If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Your romanticized view of wealth redistribution overlooks a fundamental flaw in human nature: greed doesn't vanish with government control; it merely changes hands from businessmen to politicians. History isn't kind to your utopia; it's littered with the failures of such systems, where the promise of equality morphs into the reality of universal poverty, except for those in power. Believing that billionaires willingly want more taxes to support a bloated, inefficient system is naive. They navigate these waters to further their interests, often advocating for policies that ultimately benefit them under the guise of altruism. Your argument doesn't champion the entrepreneur spirit; it underestimates the pervasive nature of greed, now cloaked in political power, leading to the very chaos you naively seek to avoid. Your stance isn't just broken; it's dangerously ignorant of the lessons history has painfully taught us
In addition to the fact you mischaracterized me as far-left politically....
I am putting forth a CHALLENGE to both to and Dilip any anyone else of Libertarian thinkng...
I have already posted that to my knowledge, in modern history there are only 2 examples of actual Libertarianism: the Wild West era in western USA, and the dot-com bubble of 1997 to 2000. The first failed economically and had to be replaced, the second failed even more spectacularly and proved a total disaster to just give capital to anyone who proposes any business idea at all.
The challenge is for you to provide any example in modern history of an actual Libertarian government that succeeded without ending in economic failure. If there is no such example, then the evidence shows Libertarianism to be a failure.
Note, modern history only, if you say some ancient civilization was Libertarian, it doesn't suffice.
In addition to the fact you mischaracterized me as far-left politically....
I am putting forth a CHALLENGE to both to and Dilip any anyone else of Libertarian thinkng...
I have already posted that to my knowledge, in modern history there are only 2 examples of actual Libertarianism: the Wild West era in western USA, and the dot-com bubble of 1997 to 2000. The first failed economically and had to be replaced, the second failed even more spectacularly and proved a total disaster to just give capital to anyone who proposes any business idea at all.
The challenge is for you to provide any example in modern history of an actual Libertarian government that succeeded without ending in economic failure. If there is no such example, then the evidence shows Libertarianism to be a failure.
Note, modern history only, if you say some ancient civilization was Libertarian, it doesn't suffice.
Hong Kong (pre-1997): Hong Kong before the handover to China in 1997 showcased what a largely laissez-faire economic policy could achieve. With low tax rates, minimal government intervention in the economy, and a robust legal system to protect property rights and contracts, Hong Kong rapidly developed from a small fishing village into one of the world's leading financial centers.
The “Weekly Overview” of the topic is posted for the benefit of new members who may have come in between the “Weekly Overviews”. It provides an executive summary of the issue for new viewers.
The Stats of participation are important to allow all to determine the extent of continuing interest. For thread originators/responders, they are important to see if the interest no longer warrants the labour. Or alternatively, they show that those of us discussing it are drawing in more participants, because they have begun to see the importance of our topic
A. Statistics
1. Weekly Stats:
Week # 10 (24/3/4 – 3/10 [7 days])
(Sometimes Adjusted for no. of days)
.....................................................2024 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day Views/Day........Views/Day.............(10 wks.)
Last week's stats reflect the fact that there are fewer initiating responses being posted per week now. So it is expected that activity will be less in what is predominantly an “educational” thread
But there continues a steady interest in DM from when the thread started. CT'ers are interested in learning more about DM, and about government from the DM perspective.
And discussions/increased participation does happen when a current controversial issue is brought into the thread. There is discussion of current political affairs from the different perspectives of the various participants.
I, as originator/main poster, will now likely just post 1 discussion paper per week, near the start of the week.
This thread is an opportunity to learn something about the political system known as “Democratic Marxism”! It is also an opportunity to question DM in a good and safe forum, where we try to respect the right of all CT'ers to have their own analysis, and to be entitled to put it forward for consideration, even if differing from DM.
B. Goal of this Thread
To make clear what Democratic Marxism is, and what it is not (Old-style USSR Communism)
To provide materials that help CT'ers analyze the pluses and minuses of DM.
Additional Notes:
1. The goal of this thread is not to try to beat opposing views into oblivion. Political economy spans the spectrum. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide among the many competing political philosophies.
2. I, Bob A, personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least twice per week, but admit my busy schedule means I may sometimes fall short on this. So it is necessary that a number of other CT'ers post responses here somewhat regularly as well.
Democratic Marxists Can Win at the Ballot Box (within a Capitalist Electoral System)
Democratic Marxism Discussion Paper # 11
A guide to the possible future electoral success of Democratic Marxism can be seen by a review of the successes of earlier Democratic Socialist Parties across the globe:
20th Century
Chile
Salvadore Allende, leader of the Chilean Socialist Party won the plurality. The Communist Party of Chile won, at the ballot box, in a capitalist electoral system, enough seats, that Allende entered into a Unity Government with them, to get a majority to govern.
They governed for 3 years, and Chile did OK - not sparkling, but better than under the capitalists.
That government might even have been re-elected at the ballot box the next election.
The USA so feared there being a well-functioning socialist country, that they enlisted General Augusto Pinochet to bring about a violent coup, in a country that had a long history of democracy!
Allende was surrounded in the Presidential palace by the army. He knew he would be tortured when captured. He chose to commit suicide in the Presidential palace before the troops reached him.
2. France
François Marie Adrien Maurice Mitterrand was a French statesman who served as President of France from 1981 to 1995, the longest time in office in the history of France. As First Secretary of the Socialist Party, he was the first left-wing politician to assume the presidency under the Fifth Republic. Wikipedia
21st Century
Venezuela
Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (/ˈtʃævɛz/, Spanish pronunciation: [ˈuɣo rafaˈel ˈtʃaβes ˈfɾi.as] (About this soundlisten); 28 July 1954 – 5 March 2013) was a Venezuelan politician who was president of Venezuela from 1999 until his death in 2013, except for a brief period in April 2002. Chávez was also leader of the Fifth Republic Movement political party from its foundation in 1997 until 2007, when it merged with several other parties to form the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), which he led until 2012.
As the leader of the Fifth Republic Movement, he was elected president of Venezuela in 1998 with 56.2% of the vote. And this was in a capitalist electoral system. He was re-elected in 2000 with 59.8% of the vote and again in 2006 with 62.8% of the vote.
2. . Bolivia
Wikipedia - In the 2009 general election, Evo Morales, leader of the Movement for Socialism party, was re-elected with 61.36% of the vote. His party, Movement for Socialism, also won a two-thirds majority in both houses of the National Congress.[49]
By the year 2013 after being reelected under the new constitution, Evo Morales and his party attempted for a third term as President of Bolivia. The opposition argued that a third term would be unconstitutional but the Bolivian Constitutional Court ruled that Morales' first term under the previous constitution, did not count towards his term limit.[50] This allowed Evo Morales to run for a third term in 2014, and he was re-elected with 64.22% of the vote.[51] On 17 October 2015, Morales surpassed Andrés de Santa Cruz's nine years, eight months, and twenty-four days in office and became Bolivia's longest serving president.
Proposition
So......YES..........Democratic Marxism is going to take power in due course in country after country across the globe by becoming the government through the ballot box, within a biased capitalist electoral system.
Realistic Electoral Goals
DM winning the election and forming the government is best.
But even getting one DM member into the legislature has tremendous benefit. The reason for this is that the legislator then has a soapbox to stand on to communicate his party's platform. And even better, the capitalist mainstream media have to give that legislator at least a bit of coverage, because the community has elected him/her!
Electoral Goal of the new Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario
The Democratic Marxist Party of Ontario (Brand New - just founded in October, 2020 - https://www.facebook.com/Democratic-...10768894126939 ) has a first goal of electing one, or maybe a few more, candidates in the upcoming Province of Ontario, Canada election in June, 2022. It has a very modest set of goals. These things take time ........ especially when the Ontario elector is being presented with something totally new.
They also expect, like Allende of Chile (Got elected in his third electoral try), that they will likely lose in the first couple of elections. But in campaigning, they will start to get their platform out in public, for the elector to consider. This is a modest and worthwhile goal for the effort needed.
Traditional Communist Theory against the Bourgeois Electoral Strategy
b. Group: Democratic Marxist Global Forum: https://www.facebook.com/groups/2045...ref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARB5MaP7fzlN9ItgmSkMWzv60Rd9mIxsQIkIgIa6_Guh2MGR6mV82GdH-IxgmiiVaJcZ-NLi7Cz46VX0nn78clmPjd-pttzlYPR9dmEubTBnBdnGohd0bl3Fy4k02cb3BVHNVOcfjANvEEUCRw6k1IZDDsZV6l9V1Id5_NomySGWmEpA3Inygttyrt3-jYH1m1M50W3d94tVElUVaZ-SrM-WZ4BkYEj0ZYF5Y5X2d7KRG_MQJtND8fXyDSkU0F1I4FVHkI_eoiyOazUgCRS0lmfetiENOGsaJPb6MfuHzQ92-u7gMI_E8888fus
Originally posted by Pargat Perrer: I am putting forth a CHALLENGE to both to and Dilip any anyone else of Libertarian thinkng...
I have already posted that to my knowledge, in modern history there are only 2 examples of actual Libertarianism: the Wild West era in western USA, and the dot-com bubble of 1997 to 2000. The first failed economically and had to be replaced, the second failed even more spectacularly and proved a total disaster to just give capital to anyone who proposes any business idea at all.
The challenge is for you to provide any example in modern history of an actual Libertarian government that succeeded without ending in economic failure. If there is no such example, then the evidence shows Libertarianism to be a failure.
Hong Kong (pre-1997): Hong Kong before the handover to China in 1997 showcased what a largely laissez-faire economic policy could achieve. With low tax rates, minimal government intervention in the economy, and a robust legal system to protect property rights and contracts, Hong Kong rapidly developed from a small fishing village into one of the world's leading financial centers.
LOL you say Hong Kong grew from a small fishing village .... as if that growth happened in the last 100 years or something. LOL no, readers, do not be fooled by Sid's magic act. Hong Kong was a small fishing village like Toronto was a small farmer's market or whatever it started out as .... way way way long time ago.
Nice try but Hong Kong only qualifies as being a capitalist nation, UNLESS you can prove to me that anyone living in Hong Kong during its alleged (by you) LIbertarian era who had a business idea, no matter how far-fetched, could acquire the needed capital to start that business without any hindrances such as the need for a qualified business plan, the need for forecasts, loan collateral etc.
Dilip defined this characteristic in post 32 of the thread here on CT on "Life, How Should It Be Viewed". He wrote: "In Capitalism, Capital gives you an unfair ability to earn more, and gives you unfair power. In Libertarianism, all you can do with your Capital is 'enjoy' it; as for the 'earning' and 'power' aspects, everyone has access to the Capital they need."
Now, I chose the Wild West era and the 1997-2000 dot-com bubble as my 2 examples of Libertarian eras for good reason. Both had lenders giving out capital to citizens with almost no hindrances whatsoever.
In the Wild West era, it was the Homestead Act of 1862. Land is capital, and land was being given out to anyone willing to try and turn it into a means of sustenance and living. The vast majority of the receivers of this free land were NOT capable of turning it into a means of sustenance and living. Millions of people who received land grants left the land well before the 5-year term in which they had to live off the land had passed. And so this era of Libertarian policy, which included very generous bank lending practices as well because the West was seen as the Land of Opportunity, turned into a failure in the truth that came out which was when you give capital away free, not everyone can figure out how to turn it into sustainable growth. IN FACT, VERY FEW CAN.
And the dot-com bubble, well, I shouldn't even have to write ANYTHING about that. You should remember it well. Untold millions of dollars given away to anyone with an idea for a web site. The bubble popped in March 2000 and it was uuuuuu-gly. You know about that. The greatest evidence of the failure of Libertarian thinking right there.
So unless you can show me Hong Kong banks or lenders were giving land or capital away willy-nilly at some point, no, it was never Libertarian. I read up on its history the past few days since returning from my trip. It was laissez-faire capitalism yes, but Libertarianism no.
And in reading up on it, I found a very interesting thing about even laissez-faire capitalism in general. It comes from a book called "The Economic History of Hong Kong" by Catherine R. Schenk, University of Glasgow. Actually, there's 2 things I found out.
First of all, Hong Kong was not truly laissez-faire capitalism during the post-WWII Industrialization era in Hong Kong. She writes:
"Low taxes, lax employment laws, absence of government debt and free trade are all pillars of the Hong Kong experience of economic development.
In fact, of course,the reality was very different from the myth of complete laissez-faire. The government's programs of public housing, land reclamation, and infrastructure investment were ambitious. New industrial towns were built to house immigrants, provide employment and aid industry. The government subsized industry indirectly through this public housing, which restrained rises in the cost of living that would have threatened Hong Kong's labor-cost advantage in manufacturing."
So I guess we can assume that if this is Libertarianism, then Libertarianism will see workers housed in industrial towns and cheap public housing paid for by the government in order to maintain a labor-cost advantage for the economy of the nation. Welcome to Libertarian Free Nation, everyone! Here are your cheap homes ... sorry, no running water or electricity, but you'll make do!
This book then reminds us of the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-2002. Do you remember that Sid? This is when Hong Kong laissez-faire capitalism hit the skids big time. And it wasn't because of China takeover, because the Hong Kong Basic Law ensured Hong Kong's capitalist independence from mainland China well beyond 1997. The author mentioned above has this to say:
"...the Asian Financial Crisis pushed Hong Kong into a new era of recession with a rise in unemployment ... and absolute declines in output and prices. The longer-term impact of the crisis has been to increase the intensity and importance of Hong Kong's trade and investment links with the PRC [communist China]. Since the PRC did not fare as badly from the regional crisis, the economic prospects for Hong Kong have been tied more closely to the increasingly prosperous mainland."
So there you have it ... laissez-faire capitalism in Asia had a financial crisis, and the communist Chinese mainland did much BETTER during this crisis so that Hong Kong now has closer economic ties to the mainland. Doesn't speak well of laissez-faire capitalism.
So I think Hong Kong is debunked as an example of Libertarianism that is a success story.
I think there is no such success story in modern history. Libertarianism is a failed idea. There is no example of its success whatsoever, and there are my 2 strong examples of its utter failure.
Last edited by Pargat Perrer; Monday, 11th March, 2024, 08:47 PM.
Originally posted by Pargat Perrer: I am putting forth a CHALLENGE to both to and Dilip any anyone else of Libertarian thinkng...
I have already posted that to my knowledge, in modern history there are only 2 examples of actual Libertarianism: the Wild West era in western USA, and the dot-com bubble of 1997 to 2000. The first failed economically and had to be replaced, the second failed even more spectacularly and proved a total disaster to just give capital to anyone who proposes any business idea at all.
The challenge is for you to provide any example in modern history of an actual Libertarian government that succeeded without ending in economic failure. If there is no such example, then the evidence shows Libertarianism to be a failure.
LOL you say Hong Kong grew from a small fishing village .... as if that growth happened in the last 100 years or something. LOL no, readers, do not be fooled by Sid's magic act. Hong Kong was a small fishing village like Toronto was a small farmer's market or whatever it started out as .... way way way long time ago.
Nice try but Hong Kong only qualifies as being a capitalist nation, UNLESS you can prove to me that anyone living in Hong Kong during its alleged (by you) LIbertarian era who had a business idea, no matter how far-fetched, could acquire the needed capital to start that business without any hindrances such as the need for a qualified business plan, the need for forecasts, etc.
Dilip defined this characteristic in post 32 of the thread here on CT on "Life, How Should It Be Viewed". He wrote: "In Capitalism, Capital gives you an unfair ability to earn more, and gives you unfair power. In Libertarianism, all you can do with your Capital is 'enjoy' it; as for the 'earning' and 'power' aspects, everyone has access to the Capital they need."
Now, I chose the Wild West era and the 1997-2000 dot-com bubble as my 2 examples of Libertarian eras for good reason. Both had lenders giving out capital to citizens with almost no hindrances whatsoever.
In the Wild West era, it was the Homestead Act of 1862. Land is capital, and land was being given out to anyone willing to try and turn it into a means of sustenance and living. The vast majority of the receivers of this free land were NOT capable of turning it into a means of sustenance and living. Millions of people who received land grants left the land well before the 5-year term in which they had to live off the land had passed. And so this era of Libertarian policy, which included very generous bank lending practices as well because the West was seen as the Land of Opportunity, turned into a failure in the truth that came out which was when you give capital away free, not everyone can figure out how to turn it into sustainable growth. IN FACT, VERY FEW CAN.
And the dot-com bubble, well, I shouldn't even have to write ANYTHING about that. You should remember it well. Untold millions of dollars given away to anyone with an idea for a web site. The bubble popped in March 2000 and it was uuuuuu-gly. You know about that. The greatest evidence of the failure of Libertarian thinking right there.
So unless you can show me Hong Kong banks or lenders were giving land or capital away willy-nilly at some point, no, it was never Libertarian. I read up on its history the past few days since returning from my trip. It was laissez-faire capitalism yes, but Libertarianism no.
And in reading up on it, I found a very interesting thing about even laissez-faire capitalism in general. It comes from a book called "The Economic History of Hong Kong" by Catherine R. Schenk, University of Glasgow. Actually, there's 2 things I found out.
First of all, Hong Kong was not truly laissez-faire capitalism during the post-WWII Industrialization era in Hong Kong. She writes:
"Low taxes, lax employment laws, absence of government debt and free trade are all pillars of the Hong Kong experience of economic development.
In fact, of course,the reality was very different from the myth of complete laissez-faire. The government's programs of public housing, land reclamation, and infrastructure investment were ambitious. New industrial towns were built to house immigrants, provide employment and aid industry. The government subsized industry indirectly through this public housing, which restrained rises in the cost of living that would have threatened Hong Kong's labor-cost advantage in manufacturing."
So I guess we can assume that if this is Libertarianism, then Libertarianism will see workers housed in industrial towns and cheap public housing paid for by the government in order to maintain a labor-cost advantage for the economy of the nation. Welcome to Libertarian Free Nation, everyone! Here are your cheap homes ... sorry, no running water or electricity, but you'll make do!
The two examples you give were pivotal moments in history that made the world a better places. One opened up an entire region and the other served to create an entire new online economy.
Lets discuss personal responsibility for a moment.
Personal Responsibility and Risk: In both the context of the Homestead Act and the Dot-com bubble, individuals made decisions to invest resources (land and labor in one case, capital in the other) based on their own assessments of potential rewards versus risks. The nature of speculative ventures inherently involves risk, and individuals choosing to participate in these ventures often do so with the hope of significant gains, fully aware of the potential for loss. This underscores a principle of personal responsibility in investment and entrepreneurial activities: while the potential for high returns can be enticing, it comes with the acceptance of high risk.
Misrepresentations and Legal Remedies: When misrepresentations or fraudulent activities are involved, both historical and contemporary legal frameworks provide remedies for aggrieved parties. During the Dot-com bubble, many companies were accused of misleading investors about their financial health, business prospects, or operational capabilities. In cases where these misrepresentations were proven, investors had legal recourse through securities laws designed to protect them from fraud. Similarly, any fraudulent activities related to the Homestead Act, such as false claims or speculations, could be challenged and addressed through legal means.
individuals are free to light a match to their money in pursuit of potential gains, the legal system provides mechanisms to address and remedy instances of deceit or misrepresentation. This balance aims to encourage innovation and investment while protecting the integrity of markets and individual rights.
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Monday, 11th March, 2024, 09:06 PM.
The two examples you give were pivotal moments in history that made the world a better places. One opened up an entire region and the other served to create an entire new online economy.
Lets discuss personal responsibility for a moment.
Personal Responsibility and Risk: In both the context of the Homestead Act and the Dot-com bubble, individuals made decisions to invest resources (land and labor in one case, capital in the other) based on their own assessments of potential rewards versus risks. The nature of speculative ventures inherently involves risk, and individuals choosing to participate in these ventures often do so with the hope of significant gains, fully aware of the potential for loss. This underscores a principle of personal responsibility in investment and entrepreneurial activities: while the potential for high returns can be enticing, it comes with the acceptance of high risk.
Misrepresentations and Legal Remedies: When misrepresentations or fraudulent activities are involved, both historical and contemporary legal frameworks provide remedies for aggrieved parties. During the Dot-com bubble, many companies were accused of misleading investors about their financial health, business prospects, or operational capabilities. In cases where these misrepresentations were proven, investors had legal recourse through securities laws designed to protect them from fraud. Similarly, any fraudulent activities related to the Homestead Act, such as false claims or speculations, could be challenged and addressed through legal means.
individuals are free to light a match to their money in pursuit of potential gains, the legal system provides mechanisms to address and remedy instances of deceit or misrepresentation. This balance aims to encourage innovation and investment while protecting the integrity of markets and individual rights.
I will start by saying I appreciate this response. First of all, because in trying to have any kind of reasonable discussion with Dilip, everytime I asked a question he couldn't answer (good questions, like what is his definition of "fair competition") he would hiss like a cat: "Nasty troll!". Because he just doesn't have the answers. He's a zealous fanatic on Libertarianism who has no answers on how it can ever be implemented. Fair competition? He has no clue.
And secondly, I appreciate this response because it seems to indicate your willingness to take the conversation in a new direction, which it needs to go. Because there can be no doubt that Libertianism is a failed idea. It just cannot ever work. To just give capital to each and every blue-collar worker who claims to have a business idea is lunacy, as the dot-com bubble burst of March 2000 proved once and for all.
So I appreciate Sid that you didn't fight the notion that there is no successful Libertarian example in modern history. You take the conversation in a new direction, which is to say that even if the Libertarian systems of the old west and the dot-com explosion were failures, they "made the world a better place".
So there are 2 questions that arise: first, did they REALLY make the world a better place? And second, are we going to implement Libertarianism any time the world needs to go to a better place, given that Libertarianism has a costly price tag in lost lives and livelihoods.
Is the digital world REALLY a better world for humans? The survivors of the analog era of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s seem to feel very different about that. I know many of them, and they all rant constantly about how much better things were when people weren't staring at a smartphone screen all day long. But who is right in this debate? We can't really say for sure yet, I think, because digital currency isn't here yet. When it comes -- and it is coming -- it will turn the world upside down. Many many people will not survive the changeover. The ones who do will find themselves much more limited in their life options. We are all about to be controlled as never before in history. We are too busy staring at Tik Tok videos to realize what is coming down the pipeline (and I saw the same thing in Europe by the way).
Aside: there is a great music video by a Shirley Serban, called "Hotel California Parody Song - Phone Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Osmv0AxDM
which introduces new lyrics to the tune of Hotel California, then it goes into the song Zombie by the Cranberries ... and it even uses a brilliant lyrical line stolen from the Eagles, "They are just prisoners of their own device" -- absolute genius! The message is clear: we are becoming zombiefied ... haha a new word!
Sid you talk a lot on here against depopulation, and digital currency is one of the major techniques that will be used to depopulate. Yet you are now saying the dot-com bubble , which precipitated the push into digital and online economics, makes the world a better place. So I will give you some room to comment more about this, perhaps your viewpoint isn't fully expressed yet.
As for the old west, it would have opened up anyway. It didn't need Libertarian land giveaways to open up. And it mostly settled into left-wing economics anyway (California, Oregon, New Mexico, Washington State), which makes it seem that the Libertarian era was just wasted time. Even the red states of Arizona, Utah, Nevada are nothing like their more radical right southeastern counterparts Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana.
So not only do I consider Libertarianism a failed system, never implemented successfully, but I also consider its effects to have been (in the 2 examples given) a huge NEGATIVE for the world.
Libertarianism is not only a fraud, it's a killer.
And just to make it clear, no, I'm not extreme left-wing. What we have now is what we have to work with, and not electing Trump as POTUS is the thing that must happen in the USA this year.
I will start by saying I appreciate this response. First of all, because in trying to have any kind of reasonable discussion with Dilip, everytime I asked a question he couldn't answer (good questions, like what is his definition of "fair competition") he would hiss like a cat: "Nasty troll!". Because he just doesn't have the answers. He's a zealous fanatic on Libertarianism who has no answers on how it can ever be implemented. Fair competition? He has no clue.
And secondly, I appreciate this response because it seems to indicate your willingness to take the conversation in a new direction, which it needs to go. Because there can be no doubt that Libertianism is a failed idea. It just cannot ever work. To just give capital to each and every blue-collar worker who claims to have a business idea is lunacy, as the dot-com bubble burst of March 2000 proved once and for all.
So I appreciate Sid that you didn't fight the notion that there is no successful Libertarian example in modern history. You take the conversation in a new direction, which is to say that even if the Libertarian systems of the old west and the dot-com explosion were failures, they "made the world a better place".
So there are 2 questions that arise: first, did they REALLY make the world a better place? And second, are we going to implement Libertarianism any time the world needs to go to a better place, given that Libertarianism has a costly price tag in lost lives and livelihoods.
Is the digital world REALLY a better world for humans? The survivors of the analog era of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s seem to feel very different about that. I know many of them, and they all rant constantly about how much better things were when people weren't staring at a smartphone screen all day long. But who is right in this debate? We can't really say for sure yet, I think, because digital currency isn't here yet. When it comes -- and it is coming -- it will turn the world upside down. Many many people will not survive the changeover. The ones who do will find themselves much more limited in their life options. We are all about to be controlled as never before in history. We are too busy staring at Tik Tok videos to realize what is coming down the pipeline (and I saw the same thing in Europe by the way).
Aside: there is a great music video by a Shirley Serban, called "Hotel California Parody Song - Phone Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1Osmv0AxDM
which introduces new lyrics to the tune of Hotel California, then it goes into the song Zombie by the Cranberries ... and it even uses a brilliant lyrical line stolen from the Eagles, "They are just prisoners of their own device" -- absolute genius! The message is clear: we are becoming zombiefied ... haha a new word!
Sid you talk a lot on here against depopulation, and digital currency is one of the major techniques that will be used to depopulate. Yet you are now saying the dot-com bubble , which precipitated the push into digital and online economics, makes the world a better place. So I will give you some room to comment more about this, perhaps your viewpoint isn't fully expressed yet.
As for the old west, it would have opened up anyway. It didn't need Libertarian land giveaways to open up. And it mostly settled into left-wing economics anyway (California, Oregon, New Mexico, Washington State), which makes it seem that the Libertarian era was just wasted time. Even the red states of Arizona, Utah, Nevada are nothing like their more radical right southeastern counterparts Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana.
So not only do I consider Libertarianism a failed system, never implemented successfully, but I also consider its effects to have been (in the 2 examples given) a huge NEGATIVE for the world.
Libertarianism is not only a fraud, it's a killer.
And just to make it clear, no, I'm not extreme left-wing. What we have now is what we have to work with, and not electing Trump as POTUS is the thing that must happen in the USA this year.
So I appreciate Sid that you didn't fight the notion that there is no successful Libertarian example in modern history.
Stop putting words in my mouth via conjecture.
No, you and I disagree on what libertarianism is. I consider an economy with minimal government intervention and a robust legal system libertarian. Hong Kong, pre-1997,is a good example of what I consider libertarianism. Estonia post-1991 and Singapore are also examples of this, albeit Singapore is too authoritarian for my taste. Economically speaking, it has served Singapore well for the government to take a minimal interventionist approach to the economy.
Libertarianism has a costly price tag in lost lives and livelihoods.
You have sat here for months calling the dot com crash the end of the world, resulting in lost livelihoods and lives. Market booms and busts have been happening in all kinds of sectors for centuries. By your logic, tulips should be permanently banned because of tulip mania and the crash in the 1600s.
Sid you talk a lot on here against depopulation, and digital currency is one of the major techniques that will be used to depopulate.
Certainly, central bank digital currencies will be the end of freedom and, indeed, the endgame of the World Economic Forum and their puppet Marxist governments.You have enthusiastically submitted to their agenda of bioterror attacks as a way of forcing mass "vaccinating," aka bioweapons, and like a good slave wearing useless and harmful marks because the WEF puppet governments tell you so. You are the one blind to climate fraud they promote as a methodology of demonizing the farmers and causing a mass famine.
And now you have finally woken up to their endgame that may very well be too late???? You blame this on the internet and technological progress???
Blaming technological progress, such as the internet, for the potential misuse by governments is misguided. By that logic, we should ban fundamental tools like geometry because it led to the Pythagorean theorem, which in turn led to the Michelson-Morley experiment. This experiment, using the Pythagorean theorem, unexpectedly supported the idea that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. Einstein then used this concept to rewrite the laws of momentum, ultimately leading to the famous equation E=MC², which paved the way for the development of the nuclear bomb. Banning or restricting knowledge and technology due to potential misuse is not the solution, as it hinders human progress and understanding. Something you sorely lack!
Last edited by Sid Belzberg; Tuesday, 12th March, 2024, 03:03 PM.
To my knowledge, the first time a formal party became a national government is the recent election of Javier Gerardo Milei - He is an Argentine politician and economist who is serving as the President of Argentina since December 2023. Milei has taught university courses and written on various aspects of economics and politics, and also hosted radio programs on the subject. Party - Libertarian Party - Wikipedia
I agree that it should be categorized as "Capitalism (Little Regulated)".
To my knowledge, the first time a formal party became a national government is the recent election of Javier Gerardo Milei - He is an Argentine politician and economist who is serving as the President of Argentina since December 2023. Milei has taught university courses and written on various aspects of economics and politics, and also hosted radio programs on the subject. Party - Libertarian Party - Wikipedia
I agree that it should be categorized as "Capitalism (Little Regulated)".
To be precise, capitalism is little regulated by the government but strictly regulated by the judiciary.
True 'freedom' for citizens would come when the governments govern the least and the the Judiciary strictly enforces the Natural Law, which says 'thou shalt not harm anyone, except in fair competition' (an excellent example of fair competition is what we chesstalkers love... a game of chess!).
......
No, you and I disagree on what libertarianism is. I consider an economy with minimal government intervention and a robust legal system libertarian. Hong Kong, pre-1997,is a good example of what I consider libertarianism. Estonia post-1991 and Singapore are also examples of this, albeit Singapore is too authoritarian for my taste. Economically speaking, it has served Singapore well for the government to take a minimal interventionist approach to the economy.
Ok, so it turns out you are not Libertarian at all, at least according to Dilip. I have been using HIS definition as expressed in many of his posts here on CT, in which he claims the state gives capital freely to anyone with a business idea, with no restrictions, and in which there is really no legal system, all the lawyers are gone and legal cases are pretty much non-existent because there is the Natural Law concept that says all harm to others is illegal EXCEPT HARM DONE IN FAIR COMPETITION, and the definition of fair competition is left to the state to decide. No lawyers, no judges, unlike Singapore and unlike Hong Kong.
It is not you and I who disagree on what is Libertarianism, it is you and Dilip. His definition is way more specific than yours. You are calling all laissez-faire capitalism Libertarianism, and so we just need to get it straight what is the REAL definition of this term.
You have sat here for months calling the dot com crash the end of the world, resulting in lost livelihoods and lives. Market booms and busts have been happening in all kinds of sectors for centuries.
Yes they have .... MOST PREDOMINANTLY IN CAPITALIST ECONOMIES!
And the more laissez-faire the Capitalism ... the more quickly the bust happens and the more severe it is.
By your logic, tulips should be permanently banned because of tulip mania and the crash in the 1600s.
LOL, blaming tulips for the tulip crash is nowhere near where I am coming from. You freely accuse others of putting words in your mouth, but you continually do that to others.
I didn't blame the markets for the dot-com crash. I blamed the banking and investment sector which freely gave away money like candy to babies, to anyone with a website idea. That isn't normal capitalism, I think even you with your blinders on can agree to that. And come to think of it, even the 2008 mortgage securities crash is an example of Libertarianism causing economic disaster. Because again, you had banks giving mortgages away to people who couldn't afford them, who should never have been allowed to have them, and they were given them with only 5% down payments! Totally unsound economics, based on Libertarian principles, just give capital away and everyone will make good use of it. Then the banks sold these unqualified mortgages as investments, so no one know who actually OWNED the mortgages! And when the defaults began, as was inevitable, no one knew who owned the properties!
So thanks, you made me realize a 3rd example of Libertarianism in real practice and resulting in disaster. I think we can now say for sure that Libertarianism as defined by Dilip is a dead horse.
Certainly, central bank digital currencies will be the end of freedom and, indeed, the endgame of the World Economic Forum and their puppet Marxist governments.You have enthusiastically submitted to their agenda of bioterror attacks as a way of forcing mass "vaccinating," aka bioweapons, and like a good slave wearing useless and harmful marks because the WEF puppet governments tell you so. You are the one blind to climate fraud they promote as a methodology of demonizing the farmers and causing a mass famine.
And now you have finally woken up to their endgame that may very well be too late???? You blame this on the internet and technological progress???
Blaming technological progress, such as the internet, for the potential misuse by governments is misguided. By that logic, we should ban fundamental tools like geometry because it led to the Pythagorean theorem, which in turn led to the Michelson-Morley experiment. This experiment, using the Pythagorean theorem, unexpectedly supported the idea that the speed of light is constant in all frames of reference. Einstein then used this concept to rewrite the laws of momentum, ultimately leading to the famous equation E=MC², which paved the way for the development of the nuclear bomb. Banning or restricting knowledge and technology due to potential misuse is not the solution, as it hinders human progress and understanding. Something you sorely lack!
You presume so much! For someone who hates to be mischaracterized, you do it so much to others! What a total ass you are. I can see why you have never really moved into the economic elite despite your inflated ego-driven claims of superior intelligence. I imagine a whack-a-mole game where every time you raise your head out one of the holes to present yourself to the economic elite, you start spewing your profanity and jackass attitude and the elite has to whack you with a club to knock you back down the hole you came from.
What I blame for potential misuse is digitalization (if there is such a word, if not, I just coined it). We used to have everything done on paper, phones were in our homes and offices not on our person. Now anything you want to do has to be done "online". No one can any longer survive in the civilized world without a "DEVICE" which is mostly a smartphone or tablet. You have to have it, and you have to have it on your person constantly. It is your personal BALL AND CHAIN. And it will soon be used to control everyone, yes, even children. And soon it will be digital chips implanted in our bodies.
And you can't do anything online without OPENING AN ACCOUNT. And opening an account almost always REQUIRES ALL OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION.
It is truly remarkable and distressing how quickly and pervasively this virus has been allowed to spread all over the world. Last night I saw footage of rebels in Haiti ... one of the poorest nations in the world ... rebels walking around with guns AND with smartphones!.
We are fucked like never before. If you're so deadset against the WEF and WHO and Bill Gates, you should realize that your progress-driven philosophy can ONLY LEAD TO SUCH PEOPLE AND ORGANIZATIONS and can only lead TO THE SUCCESS OF THEIR AGENDA! Via digitalization!
If you can't see the forest for the trees, it's not my problem. I saw it when smartphones first came on the scene and parents were buying them for themselves AND for their children!!!
I've seen episodes of The Walking Dead, and I laugh because the zombies are walking around trying to find non-zombies to eat... while we already live in a world where brain-dead zombies are walking around searching their precious devices to see what's new on Instagram or Tik Tok.
Personally I think Sid Belzberg as presented here on CT is a total fraud. He pretends to care about population, about people losing their rights, about hunger and famine. He really doesn't care at all, he has a personal agenda for the rise of ultra-right states. But at least, unlike Dilip, he does seem to want those states to have robust legal systems to include lawyers and judges, not just police, so I think Sid is far less dangerous than Dilip.
True 'freedom' for citizens would come when the governments govern the least and the the Judiciary strictly enforces the Natural Law, which says 'thou shalt not harm anyone, except in fair competition' (an excellent example of fair competition is what we chesstalkers love... a game of chess!).
So under Libertarianism, chess players can legally harm one another during a chess game????
I do like Sid's Definition: Little Regulation of Capital; Robust Enforcement of the Natural Law by the Courts (And the Justice System, including justice first-responders, the Police).
Problem: I am very nervous about giving the police such little guidance re crime as "Enforce the Natural Law".
Courts might end up with what is going to constitute a "crime", but there is not the same training re police. This is endowing police with much more responsibility/discretion than normal at the moment. And it can be said that the operation of police forces is far from perfect; we regularly hear of abuse, internal discipline, and even criminal charges against police. Also, like the military, a misogyny culture of long-standing has been very hard to root out.
Comments?
Bob A (Police/Military Supporter - there ARE individual criminals/gangs and criminal states)
I do like Sid's Definition: Little Regulation of Capital; Robust Enforcement of the Natural Law by the Courts (And the Justice System, including justice first-responders, the Police).
Problem: I am very nervous about giving the police such little guidance re crime as "Enforce the Natural Law".
Courts might end up with what is going to constitute a "crime", but there is not the same training re police. This is endowing police with much more responsibility/discretion than normal at the moment. And it can be said that the operation of police forces is far from perfect; we regularly hear of abuse, internal discipline, and even criminal charges against police. Also, like the military, a misogyny culture of long-standing has been very hard to root out.
Comments?
Bob A (Police/Military Supporter - there ARE individual criminals/gangs and criminal states)
Hi Bob,
Police would also be subject to following the 'Natural Law', which would be enforced upon them also. To use your own terminology, 'it may not be perfect, given the human shortcomings, but the best system we can have' is Libertarianism... agree?
Tweet
Comment