?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
18 November 2008 @ 11:42 pm
my twittering (socialism, rugby)  
  • 10:02 Why do many people think socialism => police state? #
  • 18:34 Maybe police state -> socialism. After all, in the US, some rights were restricted before socialisation of bank & car manufacturer lo ... #
  • 22:19 Hard luck Munster :-( #
Automatically shipped by LoudTwitter (and possibly tweaked by me)
Tags:
 
 
Current Mood: cynicalcynical
 
 
 
hippo__dignityhippo__dignity on November 19th, 2008 04:26 am (UTC)
Because in a socialist system, the government literally robs you of your hard-earned money with the threat of going to jail. That seems pretty police-statish to me.
a very caring potato: flick the little personmollydot on November 19th, 2008 09:43 am (UTC)
That's one way of looking at it. But you're taxed now. Is it a matter of degree? Or do you think America is socialist/a police state now?

To me, "police state" is more about erosion of rights and freedoms, eg freedom of press/expression, especially if government criticism is not allowed. Restricting movement, eg not allowed leave the country, curfew, would also be a big one. Lack of privacy too - government/police listening in on phone calls. Televisions that watch you :-) Basically, controls that mean you have to behave, maybe think, in a certain way.

Moving off topic somewhat, what do you, as a libertarian, think of the bail out of the financial system, and maybe car manufacturers?
hippo__dignityhippo__dignity on November 19th, 2008 03:06 pm (UTC)
It's a matter of being taxed for programs that I do not believe should exist. There are certainly things that the government should oversee, such as major roadways and a police force. I'm not an anarchist (anymore).

As for the bailouts, it's complicated. I believe that we should have a truly free market, but of course, we don't. FDIC and the federal reserve are all the time interfering in the market which puts the government in a position where they sometimes have to correct the problems that their previous interference may have caused.
a very caring potatomollydot on November 20th, 2008 09:20 am (UTC)
I imagine we have different views on what programs should be funded :-)

Funny how we see the same thing in such different ways. I would say too much deregulation was the problem. The banks didn't have enough reserves and overleveraged, introducing far too much risk. Plus other banks & mortgage companies not properly assessing risk.

I agree that it's complicated though. I really don't like the idea of keep the profits, socialise the losses, but I will accept that "something" must be done. In Ireland, we went for a 100% government guarantee on customer savings and on bank loans (if an Irish bank collapses, the government will pay off their loans to other banks). We'll see how the various methods pan out, I suppose.

Love your post-election post, btw.
 dudi killimengrikillimengri on November 20th, 2008 08:49 am (UTC)
"We won't let you work or make a decision,
Or breathe the clean air, or look at the skies;
We'll tell you the truth on our bright televisions
That ask you no questions & tell you no lies..."

(Bob Stewart)
a very caring potatomollydot on November 20th, 2008 09:05 am (UTC)
Not familiar with that. Thanks!
 dudi killimengrikillimengri on November 20th, 2008 10:18 am (UTC)
That's the last verse of a song whose title I don't know, but I call "Real Election Promises". The song starts:
"All that we ask for are vast acquisitions
& all that we need is belief in our schemes.
All that we'll do is to break your traditions
& split up your families & poison your dreams.

& we will make you fair of face
& we will make you full of grace."