbrook, Ill.-based debt buyer, said firms like his operate within the law, which says people who ignore court orders can be arrested for contempt. By the time a warrant is issued, a debtor may have been contacted up to 12 times, he said.

"This is a last-ditch effort to say, 'Look, just show up in court,'" he said.
Go to court -- or jail
At 9:30 a.m. on a recent weekday morning, about a dozen people stood in line at the Hennepin County Government Center in Minneapolis.

Nearly all of them had received court judgments for not paying a delinquent debt. One by one, they stepped forward to fill out a two-page financial disclosure form that gives creditors the information they need to garnish money from their paychecks or bank accounts.

This process happens several times a week in Hennepin County. Those who fail to appear can be held in contempt and an arrest warrant is issued if a collector seeks one. Arrested debtors aren't officially charged with a crime, but their cases are heard in the same courtroom as drug users.

Greg Williams, who is unemployed and living on state benefits, said he made the trip downtown on the advice of his girlfriend who knew someone who had been arrested for missing such a hearing.

"I was surprised that the police would waste time on my petty debts," said Williams, 45, of Minneapolis, who had a $5,773 judgment from a credit card debt. "Don't they have real criminals to catch?"

Few debtors realize they can land in jail simply for ignoring debt-collection legal matters. Debtors also may not recognize the names of companies seeking to collect old debts. Some people are contacted by three or four firms as delinquent debts are bought and sold multiple times after the original creditor writes off the account.
"They may think it's a mistake. They may think it's a scam. They may not realize how important it is to respond," said Mary Spector, a law professor at Southern Methodist University's Dedman School of Law in Dallas.

A year ago, Legal Aid attorneys proposed a change in state law that would have required law enforcement officials to let debtors fill out financial disclosure forms when they are apprehended rather than book them into jail. No legislator introduced the measure.

Joy Uhlmeyer, who was arrested on her way home from spending Easter with her mother, said she defaulted on a $6,200 Chase credit card after a costly divorce in 2006. The firm seeking payment was Resurgence Financial, the Illinois debt buyer. Uhlmeyer said she didn't recognize the name and ignored the notices.

Uhlmeyer walked free after her nephew posted $2,500 bail. It took another $187 to retrieve her car from the city impound lot. Her 86-year-old mother later asked why she didn't call home after leaving Duluth. Not wanting to tell the truth, Uhlmeyer said her car broke down and her cell phone died.

"The really maddening part of the whole experience was the complete lack of information," she said. "I kept thinking, 'If there was a warrant out for my arrest, then why in the world wasn't I told about it?'"

One afternoon last spring, Deborah Poplawski, 38, of Minneapolis was digging in her purse for coins to feed a downtown parking meter when she saw the flashing lights of a Minneapolis police squad car behind her. Poplawski, a restaurant cook, assumed she had parked illegally. Instead, she was headed to jail over a $250 credit card debt.

Less than a month earlier, she learned by chance from an employment counselor that she had an outstanding warrant. Debt Equities, a Golden Valley debt buyer, had sued her, but she says nobody served her with court documents. Thanks to interest and fees, Poplawski was now on the hook for $1,138.
Though she knew of the warrant and unpaid debt, "I wasn't equating the warrant with going to jail, because there wasn't criminal activity associated with it," she said. "I just thought it was a civil thing."

She spent nearly 25 hours at the Hennepin County jail.
A year later, she still gets angry recounting the experience. A male inmate groped her behind in a crowded elevator, she said. Poplawski also was ordered to change into the standard jail uniform -- gray-white underwear and orange pants, shirt and socks -- in a cubicle the size of a telephone booth. She slept in a room with 12 to 16 women and a toilet with no privacy. One woman offered her drugs, she said.
The next day, Poplawski appeared before a Hennepin County district judge. He told her to fill out the form listing her assets and bank account, and released her. Several weeks later, Debt Equities used this information to seize funds from her bank account. The firm didn't return repeated calls seeking a comment.

"We hear every day about how there's no money for public services," Poplawski said. "But it seems like the collectors have found a way to get the police to do their work."
Threat depends on location
A lot depends on where a debtor lives or is arrested, as Jamie Rodriguez, 41, a bartender from Brooklyn Park, discovered two years ago.

Deputies showed up at his house one evening while he was playing with his 5-year-old daughter, Nicole. They live in Hennepin County, where the Sheriff's Office has enough staff to seek out people with warrants for civil violations.
If Rodriquez lived in neighboring Wright County, he could have simply handed the officers a check or cash for the amount owed. If he lived in Dakota County, it's likely no deputy would have shown up because the Sheriff's Office there says it lacks the staff to pursue civil debt cases.

Knowing that his daughter and wife were watching from the window, Rodriguez politely asked the deputies to drive him around the block, out of sight of his family, before they handcuffed him. The deputies agreed.
"No little girl should have to see her daddy arrested," said Rodriguez, who spent a night in jail.

"If you talk to 15 different counties, you'll find 15 different approaches to handling civil warrants," said Sgt. Robert Shingledecker of the Dakota County Sheriff's Office. "Everything is based on manpower."
Local police also can enforce debt-related warrants, but small towns and some suburbs often don't have enough officers.

The Star Tribune's comparison of warrant and booking data suggests that at least 1 in 6 Minnesota debtors at risk for arrest actually lands in jail, typically for eight hours. The exact number of such arrests isn't known because the government doesn't consistently track what happens to debtor warrants.

"There are no standards here," said Gail Hillebrand, a senior attorney with the Consumers Union in San Francisco. "A borrower who lives on one side of the river can be arrested while another one goes free. It breeds disrespect for the law."
Haekyung Nielsen, 27, of Bloomington, said police showed up at her house on a civil warrant two weeks after she gave birth through Caesarean section. A debt buyer had sent her court papers for an old credit-card debt while she was in the hospital; Nielsen said she did not have time to respond.

Her baby boy, Tyler, lay in the crib as she begged the officer not to take her away.
"Thank God, the police had mercy and left me and my baby alone," said Nielsen, who later paid the debt. "But to send someone to arrest me two weeks after a massive surgery that takes most women eight weeks to recover from was just unbelievable."

The second surprise

Many debtors, like Robert Vee, 36, of Brooklyn Park, get a second surprise after being arrested -- their bail is exactly the amount of money owed.
Hennepin County automatically sets bail at the judgment amount or $2,500, whichever is less. This policy was adopted four years ago in response to the high volume of debtor default cases, say court officials.
Some judges say the practice distorts the purpose of bail, which is to make sure people show up in court.
"It's certainly an efficient way to collect debts, but it's also highly distasteful," said Hennepin County District Judge Jack Nordby. "The amount of bail should have nothing to do with the amount of the debt."

Judge Robert Blaeser, chief of the county court's civil division, said linking bail to debt streamlines the process because judges needn't spend time setting bail.
"It's arbitrary," he conceded. "The bigger question is: Should you be allowed to get an order from a court for someone to be arrested because they owe money? You've got to remember there are people who have the money but just won't pay a single penny."

If friends or family post a debtor's bail, they can expect to kiss the money goodbye, because it often ends up with creditors, who routinely ask judges for the bail payment.

Vee, a highway construction worker, was arrested one afternoon in February while driving his teenage daughter from school to their home in Brooklyn Park. As he was being cuffed, Vee said his daughter, who has severe asthma, started hyperventilating from the stress.

"All I kept thinking about was whether she was all right and if she was using her [asthma] inhaler," he said.
From the Hennepin County jail, he made a collect call to his landlord, who promised to bring the bail. It was $1,875.06, the exact amount of a credit card debt.

Later, Vee was reunited with his distraught daughter at home. "We hugged for a long time, and she was bawling her eyes out," he said.
He still has unpaid medical and credit card bills and owes about $40,000 on an old second mortgage. The sight of a squad car in his rearview mirror is all it takes to set off a fresh wave of anxiety.

"The question always crosses my mind: 'Are the cops going to arrest me again?'" he said. "So long as I've got unpaid bills, the threat is there."

__________________________________________________ _____________


Thrown in jail for a 250.00 credit card debt.:eek:
Ah the free enterprise system.
Some slimy lawyers version of the american dream. :rolleyes:

Finally, after 16 hours in limbo, jail officials fingerprinted Uhlmeyer and explained her offense

Aren't the charges the very first thing you are informed of

Finally, after 16 hours in limbo, jail officials fingerprinted Uhlmeyer and explained her offense

Aren't the charges the very first thing you are informed of

Oh silly
That only happens in the movies.
The police can pretty much do as they please.

Thrown in jail for a 250.00 credit card debt.:eek:
Ah the free enterprise system.
Some slimy lawyers version of the american dream. :rolleyes:



I was with you until this last part. How are you construing this as an indictment of the free enterprise system? What do the police have to do with the free enterprise system?

It could say something about the justice system in this country, maybe even corporatism in some fashion, but how can you find something damning that is peculiar to the free market system in this?

This could be viewed as, essentially, an exceedingly heavy handed attempt at contract enforcement by the state.

***goes to pay cc bill***

I was with you until this last part. How are you construing this as an indictment of the free enterprise system? What do the police have to do with the free enterprise system?

It could say something about the justice system in this country, maybe even corporatism in some fashion, but how can you find something damning that is peculiar to the free market system in this?

Free enterprise lawyers are using the police to help them collect civil debts.

The system or any system is only as good as the values and morals of the people in it.
People run the system and not the other way around.
The lawyers have found a way to use the system to their commercial advantage.

I'm not indicting the free enterprise system here just making an ah under the american free enterprise system and with lawyers anything is possible comment.

There's also a puritan satisfaction in seeing the law although perhaps not justice being brought down on scofflaws.
However the collection agencies do not pass judgement on who is a real scofflaw.
They just want easy money like the mob.
Here they've found a legal avenue for that goal.
The original creditors only get 5 % while the lawyers reap the rewards through ruthlessness.

Free enterprise lawyers are using the police to help them collect civil debts.

"free enterprise lawyers"?

What are those?


The lawyers have found a way to use the system to their commercial advantage.

So...government should not enforce contracts?

That is the implication of what you are saying. Even Adam Smith didn't go that far. In fact, Smith said that the government had a vital roll to play in protecting against fraud, including contract enforcement.

Weather the means of enforcement in this case were appropriate is another discussion. But to chastise the government as being a tool of lawyers A) says nothing about the free market, and B) downplays the vital function that the government has to play in the markets in this area.

Unless you think contracts should not be enforced.

I'm not indicting the free enterprise system here just making an ah under the american free enterprise system and with lawyers anything is possible comment.

It seems your beef is more with the judicial system and bottom feeding lawyers. Why drag the free market in here?

Enforcement of contracts through the government exists in any economic system except for the theoretical anarcho-capitalist system which is not a realistic system.

"free enterprise lawyers"?

What are those?



So...government should not enforce contracts?

That is the implication of what you are saying. Even Adam Smith didn't go that far. In fact, Smith said that the government had a vital roll to play in protecting against fraud, including contract enforcement.

Weather the means of enforcement in this case were appropriate is another discussion. But to chastise the government as being a tool of lawyers A) says nothing about the free market, and B) downplays the vital function that the government has to play in the markets in this area.

Unless you think contracts should not be enforced.



It seems your beef is more with the judicial system and bottom feeding lawyers. Why drag the free market in here?

Enforcement of contracts through the government exists in any economic system except for the theoretical anarcho-capitalist system which is not a realistic system.

Free enterprise lawyers are those working for themselves like these collection agencies.
I'm not against free enterprise per se but the lawyers are using the police as a tool to collect private debts which is something new I wasn't aware of till I read this article.
It seems like something that only happens in america where some enterpreneur lawyers can come up with this way to make lots of money
for themselves.
We can be so sanctimonious about law and order in this country.
Again you're black and white.
To you it's all contracts enforced or none.
The police should not be used to enforce private contracts for petty debts and credit cards so lawyers can make millions.
These card companies are very profitable overall but are also milking interest from people who have no business being extended credit in the first place.
Bad debt write offs are a part of their business model.
Wage garnishments should be sufficient for this type of "contract".
If somebody isn't working where are they going to come up with money.
There's an element of cruelty in this.

So...government should not enforce contracts?

Law-enforcement should not. That is a matter for the civil courts.

It seems your beef is more with the judicial system and bottom feeding lawyers. Why drag the free market in here?

Enforcement of contracts through the government exists in any economic system except for the theoretical anarcho-capitalist system which is not a realistic system.

Don't get me wrong, I agree, but, I think what he was trying to make his commentary on was the way the American free-market is twisted by bottom-feeding lawyers. I don't really think he is making commentary on the free-market system itself.

Law-enforcement should not. That is a matter for the civil courts.

I would generally agree, though I want more specifics of this case then this article provides before stating anything conclusively on it.

Collection agencies are bottom feeders and the co-mingling with lawyers is not surprising.

Free enterprise lawyers are those working for themselves like these collection agencies.

I always view lawyers as working in that gray area between purely private enterprise and government. Just my view though.

I'm not against free enterprise per se but the lawyers are using the police as a tool to collect private debts which is something new I wasn't aware of till I read this article.

Did we not have debtor's prison in this country ever? I know now this is usually handled by seizing assets, etc., but was it always that way in this country? I would be interested to know.

I would think using the police would be an excessive form of collection, unless there is a legitimate legal justification for this that is missed in the article (something I highly doubt).

It seems like something that only happens in america where some enterpreneur lawyers can come up with this way to make lots of money
for themselves.

I don't see why it couldn't happen in soviet Russia. Though you might simply be taken out and shot instead of being arrested. Also, the lawyer would probably be working for the government.

To you it's all contracts enforced or none.

It is more then that.

Legal contracts should be enforced. However, how they are enforced is another matter that is entirely open to debate. On the surface, the case presented in the article seems very excessive and even cruel, as you say.

Associating this with the free markets is a mistake, it's an abuse of the state's power, and it foretells very frightening things that the future may hold for us.

Pete recently posted links to a video about Michael Ruppert from a few years ago that specifically foreshadowed things like this happening, and getting worse as the economy continued to spiral into collapse..

Personal debt is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
And making private loans or lending personal credit involves risk, it's not to be enforced or guaranteed by the power of the state at gun point.

Lawyers are frequently the lowest order of human being. They have no values except what they can get away with and how they can manipulate the system in order to achieve their desired ends. I'd argue that they are trained to do so much.

Again, this isn't pure capitalism.
But it does demonstrate some of the dangers of when the state has too much power and unscrupulous individuals manipulate that power for their own ends.

Lawyers are frequently the lowest order of human being. They have no values except what they can get away with and how they can manipulate the system in order to achieve their desired ends. I'd argue that they are trained to do so much.


I love the quote.....thanks for the morning smile.
Lawyers rate right up there with used car salesmen.

FWIW, they have been doing this in Minnesota for quite a long time now. Actually all across the plains states, the laws are VERY friendly to creditors. No statute of limitations in most of these states, and they have a real easy time picking their own venue, garnishing wages, anything like that. Debt collectors are incredibly bold in this area, because, they have all the legal backing they want.

That's what bankruptcy is for. It's illegal, under federal law, to even ask for payment after a BR is started.
KS

Does a cardholder/lender in the midwest create something different in their agreement than elsewhere in the country? I thought this was considered an 'unsecured' debt.

Since these debts are not secured by the creditors assets, interest rates are significantly higher to protect the interests of the lender. The fact that they sell the debt to some Shylock who manipulates the system to coerce payment utilizing imprisonment does not change the terms of the transaction-the lender charged a higher rate of interest by betting that the creditor could pay their premium, and they lost. They sell their interest in the loss to a third party, who utilizes the resources of law enforcement and the judicial system to collect this 'unsecured debt?

That is just wrong.

...does this not speak to the power of unlimited, unchecked power in the control of the government though. It's seemingly a small example, but one most people can understand.

When power is concentrated in government, it's very easy for individuals to manipulate the system and abuse this power for their own ends.

The myth that all corporations or business people love free-markets and capitalism is false. Big corporations and many businesses tend to love stability and an atmosphere that has less risk. And if they can use the power of government to create an atmosphere they control or that is simply controlled, or they can use the power of regulation to eliminate competition, they often times will support it.

If the police powers were not so strong, if the government was not so accommodating, and if the lawyers weren't programed to manipulate and taught the original intent of the law before they were taught precedent, not the other way around, would this happen?

And what happens when all of that power is concentrated nationally in a single location? How much easier is it to corrupt Washington,D.C than 50 separate state governments?

...does this not speak to the power of unlimited, unchecked power in the control of the government though. It's seemingly a small example, but one most people can understand.

.... or perhaps, it demonstrates the problem with some primarily conservative states that cater to and give extreme power and freedom to businesses, who then twist and manipulate that power to use a system that wouldn't otherwise have this kind of power over an individual.

.... or perhaps, it demonstrates the problem with some primarily conservative states that cater to and give extreme power and freedom to businesses, who then twist and manipulate that power to use a system that wouldn't otherwise have this kind of power over an individual.

Give extreme power and freedom?

Government takes away freedom for their power, then certain businesses can leverage that power through the government for their own ends.
Conservatism doesn't "cater to business", as Cal pointed out. Many (if not most) big businesses do not want a laissez-faire approach toward the economy. The conservative viewpoint is one of a hands off approach, not one in which the government regulates businesses heavily, taking away freedom, and uses that power to choose winners and losers.

That is not to say that many who claim to be conservative are not engaged in corporatism, but it goes against the philosophical viewpoint of conservatism. However, corporatism is consistent with the ideology of modern liberalism.

It is a corrupt system that has been set up where, if you are a big enough business, you have to play the corporatism game, at least with the federal government. If you don't play the game, they go after you like they did Microsoft and like they are doing with Apple through their iTunes music downloads. The recent ethanol charade is a prime example of big businesses (specifically car companies) pushing for government action. The proposed Cap and trade law would be another example.

Give extreme power and freedom?

Government takes away freedom for their power, then certain businesses can leverage that power through the government for their own ends.
Conservatism doesn't "cater to business", as Cal pointed out. Many (if not most) big businesses do not want a laissez-faire approach toward the economy. The conservative viewpoint is one of a hands off approach, not one in which the government regulates businesses heavily, taking away freedom, and uses that power to choose winners and losers.

That is not to say that many who claim to be conservative are not engaged in corporatism, but it goes against the philosophical viewpoint of conservatism. However, corporatism is consistent with the ideology of modern liberalism.

It is a corrupt system that has been set up where, if you are a big enough business, you have to play the corporatism game, at least with the federal government. If you don't play the game, they go after you like they did Microsoft and like they are doing with Apple through their iTunes music downloads. The recent ethanol charade is a prime example of big businesses (specifically car companies) pushing for government action. The proposed Cap and trade law would be another example.

no

no

:confused:

Care to elaborate?

:confused:

Care to elaborate?

No, that pretty much covered it.

No, that pretty much covered it.

So...you are simply rejecting what I said out of hand? :confused:

So...you are simply rejecting what I said out of hand? :confused:

Yes, there was so much about your post that was just wrong (I know you are going to dig up some random, and extremely incorrect blog off some conservative website to "prove me wrong") that I see no reason to reply with an answer any greater than denouncing your entire post.

Yes, there was so much about your post that was just wrong

Like what?

I know you are going to dig up some random, and extremely incorrect blog off some conservative website to "prove me wrong"


You haven't made a disprovable statement yet.

.... or perhaps, it demonstrates the problem with some primarily conservative states that cater to and give extreme power and freedom to businesses, who then twist and manipulate that power to use a system that wouldn't otherwise have this kind of power over an individual.
No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all.

First, Minnesota, home of Al Franken isn't a "primarily conservative" state. So we can shoot down that premise right there.

Next you speak of the "extreme freedom" to twist and manipulate the power of the state. That only works if the state has too much centralized power in the first place, and that basically confirms that point I was making.

Shag has addressed this point very articulately and thoroughly in the previous post. Your shocking refusal to acknowledge it demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity on your part. If you can't respond to something as simple as what he wrote, why should anyone even recognize you in the future?

No, it doesn't demonstrate that at all.

First, Minnesota, home of Al Franken isn't a "primarily conservative" state. So we can shoot down that premise right there.

Next you speak of the "extreme freedom" to twist and manipulate the power of the state. That only works if the state has too much centralized power in the first place, and that basically confirms that point I was making.

Shag has addressed this point very articulately and thoroughly in the previous post. Your shocking refusal to acknowledge it demonstrates a lack of intellectual integrity on your part. If you can't respond to something as simple as what he wrote, why should anyone even recognize you in the future?

1: just because a liberal is in Minnesota does not mean it is NOT generally primarily conservative. This whole area is. Despite that, there are still some liberals and democrats that serve in office. Tom Daschle was a senator here in south dakota for quite a long time, and he was very much a democrat...... Now, can you name for me the last time this states electorate voted blue for the president? Are you going to tell me that South Dakota is a liberal state? Hell, this state personifies conservatism and "christian ideals." Though, I will admit, Minnesota has had a tendency to go democrat in recent years, the ideology, laws and political structure in Minnesota is primarily conservative. Strange that they vote democrat, but if you lived there, you would understand rather quickly.

2: Shag was trying to make a point that some big business does not like a lassaiz-faire environment, however, that is a separate issue from conservative ideals. Big businesses practice pragmatism. They only care about what is best for the bottom line. Their economic ideals have little to do with political ideals. They only borrow and finance whatever ideals are most convenient in a situation. This is why you are so hard pressed to find lobbyists with any extreme party loyalties.

3: I said business has extreme freedom and more legal power than individuals. The power the state has has little to do with that. The state does not have any additional power when a corporation twists a legal system so that they can use minor powers of the courts to arrest individuals, such as a bench warrant for failure to appear at a hearing.

4: Corporatism is no more akin to liberalism than Buddhism is to communism. It is an entirely different idea. Only when one stretches those ideas to the EXTREME can one make any link at all. Corporatism is more of a system of ordered social collectivism. At the same types of extremes you can link liberalism directly to Corporatism, you can link conservatism, or nearly any other political ideology save anarchism and extreme libertarianism. Shag knows this, it appears he hopes that no one will notice and they will just follow along with what he is saying.

5: I shouldn't have to spell these types of things out every time someone wants to start one of these silly arguments. He knew damn well he was misrepresenting what I said, and I didn't feel like playing that dumb game. ie, his later comment:
You haven't made a disprovable statement yet.
I had hoped to avoid giving him ammunition to start some silly war of attrition where he digs up a bunch of random crap articles, then uses circular logic and straw-man platforms to prove his point. It gets old, and it is senseless. Besides, according to him, he knows enough about political sciences that I believe his comments were just an effort to start a pissing contest where he knows very well that he is wrong, but believes he can argue it until he looks right.

6: The states have NO additional power in this area. They are affording additional power to businesses and creditors, who in turn use that power to manipulate the minor powers of the court to accomplish their goals. The states also GIVE UP power over personal debt in many cases, as is the example of the lack of statutes of limitations in these areas and the absence of many of the rules and regulations governing collection activities in other, more progressive areas. One could even view it as an extreme example of the government giving up power and control over collectors. The argument that this is an example of government abuse of power is just stupid and has no grounding in fact or reality.

1: just because a liberal is in Minnesota does not mean it is NOT generally primarily conservative.
Let's all take astep back from what we have previously understood, and let's examine what we mean by "conservative."
Let's make sure that when you say conservative, it means the same things as it does when Shag or I do.

The same goes for liberal, or progressive, or socialist, or fascist....

Because the language has been bastardized this past century so that the words really have no set meaning. I know I have, and I think Shag has also, been attempting to address this language problem repeatedly here. The dictionary definitions don't apply because the political applications have deliberately been changed over the past century.

As you go deeper into the history and philosophy of this stuff, past the surface, past the contemporary political debate, you find out that we're all being manipulated, and much of what we took for granted or presumed was true actually isn't as it seems.


So, when you use the term conservative-
does that mean the same thing as I do?
Do you use that term to mean a classical liberal or someone who wants to use the power of the state to impose their own moral values on the population?

1: just because a liberal is in Minnesota does not mean it is NOT generally primarily conservative. This whole area is. Despite that, there are still some liberals and democrats that serve in office. Tom Daschle was a senator here in south dakota for quite a long time, and he was very much a democrat...... Now, can you name for me the last time this states electorate voted blue for the president? Are you going to tell me that South Dakota is a liberal state? Hell, this state personifies conservatism and "christian ideals." Though, I will admit, Minnesota has had a tendency to go democrat in recent years, the ideology, laws and political structure in Minnesota is primarily conservative. Strange that they vote democrat, but if you lived there, you would understand rather quickly.
When is the last time Minnesota has voted red for Pres....1972??
Its been blue since 1932 for the most part.
Christian ideals do not make a conservative Republican voter in MN.
I know I live there.

Corporatism is more of a system of ordered social collectivism.

How do you reach that conclusion?

At the same types of extremes you can link liberalism directly to Corporatism, you can link conservatism, or nearly any other political ideology save anarchism and extreme libertarianism.

Conservatism is not a political ideology:Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term "liberal" in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.
-Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek in an essay titled "Why I am not a Conservative (http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46)" published in his book The Constitution of Liberty (1960)
Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries...

...The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.-Russell Kirk (http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/) (1957)
John Kekes calls Conservatism more of a political morality. This may seem like semantics but it is a very important and relevant distinction to be able to understand what Conservatism is and is not.

Conservatism is not a political ideology:Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves "liberals." I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term "liberal" in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.
-Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek in an essay titled "Why I am not a Conservative (http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46)" published in his book The Constitution of Liberty (1960)
Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries...

...The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers. But of course there is more to the conservative persuasion than this general attitude.-Russell Kirk (http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/) (1957)
John Kekes calls Conservatism more of a political morality. This may seem like semantics but it is a very important and relevant distinction to be able to understand what Conservatism is and is not.

Yeah yeah, and Emo isn't a fad, it's a way of life.

Try again, next time without so much stupid. If I wanted to see you cut and paste a conservative blog saying Conservative is the only correct way of thinking and all Liberals are socialists, I would have read the other thread.

Besides, you are going WAY off topic on this thread..... Trying to distract from the fact you were entirely wrong?

Trying to distract from the fact you were entirely wrong?

Wrong about what, specifically?

You also have yet to explain why, "Corporatism is more of a system of ordered social collectivism"? Is that simply conjecture on your part or do you have some reasonable basis for that statement that you can articulate? At face value, it doesn't make much sense.

You also have yet to explain why, "Corporatism is more of a system of ordered social collectivism"? Is that simply conjecture on your part or do you have some reasonable basis for that statement that you can articulate? At face value, it doesn't make much sense.

I say that because it is true. If it doesn't make sense to you, I suggest hitting those freshman level government books instead of quoting blogs to pretend you are a scholar. Besides, your asinine post made me miss the other comments. Of course, these types of posts are why I didn't give you serious responses earlier. Honestly, if I wanted to read someones opinion blog, or propaganda blog, I am quite capable of finding them myself

As to what you are wrong about.... Well, the insistence that this is an example of giving the state too much power for starters. We can dig up the laws, but I think you will find that Minnesota as a state has LESS power and control over these types of matters. This is just an example of people and businesses manipulating a system that has LESS control than in many other places.

When is the last time Minnesota has voted red for Pres....1972??
Its been blue since 1932 for the most part.
Christian ideals do not make a conservative Republican voter in MN.
I know I live there.

So are you saying Minnesota is a Liberal state? Because as far as I can see, it isn't. Just because it does not have the republican vote usually, doesn't make it a liberal state. It is a bit more progressive than states like South Dakota and North Dakota, but, still very conservative. I have lived in north and south dakota for the past ~8 years, and I have a lot of friends in Minnesota, not to mention, the hour drive it takes me to get there now is the farthest I have lived from minnesota since moving to the dakotas. I don't know how many liberal states you have traveled to, but, I can't think of many states you could even consider Minnesota liberal in comparison to.

Let's all take astep back from what we have previously understood, and let's examine what we mean by "conservative."
Let's make sure that when you say conservative, it means the same things as it does when Shag or I do.

The same goes for liberal, or progressive, or socialist, or fascist....

Because the language has been bastardized this past century so that the words really have no set meaning. I know I have, and I think Shag has also, been attempting to address this language problem repeatedly here. The dictionary definitions don't apply because the political applications have deliberately been changed over the past century.

As you go deeper into the history and philosophy of this stuff, past the surface, past the contemporary political debate, you find out that we're all being manipulated, and much of what we took for granted or presumed was true actually isn't as it seems.

So, when you use the term conservative-
does that mean the same thing as I do?
Do you use that term to mean a classical liberal or someone who wants to use the power of the state to impose their own moral values on the population?

I haven't been trying to morph or distort the meanings of any of these political ideologies. When I say facism, I mean facism, when I say conservatism, I mean conservatism, when I say liberalism, I mean liberalism, and when I say socialism, I mean socialism. I do not use them as attack words, and I do not use them to smear the positions of those with opposing views.

As for whether I mean the same as you..... idk, probably, assuming you lean towards the more objective contemporary definitions, then I would say we are on the same page. As far as whether I use them in the same way as shag.... probably not, but then again, I have the feeling he has no idea what he is copy-pasting a lot of the time. The problem with the bastardization of these words is the fact that everyone wants to pick sides then associate everything bad with the other side, instead of accepting the fact that at any extreme of an ideology, there is bad.

Then it just turns into one of those arguments like shag's quote above, where someone makes a hasty generalization, ad hominem, repetitive propaganda, some type of bandwagon argument, or they just find a straw man to attack.

I haven't been trying to morph or distort the meanings of any of these political ideologies.
I didn't say that you did, nor did I imply that.
I said that others, those in academia and the political class, have done so.
Frankly, I think you're politically naive and not "sophisticated" (ie. twisted, dishonest, politically connected) to be involved in such a thing.

As for whether I mean the same as you..... idk, probably, assuming you lean towards the more objective contemporary definitions, then I would say we are on the same page.
Before we go any farther, before we make any more presumptions, why don't we just touch base on these issues.

There really aren't any "objective contemporary definitions." And that's one of the obstacles to any honest or clear discussion right now. All of the contemporary definitions have been distorted and manipulated.

As far as whether I use them in the same way as shag.... probably not, but then again, I have the feeling he has no idea what he is copy-pasting a lot of the time.
That's an absurd to charge to make and it reflects poorly upon you. While you may differ with Shag's conclusion, it makes you look foolishly to claim that he's ignorant.

The problem with the bastardization of these words is the fact that everyone wants to pick sides then associate everything bad with the other side, instead of accepting the fact that at any extreme of an ideology, there is bad.
The problem with the "bastardization" of the words is that the definitions have been changed so that they have no understood meaning. Why is a classic liberal now a conservative? Why is a statist progressive now a liberal? Why is a Fascist associated with conservatism, when conservatism has nothing in common with it and the Fascists were socialist?

Then it just turns into one of those arguments like shag's quote above, where someone makes a hasty generalization, ad hominem, repetitive propaganda, some type of bandwagon argument, or they just find a straw man to attack.
Again, your intention to attack Shag reflect poorly upon you. It demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part, not his.
Shag, myself included, aren't interested in battling straw men. Neither of us are inclined or limited to "bandwagon arguments."

The ultimate goal is to engage in a dialog that honestly challenges our ideas and understanding of things in the world. It's only through that kind of honest debate that you develop a clear understanding of not only what you believe to be true, but WHY.

In the meantime, I want to focus on the language and meanings.
I get the impression that you are intensely personalizing your defense of things because of how you identify yourself based upon your understanding of the contemporary labels. I would bet that once the language barrier is removed, you, Shag, and myself would agree with about 80-90% of things related to federal government.

Let me ask this question again.
When you use the term "conservative," which description is more accurate- a "classical liberal" or "someone who wants to use the power of the federal government to enforce morality upon you?" Does a conservative want smaller government or a big government that regulates your behavior?

I didn't say that you did, nor did I imply that.

I didn't accuse you of such either. I made a statement to avoid being lumped in.

Though, I should say for the record, viewing me as naive is silly..... I am just more of a keep things basic kind of guy. I tend to avoid the arguments of academia and the elite because it is generally self-serving rhetoric. The fact that I do so, does not mean I lack understanding. The fact that I don't constantly repost other peoples opinions, blogs, or writings does not mean I have not read them. It just means that I was trying to show you the courtesy of giving you my own thoughts, opinions, and observations, instead of behaving like an elitist snob. This is why I tend to keep my language and writing to a level that most people would understand. (though I make this statement while ignoring the fact that most highschool graduates today lack a highschool education) Anyways, I digress. My attempts are to write and communicate more as a common man, than attempting to appear as a scholar. I would think you of all people would appreciate that, given the fact that I generally observe you communicating on this forum in the same fashion, and I did not want to assume that you were only doing so because you lack the ability to communicate or think above that level.

That's an absurd to charge to make and it reflects poorly upon you. While you may differ with Shag's conclusion, it makes you look foolishly to claim that he's ignorant.

I formed this opinion having consistently observed him posting slanted opinion blogs and asking that they are accepted as objective facts, among other behaviors. His earlier response in this thread that I dismissed out of hand is in fact a perfect example though of him making a hasty response without fully understanding what he was talking about, then again, you made similar assumptions, then when he posted something that agreed with what you said, you accepted it for fact. Whether you believe it makes me look foolish is irrelevant. You tend to side with shag because he shares your opinions and views of the world. That is not an intellectual relationship, that is a relationship formed out of a bias and feelings.

I will not say that he is unintelligent, or that he does not have some grasp of political concepts. The charge I am making is that he is naive in his approach, and lacks any semblance of objectivity due to interference by his personal feelings, and the fact that he is only willing to give any credence or consideration to opinions or material that do not run contrary to his own. Therefore, he accepts many things for face value, without fully understanding the actual value or meaning of what he is posting.

As for your response to the straw man or bandwagon arguments - well, that is certainly an interesting opinion you have of yourselves.... Lemme give you a hint, Shag's avatar is a pretty good example of a bandwagon statement. The Nazi or facist references I see thrown around constantly, another good one. I hate when people apply a double standard, but I hate it even more when they don't even realize that they have a double standard.

Let me ask this question again.
When you use the term "conservative," which description is more accurate- a "classical liberal" or "someone who wants to use the power of the federal government to enforce morality upon you?" Does a conservative want smaller government or a big government that regulates your behavior?

Your other assumptions aside... Neither one of those descriptions is accurate.

Generally speaking, the conservative mentality fits neither of those descriptions fully. Modern conservatives are generally for small government. (when it is convenient)

Now, that being said, here is where the confusion comes in:

Conservatives are against more "liberal" behaviors, such as gay marriage for instance. Now, while they don't generally view it as government control to not legalize gay marriage, it is a form of government control IMO. It is a more underhanded way of enforcing moral or behavioral control, while claiming the government is not involved. Their behavior becomes more contradictory when they argue for some of their more "libertarian" ideals, in their belief that government does not have the right to regulate behavior. Although you try and interconnect the two, conservatives and big business follow different ideals. Conservatives, generally are for Libertarian style policies when it comes to business, and this includes a lassaiz-faire business environment, however business generally wants a very stable, very predictable environment with as little competition as possible, and adopts a more corporatist view of economics and politics. Granted, this is a very generalized description, and I don't really feel like posting a novel, or ripping off someones blog or wikipedia like some other people would do.... I am just trying to give you a ball-park of how I view conservative mindset, fairly in-line with the modern republican mindset. Granted you can be a liberal republican as well, but yeah, I think you are getting what I mean when you say that.

Of course, generally speaking, contemporary liberals have the same mindset that they should "have their cake and eat it too" as conservatives, but I really don't feel like arguing about what a liberal is, since the past few threads suggest that the terms, Nazi, Facist, socialist, or communist, will be hastily applied and that will start a whole big mess of arguing.

Though, I will offer you this as well. In most cases, I would consider myself conservative..... Immigration is a prime example, but I certainly have my liberal tendencies as well, which tend to show more on this board since the board is so heavily biased towards the conservative republican end of the spectrum.


One other minor note. Facists are not equivalent to socialists. One can be a facist and a socialist at the same time, however, it is generally a straw man tactic to associate facism with socialism as if the two could not exist mutually exclusive of eachother. Yes, Nazis were Facists. Yes they had many socialists practices. But, they were not really socialists. To call Nazis socialists (yes I am aware they were the national socialist party, but there is more to it than just a name) would be the equivalent of calling Canada a socialist country.

Now I will wait for you or shag to rip apart my post and attack it sentence by sentence as usual, with the normal straw man tactics, misrepresentations, and arguments with little more merit than immense verbosity.

I say that because it is true

Yet you can't show why or how it is true and can only cast aspersions on those who either don't understand what you are saying or don't agree with what you are saying.

As to what you are wrong about.... Well, the insistence that this is an example of giving the state too much power for starters.

Where did I state that?

I did point out that, even under the most orthodox free market perspective, contract enforcement is a proper roll for the government:...[Adam]Smith said that the government had a vital roll to play in protecting against fraud, including contract enforcement.
How those contracts are enforced are another matter entirely.

Is there something I am overlooking here?

We can dig up the laws, but I think you will find that Minnesota as a state has LESS power and control over these types of matters.

Yet, (apparently) unlike many states, this one is leveraging police to impose certain laws. Considering that fact, your claim seems counter intuitive.

This is just an example of people and businesses manipulating a system that has LESS control than in many other places.

If the government had "LESS control", as you say, then it would also have less influence/power and couldn't be manipulated to this degree.

Yet you can't show why or how it is true and can only cast aspersions on those who either don't understand what you are saying or don't agree with what you are saying.

Why is it my responsibility to define something that you are too lazy to read yourself? I am not one of your professors.

Where did I state that?

I did point out that, even under the most orthodox free market perspective, contract enforcement is a proper roll for the government:
How those contracts are enforced are another matter entirely.

Is there something I am overlooking here?

post 19.

Yet, (apparently) unlike many states, this one is leveraging police to impose certain laws. Considering that fact, your claim seems counter intuitive.

Ok, I'll bite. Why don't you tell me what laws?

If the government had "LESS control", as you say, then it would also have less influence/power and couldn't be manipulated to this degree.

Once again, they have less control and regulation over business and creditor practices. This enables creditors to take advantage of minor functions of courts, such as bench warrants. If you can name 1, ONE law in effect in minnesota that is giving the government more power under these circumstances, I will take it back.

Why is it my responsibility to define something that you are too lazy to read yourself? I am not one of your professors.
I've read this entire thread. It appears that you are the one too lazy to support your claims that Shag is wrong. If you are going to make a claim, you have a responsibility to explain why you think you are right - otherwise you are just being dismissive and demonstrating gross laziness and/or sophistry.

Why is it my responsibility to define something that you are too lazy to read yourself? I am not one of your professors.

If you are going to make a claim in any honest political discussion it is rude to not back it up with reason and/or facts (when appropriate). To not do that suggests both a lack of good faith in the discussion as well a lack of any reasonable foundation for your claim. That is why it is necessary to support a claim with reason and/or facts (when appropriate).

post 19.

Again, you will have to be more specific. Where did I say that, "this is an example of giving the state too much power"?

I said that contract enforcement was a legitimate function of the government. However, this specific example is one of legitimate government power in a legitimate government function being abused. That has more to do with how the state has grown, the incentive structures involved and the varying interests.

Ok, I'll bite. Why don't you tell me what laws?

:confused:

why is that necessary? Show the relevance.

I never said anything about bad legislation. I was focused more generally; on an corrupt and likely bloated government. That may have been precipitated by bad legislative direction in any number of laws but that is beside the point. Your demand for specific law(s) changes the focus of the debate to "bad" legislation (unintentionally, I assume) which is not what I was talking about.

Once again, they have less control and regulation over business and creditor practices. This enables creditors to take advantage of minor functions of courts, such as bench warrants.

Repeating a seemingly absurd notion doesn't make it any less absurd to those who view it as such. Your statement still seems counter intuitive.

The bigger a government (or government organization) gets, the more it develops it's own set of interests that don't necessarily line up with the will of the people. Incentive structures change due to those differing interests and deception/corruption necessarily get interjected into the mix. The closer ties the government has to businesses through excessive regulation often lead to similar interests between the two and results in corporatism. Less "control" or regulation, leads to less corporatism, less government corruption and less abuse of power.

This case seems to be a prime example of that. No single specific law can confirm or disprove that; demanding one is absurd and only distracts from the point. Your the one who made the claim, your the one who needs to justify it. Simply repeating the claim doesn't make it seem any more reasonable.

How does a lack of government "control" lead to abuses of government power by the private sector? If the government isn't tied to business through regulation, they are not as likely to have similar interests that conflict with the interests of the people generally.

Ok, I'll bite. Why don't you tell me what laws?Too lazy to read yourself? Shag is not one of your professors. ;)

Though, I should say for the record, viewing me as
naive is silly.....
I did say "(ie. twisted, dishonest, politically connected)"

Most people, even those who follow politics and current events, don't understand how it's being used. The political culture is vastly outside the experience of anyone in real life.

People, literally, spend their entire careers developing ways to better trick and manipulate the public. To do things against the will of the people "for their own good." The ends justify the means.

Most normal people tend to project their own awareness and motivations on politicians when trying to understand them and why they make the decisions they do. This is a mistake. It's a different, foreign culture.

I am just more of a keep things basic kind of guy. I tend to avoid the arguments of academia and the elite because it is generally self-serving rhetoric.
I totally agree with you, but I don't think the popularly accepted "basic" is truthful or even universally agreed upon or understood. And I think that all of us will enjoy the conversation is we're all agree upon the language and understand the other person.

And if we're using short hand that mean different things, we end up spending countless pages arguing definitions.

Again, I'm not insulting you in this thread.
And I wouldn't be investing the energy to clarify things if thought it wasn't worth the time.

The charge I am making is that he is naive in his approach, and lacks any semblance of objectivity due to interference by his personal feelings, and the fact that he is only willing to give any credence or consideration to opinions or material that do not run contrary to his own. Therefore, he accepts many things for face value, without fully understanding the actual value or meaning of what he is posting.
You will find that this charge is false.
Shag is exceptionally well read and have a very deep understanding of what he speaks about. When someone (who does know what they are talking about) choses to Cut/Paste, it's usually done because-

1. There's little point in putting a well written article in your own words when it's already been crafted. That's a waste of time.
2. And especially in Shag's case, you've become tired of writing extremely long, detailed, and thoughtful posts only to have the entire post disregarded or completely misrepresented. We have a member here who does not discuss things in good faith and engages in the very kind of political manipulation I do not attribute to you.

If you really think that Shag is a cut/paste kind of person lacking a deep understanding, go look at his past posts. His writing and understanding of political philosophy alone will make your head spin.

Shag's avatar is a pretty good example of a bandwagon statement. The Nazi or facist references I see thrown around constantly, another good one. I hate when people apply a double standard, but I hate it even more when they don't even realize that they have a double standard.
No, Shag's avatar is a political statement, one that is supported by political fact. That's not bandwagon. And it's certainly not bandwagon when the person who makes the statement can explain to you what it means at a scholarly level.

Before you dismiss the "Nazi or fascist" references, why don't you approach the discussion with an open mind, because there are stark and undeniable similarities there.

But that's difficult to discuss if you're using the basic, commonly used definitions in use today.

Generally speaking, the conservative mentality fits neither of those descriptions fully.
And this is why we need to agree upon some language, or at least understand where the other person is coming from.



One other minor note. Facists are not equivalent to socialists. One can be a facist and a socialist at the same time, however, it is generally a straw man tactic to associate facism with socialism as if the two could not exist mutually exclusive of eachother. Yes, Nazis were Facists. Yes they had many socialists practices. But, they were not really socialists. To call Nazis socialists (yes I am aware they were the national socialist party, but there is more to it than just a name) would be the equivalent of calling Canada a socialist country.
Unfortunately, you're incorrect.
Nazis WERE German socialist.
Fascists WERE Italian socialists.

Again, the problem with definitions is that these philosophies all take a slightly different shape or form when they conform to a countries philosophy and culture.

Personally, all of the philosophies (Italian Fascism, German socialism, Soviet communism, American Progressivism) are all statist,liberty stealing ideologies, that centralize power and are taking us in the direction of totalitarianism.

Now I will wait for you or shag to rip apart my post and attack it sentence by sentence as usual, with the normal straw man tactics, misrepresentations, and arguments with little more merit than immense verbosity.
You're very defensive and confrontational. It's totally unnecessary.
I still think we're going to agree on far more than we disagree on if we have honest communication and challenge.

Once again, they have less control and regulation over business and creditor practices. This enables creditors to take advantage of minor functions of courts, such as bench warrants. If you can name 1, ONE law in effect in minnesota that is giving the government more power under these circumstances, I will take it back.

This seems like circular reasoning-
you want to see laws in effect that make it illegal to use the power of the government? That seems like a request to prove a negative. If this is an issue, why isn't such recourse possible in the rest of the country? Either way, I'm not interested enough to read scores of legal documents from Minnesota to understand the history and defense of the action. For the sake of an internet thread, we should keep this discussion more hypothetical and focused on the principle.

When the centralized power is too strong, it can be manipulated like this. If the court did not have the power or authorization to engage in this behavior, it couldn't be manipulated by business men and lawyers to harass, intimidate, and terrorize citizens.

When the central Government becomes too powerful, people will work to find ways to harness, corrupt, and abuse that power for their own personal gain.

Shag, as to your post, I'll respond tonight when I have more time.

Cal, I'd get to more of yours as well, but I just thought I would view it quickly over my lunch hour.

This seems like circular reasoning-
you want to see laws in effect that make it illegal to use the power of the government? That seems like a request to prove a negative. If this is an issue, why isn't such recourse possible in the rest of the country? Either way, I'm not interested enough to read scores of legal documents from Minnesota to understand the history and defense of the action. For the sake of an internet thread, we should keep this discussion more hypothetical and focused on the principle.

When the centralized power is too strong, it can be manipulated like this. If the court did not have the power or authorization to engage in this behavior, it couldn't be manipulated by business men and lawyers to harass, intimidate, and terrorize citizens.

When the central Government becomes too powerful, people will work to find ways to harness, corrupt, and abuse that power for their own personal gain.

This is not an attempt to prove a negative. What I am stating is that there are no laws governing the behavior of businesses in this matter. The collection agencies are using the normal functions of government. I'd love to hear your justification for the belief that this is an example of bloated government systems.

Should law enforcement not have the power to enforce bench warrants? Should the courts not have the power to compel a person to appear? This is all that is going on in Minnesota. Between that, and lax consumer protection standards, there is nothing else. There is no additional powers available to the government of minnesota than there are ANYWHERE else.

I've read this entire thread. It appears that you are the one too lazy to support your claims that Shag is wrong. If you are going to make a claim, you have a responsibility to explain why you think you are right - otherwise you are just being dismissive and demonstrating gross laziness and/or sophistry.

I defined it using common terms. If he does not understand that definition, then there is no use explaining it to him. Otherwise, I cannot see what he is asking for. I said that Corporatism is an ordered form of social collectivism. How is this being dismissive? My only claims that he has been wrong are directed toward the insistence that this is an example of overbearing government. The only thing that this issue is an example of is lax consumer protection standards, and lax regulation over these types of civil matters. There is an insistence in this thread that there is a bloated government power that is causing these results, where the truth is it is nothing more than greedy business practices with little to no oversight, that are able to manipulate the same system that is in effect in any other state because they are not bound by the rules that are in effect in other states. I am not speaking of a government not bound by rules, I am speaking of individuals, collection agents, and businesses.

I defined it using common terms. If he does not understand that definition, then there is no use explaining it to him. Otherwise, I cannot see what he is asking for. I said that Corporatism is an ordered form of social collectivism. How is this being dismissive? My only claims that he has been wrong are directed toward the insistence that this is an example of overbearing government. With all due respect, you didn't define squat. Re-reading this thread, all I've seen you do is assert and re-assert that corporatism is an ordered form of social collectivism. When Shag asked you to explain why you said this, you dismissed him and insulted him using words like 'stupid' and 'asinine,' and then attempted to poison the well by sneeringly predicting that Shag would come back with a blog post.

Some of your more concise posts have included "no" and then a followup of "that covered it" which denotes a fundamental laziness and condescension rather than a respectful, honest, good faith interest in discussion.

It appears that you've waltzed into this forum and made a snap judgment about Shagdrum after only being here a couple of weeks. That's unfortunate, premature, and ignorant, as he's probably the finest debater in here and has a strong track record. The only reason you've demonstrated to attack Shag as much as you have is that you disagree with him. That's pretty lame.

You've also been very defensive and routinely poison the well, trying to preempt a legitimate response. Even Calabrio has had to gently chide you about your demeanor, which comes across as very hostile.

If you keep bulling in this china shop you're only going to marginalize yourself and end up with no credibility whatsoever.

Should law enforcement not have the power to enforce bench warrants? Should the courts not have the power to compel a person to appear? This is all that is going on in Minnesota. Between that, and lax consumer protection standards, there is nothing else. There is no additional powers available to the government of minnesota than there are ANYWHERE else.

No one is saying that government shouldn't have those powers. In fact, I thought I made it clear that those powers were unquestionably legitimate. Still, everyone in this thread agrees that this example is a clear abuse of power toward the clear benefit of creditors that flies in the face of the will of the people. So, if those powers are legitimate (and they unquestionably are), how did this happen?

To me (and many others here) it seems very simplistic to simply say "we need another law". That is not a self-evident truth. It is also uncertain how (or even if) legislation can be crafted that can prevent this sort of abuse (at least without heavy trade-offs).

It needs to be understood why this happened in the first place; is it because of too much regulation, not enough? Is specific legislation even a major factor?

What was the nature of the incentives for both the government and the business in this instance? With business, I think their incentive in this is rather clear; enforcing a contract so they can get their money back. But why would the government uncharacteristically act in such a heavy handed fashion on this?

Is this even an institutional problem or simply the case of a few corrupt individuals in the private sector and/or in governmental positions of power?

Was it a lack of checks that lead to this? If so, in what area(s)? Where are checks needed to prevent this abuse of power in the future? On the businesses in question? On government officials? Both? Neither? Are checks to prevent this type of abuse even possible (realistically)? What are the trade-offs of different "solutions" to this problem?

No one is saying that government shouldn't have those powers. In fact, I thought I made it clear that those powers were unquestionably legitimate. Still, everyone in this thread agrees that this example is a clear abuse of power toward the clear benefit of creditors that flies in the face of the will of the people. So, if those powers are legitimate (and they unquestionably are), how did this happen?

To me (and many others here) it seems very simplistic to simply say "we need another law". That is not a self-evident truth. It is also uncertain how (or even if) legislation can be crafted that can prevent this sort of abuse (at least without heavy trade-offs).

It needs to be understood why this happened in the first place; is it because of too much regulation, not enough? Is specific legislation even a major factor?

What was the nature of the incentives for both the government and the business in this instance? With business, I think their incentive in this is rather clear; enforcing a contract so they can get their money back. But why would the government uncharacteristically act in such a heavy handed fashion on this?

Is this even an institutional problem or simply the case of a few corrupt individuals in the private sector and/or in governmental positions of power?

Was it a lack of checks that lead to this? If so, in what area(s)? Where are checks needed to prevent this abuse of power in the future? On the businesses in question? On government officials? Both? Neither? Are checks to prevent this type of abuse even possible (realistically)? What are the trade-offs of different "solutions" to this problem?

So, then WHY do you feel that this is an example of TOO much government power? What is it that leads you to this conclusion? As for why it is happening, I have tried to tell you several times in this thread.... There is just less regulation in Minnesota. Filing these types of things in the courts are easier. There is less red tape. There is a very lax consumer protection system and consumer protection laws in the state.


Government takes away freedom for their power, then certain businesses can leverage that power through the government for their own ends.

Am I mistaken in interpreting you as saying that this is an example of an overbearing government with too much power?



Also, since I am apparently not understanding what you are getting at here. What precisely do you want me to explain about my statement that Corporatism is an ordered form of social collectivism. You are familiar with the government under Mussolini correct? Corporatism is probably closer to defining the government of Nazi Germany than socialism even. Corporatism in its most basic form is a system of political and social order, that is much like a large business. There is a top, and from there down it branches off into subgroups. Everyone is expected to have their place and there is an absolute authority to those above. Branches and individuals work individually and are semi-autonomous, but all are expected to work for the benefit of the collective. Everything revolves around the power and influence of the collective.

Did you ever hear Ronald Reagan's statements about the New Deal Program? Hoover too wrote in his memoirs that the New Deal program represented a move by the US to a corporatist state, and called the movement, "pure facism."

Corporatism applied in a different direction is just as dangerous as FDR pointed out: "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

And no, liberalism is not socialism, and corporatism is not directly related to liberalism. Liberalism is the cause of pursuit of individual liberties, much like libertarians, however their approach to garnering liberties is very different of course.

So, then WHY do you feel that this is an example of TOO much government power?

I would not say this is an example of too much government power. I would say this is an example of an abuse of power, but the power the government had was legitimate, even if it was poorly applied in this situation.

I know it seems like semantics, but it is a very important distinction when looking for the cause(s) for this incident. If it was too much government power, then you would look toward bad legislation based on foolish and/or corrupt interests. If it is a legitimate government function, then you focus more on how the process was abused (which may still lead back to bad legislation, but maybe not).

On this incident, I would still want more information before drawing too many firm conclusions.

As for why it is happening, I have tried to tell you several times in this thread.... There is just less regulation in Minnesota. Filing these types of things in the courts are easier. There is less red tape. There is a very lax consumer protection system and consumer protection laws in the state.

I don't really see how more red tape would have prevented this. Yes, it would add cost for the creditor, so they would wait longer before pursuing legal action. But once they decide to pull the trigger on that option, how would the red tape have prevented this?

Also, not so sure how the consumer protection laws would play in this. The main issue here was a protection of business interests in a legal contract for which they were left holding the bucket and entitled to remedy; through legal means if necessary.

Am I mistaken in interpreting you as saying that this is an example of an overbearing government with too much power?

I am saying that it is very possibly an example of a government (or a governmental institution) that has grow to the point that it's own interests have become detached from it's original mission (mission creep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep)) and detached from the best interests of the society it serves. In an environment like that, which often comes about due to too much regulation, that separate interest leads to corporatism when the interest lines up more closely with that of a business or industry.

Also, since I am apparently not understanding what you are getting at here. What precisely do you want me to explain about my statement that Corporatism is an ordered form of social collectivism.

Sorry, I was misreading "collectivism" as "conservatism". My mistake.

Corporatism is a form of collectivism. On that we seem to agree. I think the descriptor of "social" threw me off; I kept reading "social conservatism".
Again, my mistake.

I wouldn't draw a distinction between corporatism and socialism as you do. They are distinct ideas from different areas of thought that overlap greatly. Socialism is an ideology before it has any economic implications. The more orthodox forms of that ideology go with a "Command and control" style economy, while newer forms tend to employ a corporatism approach to varying degrees. Both economic approaches are a form of collectivism and collectivism is necessary for social justice which socialism of any stripe seeks to maximize; means (collectivism) and goals (maximizing social justice).

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

This FDR quote ties back into the different understandings of certain concepts by different social viewpoints; something myself and others have alluded to numerous times on this forum. Concepts like justice, liberty/rights, freedom, power, etc. all have different understandings under the different viewpoints. Hence, the language can get very confusing and different sides typically end up yelling past each other, in large part because these differences are overlooked. To understand a point of view, you have to first know it's understanding of these concepts; what the functional definition of the concept is for the viewpoint(s) in question.

I wouldn't draw a distinction between corporatism and socialism as you do. They are distinct ideas from different areas of thought that overlap greatly. Socialism is an ideology before it has any economic implications. The more orthodox forms of that ideology go with a "Command and control" style economy, while newer forms tend to employ a corporatism approach to varying degrees. Both economic approaches are a form of collectivism and collectivism is necessary for social justice which socialism of any stripe seeks to maximize; means (collectivism) and goals (maximizing social justice).

I draw distinction since the only socialism you see in real world practice is generally not socialism or socialism light. For socialism to actually be socialism, it cannot exist under totalitarian rule or fascist government. Those types of systems, such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany are far more akin to corporatism than socialism. Socialism is strongly rooted in democracy and could only exist properly in a democratic republic. When you have a large gap in income between the top earners and bottom earners, it goes against the fundamental ideals of socialism. I know it sounds like semantics, but I really hate the blending of terms, even if it is for the sake of convenience, because that leads to far too much rhetoric and confusion. It is like calling China a communist country. I mean, they say they are communist, because it is a friendly sounding word if you know what communism really is, but you know they really aren't, because communism could only really exist in a pure democratic Utopian society.

I don't really see how more red tape would have prevented this. Yes, it would add cost for the creditor, so they would wait longer before pursuing legal action. But once they decide to pull the trigger on that option, how would the red tape have prevented this?

Also, not so sure how the consumer protection laws would play in this. The main issue here was a protection of business interests in a legal contract for which they were left holding the bucket and entitled to remedy; through legal means if necessary.

On these issues:

That is the primary reason they so willingly follow through on litigation in this area. Low cost, whether it is low cost for filing, and low cost in man hours, creditors love it. That is what makes their margins. Most other places, that is the entire reason they do not take small private debts to litigation. It costs them more than the debt is worth.

As to consumer protection, most states have laws requiring waiting periods between filings, venue is more strict, and a few other things. I can't think of them all right now. They are really minor issues. As far as providing greater protection to business interests in a legal contract... I can't think of anything in particular that provides greater protection to creditors, aside from the fact that most of the states in this area do not have a statute of limitations on debt. You know how in many states, after so many years, they can no longer collect? Yeah, not the case here.

I draw distinction since the only socialism you see in real world practice is generally not socialism or socialism light. For socialism to actually be socialism, it cannot exist under totalitarian rule or fascist government. Those types of systems, such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany are far more akin to corporatism than socialism. Socialism is strongly rooted in democracy and could only exist properly in a democratic republic. When you have a large gap in income between the top earners and bottom earners, it goes against the fundamental ideals of socialism. I know it sounds like semantics, but I really hate the blending of terms, even if it is for the sake of convenience, because that leads to far too much rhetoric and confusion. It is like calling China a communist country. I mean, they say they are communist, because it is a friendly sounding word if you know what communism really is, but you know they really aren't, because communism could only really exist in a pure democratic Utopian society.
Shag just doesn't seem to get the whole idea that socialism is based on a classless society with the workers/public owning the means of production - hardly the case in Mussolini's or Hitler's case. Once again - I am with you FIND - there are reasons you have different terms-Fascism and Nazism are not Socialism. They are made up of tiered societies. With Fascism and Nazism, not only do you not have democracy - the governmental arm necessary for socialism, but you don't have the economic factor either.

Sorry I know I hijacked - but they need to start to get this and quit spreading lies about how they are the same - they aren't.

However, about this thread - what happened to debtor's prisons? Looking that up might lead to some insight on why locking up debtors doesn't work - on a practical note...

I draw distinction since the only socialism you see in real world practice is generally not socialism or socialism light

That is a false distinction because:
It too narrowly defines socialism
It paint with too broad a brush to be useful
It is rooted in equivocation, and
It is ultimately an arbitrary standard that ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology in order to justify dismissing a notion that is "unfavorable"

It too narrowly defines socialism because it essentially says that any form of socialism that is not orthodox Marxism, it is not socialism. Therefore, no form of socialism can ever be enacted in the real world because there have always have to be real world concessions in the enacting of any ideology in creating or changing a form of government; including this country.

That standard paints with such a broad brush that it would exclude Leninism, Maoism, Fabian Socialism or any other form of socialism which is unquestionably socialism. As a standard by which to judge weather or not something is or is not socialism, it is entirely useless. It that same standard is applied to classical liberalism, then any country founded on that ideology would not be founded on that ideology; including this one. By redefining it so narrowly, this "standard" of judgment is effectively equivocating by narrowing the definition of socialism to a point that is inappropriate and (with good reason) is not accepted by most scholars or most of society.

This standard is rooted in equivocation because it ignores the distinction between socialism (defined as orthodox Marxism) and socialism (defined as a broader ideological school of thought). In fact, as will be shown when I get to it, one of the justification echoed in this post shifts to the broader definition of socialism. This is an almost textbook example of equivocation because it mislead through a term with different meanings by simply glossing over which definition is used at what time. There is also a straw man element and a red herring element here because the notion that is being rejected is not that Nazism and Facism are socialism in the narrow, orthodox Marxist, sense, but that they are socialism in the broader, ideological school of thought sense.

The standard is completely arbitrary. We all know who injected this standard into the debate (in another thread (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=66045)), in fact she has a post just above this one. This is a typical trick she employs; injecting a false premise (in this case an absurd, arbitrary and self serving standard) to delegitimize any ideas that she disagrees with. That type of habitual dishonestly and lack of good faith is why she has absolutely no credibility on this forum. In fact, attempting to redefine socialism narrowly as, basically, orthodox Marxism is something she attempts to do almost every time this issue is brought up; even after the deceptive and disingenuous nature of her argument is pointed out.

The standard is a false one, in addition to the reasons explained above, because it intentionally ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology. This conveniently avoids using those peculiarities as a standard by which to judge. Socialism (as an ideological school of thought) is defined by it's unique conception of justice ("social" justice), it's overriding focus on maximizing justice (as opposed to other values, like individual liberty) and the collectivism it has to employ to achieve that goal.

Focusing on the peculiarities that set apart an ideology is what is what is typically focused on in judging an ideology and is ultimately the only reasonable standard in judging something like this. In fact, political philosophers of any stripe would laugh at the absurd notion that Foxy is injecting and (as I have shown) with good reason.

The false standard Foxy is injecting would be like saying a Mustang GT is not Mustang, or saying that a black man and a white man are not both men. Her standard rejects the notion that two things can be essentially the same thing even if there are superficial differences.

I know that the immediate challenge to that will be that the differences between orthodox Marxism and Leninism (for example) are, realistically, more then superficial, but when looked at from an ideological/theoretical point of view, they, essentially, are superficial; the core of the ideology is the same. Lenin attempted to impose orthodox Marxism is, arguably the purist form that has ever been attempted. It was only when that pure form of the ideology was shown not to comport with reality that he started modifying some things to better fit the circumstances on the ground. But that doesn't mean what was being applied wasn't still socialism.

Foxy's self-serving standard rejects the notion of a socialist school of thought (under which Leninism, Maoism, etc. would all be). There is only orthodox Marxism. Her standard is not, in any way, objectively reasonable; it is simply a means to disregard an idea she doesn't want to believe.

For socialism to actually be socialism, it cannot exist under totalitarian rule or fascist government.

This statement is, again an arbitrary and absurd standard to serve the same function the previous standard from which it is derived. Socialism always ends in tyranny because of the inherent flaws in socialism theory, not because it changes into something else.

Those types of systems, such as Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany are far more akin to corporatism than socialism.

Again, that distinction is inappropriate. Socialism is an ideology. Collectivism is not an ideology but simply a means to achieve the goals of an ideology. That is like saying that a 2005 Mustang GT is wholly separate from it's power plant; the modular 3-valve V8.

When you have a large gap in income between the top earners and bottom earners, it goes against the fundamental ideals of socialism.


Socialism works toward (and, hopefully achieves) a classless society, but income gaps between classes are not, in and of themselves, inconsistent with socialism.

This is the difference between socialism and communism; communism is the Utopian society that Marxism (and more orthodox forms of socialism) aims to achieve. Ignoring that distinction (which is something Foxy has done in the past) serves to distort that two ideas and selectively apply a broad definition of socialism, even though the standard at the top of this thread defines socialism in a way that is inconsistent with this definition. This is the textbook example of equivocation I refereed to earlier.

I know it sounds like semantics, but I really hate the blending of terms, even if it is for the sake of convenience, because that leads to far too much rhetoric and confusion.

Ignoring any and all overlap in terms/ideas/concepts and ignoring how those ideas fit together, their lineage and how they are distinct injects at least as much confusion into things.

Basically, if one don't have an accurate understanding of these various concepts, how they interact, the thought process behind them (including their lineage) then there is confusion and an opening for tricksters and propagandists to play off of the ignorance of others.

This is why attempts are made to "define down", delegitimize and destabilize concepts; it injects a lot of subjectivity that an opportunistic propagandist can exploit. Objective truth is the biggest threat to a liar.

There are people that work tirelessly to deceive and play off of other's ignorance in this fashion. Foxy is one of them (even though she has a rather weak grasp of the actual ideas herself).

That is a false distinction because:
It too narrowly redefines socialism (equivocation)
It paint with too broad a brush to be useful, and
It is ultimately an arbitrary standard that ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology in order to justify dismissing a notion that is "unfavorable"

It too narrowly defines socialism because it essentially says that any form of socialism that is not orthodox Marxism, it is not socialism. Therefore, no form of socialism can ever be enacted in the real world because there have always have to be real world concessions in the enacting of any ideology in creating or changing a form of government; including this country.

That standard paints with such a broad brush that it would exclude Leninism, Maoism, Fabian Socialism or any other form of socialism which is unquestionably socialism. As a standard by which to judge weather or not something is or is not socialism, it is entirely useless. It that same standard is applied to classical liberalism, then any country founded on that ideology would not be founded on that ideology; including this one.

The standard is completely arbitrary. We all know who injected this standard into the debate (in another thread (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=66045)), in fact she has a post just above this one. This is a typical trick she employs; injecting a false premise (in this case an absurd, arbitrary and self serving standard) to delegitimize any ideas that she disagrees with. That type of habitual dishonestly and lack of good faith is why she has absolutely no credibility on this forum.

The standard is a false one, in addition to the reasons explained above, because it intentionally ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology. This conveniently avoids using those peculiarities as a standard by which to judge. Socialism is defined by it's unique conception of justice ("social" justice), it's overriding focus on maximizing justice (as opposed to other values, like individual liberty) and the collectivism it has to employ to achieve that goal.

Focusing on the peculiarities that set apart an ideology is what is what is typically focused on in judging an ideology and is ultimately the only reasonable standard in judging something like this. In fact, political philosophers of any stripe would laugh at the absurd notion that Foxy is injecting and (as I have shown) with good reason.

The false standard Foxy is injecting would be like saying a Mustang GT is not Mustang, or saying that a black man and a white man are not both men. Her standard rejects the notion that two things can be essentially the same thing even if there are superficial differences.

I know that the immediate challenge to that will be that the differences between orthodox Marxism and Leninism (for example) are, realistically, more then superficial, but from an ideological/theoretical point of view, they, essentially, are superficial. Lenin attempted to impose orthodox Marxism is, arguably the purist form that has ever been attempted. It was only when that pure form of the ideology was shown not to comport with reality that he started modifying some things to better fit the circumstances on the ground. But that doesn't mean what was being applied wasn't still socialism.

Foxy's self-serving standard rejects the notion of a socialist school of thought (under which Leninism, Maoism, etc. would all be). There is only orthodox Marxism. Her standard is not, in any way, objectively reasonable; it is simply a means to disregard an idea she doesn't want to believe.



This statement is, again an arbitrary and absurd standard to serve the same function the previous standard from which it is derived. Socialism always ends in tyranny because of the inherent flaws in socialism theory, not because it changes into something else.



Again, that distinction is inappropriate. Socialism is an ideology. Collectivism is not an ideology but simply a means to achieve the goals of an ideology. That is like saying that a 2005 Mustang GT is wholly separate from it's power plant; the modular 3-valve V8.



Socialism works toward (and, hopefully achieves) a classless society, but income gaps between classes are not, in and of themselves, inconsistent with socialism.

This is the difference between socialism and communism; communism is the Utopian society that Marxism (and more orthdox forms of socialism) aims to achieve. Ignoring that distinction (which is something Foxy has done in the past) serves to distort that two ideas and selectively apply a broad definition of socialism, even though the standard at the top of this thread defines socialism in a way that is inconsistent with this definition. This is an almost textbook example of equivocation.



Ignoring any and all overlap in terms/ideas/concepts and ignoring how those ideas fit together, their lineage and how they are distinct injects at least as much confusion into things.

Basically, if one don't have an accurate understanding of these various concepts, how they interact, the thought process behind them (including their lineage) then there is confusion and an opening for tricksters and propagandists to play off of the ignorance of others.

This is why attempts are made to "define down", delegitimize and destabilize concepts; it injects a lot of subjectivity that an opportunistic propagandist can exploit. Objective truth is the biggest threat to a liar.

There are people that work tirelessly to deceive and play off of other's ignorance in this fashion. Foxy is one of them (even though she has a rather weak grasp of the actual ideas herself).

meh, maybe I wasn't clear enough on all my points. Socialism is a system advocating social and economic equality. This is why it cannot exist in a fascist state. Yes, there is totalitarian government control, but under socialism, individualism and individual identity is respected as long as there is social equality. There is technically no separation of classes, because in a true socialist society, there are no capitalist or monetary transaction, all people are "given" an equal amount based upon their needs and all people are expected to contribute evenly based upon their ability. Granted, that goes against human nature, so that is why socialism, in and of itself, does not exist. Instead you only have the implementation of some socialist ideas or people twist the principles to create something else that they call socialism. That and it would be entirely impossible to have a pure socialist state, without them closing themselves off from the rest of the world, since the individuals would not be able to interact financially, and a purely democratic state like communism would require would have the same problem as the socialist, plus the inherent problems that a pure democracy would have once it reaches any reasonable size or amount of diversity.

Fascism has the view that citizenry should share a collective identity and individualism is repressed. There also must be a strong head of state in a fascist regime, and there is a separation of classes that are generally difficult if not impossible to move out of. Facism is opposed to liberalism, marxism, socialism and other "enlightened" views. There is NO social equality in fascism, fascists believe in ethnic purity, and they believe in union control of industry. They see liberals as Bourgeoise and marxism or socialism as systems created to serve only the proletariat. Once again, diametrically opposed, because as I said, the collective should work for the head of state under a fascist regime, not the collective as marxism and socialism say.

I'm not saying to ignore the common traits or connections between the ideologies, because then the line is harder to see when one is close to crossing it. But, one must make distinction, otherwise it is just pointless rhetoric. Also, Marxism and Socialism are really not bad things, it would just be impossible for them to exist in the real world, and they don't blend organically with other forms of government, therefore problems usually arise (insert bad stuff here) when one does try to blend them.

Socialism is a system advocating social and economic equality.

I assume you are pointing out that social justice is unique to socialism, which I would agree with.

This is why it cannot exist in a fascist state.

But both Nazism and Fascism are rooted in social justice. While Nazism may end up obscuring it's social justice aims to some degree with it's irrational, extreme, and genocidal identity politics, with Fascism it's roots are much more clear; just look at the intellectual lineage behind it's creation.

Fascism was created by Mussolini, who, as a child, was read bedtime stories from Das Kapital, was named after socialist heroes of the time and was, as an adult, a socialist advocate/writer/intellectual as well as one of the most recognizable socialists in Italian politics until he had a falling out with the party establishment over World War I when he supported a nationalist position of entry into the war while the Italian Socialist party supported the internationalist position of staying out of the war. Mussolini's justification for entry into the war was rooted in Marx's writings and doctrine. It is from this difference in national socialism vs. international socialism that Mussolini's Fascism was conceived.

Still, even when the Italian socialist attempted to ostracize Mussolini, he famously told them:Whatever happens you won't lose me. Twelve years of my life in the party ought to be sufficient guarantee of my socialist faith. Socialism is in my blood.

Fascism, more so then Nazism, was socialist to it's core. It's platform and policies were rooted in social justice (and ideas derived from social justice) and in Marxist doctrine. The biggest difference was that it rejected international socialism for a new, nationalist stripe. Mussolini also employed populist rhetoric over economic class warfare.

Yes, there is totalitarian government control, but under socialism, individualism and individual identity is respected as long as there is social equality.

Individualism conflicts with social justice (social "equality" as you say) because of the collectivism necessary to further social justice. This is why socialism does not respect the individual except in misleading rhetoric; individualism is incompatible with collectivism.

There is technically no separation of classes, because in a true socialist society, there are no capitalist or monetary transaction, all people are "given" an equal amount based upon their needs and all people are expected to contribute evenly based upon their ability.

Change "a true socialist society" to " a true communist society" and I would agree with that statement.

Socialism, in theory, works to weaken those class distinctions; but the ideology is focused on the process of weakening those distinctions; toward expanding and maximizing social justice. Socialism is not focused on being a classless society; that is where communism comes in.

Granted, that goes against human nature, so that is why socialism, in and of itself, does not exist.

Your first point hit the nail on the head; socialism, in any form FAILS because it goes against human nature. But the second point of saying that socialism does not exist makes a bit of a logical leap.

Just because a government is an imperfect implementation of an ideology does not mean it is not rooted in that ideology. By this standard, our nation was not founded as a liberal nation (in the classical sense).

Instead you only have the implementation of some socialist ideas or people twist the principles to create something else that they call socialism.

Again, you are running with that "orthodox socialist" standard. If you are going to to that then you need to confront the challenges to that standard raised in my previous post; I laid them out in bullet points and explained them in the rest of the post.

Fascism has the view that citizenry should share a collective identity and individualism is repressed.

A view derived from Marxism.

There also must be a strong head of state in a fascist regime, and there is a separation of classes that are generally difficult if not impossible to move out of.

Because Fascism suffers from the same inherent flaws of all Marxist derived ideologies; the theory doesn't fit with reality when it comes to human nature, among other things.

The understanding of Fascism you are employing seems to be derived differently then your understanding of socialism.

If we take the standard you use concerning socialism and apply it to Fascism, then what you are calling Fascism is not Fascism at all.

Fascism, as an ideology is opposed to class distinctions (just like socialism, and for the exact same reasons) as well as being opposed to elitist distinctions. The fact that, in the real world, those distinctions do exist under Fascism would mean that it is not, in fact, Fascism.

Facism is opposed to liberalism, marxism, socialism and other "enlightened" views.

Fascism and Marxism, for the same reasons, are both opposed to liberalism (in the classical sense, which is as it was understood when Marx wrote his works and when Mussolini created Fascism).

Fascism is only opposed to international socialism. It is said that both Lenin and Mussolini said, "the Socialist International is dead" upon the outbreak of World War I.

Fascism is opposed to liberalism, but the idea that it is opposed to socialism is false; likely stemming from the rhetoric of the Italian Socialists aimed at smearing and marginalizing Mussolini around the outbreak of World War I.

There is NO social equality in fascism, fascists believe in ethnic purity

Fascism does not believe in "ethnic purity" (though that agenda was eventually imposed on Italy by the Nazi). I think you are confusing Nazism with Fascism.

Also, both Fascism and Nazism were rooted in social justice. Just because they never achieved true social justice doesn't change that fact.

the collective should work for the head of state under a fascist regime, not the collective as marxism and socialism say.

Again, you are applying a double standard here in your judging of what socialism is and what Fascism is. You seem to be defining Fascism by the results of it's policies while ignoring the rationale for those policies, the rhetoric, the platform or the intellectual lineage of Fascism.

However, in defining socialism, you are dismissing the results of it's policies, as well as the rationale behind them and focusing exclusively on the intellectual lineage of socialism (and only up to a certain point, at that).

Under both Fascism and Marxism individuals work for the collective good in theory, but in reality they work toward the ends of the state.

...one must make distinction, otherwise it is just pointless rhetoric.

One has to recognize legitimate distinctions as well as where and how distinct ideas overlap. Arbitrary distinctions that ignore any overlap in ideas give too much emphasis on false distinctions and only inject more subjectivity and confusion.

Marxism and Socialism are really not bad things, it would just be impossible for them to exist in the real world

I will agree to a point. Marxism, in theory, is not a bad thing. And if it could be enacted and work as it does in theory then there would be a very compelling argument to enact it.

However, Marxist theory is heavily flaws and those flaws are why Marxism in any for ALWAYS leads to tyranny.

You hit the most fundamental problem; it's flawed understanding of human nature. From that fatal flaw, all other flaws are ultimately derived; including the most direct flaw of equality being substituted for justice and equality being the overriding goal of Marxism and marxist derived ideologies.

and they don't blend organically with other forms of government, therefore problems usually arise (insert bad stuff here) when one does try to blend them.

Agreed. Problems arise when Marxism is mixed with other things.

However, it is not because Marxism is mixed with other forms of government that the problems arise. It is because of the inherent flaws in Marxist theory that problems arise.

The mixing of Marxism with other forms of government only plays a part in how those flaws manifest themselves, and to what degree.

If we are going to continue in this discussion, it might not be helpful for a moderator to move these last few posts into a different thread.

No, I doubt I will continue this discussion. I have said what I have to say on the matter, you are just rebutting with your previous points, and any answer I give you will be much the same. The fact is we disagree on the definitions and on our interpretation of history. Political science is not an exact science, so that is not unheard of, but like I said. I prefer to recognize the ideologies as individual ideologies to prevent blurring of the lines between them, while recognizing the similarities, to prevent movement between the ideas.

However, I will say that social justice is not unique to socialism....

And as to you saying that Marxism will always lead to tyranny.... well I won't give you that one either. Communism can only really exist as true communism in a pure democratic society or in anarchy. Every individual in the collective whole has an equally important opinion on the actions and policies of the collective, but as we know, pure democracy does not work (except in hippie colonies, just like communism and socialism), which is why the US exists as a democratic republic. But, many tyrannies use the illusion of communism or socialism to gain support for their inherently different forms of government. To say a communist republic for instance would be an oxymoron, since communism is governed by a collective, and a republic is governed by a few. Just like a socialist state where one person or a small group are reaping a majority of benefits cannot be socialism, because there is social inequality.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Tyranny leads to tyranny using marxism, much like leading a horse with a carrot.

The standard is a false one, in addition to the reasons explained above, because it intentionally ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology. This conveniently avoids using those peculiarities as a standard by which to judge. Socialism (as an ideological school of thought) is defined by it's unique conception of justice ("social" justice), it's overriding focus on maximizing justice (as opposed to other values, like individual liberty) and the collectivism it has to employ to achieve that goal.

Well, since shag you have now drug this into 'social justice' (because you can't place nazism/fascism on the same plane as socialism based on economic or governmental structures) I assume a'la Rawls (political), lets look at what Rawls places as the liberties individuals need as a foundation of 'social justice'.

Freedom of thought;
Liberty of conscience as it affects social relationships on the grounds of religion, philosophy, and morality;
Political liberties (e.g. representative democratic institutions, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of assembly);
Freedom of association;
Freedoms necessary for the liberty and integrity of the person (viz: freedom from slavery, freedom of movement and a reasonable degree of freedom to choose one's occupation); and
Rights and liberties covered by the rule of law.

Does that look like any sort of Nazi or Fascist base of 'liberties'? Freedom of the press - freedom of religion - freedom of assembly -

Gak...

There are people that work tirelessly to deceive and play off of other's ignorance in this fashion. Foxy is one of them (even though she has a rather weak grasp of the actual ideas herself).

So shag - how does nazism support Rawls definition of 'social justice'? Or are we going by someone else's definition this week? You will need to - because neither Nazism or Fascism falls within Rawls view of 'social justice', and the view that you have espoused in the past.

Or are we actually trying to grasp at straws again...

I have said what I have to say on the matter, you are just rebutting with your previous points

Most (if not all) of the points I have raised have not been rebutted. They still stand as valid criticisms to the argument you are making and need to be confronted for the discussion to move forward. Specifically the points raised at the beginning of post #49 and expanded upon throughout the rest of the post have not been addressed yet.

Ignore those criticisms, or dismiss them by implying that I somehow didn't understand them by saying, "maybe I wasn't clear enough on all my points" when those points were understood is going to devolved into yelling past each other real quick. If that is going to be the case, then walking away may be the best solution.

The fact is we disagree on the definitions and on our interpretation of history.

Yes, so what is the proper understanding of these terms; specifically in this context? What is the truth? There has been a lot of distortion on this issue throughout history, especially through political rhetoric (which this time period had more then it's fair share of) and a lot of that has been further twisted and enshrined in history books. Therefore understanding the lineage of the ideas/ideologies, the viewpoints they stem from and how those ideas fit together is key to being able to distinguish misleading rhetoric from truth. If what you have been taught in the history books doesn't conform to reality, the history books are wrong.

There was a specific thought process involved in the creation of these ideologies with very specific understandings of the concepts in question. There have been great pains by many political interests throughout the decades to distort and cloud the thought process and understandings involved toward specific ends.

I prefer to recognize the ideologies as individual ideologies to prevent blurring of the lines between them, while recognizing the similarities, to prevent movement between the ideas.

And there is some wisdom in that. But after a point, it misses where those ideologies overlap, how they developed (ideological lineage), how they were applied and how well that application did or did not go. No philosophy is created brand new. It takes ideas and develops them; adds to them, sometime in new and interesting ways. The same is true of ideologies.

Godwin had a very novel take on the idea of justice that was very emotionally appealing. Marx took that as well as the ideas of other including, most notably, Hegel to develop a systematic (though ultimately flawed) methodology for historical analysis which focused on social processes. From this he made some predictions about the future and where society should and would go from which various ideological views were derived called Marxism. From these, various other forms of socialism and/or communism were derisive to the point it was at around the beginning of the 20th century.

From this vast array of Marxist/socialist thought, Fascism and Nazism were ultimately derived.

To be clear, Marx proposed no specific, coherent ideology. That was all derived from his writings which were basically systematic historical analysis focused on social causation.

The standard being employed in determining what is and is not socialism is exceedingly foolish and dangerous because it effectively removes ideology from examination all together. Ideology is ignored as a factor in governance; good or bad. This leads to a very probable repeat of the same (or similar) historical mistakes.

Unfortunately, there is a concerted effort by certain political interests to remove ideology from honest public debate all together; typically by delegitimizing and destabilizing the entire notion of ideology having any effect on policy. When ideology is removed from honest debate, all that is left is rhetoric aimed at misleading and appealing to emotions. This rhetoric can, in effect, trick people to accepting ideological principles on faith as dogma. This is a very effective tool when the ideology you are espousing would not be accepted by the majority of the public through reason; eschew all ideology then attempt to dupe people into supporting your ideology.

When an ideology is enacted, even imperfectly, numerous times and the result is consistently negative, the fundamental assumptions of the ideology should be examined as a cause.

However, ideologues often don't want to admit inherent flaws in their ideology, so excuses are made. When it comes to Marxism, the typical excuse is to say that it has never been accurately enacted (an easy excuse considering he never directly proposed any complete ideology). This is an obvious dodge which ignores how heavily flawed Marx' analysis' were. This excuse also plays off the ignorance of others because it hinges on the fact that Marx never proposed a complete ideology. Since what is and isn't Marxism is somewhat arbitrary it is ultimately a self-serving excuse to deflect any criticism of the ideology.

The standard of judging the ideology of a government by how closely it matches the theory is derived from that basic Marxist dodge of ideological criticism. It injects all the subjectivity of the Marxist excuse into the standard of judgment. Hence that standard is utterly worthless as it is without objectivity.

Not too surprising that Foxy would look to inject that standard into the discussion, as Leftist talking points are all she knows and injecting them into debates is all she looks to do.

However, I will say that social justice is not unique to socialism....

What other ideologies have that unique conception of justice?

As I have pointed out before, the dominant ideology at the time of Marx' writings was Liberalism (now known as Classical Liberalism) and it did not subscribe to the idea of social justice.

And as to you saying that Marxism will always lead to tyranny.... well I won't give you that one either. Communism can only really exist as true communism in a pure democratic society or in anarchy. Every individual in the collective whole has an equally important opinion on the actions and policies of the collective, but as we know, pure democracy does not work (except in hippie colonies, just like communism and socialism), which is why the US exists as a democratic republic. But, many tyrannies use the illusion of communism or socialism to gain support for their inherently different forms of government. To say a communist republic for instance would be an oxymoron, since communism is governed by a collective, and a republic is governed by a few. Just like a socialist state where one person or a small group are reaping a majority of benefits cannot be socialism, because there is social inequality.

Again, you haven't disproven my point; you have simply dodged it by dismissing Marxism as a possible explanation for a tyrannical society that doesn't achieve perfect social equality.

Marxism always leads to tyranny because of it's inherent conflict with reality. The theory doesn't comport with human nature (as you have noted) so when Marxism is enacted in the real world, the government established in Marxist doctrine and ruling from a Marxist point of view always ends up being tyrannical.

Weather or not a society ruled by a Marxist government enjoys more social equality or not is irrelevant. The flaws that lead to tyranny and never result in perfect social equality are endemic to Marxism, in any form.

The typical socialist argument (which is often echoed in academia) is that socialism has failed because it hasn't been properly applied in this country or that country. However, again, that is simply a red herring that doesn't comport with history.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Tyranny leads to tyranny using marxism, much like leading a horse with a carrot.

:confused:

Could you explain that one? I think you may be putting the cart before the horse on that one.

Most (if not all) of the points I have raised have not been rebutted.

Yes, so what is the proper understanding of these terms; specifically in this context? What is the truth?

But after a point, it misses where those ideologies overlap, how they developed (ideological lineage), how they were applied and how well that application did or did not go.

Again, you haven't disproven my point; you have simply dodged it by dismissing Marxism as a possible explanation for a tyrannical society that doesn't achieve perfect social equality.

This is why I will not continue the discussion with you. Because no matter what I say, you will continue to insist that I have not addressed the issues or that my argument is invalid or irrelevant without good cause. You choose to duck anything that is inconvenient to your platform. If you will not give these types of things the proper credence or consideration, then it is pointless to continue discussion with you. When you can communicate openly and objectively, not just speak, then I will be happy to have further discussion with you on this point.

Also, I will restate this as it appears you have missed it any of the other times I have said it. There are similarities between many forms of government, and there are many ideologies based upon other ideologies or bastardized from another ideology. This is why it is important to have a clear distinction of the separate ideologies. This way you can understand when a line is crossed and you move from one to another. This would be akin to the US being compared with a monarchy. They are very separate ideologies, but they have many similarities

Could you explain that one? I think you may be putting the cart before the horse on that one.

I would be glad to. As I said, those with ill intentions use ideas like communism or socialism to lure in a public that may be disenfranchised or beaten down by a current system with promises of equality, saying a starving public will have everything they need. This is why communism only takes hold in countries that are in severe economic distress or social unrest.

As for social justice. Wikipedia should be a good start, it is actually not a bad article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
However, ALL ideologies that are concerned with the well-being of their citizenry practice some form of social justice. The amount, type and influence it has varies, but it is still undeniably social justice.

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

Foxy, are you really so desperate to delegitimize the fact that Fascism and Nazism are rooted on the left and derived from Marxism that you would so transparently attempt to mislead?

First; Foxy is cherry picking certain aspects of John Rawls argument for a socially just/egalitarian society, and misrepresenting them as part of his conception of social justice, which it unquestionably is not.

Second; John Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) was born on February 21, 1921 and died on November 24, 2002. His most famous work, A Theory of Justice was published in 1971.

Considering the fact that Italian Fascism and German Nazism had fizzled out by the end of the 1940's, there is no way Rawls' ideas could have had any influence on Fascism or Nazism...unless Rawls had some flux capacitor powered Delorean that I am unaware of. ;)

The fact that Foxy is so desperate to delegitimize the truth about Fascism/Nazism that she would so transparently play off of people's ignorance of Rawls to manipulate and move the goalposts is very instructive.

Does the truth about Fascism and Nazism scare you that much Foxy?

Stay, classy. ;)

This is why I will not continue the discussion with you. Because no matter what I say, you will continue to insist that I have not addressed the issues or that my argument is invalid. If you will not give these types of things the proper credence or consideration, then it is pointless to continue discussion with you. When you can communicate openly and objectively, not just speak, then I will be happy to have further discussion with you on this point.

Where have you confronted the objections to your argument that I have raised?

Specifically, where have you confronted these objections about the standard you use to judge what is and is not socialism from post #49:
It too narrowly defines socialism
It paint with too broad a brush to be useful
It is rooted in equivocation, and
It is ultimately an arbitrary standard that ignores what makes socialism unique as an ideology in order to justify dismissing a notion that is "unfavorable"
The rest of that post expands on those objections. Your response is simply to say, "maybe I wasn't clear enough on all my points" and then to simply expand on your argument with out confronting those objections which I then reiterate and further expand upon in post #51.

If you are not going to honestly confront those objections then there is no discussion taking place. It is simply competing points of view being stated ad nauseum. For the discussion to move forward you have to honestly (and hopefully respectfully) confront those objections, which you have yet to do.

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

Foxy, are you really so desperate to delegitimize the fact that Fascism and Nazism are rooted on the left and are derived from Marxism that you would so transparently attempt to mislead?

First; Foxy is cherry picking certain aspects of John Rawls argument for a socially just/egalitarian society, and misrepresenting them as part of his conception of social justice, which it unquestionably is not.

Second; John Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) was born on February 21, 1921 and died on November 24, 2002. His most famous work, A Theory of Justice was published in 1971.

Considering the fact that Italian Fascism and German Nazism had fizzled out by the end of the 1940's, there is no way Rawls' ideas could have had any influence on Fascism or Nazism...unless Rawls had some flux capacitor powered Delorean that I am unaware of. ;)

The fact that Foxy is so desperate to delegitimize the truth about Fascism/Nazism that she would so transparently play off of people's ignorance of Rawls to manipulate and move the goalposts is very instructive.

Does the truth about Fascism and Nazism scare you that much Foxy?

Stay, classy. ;)

She did no say Rawls had any influence on italian facism or nazism. She used them as examples in contrast. Reread her post.

You edited the post and added more to it...

This is why I will not continue the discussion with you. Because no matter what I say, you will continue to insist that I have not addressed the issues or that my argument is invalid or irrelevant without good cause.

Because you have not addressed the objections I raised!

You will not continue this discussion because I point out the truth?!

You choose to duck anything that is inconvenient to your platform.

Such as?

If you are going to go back to throwing out accusations, please have the decency to back them up so as to allow someone to defend themselves.

If you will not give these types of things the proper credence or consideration, then it is pointless to continue discussion with you.

You really need to look in the mirror on statements like this...

Also, I will restate this as it appears you have missed it any of the other times I have said it. There are similarities between many forms of government, and there are many ideologies based upon other ideologies or bastardized from another ideology. This is why it is important to have a clear distinction of the separate ideologies.

I already confronted this point numerous times and you never confronted my objections to it:Ignoring any and all overlap in terms/ideas/concepts and ignoring how those ideas fit together, their lineage and how they are distinct injects at least as much confusion into things.

Basically, if one don't have an accurate understanding of these various concepts, how they interact, the thought process behind them (including their lineage) then there is confusion and an opening for tricksters and propagandists to play off of the ignorance of others.

This is why attempts are made to "define down", delegitimize and destabilize concepts; it injects a lot of subjectivity that an opportunistic propagandist can exploit. Objective truth is the biggest threat to a liar.

There are people that work tirelessly to deceive and play off of other's ignorance in this fashion. Foxy is one of them (even though she has a rather weak grasp of the actual ideas herself).
One has to recognize legitimate distinctions as well as where and how distinct ideas overlap. Arbitrary distinctions that ignore any overlap in ideas give too much emphasis on false distinctions and only inject more subjectivity and confusion.
In fact, my objections to your point here still hadn't been confronted by my third post in all this and my elaboration on this point was the vast majority of post #54:And there is some wisdom in that. But after a point, it misses where those ideologies overlap, how they developed (ideological lineage), how they were applied and how well that application did or did not go. No philosophy is created brand new. It takes ideas and develops them; adds to them, sometime in new and interesting ways. The same is true of ideologies.

Godwin had a very novel take on the idea of justice that was very emotionally appealing. Marx took that as well as the ideas of other including, most notably, Hegel to develop a systematic (though ultimately flawed) methodology for historical analysis which focused on social processes. From this he made some predictions about the future and where society should and would go from which various ideological views were derived called Marxism. From these, various other forms of socialism and/or communism were derisive to the point it was at around the beginning of the 20th century.

From this vast array of Marxist/socialist thought, Fascism and Nazism were ultimately derived.

To be clear, Marx proposed no specific, coherent ideology. That was all derived from his writings which were basically systematic historical analysis focused on social causation.

The standard being employed in determining what is and is not socialism is exceedingly foolish and dangerous because it effectively removes ideology from examination all together. Ideology is ignored as a factor in governance; good or bad. This leads to a very probable repeat of the same (or similar) historical mistakes.

Unfortunately, there is a concerted effort by certain political interests to remove ideology from honest public debate all together; typically by delegitimizing and destabilizing the entire notion of ideology having any effect on policy. When ideology is removed from honest debate, all that is left is rhetoric aimed at misleading and appealing to emotions. This rhetoric can, in effect, trick people to accepting ideological principles on faith as dogma. This is a very effective tool when the ideology you are espousing would not be accepted by the majority of the public through reason; eschew all ideology then attempt to dupe people into supporting your ideology.

When an ideology is enacted, even imperfectly, numerous times and the result is consistently negative, the fundamental assumptions of the ideology should be examined as a cause.

However, ideologues often don't want to admit inherent flaws in their ideology, so excuses are made. When it comes to Marxism, the typical excuse is to say that it has never been accurately enacted (an easy excuse considering he never directly proposed any complete ideology). This is an obvious dodge which ignores how heavily flawed Marx' analysis' were. This excuse also plays off the ignorance of others because it hinges on the fact that Marx never proposed a complete ideology. Since what is and isn't Marxism is somewhat arbitrary it is ultimately a self-serving excuse to deflect any criticism of the ideology.

The standard of judging the ideology of a government by how closely it matches the theory is derived from that basic Marxist dodge of ideological criticism. It injects all the subjectivity of the Marxist excuse into the standard of judgment. Hence that standard is utterly worthless as it is without objectivity.

Not too surprising that Foxy would look to inject that standard into the discussion, as Leftist talking points are all she knows and injecting them into debates is all she looks to do.

Simply because I didn't accept your point doesn't mean I "missed the point".

This would be akin to the US being compared with a monarchy

A monarchy is not an ideology.

As for social justice. Wikipedia should be a good start, it is actually not a bad article.

Actually, on what is arguably the most contentions and misunderstood philosophical idea of our time, wikipedia is about the worst place to start. The flawed understanding of social justice that you espouse is evidence of that.

There are plenty of explanations of Rawls ideas online. If you want to understand the basic criticisms of Rawls and the impact his ideas have had, this article is all you need to know. The article is too long to post in this thread, but here is the opening couple paragraphs.

Dangerous Egalitarian Dreams (http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_4_urbanities-dangerous.html)
John Kekes

The most celebrated public philosophers of our time—our Rousseau and Voltaire, so to speak—are John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin. Prophets of a non-Marxist socialism, they provide the rationale for the domestic agenda of the left wing of the Democratic party, and they are in large measure responsible for the Left's remarkable success in occupying the moral high ground. They have convinced the nation's elites that it is a matter of simple justice for our society systematically to deprive the large majority of citizens of a sizable portion of their legally owned property to benefit a much smaller minority—an Orwellian redefinition that mocks as well as violates justice. In their egalitarian philosophical system, there's no need to debate the merits of progressive taxation, anti-poverty programs, socialized medicine, affirmative action, and welfare legislation: a society that lacks them is, by definition, not a just society.

One can't overemphasize the towering prestige these two enjoy among the liberal elites. President Clinton decorated Rawls, a retired Harvard philosophy professor, with the Medal of Freedom, and the Chronicle of Higher Education recently celebrated him as "the most distinguished moral and political philosopher of our age," depicting him on its cover among portraits of his supposed peers—Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, and Hegel. His best-known book, A Theory of Justice, has sold over 200,000 copies—an unheard-of number for a thick and turgid theoretical treatise—and it has been translated into more than 20 languages since its 1971 publication. Rawls's 1993 sequel, Political Liberalism, restates the original theory, revising a detail here and there. In philosophy departments across the land, young scholars tirelessly churn out explications of his thought...

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

Foxy, are you really so desperate to delegitimize the fact that Fascism and Nazism are rooted on the left and derived from Marxism that you would so transparently attempt to mislead?

First; Foxy is cherry picking certain aspects of John Rawls argument for a socially just/egalitarian society, and misrepresenting them as part of his conception of social justice, which it unquestionably is not.

Second; John Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls) was born on February 21, 1921 and died on November 24, 2002. His most famous work, A Theory of Justice was published in 1971.

Considering the fact that Italian Fascism and German Nazism had fizzled out by the end of the 1940's, there is no way Rawls' ideas could have had any influence on Fascism or Nazism...unless Rawls had some flux capacitor powered Delorean that I am unaware of. ;)

The fact that Foxy is so desperate to delegitimize the truth about Fascism/Nazism that she would so transparently play off of people's ignorance of Rawls to manipulate and move the goalposts is very instructive.

Does the truth about Fascism and Nazism scare you that much Foxy?

Stay, classy. ;)

Not even close shag, I am not misrepresenting Rawls at all - Rawls was all about (http://books.google.com/books?id=vcVEPc30ut0C&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=freedom+of+thought+and+liberty+of+conscience+ra wls&source=bl&ots=kEMQWjb0HG&sig=qm3QVIoPEOCaPunHNwr1HkApg00&hl=en&ei=_p4ZTM-dI4q2NrilpKAF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false) -
"freedom of thought and liberty of conscience; the political liberties and freedom of association, as well as the freedoms specified by the liberty and integrity of the person; and finally, the rights and liberties covered by the rule of law."
It was a very big part of Rawls' Two Principles of Justice which is an integral part of his Mature Theory of Social Justice. Here is a good primer (http://people.wku.edu/jan.garrett/ethics/matrawls.htm) on it - if you need it shag...

Shag, I was just using your previous 'expert' by bringing in Rawls' definition of social justice - not mine - so, how do you feel that nazism and fascism did on Rawls' scorecard of social justice - I think probably a D-.

So, are we back to the church's definition of social justice? Shag, you are talking in circles - those are very much things that would be required if you are going to define social justice as you like to define them - correct? You have been the one that uses A Theory of Justice as the bible of social justice. So, what social justice are you talking about this time - I would really like to know - you jump all over the place when it comes to social justice.

You just used Social Justice to define how Nazism is just another form of socialism - so what parts shag - do you only choose a couple of parts? No, social justice as you have defined it in the past is a whole big concept that includes things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, that certainly nazism didn't even pretend to embrace.

Once again shag - you keep digging these holes for yourself... Hitler did not create the 'final solution' as a means of achieving social justice, unless suddenly you have some new and improved June 16th, 2010 version of social justice...

And I have never said that Nazis were on the 'right' - they are Nazis. Why must you keep trying to go left/right with this? I know - so you can create a villain on the left. I rather like Ryan's idea that you need to drop the left/right silliness, it doesn't do a very good job any longer on describing all the different avenues of 'isms'. But - wait - you were the one that posted Ryan's ideas - don't you agree with them?

And why do you continue to try to claim that nazism is socialist - when it is so clearly not. Nazism is not about Egalitarianism - and Egalitarianism is the Holy Grail of Socialism. So Nazism can't be socialist... shag - basic logic - If A ≠ B and B is a required element of C than A ≠ C.

And why do you continue to try to claim that nazism is socialist - when it is so clearly not. Nazism is not about Egalitarianism - and Egalitarianism is the Holy Grail of Socialism. So Nazism can't be socialist... shag - basic logic - If A ≠ B and B is a required element of C than A ≠ C.So, so wrong, Vapo-rub. The Nazis introduced price and wage controls in Germany in 1936. De facto socialist. Ludwig von Mises says you're wrong (http://mises.org/daily/1937), and that's good enough for me. Welcome to the ranks of 'conventional wisdom.' So much for all your blustering and blathering. I'd give you twenty bucks if you could make arguments without all the red herrings and wordiness, but I doubt you could resist the temptation.
As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.
What you're actually doing is showering us with terms: Egalitarianism, social justice, final solution...none of which have been adequately defined or even relevantly placed. At the same time you're whining about Shag's use of 'right' and 'left' - which is quite hypocritical. So, are we to assume that only YOU get to introduce terms and define them? What you're doing is textbook red herring and textbook Alinsky. You're using ad nauseum as a way to attempt to 'win' the argument. I doubt even you know what you're talking about.

In "Creative Writing 101" they teach that it is more important to communicate your ideas clearly than to use big words and write long, rambling sentences. I guess the day you took that course it rained and the teacher didn't show up.

By the way, you're off topic.

In short, you fail, Vapo-rub.

1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws hijacks the thread with a false comparison or straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory

This is why I will not continue the discussion with you. Because no matter what I say, you will continue to insist that I have not addressed the issues or that my argument is invalid or irrelevant without good cause. You choose to duck anything that is inconvenient to your platform. If you will not give these types of things the proper credence or consideration, then it is pointless to continue discussion with you. When you can communicate openly and objectively, not just speak, then I will be happy to have further discussion with you on this point....or you could just call him stupid or asinine again. :rolleyes:

So, so wrong, Vapo-rub. The Nazis introduced price and wage controls in Germany in 1936. De facto socialist. Ludwig von Mises says you're wrong (http://mises.org/daily/1937), and that's good enough for me. Welcome to the ranks of 'conventional wisdom.' So much for all your blustering and blathering. I'd give you twenty bucks if you could make arguments without all the red herrings and wordiness, but I doubt you could resist the temptation.

However the nazis also allowed a corporate upper class, kept private ownership of industry, created a single labor union that was ruled by the corporations and government (not the laborers), and removed personal liberties. One tiny part of socialism does not equal the whole of socialism Foss. Hitler also wanted to conserve the German race - so he was a conservative... not. Once again - one small overlap does not equal the whole. Nazism stands on its own as separate from socialism, or any other 'ism'.

What you're actually doing is showering us with terms: Egalitarianism, social justice, final solution...none of which have been adequately defined or even relevantly placed. At the same time you're whining about Shag's use of 'right' and 'left' - which is quite hypocritical. So, are we to assume that only YOU get to introduce terms and define them? What you're doing is textbook red herring and textbook Alinsky. You're using ad nauseum as a way to attempt to 'win' the argument. I doubt even you know what you're talking about.

Shag introduced 'social justice' not I. He introduced it as a way to prove that Nazism is socialism, that they were for 'social justice'. I was just pointing out that if you go by the points that describe social justice which he claimed in earlier threads, than the Nazis would have had to have been for personal liberties such as freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech - they weren't. Hitler wasn't a proponent of 'social justice'.

In "Creative Writing 101" they teach that it is more important to communicate your ideas clearly than to use big words and write long, rambling sentences. I guess the day you took that course it rained and the teacher didn't show up.

I write as I talk foss - it is more approachable, and faster for me...

However by now I would have thought the sting of CW101 would have abated... that a couple of weeks cabin building would have eased that sting... I guess the truth really sticks around.;)

But, I did try to get back on topic - why don't we have debtor's prisons? Here is an interesting old article in Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,903907,00.html) - costs of incarceration, etc add up... plus, this man's family ended up on welfare - costing us even more. Am I willing to pay for Mastercard's mistake for allowing someone to get into debt to them for thousands of dollars? That was the banks decision, they believed someone would pay them back. If that was a bad decision, should I as a tax payer, foot the bill?

Mastercard takes those costs and levies them across all its customers - do I need to also pay for the 'revenge' factor as well?

However the nazis also allowed a corporate upper class, kept private ownership of industry, created a single labor union that was ruled by the corporations and government (not the laborers), and removed personal liberties. One tiny part of socialism does not equal the whole of socialism Foss. Hitler also wanted to conserve the German race - so he was a conservative... not. Once again - one small overlap does not equal the whole. Nazism stands on its own as separate from socialism, or any other 'ism'.

Tsk tsk, Vapo-rub, too lazy to read the Mises article I see. Just a flat dismissal and a moving of the goalposts. Not even an ad hominem attack on Mises to try to discredit him? Pathetic actually, Vapo-rub. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, you've dismissed the de facto socialism of Germany's price and wage controls by calling them "tiny." That's hilarious, considering you can't even back that up without ignoring the FACT that socialism being discussed is ECONOMIC, and that price and wage controls are at the CORE of socialism. But I guess you don't know what de facto means, eh...

The very translation of Nazi is National Socialist. I guess that escaped you too.

Shag introduced 'social justice' not I. He introduced it as a way to prove that Nazism is socialism, that they were for 'social justice'. I was just pointing out that if you go by the points that describe social justice which he claimed in earlier threads, than the Nazis would have had to have been for personal liberties such as freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech - they weren't. Hitler wasn't a proponent of 'social justice'. You've repeatedly tried to redefine social justice to suit your own ends in other threads. Your dishonesty on this topic is legendary.

I write as I talk foss - it is more approachable, and faster for me...

However by now I would have thought the sting of CW101 would have abated... that a couple of weeks cabin building would have eased that sting... I guess the truth really sticks around.;)It's not effective when people don't get your point, and you'd be better served to be more introspective rather than just assuming that your method of rambling, aw-shucks incoherency is useful. And the fact that you say it's 'faster' for you denotes LAZINESS, but then again, we've pointed out your laziness repeatedly, haven't we, Vapo-rub?

And that swerves into another good point - your goal isn't to convey a clear point, but rather to confuse, deflect, distract, and otherwise distort the issue. You see this as your playground where you don't have to take a real position on anything, but can instead just nitpick and throw red herrings against the wall and see what sticks.

As far as Creative Writing 101 - Actually, you're pitifully misreading my reference. I guess you're too dense to realize that I'm rubbing your own pathetic little nose in it, given the fact that you intended it as an insult - and yet, YOU are the one feverishly striving to pretend to be knowledgeable, and consistently frustrated that you can gain zero traction with your rambling, incoherent, Alinskyite posts. Everybody here knows that you're a liar - despite your constant whining in PMs that you're being picked on. That's the truth - and we can expect you to ignore it as usual and continue to try and spew your typical plethora of nonsense, lies, and distortions all around. :rolleyes:

Foxy, I owe you an apology.

In my first point of post #56 I accused you if misleading in a way you were not doing. While the second point I raised still stands and, to some degree is even reinforced by a rejection of the first point, that first point was wrong. I am a little rusty on my Rawls and, while talking to (and drinking too much with) an old friend from out of town who is well versed in philosophy, it became clear how wrong I was on this.

Rawls’ theory of justice, which he doesn’t call “social” justice but is what he essentially is talking about, is made up of two principles; which you roughly articulated in your post which I was responding to. While Rawls theory on this is nothing more than rhetorical sleight-of-hand and mere sophistry that serves to redefine the concept of social justice in order to dodge it's biggest flaw (which I will get to in a minute), that doesn’t, in any way, justify my sloppiness on this.

You were not misrepresenting Rawls in the manner I claimed you were and I apologize for accusing you of doing so.

Rawls’ conception of justice, essentially, redefines social justice to include many aspects of individual liberty, from a certain point of view. The biggest problem with social justice has always been that, due to the collectivism and infringement of individual liberty necessary, social justice is utterly incompatible with individual liberty. Rawls redefinition of social justice attempts to rhetorically circumvent this problem by conceptually attaching individual liberty and egalitarianism.

However, this is a dodge that doesn’t eliminate or even confront this fundamental flaw of social justice. in fact, it enshrines that flaw in the new conception of justice by making any and all concerns for liberty secondary to concerns for equal justice.

That article (http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_4_urbanities-dangerous.html) I cited by the philosophy professor, John Kekes points out these flaws with Rawls conception of justice in a lot more depth:Rawls glosses over this fatal defect and claims that his legislators would unanimously endorse what he calls the "equal liberty" and the "difference" principles. The first requires that there be maximum liberty in the society for everyone, consistent with like liberty for all—a restatement of the principle John Stuart Mill proposed in On Liberty. Rawls recognizes that the equal liberty principle would result in great economic inequalities. Differences in people's talents, education, experiences, and good or bad luck will affect their economic success. There is, therefore, a need for a second principle to determine what economic inequalities are permissible. And what that principle says, among other things, is that "economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are . . . to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged." It is, for instance, acceptable for doctors to earn outsize salaries if that is the only way people living in poverty can receive good health care. A society arranged according to these principles would thus be perpetually redistributing its citizens' property by taking from those who are better-off what does not benefit those who are worst-off.

Rawls's two principles of justice cannot deliver what they promise. The first promises extensive liberty; the second, economic equality. But, given the obvious fact of great individual differences, how people exercise their liberty will result in economic inequality. Similarly, economic equality requires curtailing individual liberty. Rawls sees this conflict, and he copes with it by allowing only as much liberty as is compatible with economic equality. He thus begins in the liberal tradition of Locke and Mill, by promising liberty, and ends, in the socialist tradition, by stifling liberty for the sake of economic equality.
Kekes article goes into a lot more detail on the flaws in both Rawls' and Dworkin's postulations. While a very long and dense article, it is well worth taking the time to read.

Frankly, I have always found Rawls justification for his egalitarian society more interesting (and even insightful in some ways) then his rhetorical dodge in attempting to redefine social justice.

Rawls is way overrated. His writings are ultimately sophistry. He provides a unique justification that appeals to elites rooted in the Leftist faith. But his justification is built around rhetorical misdirection and extreme abstraction from reality; Rawls and his writings are the epitome of an academic being disconnected from reality and dictating what is best for society from his ivory tower.

Back to the post in question, the second point in my post still stands and is even reinforced by the fact that Rawls' conception of justice was a redefinition of social justice, and that definition could not, in any way, have even existed, let alone influenced Fascism or Nazism. So, in post #53, you are misdirecting not only by playing off of people's ignorance of Rawls, but also by equivocating in using his version of social justice when that version was not the focus of the discussion or even, in any way, applicable.

Still, that doesn't justify my sloppiness in my first point in post #56 and for that, I am sorry.

Now, I have to get back to dealing with a nasty little hangover. ;)

Tsk tsk, Vapo-rub, too lazy to read the Mises article I see. Just a flat dismissal and a moving of the goalposts. Not even an ad hominem attack on Mises to try to discredit him? Pathetic actually, Vapo-rub. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, you've dismissed the de facto socialism of Germany's price and wage controls by calling them "tiny." That's hilarious, considering you can't even back that up without ignoring the FACT that socialism being discussed is ECONOMIC, and that price and wage controls are at the CORE of socialism. But I guess you don't know what de facto means, eh...

The very translation of Nazi is National Socialist. I guess that escaped you too.

You've repeatedly tried to redefine social justice to suit your own ends in other threads. Your dishonesty on this topic is legendary.

And you Foss are a legend in your own mind...

I took shag to task on everything he presented regarding this subject in this thread (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=66045&highlight=nazi)... you might want to review it before you speak out of turn.

And Mises isn't 'Lord of all he speaks'. How about reading about the actual Third Reich - an excellent book on Hitler and Robert Ley's view on labor, and how they should be subjegated (opposite of socialism Foss) is Ronald Smelser's - Robert Ley: Hitler's Labor Front Leader.

Mises is a theorist - we don't need that when we have the actual Reich to review. Nazism is not socialism. There is no way that is true. The economic structure, the political structure nor the social structure is socialist.

Nazism is nazism. Fascism taken to some bizarre extreme. So bizarre it is no longer even totally fascism.

As far as Creative Writing 101 - Actually, you're pitifully misreading my reference. I guess you're too dense to realize that I'm rubbing your own pathetic little nose in it, given the fact that you intended it as an insult - and yet, YOU are the one feverishly striving to pretend to be knowledgeable, and consistently frustrated that you can gain zero traction with your rambling, incoherent, Alinskyite posts. Everybody here knows that you're a liar - despite your constant whining in PMs that you're being picked on. That's the truth - and we can expect you to ignore it as usual and continue to try and spew your typical plethora of nonsense, lies, and distortions all around. :rolleyes:

Ah, this from a man who must conform... Whose last creative thought must have happened so long ago that it is lost somewhere in the annuals of time, because I have yet to see evidence of it.

However, did you know that in the UAE failure to pay debts is still a criminal offense and jail time can be doled out. Even check bouncing has lead to time in prison.

...or you could just call him stupid or asinine again. :rolleyes:

hahaha dur dur dur

Why respond if he chooses to ignore what I write anyways, and write it off saying that history is obviously wrong, as he has done in many other threads. Not that he backs anything up with scholarly research, just a blog that has about as much credibility as anything else on the internet. But yeah, he agrees with you, so he must be right, an accomplished debater, and a genius political mind. :rolleyes:

And Mises isn't 'Lord of all he speaks'.

That is not what fossten is saying and in no way justifies your ignoring Mises' arguments.

Why respond if he chooses to ignore what I write anyways

Examples?

and write it off saying that history is obviously wrong, as he has done in many other threads.

Where?

I have said the exact opposite; that if the history books don't comport with reality (historical truth) then the history books are wrong.

Where have I said that history is wrong?

Not that he backs anything up with scholarly research, just a blog that has about as much credibility as anything else on the internet.

So, all the historical quotes I cited in my posts, all the historical facts I cite are simply blogs and not in any way "scholarly" research?

If you are going to make accusations, it is simply common decency to at least give specific examples and make the accusation in such a way that it is actually disprovable.

Foxy, I owe you an apology.

In my first point of post #56 I accused you if misleading in a way you were not doing. While the second point I raised still stands and, to some degree is even reinforced by a rejection of the first point, that first point was wrong. I am a little rusty on my Rawls and, while talking to (and drinking too much with) an old friend from out of town who is well versed in philosophy, it became clear how wrong I was on this.

Now, I have to get back to dealing with a nasty little hangover. ;)

Rawls was a theorist - quite often erroneous, but, as you said, occasionally insightful. I think his The Law of Peoples is interesting. I certainly don't claim to understand it all - but the idea that justice as fairness enforced by reasonable societies can be stable was good food for thought...

Speaking of food...

V8 juice with a splash of vodka - along with a big steak - works on even big hangovers - maybe on a little one - tomato juice, vodka and a hamburger... ;)

I would imagine your conversation was fun...

And I agree that social justice - as you usually define it - is flawed, and bad.

However, I will stand by my guns that Hitler and 'social justice' (by any definition) were never in the same room at the same time...

Rawls was a theorist - quite often erroneous, but, as you said, occasionally insightful. I think his The Law of Peoples is interesting. I certainly don't claim to understand it all - but the idea that justice as fairness enforced by reasonable societies can be stable was good food for thought...

Speaking of food...

V8 juice with a splash of vodka - along with a big steak - works on even big hangovers - maybe on a little one - tomato juice, vodka and a hamburger... ;)

I would imagine your conversation was fun...

And I agree that social justice - as you usually define it - is flawed, and bad.

However, I will stand by my guns that Hitler and 'social justice' (by any definition) were never in the same room at the same time...

Fair enough. Thanks for the advice. ;)

That is not what fossten is saying and in no way justifies your ignoring Mises' arguments, which you clearly are doing..

I am not - but what I say is look at the Reich - it is Nazism in action - I can argue that nazism isn't socialism with hard facts from the Third Reich, its laws, its policies, the results of those laws and policies, along with the society it cast and supported and the economic system which it created. If you take the actual Third Reich - it wasn't socialist.

It may have professed to be, or promised the voters it would be, but when it finally became the 'power' in Germany it became fascist - and then it became fascism on steroids - so far removed from anything else that it gets its own 'ism'...

The Mises article goes with the economic idea that since Nazism wasn't capitalist (which I never claimed it was) than it must be socialist. He has a 'new' form of socialism which isn't based on Russia or I guess Marx - but on this 'Nazi' or 'German' socialist ideal. Why is he trying to pigeonhole Nazism into socialism? He can't really do it, so he gives his viewpoint a disclaimer that it is a morphed socialism - different than standard socialism, based on a Nazi platform. Unlike Reisman, I don't believe that it is an either/or situation - here we have a new economic model - closely related to fascism - but in actuality some weird conglomeration.

It is nazism - the caste system alone removes it from socialism. I guess in some weird world you could say that it was a socialist model that removed labor having control of production and allowed and encouraged a tiered economic system. Yes, it was guided, and in some instances controlled by the state - but you still have wealthy factory owners and poor factory workers - very wrong by any socialist model... I think the overlapping of very heavy handed government control, but with the structure of private business still intact, profits going to owners and not the workers, innovation encouraged on both as a nationalist pride ideal as well as a money making proposition morphs it into a totally different economic system.

Private property rights were conditional upon how it fitted into the Nazi world take over plan. If your company supported the Nazi plan - you got to keep it - keep the profits (not equally distribute them among all the laborers), and hopefully innovate more cool stuff for the Nazis to be able to rule the world. Yes, under Nazi economics, free competition and self-regulating markets were stymied, but Hitler wasn't against private property - he wanted it regulated, but he also knew that the best innovation had a profit motive behind it...
"I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".
The economy was certainly directed by the state towards the goal of total world domination, but it encouraged private ownership, kept the profit motive intact, and fostered a tiered economic society.

It was Nazism. Not capitalism, not socialism. Some weird hybrid of them both, and therefore neither.

And you Foss are a legend in your own mind...

I took shag to task on everything he presented regarding this subject in this thread (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=66045&highlight=nazi)... you might want to review it before you speak out of turn.

And Mises isn't 'Lord of all he speaks'. How about reading about the actual Third Reich - an excellent book on Hitler and Robert Ley's view on labor, and how they should be subjegated (opposite of socialism Foss) is Ronald Smelser's - Robert Ley: Hitler's Labor Front Leader.

Tsk tsk, Vapo-rub, there you go again, using hyperbole and red herrings like a bull in a china shop. Please show me where I said what you put in quotations. Why, you're actually MISQUOTING me for effect! Those are desperate words...

For all your vaunted - errrrrrrrr - self-glossed "Creative Writing" ability, you certainly stumble about blindly and awkwardly most of the time. You have no deft touch, no finesse. Just throw out book titles as though by doing so you gain instant credibility. Your logic is so flawed it's laughable.

Mises is a theorist - we don't need that when we have the actual Reich to review. Nazism is not socialism. There is no way that is true. The economic structure, the political structure nor the social structure is socialist.

Nazism is nazism. Fascism taken to some bizarre extreme. So bizarre it is no longer even totally fascism.Once again, you fail to address any specific point I raised. It's your standard, tired, old (did I say old? :rolleyes:) tactic - ignore what your 'opponent' says and just plug away with your ad nauseum argument. War of attrition until everybody gets fed up and leaves the thread, and then claim victory, right Vapo-rub?

Ah, this from a man who must conform... Whose last creative thought must have happened so long ago that it is lost somewhere in the annuals of time, because I have yet to see evidence of it.Awww, now I KNOW I'm getting under your prickly, scaly, itchy skin, Vapo-rub. You're angry. Would you like a tissue? I understand; after all, your last recorded attempt at civility involved you trying to hook up with me online. Well, you know what they say about a woman scorned...

Might I suggest alcohol, in copious amounts, and maybe some introspection for once in your life. You're so quick to attack, you fail to see your own self-immolation. But then again, that's the mark of a cornered animal: lashing out at everyone else. More's the pity. :rolleyes:

If anybody is exhibiting groupthink here, Vapo-rub, it's you. You doggedly attack everyone's statements without so much as addressing any of their points, yet you fail to take a position on your own. It's the ultimate in cowardice. As I said, this is just a playground to you; you have no interest in learning anything, no interest in being honest, no interest in discussing. You think you're showing off with your long-winded screeds, but in actuality your lack of clarity and conviction denotes a spinning moral compass and a rudderless ship, not a learned philosophical foundation. In other words, you have no principles on which you stand, so you are forced to pick nits with others.

By the way, Vapo-rub, what is 'annuals of time?' If you're going to attempt to be creative, you might at least double check your prose for...well...stupidity.

If anybody is exhibiting groupthink here, Vapo-rub, it's you. You doggedly attack everyone's statements without so much as addressing any of their points, yet you fail to take a position on your own. It's the ultimate in cowardice. As I said, this is just a playground to you; you have no interest in learning anything, no interest in being honest, no interest in discussing. You think you're showing off with your long-winded screeds, but in actuality your lack of clarity and conviction denotes a spinning moral compass and a rudderless ship, not a learned philosophical foundation. In other words, you have no principles on which you stand, so you are forced to pick nits with others.

By the way, Vapo-rub, what is 'annuals of time?' If you're going to attempt to be creative, you might at least double check your prose for...well...stupidity.

Well, I do admit to knowing odd people - Annuals of Time is the title of a book... You wouldn't know it - I think it was only given to acquaintances... And it was quite a while ago. It was sort of an 'in' joke. I happen to know someone who is marginally following this... He'll enjoy the reference.

My moral compass is fine - and I think I found the rudder last week...

Also I have found I didn't miss your personal attacks while you were 'gone' David.

I see our Politics & Current Events troll is back.

Is the Hutaree compound finished fossten?

Well, I do admit to knowing odd people - Annuals of Time is the title of a book... You wouldn't know it - I think it was only given to acquaintances... And it was quite a while ago. It was sort of an 'in' joke. I happen to know someone who is marginally following this... He'll enjoy the reference.

My moral compass is fine - and I think I found the rudder last week...

Also I have found I didn't miss your personal attacks while you were 'gone' David.Cry me a river Fox. Boo-freaking-hoo.