I'd highly recommend you do that, to make sure you understand how wrong it is. One nice thing about the slashdot comment system is comments are permanent, so that comment will forever be as wrong as it was when its owner first hit "submit". In fact, that comment could have hardly been a less accurate description of socialism had that been its authors aim.
Socialism or communism inevitable evolves to an authoritarian regime.
Really? You must be looking at pretty long time scales, then. The Nordic states have been the best examples of Socialism anywhere and have not approached anything resembling authoritative regimes. They are over 50 years in to Socialism at this point, and they would likely be pretty surprised to learn that they either have or are about to undergo that transformation.
Socialism (defined as no private ownership of 'means of production')
Thank you for clarifying where your mistake was. Socialism does not require there be no private ownership of means of production. Socialism does not seek to make everything state owned, rather it seeks to ensure that opportunity for the individual is not hampered by their inability to obtain capital. In fact the most significant European examples of socialism are also countries with significant privately-owned industries - think of Volvo and Saab from Sweden, Nokia from Finland, the list goes on. The government never controlled those companies.
Communism, on the other hand, does seek to take control of the means of production. The two are not interchangeable.
at a national level requires a command economy
That statement only makes sense given your false statement about socialism that you made earlier. A command economy is absolutely not required for socialism.
No price signals, no profit motive
Again, look at the products of actual socialist countries and you will see how wrong you are with that statement.
Command economies all have excessive concentration of power. It is just a fact.
While the states that called themselves "communists" ended up that way, it is not the result of Communism itself. Rather it is because in a large state, you will almost without fail end up with someone rising up in the power vacuum created by the pursuit of Communism who will attempt to concentrate power. At that point the "communist" state collapses into Fascism, only without the name. This is no different from the fate that the US would face under many of the "libertarian" dream states that have been sold to us on TV and youtube in recent years.
The key flaw to socialism is: Excessive concentration of power.
BZZT! Sorry, wrong answer. You meant to say Fascism, not socialism. Fascism is the excessive concentration of power. In terms of power concentration socialism is closer to anarchy than it is to fascism. Crony capitalism (which is a better description of the American political system) is much closer to fascism in terms of concentration of power than is socialism.
While socialism is not perfect, it is most definitely not intent on concentration of power.
No, fascism is the integration of economic (corporate) and government power.
Which is exactly what happens in the libertarian dream state. What happens when education, infrastructure development and upkeep, all phases of law and order (everything from citations to trials to executions), lawmaking, and even war are all functions of corporations? You end up stuck with extreme power concentration, held by people who can never be removed from power - which is of course fascism.
Keep these separate, as is probably Point #1 of Libertarians, and you don't have a problem.
Maybe in some other country the libertarians want to keep the powers of corporations and governments separate. Here they want them together more than anything.
Fascism is simply the extreme concentration of power. There hasn't been a candidate so openly campaigning for that as Ron Paul in a very, very long time. He has openly campaigned for principles that are well beyond the balances established by the constitution, in the interest of concentrating insane amounts of power in the hands of very few. He just puts a veneer of "freedom" on it to give it a happy face while oppressing far more people than he is "liberating". If the policies he has worked so hard to push ever came to fruition, more people would suddenly find themselves far less free and far less mobile than ever before.
Thankfully, that is. A lot of people - particular those who seem to think that a certain candidate in this race is some sort of anarchist alternative - don't realize how close we are to electing a fascist leader (or how much they might be helping that person to be elected). We have seen fascism get a lot of positive free press here on slashdot before when being paraded about as something other than what it really is. Thankfully fascist regimes always get toppled in the end, there just is no guarantee who will be around long enough to see that end.
Indeed roman's fascism would embrace killing or enslaving a large portion of the population. He is tragically too shortsighted though to realize that in so doing he will dramatically reduce demand for his own work, and end up begging for scraps as well. His religion has told him that, beyond all reason and logic, he will some how be able to avoid this fate simply by virtue of his faith.
While Rand Paul is proud to inherit the cult so lovingly built by his father, he doesn't seem to feel entirely obligated to actually stray far from the party message. Rand Paul is well aware of who butters his bread, and takes actions to make sure they are taken care of. In other words, he is making the choices he needs to make to see that his policies bring more power for the powerful, and facsism for the people.
Let me apply some facts to your bit so what you spewed out reflects reality instead of religious fantasy:
it is the correct variable, what do you think the policies of the church of ron paul lead to? Massive poverty, lack of equality under the law, loss of all opportunities to get out of poverty.
...
Sure, you can say that the problem is poverty, but poverty in unregulated free market countries came from unregulated free markets - lack of private ownership and operation of property due to hyperconcentration of wealth, lack of individual freedoms.
...
If the law is applied differently to some people even in such concepts as different tax brackets and different tax breaks you will have less economic freedom, less initiative, fewer opportunities, fewer people trying to get ahead
Amazingly that statement needs no adjustments. You just described the ambitions of your fascist cult for us in great clarity.
Of-course there are very few moral people in an immoral system.
Precisely. I could hardly image a less moral system than the one you have been advocating endlessly here. Being as you are one of the system's top cheerleaders I don't see how you could possibly be able to help bring about the rise of any moral people, though.
I don't have a problem with people taking matters into their own hands on this and yanking those devices of faces of the wearers and simply stomping on them.
You used to support private property. Now you support the destruction of private property, if its existence offends you. Did your cult leader tell you this somehow is not a contradiction in terms? You keep telling us that your beliefs are absolute yet you keep going back on them.
But of course, this contradiction is just another part of your aspirations. When you give people a false sense of entitlement if makes it that much easier to bring about fascism for the people.
Arresting someone for theft under $10 ("Monster-In-Law" on DVD retails for about $5)
The cost for the store was much higher than that. Rental outlets don't just go to walmart and buy DVDs, they had to get them with rental licenses from the studios (ever notice the FBI warning on the discs you buy, warning you not to rent it out?). We can probably assume it was a reasonably new release when it was rented, so the cost was something closer to $50 per disc.
A more efficient punishment would be to seize wages/tax refunds/etc. in the amount of the theft + some additional punitive amount.
That is reasonable, but do the math in a reasonable manner to reflect the true cost to the merchant.
That paper is from November 2012. We should have been able to catch it a little bit earlier than this. That, or the person running the simulation missed an important loop bug.
People are stupid. thats all there is too it, Look at the last 5 elections or so for proof of that.
Your grammar supports that notion.
the senate was intended to be voted on by the smart people in the house, not by the dumb people all over the country
Did you get that idea from watching a youtube video somewhere? The fact that senators used to be appointed has as much to do with logistics as anything, there were many states that previously were incapable of managing statewide elections (they had their governors appointed for the same reason).
When we elect people based on promises of what they will give me, we are all doomed. With all that in mind, yes taking the senate back from the people actually would be in our best interest.
Then why have representative government at all? Your argument could apply just as well to the house, the governorship, and any state legislature - and of course the Presidency as well - as it does to the US Senate. What is so special about the senate if you don't trust people to elect their own politicians?
... and of course that says nothing about what you believe a politician will "give" you. Do you believe that your preferred leader will reduce your taxes or something?
In the end your arguments are very very similar to those of the cult members we see around here. You are arguing for producing more power for those who hold the most power, and fascism for the people.
Would the uninhibited free market that some people champion have been able to create this? Maybe it could have, but we haven't seen it happen yet. This was the collaboration of a lot of people, building on a lot of publicly funded work.
Obama and his administration should be sued and should be impeached, and it's not just for surveillance, the fucking guy is a murderer and he brags about it [youtube.com]. It shouldn't be just an action class lawsuit, it should be a criminal investigation into this mass murderer.
how will you install your religious movement - and its leader - in place of him? if you somehow find a way to impeach obama, you still have that pesky problem of the fact that the us is still a democracy and none of your religious leaders are in line to inherit the presidency, even if you throw out obama and biden. of course, you don't see elections as more than an inconvenience. your movement has shown a keen interest in discarding elections in order to bring more power to your leaders.
and that is how you want to bring more power for the wealthy, and fascism for the people.
Where's the rest of your comment? You usually follow up every comment you post here with scripture from your religious leader. How will I know which part of your statement to love - and which part to hate - if you don't link to a youtube scripture reading?
You know he wants to end the Federal reserve right? Can you imagine ANY "corporate fat cat" liking that idea?
He does way more than enough for corporate America to make up for closing the Fed. Not that he could do it on his own - at least, not with the current constitutionally defined division of power - but that wouldn't stop him from trying.
but basically all the money in corporate America will be against him should he get nominated.
You're joking, right? The way he advocates for the elimination of taxes for the top wage earners makes him the wet dream of corporate America.
His only real chance is if the market collapse we all know is coming, hits before the election.
Oh, I see. You're a cult member yourself. Now your post makes sense.
The two official State of the Union videos have about a million Youtube views put together
Those were also broadcast live, and have official transcripts available. Neither of those can be said for this latest oral brain fart from the son of the cult leader.
In the case of Rand Paul, he is one of the VERY few members of Congress who seem to actually have the people's best interests at heart.
Really? In what way is the elimination of representation of the people in the senate, or decrease of upper income taxation at the expense of the lower income brackets, an example of having "the people's best interests at heart"?
Rand Paul has open disdain for other amendments of the constitution. He is using the fourth amendment to bring more attention to his presidential aspirations but when his corporate masters tell him later that the fourth amendment gets in the way of profit he will be in a hurry to backpedal.
Notice that the official announcement was made through youtube; Rand Paul knows that his father's most devout followers consider youtube to be the finest means of communication ever developed by man - simply because he loves to be seen on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Would read again.
I'd highly recommend you do that, to make sure you understand how wrong it is. One nice thing about the slashdot comment system is comments are permanent, so that comment will forever be as wrong as it was when its owner first hit "submit". In fact, that comment could have hardly been a less accurate description of socialism had that been its authors aim.
Socialism or communism inevitable evolves to an authoritarian regime.
Really? You must be looking at pretty long time scales, then. The Nordic states have been the best examples of Socialism anywhere and have not approached anything resembling authoritative regimes. They are over 50 years in to Socialism at this point, and they would likely be pretty surprised to learn that they either have or are about to undergo that transformation.
Socialism (defined as no private ownership of 'means of production')
Thank you for clarifying where your mistake was. Socialism does not require there be no private ownership of means of production. Socialism does not seek to make everything state owned, rather it seeks to ensure that opportunity for the individual is not hampered by their inability to obtain capital. In fact the most significant European examples of socialism are also countries with significant privately-owned industries - think of Volvo and Saab from Sweden, Nokia from Finland, the list goes on. The government never controlled those companies.
Communism, on the other hand, does seek to take control of the means of production. The two are not interchangeable.
at a national level requires a command economy
That statement only makes sense given your false statement about socialism that you made earlier. A command economy is absolutely not required for socialism.
No price signals, no profit motive
Again, look at the products of actual socialist countries and you will see how wrong you are with that statement.
Command economies all have excessive concentration of power. It is just a fact.
While the states that called themselves "communists" ended up that way, it is not the result of Communism itself. Rather it is because in a large state, you will almost without fail end up with someone rising up in the power vacuum created by the pursuit of Communism who will attempt to concentrate power. At that point the "communist" state collapses into Fascism, only without the name. This is no different from the fate that the US would face under many of the "libertarian" dream states that have been sold to us on TV and youtube in recent years.
The key flaw to socialism is: Excessive concentration of power.
BZZT! Sorry, wrong answer. You meant to say Fascism, not socialism. Fascism is the excessive concentration of power. In terms of power concentration socialism is closer to anarchy than it is to fascism. Crony capitalism (which is a better description of the American political system) is much closer to fascism in terms of concentration of power than is socialism.
While socialism is not perfect, it is most definitely not intent on concentration of power.
No, fascism is the integration of economic (corporate) and government power.
Which is exactly what happens in the libertarian dream state. What happens when education, infrastructure development and upkeep, all phases of law and order (everything from citations to trials to executions), lawmaking, and even war are all functions of corporations? You end up stuck with extreme power concentration, held by people who can never be removed from power - which is of course fascism.
Keep these separate, as is probably Point #1 of Libertarians, and you don't have a problem.
Maybe in some other country the libertarians want to keep the powers of corporations and governments separate. Here they want them together more than anything.
Fascism is simply the extreme concentration of power. There hasn't been a candidate so openly campaigning for that as Ron Paul in a very, very long time. He has openly campaigned for principles that are well beyond the balances established by the constitution, in the interest of concentrating insane amounts of power in the hands of very few. He just puts a veneer of "freedom" on it to give it a happy face while oppressing far more people than he is "liberating". If the policies he has worked so hard to push ever came to fruition, more people would suddenly find themselves far less free and far less mobile than ever before.
Thankfully, that is. A lot of people - particular those who seem to think that a certain candidate in this race is some sort of anarchist alternative - don't realize how close we are to electing a fascist leader (or how much they might be helping that person to be elected). We have seen fascism get a lot of positive free press here on slashdot before when being paraded about as something other than what it really is. Thankfully fascist regimes always get toppled in the end, there just is no guarantee who will be around long enough to see that end.
Indeed roman's fascism would embrace killing or enslaving a large portion of the population. He is tragically too shortsighted though to realize that in so doing he will dramatically reduce demand for his own work, and end up begging for scraps as well. His religion has told him that, beyond all reason and logic, he will some how be able to avoid this fate simply by virtue of his faith.
While Rand Paul is proud to inherit the cult so lovingly built by his father, he doesn't seem to feel entirely obligated to actually stray far from the party message. Rand Paul is well aware of who butters his bread, and takes actions to make sure they are taken care of. In other words, he is making the choices he needs to make to see that his policies bring more power for the powerful, and facsism for the people.
it is the correct variable, what do you think the policies of the church of ron paul lead to? Massive poverty, lack of equality under the law, loss of all opportunities to get out of poverty.
...
Sure, you can say that the problem is poverty, but poverty in unregulated free market countries came from unregulated free markets - lack of private ownership and operation of property due to hyperconcentration of wealth, lack of individual freedoms.
...
If the law is applied differently to some people even in such concepts as different tax brackets and different tax breaks you will have less economic freedom, less initiative, fewer opportunities, fewer people trying to get ahead
Amazingly that statement needs no adjustments. You just described the ambitions of your fascist cult for us in great clarity.
Of-course there are very few moral people in an immoral system.
Precisely. I could hardly image a less moral system than the one you have been advocating endlessly here. Being as you are one of the system's top cheerleaders I don't see how you could possibly be able to help bring about the rise of any moral people, though.
I would be shocked if it drove people to stop giving up private information for free to facebook.
I don't have a problem with people taking matters into their own hands on this and yanking those devices of faces of the wearers and simply stomping on them.
You used to support private property. Now you support the destruction of private property, if its existence offends you. Did your cult leader tell you this somehow is not a contradiction in terms? You keep telling us that your beliefs are absolute yet you keep going back on them.
But of course, this contradiction is just another part of your aspirations. When you give people a false sense of entitlement if makes it that much easier to bring about fascism for the people.
Accleration
Could have been prevented...
Arresting someone for theft under $10 ("Monster-In-Law" on DVD retails for about $5)
The cost for the store was much higher than that. Rental outlets don't just go to walmart and buy DVDs, they had to get them with rental licenses from the studios (ever notice the FBI warning on the discs you buy, warning you not to rent it out?). We can probably assume it was a reasonably new release when it was rented, so the cost was something closer to $50 per disc.
A more efficient punishment would be to seize wages/tax refunds/etc. in the amount of the theft + some additional punitive amount.
That is reasonable, but do the math in a reasonable manner to reflect the true cost to the merchant.
a movie you renter 9-years earlier?
I think that statement is worthy of jail time as well.
That paper is from November 2012. We should have been able to catch it a little bit earlier than this. That, or the person running the simulation missed an important loop bug.
People are stupid. thats all there is too it, Look at the last 5 elections or so for proof of that.
Your grammar supports that notion.
the senate was intended to be voted on by the smart people in the house, not by the dumb people all over the country
Did you get that idea from watching a youtube video somewhere? The fact that senators used to be appointed has as much to do with logistics as anything, there were many states that previously were incapable of managing statewide elections (they had their governors appointed for the same reason).
When we elect people based on promises of what they will give me, we are all doomed. With all that in mind, yes taking the senate back from the people actually would be in our best interest.
Then why have representative government at all? Your argument could apply just as well to the house, the governorship, and any state legislature - and of course the Presidency as well - as it does to the US Senate. What is so special about the senate if you don't trust people to elect their own politicians?
... and of course that says nothing about what you believe a politician will "give" you. Do you believe that your preferred leader will reduce your taxes or something?
In the end your arguments are very very similar to those of the cult members we see around here. You are arguing for producing more power for those who hold the most power, and fascism for the people.
Would the uninhibited free market that some people champion have been able to create this? Maybe it could have, but we haven't seen it happen yet. This was the collaboration of a lot of people, building on a lot of publicly funded work.
Obama and his administration should be sued and should be impeached, and it's not just for surveillance, the fucking guy is a murderer and he brags about it [youtube.com]. It shouldn't be just an action class lawsuit, it should be a criminal investigation into this mass murderer.
how will you install your religious movement - and its leader - in place of him? if you somehow find a way to impeach obama, you still have that pesky problem of the fact that the us is still a democracy and none of your religious leaders are in line to inherit the presidency, even if you throw out obama and biden. of course, you don't see elections as more than an inconvenience. your movement has shown a keen interest in discarding elections in order to bring more power to your leaders.
and that is how you want to bring more power for the wealthy, and fascism for the people.
Where's the rest of your comment? You usually follow up every comment you post here with scripture from your religious leader. How will I know which part of your statement to love - and which part to hate - if you don't link to a youtube scripture reading?
You know he wants to end the Federal reserve right? Can you imagine ANY "corporate fat cat" liking that idea?
He does way more than enough for corporate America to make up for closing the Fed. Not that he could do it on his own - at least, not with the current constitutionally defined division of power - but that wouldn't stop him from trying.
but basically all the money in corporate America will be against him should he get nominated.
You're joking, right? The way he advocates for the elimination of taxes for the top wage earners makes him the wet dream of corporate America.
His only real chance is if the market collapse we all know is coming, hits before the election.
Oh, I see. You're a cult member yourself. Now your post makes sense.
The two official State of the Union videos have about a million Youtube views put together
Those were also broadcast live, and have official transcripts available. Neither of those can be said for this latest oral brain fart from the son of the cult leader.
In the case of Rand Paul, he is one of the VERY few members of Congress who seem to actually have the people's best interests at heart.
Really? In what way is the elimination of representation of the people in the senate, or decrease of upper income taxation at the expense of the lower income brackets, an example of having "the people's best interests at heart"?
Rand Paul has open disdain for other amendments of the constitution. He is using the fourth amendment to bring more attention to his presidential aspirations but when his corporate masters tell him later that the fourth amendment gets in the way of profit he will be in a hurry to backpedal.
Notice that the official announcement was made through youtube; Rand Paul knows that his father's most devout followers consider youtube to be the finest means of communication ever developed by man - simply because he loves to be seen on it.