This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[cypher-punk]

The sour truth is that Hitler's movement - in the beginning - had some socialist elements in it. Some say it was used as a decoy.

[MysteryMiner]

The sour truth is that Hitler's movement - in the beginning - had some socialist elements in it. Some say it was used as a decoy.

The largest part of socialism was lost as NSDAP gained more power. Purge of SA was end of true socialism in Germany. Industrialists were not satisfied with the socialism part in nationalsocialism and their support was critical at that time for Hitler.

[kokjo]

The sour truth is that Hitler's movement - in the beginning - had some socialist elements in it. Some say it was used as a decoy.

many socialistic Nazis in the night of the long knives... (according to my vaguely remembrance of my history classes).

[cypher-punk]

The sour truth is that Hitler's movement - in the beginning - had some socialist elements in it. Some say it was used as a decoy.

many socialistic Nazis in the night of the long knives... (according to my vaguely remembrance of my history classes).

Hitler also bought off two+ socialist leaning Nazis who had a seat in the Reichstag in a pretty late phase.

[myrkul]

OK, it's simple math, guys:
Nationalism: Bad.
Socialism: Bad.
Nationalist-Socialism: Verruh verruh bad.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

Please people, i know that some of you have really strong opinions about free market, but please do not make so many threads about it.
you people are crowding the politics board, and its not fun to troll you any more.

(i know that im going to be flamed with some free speech propaganda, bring it on!)

TO THE MODS: please make sticky, and remove/merge all other the Libertarian threads.

https://i.imgur.com/uh8sm45.gif

Free speech is irrelevant on a privately owned message board. Except on Tuesday. Which it will be in exactly 2 minutes in Australia, and already is in Japan.

[cypher-punk]

OK, it's simple math, guys:
Nationalism: Bad.
Socialism: Bad.
Nationalist-Socialism: Verruh verruh bad.

For something THAT bad it started out pretty well in that many thought at the time: The crap we had before National Socialism was "verruh verruh bad". I wonder why that is?

[myrkul]

OK, it's simple math, guys:
Nationalism: Bad.
Socialism: Bad.
Nationalist-Socialism: Verruh verruh bad.

For something THAT bad it started out pretty well in that many thought at the time: The crap we had before National Socialism was "verruh verruh bad". I wonder why that is?

Centrally planned economy. Never works well.

[cypher-punk]

OK, it's simple math, guys:
Nationalism: Bad.
Socialism: Bad.
Nationalist-Socialism: Verruh verruh bad.

For something THAT bad it started out pretty well in that many thought at the time: The crap we had before National Socialism was "verruh verruh bad". I wonder why that is?

Centrally planned economy. Never works well.

As you see in Ben Bernankes work.

[myrkul]

As you see in Ben Bernankes work.

Or Rudolf Havenstein's

[MysteryMiner]

OK, it's simple math, guys:
Nationalism: Bad.
Socialism: Bad.
Nationalist-Socialism: Verruh verruh bad.

For something THAT bad it started out pretty well in that many thought at the time: The crap we had before National Socialism was "verruh verruh bad". I wonder why that is?

Centrally planned economy. Never works well.

Uncontrolled capitalistic economy is even worse. All it cares about is profit and it ignores nations needs and higher principles.

Don't take ussr planned economy as a example. Russians could screw anything they attempt to manage. Their attempt at democracy and free market failed even more spectacular and it ended with Putinism.

Controlled economy with government (ministry of finances, ministry of agriculture or ministry of war) managing facilities that are proportionally owned by every citizen is the best way to go. Nobody could get overly rich in such system and every worker get's fair share of profits.

[cypher-punk]

fair share, huh?   

[myrkul]

OK, it's simple math, guys:
Nationalism: Bad.
Socialism: Bad.
Nationalist-Socialism: Verruh verruh bad.

For something THAT bad it started out pretty well in that many thought at the time: The crap we had before National Socialism was "verruh verruh bad". I wonder why that is?

Centrally planned economy. Never works well.

Uncontrolled capitalistic economy is even worse. All it cares about is profit and it ignores nations needs and higher principles.

And how do you think one gets profit, Hmm? By catering to the nation's needs.

Controlled economy with government (ministry of finances, ministry of agriculture or ministry of war) managing facilities that are proportionally owned by every citizen is the best way to go. Nobody could get overly rich in such system and every worker get's fair share of profits.

Well, that's cool if you just want everyone to do the minimum.

[Mike Christ]

Uncontrolled capitalistic economy is even worse. All it cares about is profit and it ignores nations needs and higher principles.

Since when does an abstract concept such as a nation have needs or principles?  Isn't it the individual who has needs and principles?  And wouldn't all those needs and principles be different?  And if this is all true, wouldn't capitalism, which appeals only to a person's needs, and can be thwarted with an individual's principles, be a lot better than a system that requires everyone to be the same person for it to work?

We'll never know, since capitalism has never existed (excluding the Icelanders) in its intended form.  There is no regulated free market.  That is an oxymoron.

[kokjo]

Uncontrolled capitalistic economy is even worse. All it cares about is profit and it ignores nations needs and higher principles.

Since when does an abstract concept such as a nation have needs or principles?  Isn't it the individual who has needs and principles?  And wouldn't all those needs and principles be different?  And if this is all true, wouldn't capitalism, which appeals only to a person's needs, and can be thwarted with an individual's principles, be a lot better than a system that requires everyone to be the same person for it to work?

We'll never know, since capitalism has never existed (excluding the Icelanders) in its intended form.  There is no regulated free market.  That is an oxymoron.

higher principles are stuff like moral, fairness, right to own property, and other things there is not just bare survival.

[Mike Christ]

Uncontrolled capitalistic economy is even worse. All it cares about is profit and it ignores nations needs and higher principles.

Since when does an abstract concept such as a nation have needs or principles?  Isn't it the individual who has needs and principles?  And wouldn't all those needs and principles be different?  And if this is all true, wouldn't capitalism, which appeals only to a person's needs, and can be thwarted with an individual's principles, be a lot better than a system that requires everyone to be the same person for it to work?

We'll never know, since capitalism has never existed (excluding the Icelanders) in its intended form.  There is no regulated free market.  That is an oxymoron.

higher principles are stuff like moral, fairness, right to own property, and other things there is not just bare survival.

That's the kicker; neither you or I agree on many things.  Imagine us trying to setup a nation together.  At least 50% of that nation's people will be unhappy, while the other half can't figure out why the 1st half is complaining--after all, they got their way, and their way is just the way they wanted!  So a nation with 50% of people in agreement with 100% of law invented for 100% of its citizens does not equate into a nation with a like mind.  A nation is simply an abstraction, an imaginary line drawn in the dirt, and yet dares to represent the individual.  How?  How could it?  It cannot.

[myrkul]

higher principles are stuff like moral, fairness, right to own property, and other things there is not just bare survival.

What happens when my right to own property conflicts with what you consider "fair"?

[kokjo]

Uncontrolled capitalistic economy is even worse. All it cares about is profit and it ignores nations needs and higher principles.

Since when does an abstract concept such as a nation have needs or principles?  Isn't it the individual who has needs and principles?  And wouldn't all those needs and principles be different?  And if this is all true, wouldn't capitalism, which appeals only to a person's needs, and can be thwarted with an individual's principles, be a lot better than a system that requires everyone to be the same person for it to work?

We'll never know, since capitalism has never existed (excluding the Icelanders) in its intended form.  There is no regulated free market.  That is an oxymoron.

higher principles are stuff like moral, fairness, right to own property, and other things there is not just bare survival.

That's the kicker; neither you or I agree on many things.  Imagine us trying to setup a nation together.  At least 50% of that nation's people will be unhappy, while the other half can't figure out why the 1st half is complaining--after all, they got their way, and their way is just the way they wanted!  So a nation with 50% of people in agreement with 100% of law invented for 100% of its citizens does not equate into a nation with a like mind.  A nation is simply an abstraction, an imaginary line drawn in the dirt, and yet dares to represent the individual.  How?  How could it?  It cannot.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

[Mike Christ]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

I don't see how you're making that connection.

[myrkul]

Uncontrolled capitalistic economy is even worse. All it cares about is profit and it ignores nations needs and higher principles.

Since when does an abstract concept such as a nation have needs or principles?  Isn't it the individual who has needs and principles?  And wouldn't all those needs and principles be different?  And if this is all true, wouldn't capitalism, which appeals only to a person's needs, and can be thwarted with an individual's principles, be a lot better than a system that requires everyone to be the same person for it to work?

We'll never know, since capitalism has never existed (excluding the Icelanders) in its intended form.  There is no regulated free market.  That is an oxymoron.

higher principles are stuff like moral, fairness, right to own property, and other things there is not just bare survival.

That's the kicker; neither you or I agree on many things.  Imagine us trying to setup a nation together.  At least 50% of that nation's people will be unhappy, while the other half can't figure out why the 1st half is complaining--after all, they got their way, and their way is just the way they wanted!  So a nation with 50% of people in agreement with 100% of law invented for 100% of its citizens does not equate into a nation with a like mind.  A nation is simply an abstraction, an imaginary line drawn in the dirt, and yet dares to represent the individual.  How?  How could it?  It cannot.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

So, what you're saying is that rather than the country be Capitalist, like Mike (and his segment of the population) wants, or Socialist, like you (and your segment of the population) want, there's a third option, we'll call it a mixed economy, that nobody is happy with?

Good plan!