4 ms·

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/family-research-council-is-thankful-for.html http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/family-research-counc...

by meeech 17y ago

DanielBMarkham 17y ago
I bailed out of this article after about the fourth "fuck"
- KirinDave 17y ago
  As searching for the string "fuck" only yields 3 results, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you banked out of this article for other reasons.
  - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
    You actually searched the text? Ok, ok. I read the whole thing. Geesh! I miscounted the fucks by 1! So sue me. Look -- I could care less about the Pilgrims or about some idiotic criticism of religious folks in general. I know socialism doesn't work without either one of these articles. I clicked on the rebuttal piece first because, quite frankly, I thought it would be more interesting that the original piece which had a title that prevented me from even starting it. After reading the rebuttal, not only was I disappointed with the author's lack of writing ability, but gave up on anything in either piece or the accompanying discussion having any value at all. But you got me -- I missed the count. Good thing we have people willing to fact-check! Now that I've been shown to be a liar, we're free to make aspersions about my ulterior motives...
    - KirinDave 17y ago
      > I know socialism doesn't work without either one of these articles. You should share this proof with everyone. I certainly would love to see concrete proof for and against any general economic policies. The intricacies of such a proof would be fascinating in and of themselves, I'm sure. And also, who was really critiquing religion here? The author is upset at people who are using incorrect information to reinforce an unsupported bias in their lives. He's clearly not Christian, but I don't think that he's arguing that this is a specific Christian belief or that Christians have a unique defect that makes it susceptible. It's just a matter of fact and coincidence that most people retelling this story are Christian Americans... their news has pushed this story harder and more loudly than any other. My impression from the data you've given me so far: You think capitalism is better and you're not interested in arguments to the contrary. I cannot tell if you are being serious about socialism being obviously wrong or not.
      - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        I've found that arguing about socialism is like arguing about predicate logic: tedious and pointless if both parties don't get it. How many examples of failed socialist policies does it take to find a pattern? For some, no amount will ever do. And these are not hard sciences -- the best we have is empirical evidence, failed experiments from the past, not theory. So no, right now I am not interested in discussing the role of countless historical examples in forming a pattern. I was hoping for a nice, meaty historical piece in the rebuttal to the pilgrim article, but that's not what I found, sadly. But you guys can carry on. Socialism versus Capitalism has been done many, many, many times before, and it will be done many, many times again.
        gloob 17y ago
        How many examples of failed socialist policies does it take to find a pattern? How many examples of failed capitalist policies does it take to find a pattern? On the assumption that we're defining socialism as "everything Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Ceausescu did", I'll take a similar tack in the opposite direction and contend that capitalism is responsible for the American incursion into Vietnam, Watergate, and Abu Ghraib (since they were all carried out by a capitalist country). A couple of possible counterarguments to this would be (1) that individuals, not capitalism itself, are responsible for these events, and (2) that America isn't really capitalist and theory shows that they wouldn't happen in a truly capitalist country. Note that both of these counterarguments are the same as the ones used by the proponents of socialism, Marxism, etc., with the difference that "America" is replaced with "the USSR/Cuba/North Korea". There are good arguments to be made against socialism and similar policies. Your post does not contain any of them.
kiba 17y ago
'grunting "socialism bad, capitalism good" simian dichotomy.' Perhaps I am biased, but everyone likes to think they're smart and sophisticated when they said they view the world in shade of greyness. I keep learning that the world isn't as grey as I used to think. Intellectual property is very bad. Antitrust laws are stupid. Minimum wage doesn't help the poor. Farmer subsidy in America is hurting comparative advantage and thus prosperity in other countries. Even wars are bad. "The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." - David Friedman Perhaps, socialism versus capitalism isn't so complicated people like to believe. Maybe it is a matter of "socialism, bad and capitalism, good!". In capitalism, communes are allowed. Charity is allowed. There's no pretension that people can be transformed from greedy people to saint or that one government official can fix everything. Capitalism acknowledges failure when bubbles are busted, when the free market doesn't give anyone a job of some type, and when firms doesn't do their job efficiently. However, socialism thinks everything could be fixed with a redistribution scheme of some sort. They think if they can elect the "right" official, everything will be alright. They think they know how to distribute resource correctly, and efficiently. They can be "just". So, I go for capitalism every time. I am biased, alright, but I think the truth is that socialism versus capitalism are not as complicated as people like to think.
- KirinDave 17y ago
  What confuses me the most about your post is the implied exclusivity. You say "Capitalism, good. Socialism, bad." Isn't this a false dichotomy? Couldn't both be good? What's to say that there is only one strictly good or even strictly best form of economic policy? Why can't both solutions produce good results if applied properly? And why can't a mix of the two be even better? Why is any dilution of pure capitalism viewed as bad, even though there are clearly situations where pure capitalism produces sub-optimal results (e.g., in the sale of medications. The Modern Consumer has shown a frightful inability to understand medical issues... look at the pervasiveness of the myth that vitamin C keeps you from getting a cold). It's sort of like religion, in that it's clear that there isn't an obviously superior social structure that falls out of one specific religion. It's not like Christians are inherently the most noble with their own or others as opposed to, say, the Jewish.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/family-research-council-is-thankful-for.html http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/family-research-counc...

by meeech 17y ago

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/family-research-council-is-thankful-for.html http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/family-research-counc...

DanielBMarkham 17y ago

I bailed out of this article after about the fourth "fuck"

KirinDave 17y ago
As searching for the string "fuck" only yields 3 results, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you banked out of this article for other reasons.
- DanielBMarkham 17y ago
  You actually searched the text? Ok, ok. I read the whole thing. Geesh! I miscounted the fucks by 1! So sue me. Look -- I could care less about the Pilgrims or about some idiotic criticism of religious folks in general. I know socialism doesn't work without either one of these articles. I clicked on the rebuttal piece first because, quite frankly, I thought it would be more interesting that the original piece which had a title that prevented me from even starting it. After reading the rebuttal, not only was I disappointed with the author's lack of writing ability, but gave up on anything in either piece or the accompanying discussion having any value at all. But you got me -- I missed the count. Good thing we have people willing to fact-check! Now that I've been shown to be a liar, we're free to make aspersions about my ulterior motives...
  - KirinDave 17y ago
    > I know socialism doesn't work without either one of these articles. You should share this proof with everyone. I certainly would love to see concrete proof for and against any general economic policies. The intricacies of such a proof would be fascinating in and of themselves, I'm sure. And also, who was really critiquing religion here? The author is upset at people who are using incorrect information to reinforce an unsupported bias in their lives. He's clearly not Christian, but I don't think that he's arguing that this is a specific Christian belief or that Christians have a unique defect that makes it susceptible. It's just a matter of fact and coincidence that most people retelling this story are Christian Americans... their news has pushed this story harder and more loudly than any other. My impression from the data you've given me so far: You think capitalism is better and you're not interested in arguments to the contrary. I cannot tell if you are being serious about socialism being obviously wrong or not.
    - DanielBMarkham 17y ago
      I've found that arguing about socialism is like arguing about predicate logic: tedious and pointless if both parties don't get it. How many examples of failed socialist policies does it take to find a pattern? For some, no amount will ever do. And these are not hard sciences -- the best we have is empirical evidence, failed experiments from the past, not theory. So no, right now I am not interested in discussing the role of countless historical examples in forming a pattern. I was hoping for a nice, meaty historical piece in the rebuttal to the pilgrim article, but that's not what I found, sadly. But you guys can carry on. Socialism versus Capitalism has been done many, many, many times before, and it will be done many, many times again.
      - gloob 17y ago
        How many examples of failed socialist policies does it take to find a pattern? How many examples of failed capitalist policies does it take to find a pattern? On the assumption that we're defining socialism as "everything Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Ceausescu did", I'll take a similar tack in the opposite direction and contend that capitalism is responsible for the American incursion into Vietnam, Watergate, and Abu Ghraib (since they were all carried out by a capitalist country). A couple of possible counterarguments to this would be (1) that individuals, not capitalism itself, are responsible for these events, and (2) that America isn't really capitalist and theory shows that they wouldn't happen in a truly capitalist country. Note that both of these counterarguments are the same as the ones used by the proponents of socialism, Marxism, etc., with the difference that "America" is replaced with "the USSR/Cuba/North Korea". There are good arguments to be made against socialism and similar policies. Your post does not contain any of them.

kiba 17y ago

'grunting "socialism bad, capitalism good" simian dichotomy.' Perhaps I am biased, but everyone likes to think they're smart and sophisticated when they said they view the world in shade of greyness. I keep learning that the world isn't as grey as I used to think. Intellectual property is very bad. Antitrust laws are stupid. Minimum wage doesn't help the poor. Farmer subsidy in America is hurting comparative advantage and thus prosperity in other countries. Even wars are bad. "The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations." - David Friedman Perhaps, socialism versus capitalism isn't so complicated people like to believe. Maybe it is a matter of "socialism, bad and capitalism, good!". In capitalism, communes are allowed. Charity is allowed. There's no pretension that people can be transformed from greedy people to saint or that one government official can fix everything. Capitalism acknowledges failure when bubbles are busted, when the free market doesn't give anyone a job of some type, and when firms doesn't do their job efficiently. However, socialism thinks everything could be fixed with a redistribution scheme of some sort. They think if they can elect the "right" official, everything will be alright. They think they know how to distribute resource correctly, and efficiently. They can be "just". So, I go for capitalism every time. I am biased, alright, but I think the truth is that socialism versus capitalism are not as complicated as people like to think.

KirinDave 17y ago
What confuses me the most about your post is the implied exclusivity. You say "Capitalism, good. Socialism, bad." Isn't this a false dichotomy? Couldn't both be good? What's to say that there is only one strictly good or even strictly best form of economic policy? Why can't both solutions produce good results if applied properly? And why can't a mix of the two be even better? Why is any dilution of pure capitalism viewed as bad, even though there are clearly situations where pure capitalism produces sub-optimal results (e.g., in the sale of medications. The Modern Consumer has shown a frightful inability to understand medical issues... look at the pervasiveness of the myth that vitamin C keeps you from getting a cold). It's sort of like religion, in that it's clear that there isn't an obviously superior social structure that falls out of one specific religion. It's not like Christians are inherently the most noble with their own or others as opposed to, say, the Jewish.