Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Quote:I would suggest that, for a section on the left, Chomsky is doing a similar deceptive disservice to that Trump is doing to a section on the right.
Trump can not be identified as your usual enemy image on the right. His agenda is centered, specified to the working middle class and small- to medium business. He is hated by the aristocratic class of global big business, big banks and their affiliates in global politics.
Take corporatism: (Bill) Clinton, Blair, Schröder, Obama. These social democratic leaders made a pact with the devil: To promote their left-ideological agenda of internationalism (abolishment of the nation state to get it ultimately replaced by a one world central government, plus the total ethic mix of people), they dealt hand in glove with the mightiest multinational companies and the institutions who represent the rules-based international order. Both with the same goal: A multi-ethic, borderless world as undemocratic as the EU or China. One government, one policy, one currency, total control.
That’s the main reason why I’m such a hyped up cheerleader for The Donald. I was relieved in 2016 that there is a guy who addresses these issues, with Hillary as the rival who stated that she would drive centralization and globalism even further. I’m delighted about the results of Trumps policy so far.
@Great King Rat
Quote:Where's the "It has been proven…" from your last post gone?Implicitly check out the UN World Happiness Report! Indicators are GDP, Social support, Healthy life expectancy, Freedom to make life choices, Generosity, Perceptions of corruption. The detailed ranking is on Wikipedia.
Quote:All of the big industrialized European countries have exploited other countries during the age of imperialism in order to provide ressources for their growing industries. They have taken natural ressources and committed genocides. After the abolishment of colonialism, the exploitation has continued (and still is!) through means of the free market.This description is far too simple, one-sided, negative, mostly wrong. The usual accuse of the clumsy left. I could easily write a ton of arguments and facts against your hollow statement and certainly will be happy to do so if you are interested.
Quote:In the EU too much milk is produced for its inhabitants to consume. So the surplus is turned into milk powder which is then shipped to some poor African state and sold there cheaply. As a consequence, small farmers in that state who made a living on selling milk from their cows are driven out of business because they can't compete with the cheap substitute product from overseas.The failure is on the bad government of the states in Africa! No one is obligated to import milk powder from the EU. They could ban the import, put taxes on it to protect their domestic economy. It's totally mazy to accuse the local supplier for the misfeature in the recipient countries.
Quote:I strongly believe that especially we in the Western industrialized countries have to accept and admit that our wealth and progress were erected on the back of others who we've exploited and, again, keep exploiting.Totally wrong. Again, the oversimplified thinking of the embittered left who is always there to criticize ourselves. They hate their own countries and culture. They hate themselves.
Quote:I see very little reason why capitalism should be the preferable choice, at least in such an unregulated way as it has always been.Then please tell us about your more "preferable choice", come up with a better solution! Unregulated? Capitalism? How old are you? Sorry, but you don't have the absolutely leastest clue of our legislation! Our economic system is tied to numerous regulations. In the EU, it's totally overregulated. I'm long enough in business to know that in detail, particularly with regard to the comparison with other regions in the world.
Quote:Idealistically, capitalism is dead. It doesn't live up to its (theoretic) promises, or if it does, only few people benefit. Let's face it, constant growth is an illusion.The opposite. Idealistically? What you mean with that? Again here: Have you got a better alternative to offer?
Quote:But apart from the basics, I argue that people would only measure their well-being or luck with money because they think they need a stupid € 500,-phone or stupid €300,- sneakers or a TV as big as their living room wall.Ok. Then we take the, as you name it, "stupid € 500,-phone" for an example:
Besides a telephone, you got a music player with access to all the songs in the world, a video recorder and -player, a photo camera, access to all the newspapers in the world, the largest library imaginable, you got a TV, a watch, a pocket lamp, a calculator, a road map, a notebook, an audio recorder, a computer, a navigation system, an alarm clock, detailed maps from every place in the world, internet, a compass, a language translator, a social network (if you don’t have one IRL), a dictaphone, a weather forecast, you can do an emergency call when you’re out and alone in the wild, you got apps to check your health to prevent issues, plus dozens of useful, essential and unnecessary things – most of on a quality level unimaginable before, and with the unthinkable possibilities of AI yet to come. Now think of:
The money you save for not having to buy all of these devices separately anymore
The resources saved for it’s not necessary to produce all of these devices anymore
The environment saved for it’s not necessary to produce and dispose all of these devices anymore
The easement and benefit of efficiency in your everyday life due to this innovation
Fantastic, isn’t it? The smartphone could only have been invented and developed within the environment of free market capitalism. Basic terms: No cartel. No monopoly. The more competition, the better. The less regulation, the better (certainly not "zero-regulation"). You have to let companies and their staff constantly urge for better solutions, so that they come up with goods and services that suit the needs and demands of the (potential) consumer better than the product of the competitor. Upon that in response, that competitor will strive to make it even better…
People are only willing to make an extraordinary effort if they get rewarded adequately. If a company acts stingy, they won’t get good personnel. Then if the government taxes, say, 50% or more of the profit or salary off, then the fire for innovation, effort, diligence extinguishes. We are not talking about Marxism yet, the wet dream of about half of the left-wing politicians here in Europe. In this model, the state owns or controls the companies in a non-competition environment, because the central government certainly knows better what’s best for all the people than themselves.
Quote:In some small areas around the globe there are still some indiginous tribes who live the way they've lived for centuries, without electricity or money. In our eyes, they're poor, yet the level of contentment is high among those people.What a lovely, romantic imagination! So you have plans to emigrate? What is your favored destination?
Quote:Correct me if I am wrong, it seems that you do not count people of excessive wealth in this class. Let's face it, nobody ever 'earned' a billion dollars.I point to the vulgar exaggerations of the social state, funded by the taxes of the hard working middle class. I do not accuse the smart ones to utilize it as it's human nature to grab what you can (although they act deeply anti-social). The failure is on the ones that set up the system in a way that certain can benefit from it without being in need.
Quote:I do believe it is possible. I do not believe any of those three conditions you state exist in America today.Relax, friend. I can herewith fully reassure to you that in today's America, these institutions do exist. I will answer later on your newest post. Get prepared!
Two things @ most of you guys:
We don't need reason and we don't need logic
'Cause we've got feeling and we're dang proud of it (Daniel Johnston)
It's inexpensive, platitudinous, cheap, lazy-thinking just to criticize, but then not coming up with a (potentially better) solution, an alternative. One of which certainly is feasible.
Imagine all the people, living life in peace
Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man (John Lennon)
Stop comparing our living standards, welfare, sense of justice, economic- and governmental system etc. against an unreal, perfect utopian vision of a world as a paradisiac garden Eden, where every human being, every animal, every plant is in perfect harmony with each other. It doesn't help any on the path to make the world a better place – if you really intend to do so.
Hello again to all of you!
Quote:Chomsky's basic position on the better alternative is the, "lesser of two evils,"Sorry, but it's just common thinking for any grown-up to realize that the one perfect solution, if at all, only rarely exists. That's my point when I name the advocates of socialistic ideas as infantile. Their dreaming of a perfect, harmonized, synchronized society is not only totally naive, but it has been proven numerous times that the attempts to install paradise on earth leads into hell: Poverty, doom, injustice, corruption, misfortune, early mortality, mass unemployment (ok, that won't impress people on the hard-left as they hate to work anyway), social riot, up to civil war and terror. But in the forefront of that, and because the human being urges instinctively towards liberty, autonomy and self-determination, socialism can only be established in an authoritarian, dictatorial regime. How many more tragic examples are necessary to convince even the dumbest?
Furthermore, since Chomsky's disgraceful denegation of the Khmer Rouge terror, he is on the same low level as the morons who deny the Holocaust or the Gulag. Ugly.
Quote:What does the word 'soul' mean to you?A conception, an imagination, something indefinable – all of which could be used to lead the discussion towards a cloudy, esoteric territory. I had these talks (simplified: Reality vs. Spirituality) with people who either took too many drugs in their life or never overcame their narcissistic, egocentric childish behavior. No, we will have to keep it on solid ground to evaluate the pros and cons of different ideas.
Quote:You see, the flaw in so many arguments is the attempt to measure well-being with financial metrics.Totally wrong. There's absolutely no "flaw" in that. Well-being – or being well – primarily depends on wealth, which first builds up and stabilizes the nation, communities, the individual. As soon as basic needs like security and infrastructure are covered, and with more wealth available, a social state can be implemented for the ones in need to have a life in dignity. Now here in Europe, these institutions become more and more sponsors for individuals and groups that would not need support, but are clever enough to utilize the system for themselves in an anti-social way. That's a deeply egoistic behavior that needs to be fought against. I hope that you agree on that.
1) Free competition in a capitalistic economic environment plus 2) a developed, extensive democracy plus 3) an independent constitutional state – that's the successful combination to lead a society into peace, wealth, happiness. You don't believe it? Then go to meet people in poor countries. Ask them what they whish for a better life. And please don't be as arrogant as some of the rich, fat western intellectuals to tell them that they should kindly be happy to be poor.
Quote:America is a socialist country right now and has been for some time. We just practice socialism in our own way. Our government gives money to corporations too fucked up to stay in business without help on a regular basis. That's how American socialism works. It is selective, just like racism. It starts with the 14th Amendment, and we keep the party going with the Citizens United decision.I see your point, and I'm partly with you. But that's not a kind of socialism, it's corporatism with Hillary Clinton as its most popular representative back in 2016. Implemented at least a decade earlier, it culminated in the Troubled Asset Relief Program in 2008. By 100% this would have turned out differently under Trump.
But in your view, he "captures the worst qualities of America and humanity in general", he is an "animal", "does not think like a human", "the greatest con man of all time"; America "the most fucked up country on the planet" – really? To answer on such absolute negativity is impossible. To what do you compare? So any other country on the planet would suit your needs better than America? How do you explain that America has always been – and still is – the most preferred destination for emigrants worldwide? On the opposite: Why have people always desperately tried to leave socialistic governed countries?
I know people with your views here in Germany. They criticize capitalism, the democratic system, the society, money and wealth as such, the concept of nation states… Ironically, most of them are the ones to benefit most from the circumstances they bash. Our word for this attitude: Geistige Wohlstandsverwahrlosung. Mental neglect due to wealth.
What they don't bring up – and what I would like to hear from you as well – are better alternatives. Because if they throw in ideas, their relic proposals proved to have failed numerous times, everywhere they have been applied. In the west, left-wing politicians and intellectuals were always enthusiastic for countries trying socialism; think of Venezuela as a recent example. Then as soon as the experiment fails, suddenly they state that only the implementation has been done wrong. That leads to the tautology: Only a successful socialism is a correct socialism – but such a socialism doesn't exist until now.
So the trick is to avoid a comparison of the real existing capitalism with the historic events of socialism, but with the utopia of an equitable, anticapitalistic society. That's equally fair as if you don't compare your marriage with the ones of other couples, but with romantic portrayals in dime novels. Compared to the idealized phantasies of a perfect world, even a successful system as capitalism turns out bad, though in the last decades it liberated hundreds of million people, especially in Asia, out of bitter poverty.
Hans Boller:
Quote:Wow Norman, I'm impressed!Thanks
Referencing to your post in the other thread: You obviously understood parts of my post totally wrong, by 180 degrees. As your post comes by partly mazy and as an emotional rant, it would help if you read my post again slowly, carefully.supernaut:
Quote:I don't get how Norman's ramblings are not patronizing or snobbish but I'd be happy to have this board chilled. There's enough of these holier than thou and I have facts to crush your petty opinions "discussions" all over the webs and so far this phorum has been quite uniquely devoid of those. So that's it for me.I understand that it's cozy to stay in your safe space, consuming the synchronized coverage of the mainstream media, surrounded by like-minded people. Unity instead of diversity, confirmation instead of dissent.
You have "facts to crush your petty opinions"? Bring them! Because I don't believe you. And don't take your "it's too stupid for me"-attitude as an alibi to hold back.
bionaut, thanks for opening this thread. I hope that we get posts here from various members, covering the whole spectrum.
As I wrote a lot so far, please tell me: What are your views / preferences / beliefs? Why Bernie? What is your opinion on Trump and his agenda?
@bionaut, Cape Cod – that's something! My daughter went there once during her stay in Boston.
I am 55 years old, born and raised in Germany. Due to my profession as a sales engineer for an industrial company, I lived nearly half of my adult life in other countries, mostly out of main cities, where I helped to build up local branches. Since the fall of the iron curtain, I'm an avid observer on the effects of globalization and multilateralism, its impacts for the various social classes and, of course, the political arrangement. By 1992 and eventually with the partly un- and antidemocratic implementation of the Maastricht Treaty then, I was confident that this all won't work out the way the elites would like to have it.
Just before Super Tuesday: Who is your favourite candidate so far for the 3rd. of November?
Quote:I wonder how she would look at the world in its current state, had she still lived.That would be quite obvious, wouldn't it?
«The most puzzling development in politics during the last decade is the apparent determination of Western European leaders to re-create the Soviet Union in Western Europe.» (Michail Gorbatschow)
For many in nearly the whole western world, a hard built up welfare state is taken for granted and seems to lure them into musings for socialistic ideas. There's an attitude of laziness, paired with an aggressive sort of entitlement, preferably justified with an accusing sort of moralism. It mostly comes combined with a naive idealization of centralism, in conjunction with the degradation of the independent, self governing nation state, or such old-fashioned ideas as diligence or personal responsibility.
Well-founded on her own background, Rand would refer to the drastically failed experimentation with socialism: Afghanistan, Ukraine, Lithuania, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, most countries in Central America, DDR, Kirgistan, China, Pakistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indo-China, Korean Peninsula…
On the other hand, there's the liberal agenda of Donald Trump (and other modern populists) with his focus on strengthening the domestic working class, families and communities. Deregulation (for every new law in, eight went out) let companies breathe, innovate and invest again. Tax cuts unburdens individuals, families and companies. The result so far: 7 million new jobs since his election; 1,2 million in manufacturing and construction alone. 12'000 new industrial firms established. Unemployment rate as low as 1968; for blacks, latinos and hispanics on its lowest ever recorded. Wages rising on all incoming levels; for workers now faster than for managers. There's a lot more still, for example his agenda on foreign affair, which is an achievement on its own.
Is Ayn Rand up-to-date? For people like me and obviously The Donald, her ideas appear to be fresh, inspiring and usable; the positive impact for the vast majority of America's people speaks on its own. At least, Rand's ideas should be taken as an excellent benchmark to evaluate where we stand now. But to generally demonize her is as stupid as it is suspicious.
Quote:I assume (well I think I also read so somewhere) he dropped Rand due to getting older, wiser, his travels and seeing the world as it is. Real experience took over from (post)adolescent reading. So there… live to learn and change. I respect that."assume"… "think I also read somewhere"… blah blah. "live to learn and change. I respect that." Wow! You're so generous to respect that. Still and again: The usual patronising, stuck up, self-righteous snobbery.
To refuse Rand and her ideas means for you to be mature, wise (hahaha, that's a good one), an intellectual supreme cosmopolitan. What an exceptionally blunt kind of self-righteousness!
In the logical reverse you identify Rand and people accepting or following her ideas as immature, unwise, that they never travel, are too stupid to "seeing the world as it is".
Who the hell you think you are? Again you show a dismissive manure, intolerance and antipathy against everyone that seems not to share exactly your ideology. What is this, if not immature, encapsulated and unwise?
Quote:But if whole groups condemn any info they don't like as lies coming from one big corporate body with one big agenda, then that's nothing but an excuse to put any individual responsibility aside.Quite right, supernaut. But only rarely I have witnessed the described behaviour in such an absolutistic way. So I would be curious to hear what "whole groups" that you mean.
In 2016, 84% of German journalists considered themselves to be standing on the left. One could argue that they are guided by high ethical standards, certainly noble enough to be reluctant – to "write what is" (Rudolf Augstein). But their ideological siding and moral paternalism comes by so bearish that I often think to myself – wtf? Do they consider us as that stupid? Nowadays it's much easier to get closer to the source of a fact. And when you realize that you get cheated repeatedly, you lose trust. Plus, I don't want to get told what I must think. I want to have unweighted raw coverage – yes, lighted out from different perspectives – upon which I can finally make up my own mind.
Due to their wide conformity in coverage, emphasis and evaluation, their views slightly became the new normality, the new center, where alternatives often beeing considered as at least "unhelpful". I have always been alienated about the bitter fights within the left about minor discrepancies they have. There seems to be no room for dissent. Guess I would get fired from these editorial offices right after my very first aricle
Although they unfortunately keep losing credibility, rest assured that I don't want the traditional media to disappear. But they urgently need to reform by recruiting their staff from a much broader spectrum, and having the guts to allow and tolerate dissent within their community.
Thanks Punj! It's such great fun for me that I could do this all day
You've had bad experience with discussions like these? Be sure that it often alienates me too how quickly dialog partners in these exchanges start to totally freak out. It fascinates me so much that it guided me to a deeper thinking about this topic.It can also be observed in political TV-talks, where – my estimation – it's in 75% of the cases the left who interrupts and shuts down the right. It seems as they would suffer too much. Sometimes it only needs a displeasing dry fact to cause a harsh pain they obviously can't withstand.
You get the feedback that you're "acting like I think I'm better and more intelligent"? That's what it's about here! Getting knowledge from "academic literature that I read day in and day out and avoiding reference to the press and TV news" may be a fine approach. But one that doesn't qualify in an autistic matter of course to always be right.
"intelligent arguments drawing on the academic literature" – to glorify this method, to consequently rely on highest educated intellectual elites has leaded mankind, besides good developments, also in deepest catastrophies more than once. You seem to consider economic liberalism as basically wrong? But these concepts have been developed and are represented by high validated experts too!
When your view gets rejected, have you ever thought that this could be due to your behaviour? It's also in your repeated use of the terms "whining" and "get over" against me. Do you really need that? By trying just to insult the opposite, like it's common for leftists (as I probably wrote once before in this thread about the similiraties of Rush and Motorpsycho), you put yourself down, your views won't be taken seriously anymore. Come on, you're better than that!
It gets dead dangerous when there's common sense within a broad community that divergent views are generally bad, stupid, originated due to "wrong" interests, disinformation or seduction. Although – thankfully – in democratic nations the opposite still has the right to express their view, at least as a corrective. We can get rid of represantatives who in our opinion have done wrong or failed, to vote for alternatives instead. History shows that in the long term, the outcome of a democratic political system in a liberal society, paired with an independent consitutional state and a free capitalistic economic order proved to be the most peaceful, stable, healthy, prosperous – simply most proper way for the majority of the people.
I hope that you all join me in my conviction that we should not dismiss, insult, bully, shut down each other, neither in a manner of intellectual nor morally feel of superiority. I love to exchange controversial views, concepts, preferences, ideas and beliefs in a sporty and competitive but respectful manner. Bearing in mind that for the majority of the issues, there might be no final right or wrong. Often, it only leads to an assumption as what might be the least worst solution.
@Valderrama, I think about these topics often too. Maybe I'm able to lay down a few thoughts about it next.
Quote:Assuming you are a believer or follower of Ayn Rand's ideas, I would suggest you push that bottom lip in, wipe the tears away, and get over yourself – your lot are doing quite well at the moment.Punj, I’m not a firm Rand afficionada, much more into classic european liberalism instead. With your semi-insult, you show who you are. Oh, you only wrote "I would suggest", right? I’m deeply grateful on your kind and surely well-meant would-suggestion
Johnny proves my point best with his first sentence where he implies that most Rand supporters are stupid, while certainly his intelligence is above theirs. Classic. It's what I observed for a lifetime: The majority of people on the left side of the political spectrum consider themselves as generally superior against individuals with contrary opinions. But these leftists are not better educated overall, nor do they have more experience, slyness, awareness, deeper/broader interest, knowledge whatsoever. Their patronizing way of self-assurance is because they are naturally convinced to stand on the "good", the "correct" side. They’ve been told so by the mainstream media, celebrities, artists and the majority of the so called intellectuals and experts.
I’m a strong Trump supporter. About 90% of what he achieved so far is congruent with my values. I'm excited about Brexit, AfD, Salvini, Bannon, Orban too. So supernaut, I very much enjoy the way history leads us now! I'm delighted that this shift of gravity already proved that it serves well for the majority of the average working common people. I'm one of those, btw.
Certainly I would prefer the opposite a) if I would (selfishly manage to) directly cash in from the benefits of social democratic politic or the effects of globalisation – which both went out of control in parts of the western world, and/or b) getting information only from the likes of Spiegel, Süddeutsche, taz, CNN, Guardian, NYT. They hail themselves mutually as high validity, thruthful quality media outlets. But if you really don’t realize their sheer left-ideological siding, their utter bias, paired with their brazeness to conceal specific facts while totally exaggerate others, then I would suggest… No. Nothing I would suggest then.
Also here: They condemn the ones on the other side as being uneducated, homophobes, xenophobes, islamophobes, sexists, angry white men, frustated haters, racists, fascists, and a whole lot of funny things more
This is the most ugly, arrogant side of their conviction of superiority. They go that low because of their lack of arguments and persuasive power: Neither they can't counter the opponent with facts in a calm manner anymore, nor they're not willing to handle dissent.It’s everyone’s own choice to ignore the opposite, to stay in your bubble. In my opinon, it’s a bit simple. It definitely doesn’t help to broaden one’s intellectual horizon.
Not only to denote an opinion as "wrong", but also to weight this rating as a fact (as by supernaut in his latest post) however goes in line with the methods of radical hard-left protesters who intend to prohibit a discussion, aggressively fighting to totally shut down any debate they don’t like. Because everyone has to think, talk and behave in (their) one specified, correct, – "right" way.
@Johnny: Do you know Rand’s thinking, concept, theory beyond Wikipedia? Do you know about its historical, economical, cultural background and context? How many "Rand supporters" do you know to come to your judgement against them? And while talking down their intelligence: How about to set the grammar in your first sentence right?
@supernaut: The term Neoliberalism is as equally irrelevant and hollow, commonly used only as a bugbear in a populistic way for oversimplification. Its current meaning has little to nothing to do with the mindset of the new leaders mentioned above that horrify you so much.
About Rush: Saw them first time live in 1983. Not knowing their music at all, I was into Hardrock and NWoBHM then. It was one of those concerts where you go with your peer group, just by going out together. Not knowing their songs, it was over the top for me. The voice irritated me the most.
Then again in 1991 or 1992, not prepared much better, only with a few songs on one side of a TDK 90 a friend gave me days before the concert.
Didn't see too much similarities of Rush and MP as of yet.
Will be back soon.
Quote:yeah we better ignore that Ayn rand stuff. […] The lyrics to "Anthem" are just wrong.Sure you can make it simple for you to just "ignore that Ayn rand stuff". But you should not generally condemn a concept, an opinion as "wrong" only because it doesn't match with your own personal preferences.
Which comes as no surprise though. People on the opposite spectrum of Rand's thinking naturally consider themselves as superior in every way.
@Johnny_Heartfield: MP does by no way "neglect the south western part of Germany". It's the bookers of the clubs and venues in this area that – for whatever reason – do not book MP there for a gig. Call them! Email them!
Hello everybody. I’m new here too. For me, Spotify represents the all time low regarding music legally available. Any artist not signed up there proves guts, proud, and – most of it all – dignity.
Regarding the other discussion here, I find doglicksman’s statements highly refreshing. Well done! Straight talk has become rare and unusual since the triumphal procession of political correctness, mainly used in a dictatorial way by the leftwing to discredit and ban people with a different opinion.
I’m from Germany too and know people like mybestfriend83 very well. They combine their moaning and cant with – some less, some more – aggressive demands, urging for solidarity. While they live their lives on the cost of tax payers (i.e. people who go to work every morning), they mainly laugh and spit on those. So there’s nothing wrong with doglicksman getting emotional, for some maybe over the top in parts.
@ mybestfriend83: Like for your meanness and anti solidaric attitude regarding music, you should go and ask for reduction on gas, water and cigarettes. Though I’m sure you already got loads of subsidy payment from the community.
So there’s only one thing left to do for you: Get a job!
