Biden's xenophobic and racist travel ban re: India

[07pilt]

I don't like either one either. But, if I were forced to choose between a communist regime or a socialist one I would choose the socialist regime every time.

The thing that needs to be understood is socialism comes in many, many forms. The dictionary definition is "government ownership of all means of production.

"government ownership of the means of production.

But our friend, Pilt, eschews that definition in favor of "Norway's socialism." Norway's socialism is far removed from the dictionary definition;

False

it's more of a high tax welfare state in which the government doles out franchises to private oil companies to drill for oil in its area of the North Sea. It is a system that works very well for the 5 million Norwegians, 90+% of whom are white Lutherans and share a long history and singular culture. But Norway's socialism is not really close to what socialism claims it wants to be. Nevertheless Pilt claims it as his version of socialism.

"Pilt claims it as a version of socialism."

The point is Pilt does not advocate for a hegemonic tyrannical communist regime ala Maoism or Castro-ism.

Mao, Stalin, and Castro are all underrated in the west, but rather than blaming an economic system on their political brutality, I prefer to blame the political systems that proceeded them. Do you think Tsarist Russia is anymore politically free than Stalinist Russia if it had survived into the 30s and 40s? Most importantly has any leftward lurch in a democratic country resulted in the kind of tyranny you see in these countries that move leftward via revolution defeating autocratic regimes?

I don't know if it's true that Pilt is an economics professor. But if he is he has surely read Hayek and von Mises and has been shown how even his "Norwegian socialism" eventually heads down the path of servitude to the government, what Hayek called "the road to serfdom."

Whats the time frame on that one Dan? When can we say that hypothesis has failed?

Pilt has rejected that analysis in favor of a benign interpretation of the goodness of government oversight of society. But IMO Pilt does not favor tyranny or authoritarianism per se. He envisions a milder, softer version of government power in which people willingly defer to their government overlords

" in which people serve as the ultimate check on government overlords"

, willingly sacrifice liberty for the protection from outside forces by the state.

Your previous statements have at least had a seed of truth, but I don't think anyone besides yourself thinks less of "outside forces" than I do.

How'd I do, Pilt? Did I come close to explaining your version of socialism?

Not really, but good effort over all.

 

[Ponca Dan]

"government ownership of the means of production.

False

"Pilt claims it as a version of socialism."

Mao, Stalin, and Castro are all underrated in the west, but rather than blaming an economic system on their political brutality, I prefer to blame the political systems that proceeded them. Do you think Tsarist Russia is anymore politically free than Stalinist Russia if it had survived into the 30s and 40s? Most importantly has any leftward lurch in a democratic country resulted in the kind of tyranny you see in these countries that move leftward via revolution defeating autocratic regimes?

Whats the time frame on that one Dan? When can we say that hypothesis has failed?

" in which people serve as the ultimate check on government overlords"

Your previous statements have at least had a seed of truth, but I don't think anyone besides yourself thinks less of "outside forces" than I do.

Not really, but good effort over all.

Damn, Son, I gave you credit for not being a blood thirsty monster like Stalin, Mao and Castro and you mount a backwater defense of their regimes! Maybe I have misjudged you after all.

But to answer your questions, no I do not think Czar Nicholas would have established a Gulag Archipelego that imprisoned and enslaved and murdered tens of millions of his citizens as Lenin and Stalin did. And no I do not think Chaing Kai-shek would have intentionally allowed 80-100 million of his own people to die a brutally painful death by starvation like Mao did. And no, as bad as Bautista was I do not think he approached (or would have approached) the brutality against his people like Castro.

Do not interpret this as my defending their predecessors, it is simply my response to your response defending their actions. Maybe you didn’t realize it but you basically said it was okay for them to kill all those people because if they didn’t their predecessors would have.

I don’t have a time frame for Norway. I said their system, which is a high tax welfare state - kind of a modified diluted form of true socialism - works very well for them, a country of 5 million people that are culturally singular and have the good fortune to be sitting on North Sea oil deposits that can finance them. So I suppose my time frame would probably start about the time the oil runs dry or the Green New Deal eliminates their oil advantage.

I appreciate your disdain for “outside forces,” I suppose. But I’m unclear what you mean by the term. I think an argument can be made that every government in human history has gained and kept control by claiming it is necessary in order to defend its people from nefarious outside forces. Enemies must be created even when none exist.

 

[07pilt]

Damn, Son, I gave you credit for not being a blood thirsty monster like Stalin, Mao and Castro and you mount a backwater defense of their regimes! Maybe I have misjudged you after all.

I never claimed they were angels

But to answer your questions, no I do not think Czar Nicholas would have established a Gulag Archipelego that imprisoned and enslaved and murdered tens of millions of his citizens as Lenin and Stalin did. And no I do not think Chaing Kai-shek would have intentionally allowed 80-100 million of his own people to die a brutally painful death by starvation like Mao did. And no, as bad as Bautista was I do not think he approached (or would have approached) the brutality against his people like Castro.

Agree to disagree

Do not interpret this as my defending their predecessors, it is simply my response to your response defending their actions. Maybe you didn’t realize it but you basically said it was okay for them to kill all those people because if they didn’t their predecessors would have.

No I am saying their brutality had more to do with their predecessors and the revolutions they had to fight than their economic system. Usually you are a better reader than this.

I don’t have a time frame for Norway. I said their system, which is a high tax welfare state - kind of a modified diluted form of true socialism - works very well for them, a country of 5 million people that are culturally singular and have the good fortune to be sitting on North Sea oil deposits that can finance them. So I suppose my time frame would probably start about the time the oil runs dry or the Green New Deal eliminates their oil advantage.

The loooooooooong road to serfdom I guess.

I appreciate your disdain for “outside forces,” I suppose. But I’m unclear what you mean by the term. I think an argument can be made that every government in human history has gained and kept control by claiming it is necessary in order to defend its people from nefarious outside forces. Enemies must be created even when none exist.

I was using your term.

 

[Syskatine]

The lefties are curiously silent on Pedo Joe's India ban. Didn't Pedo Joe claim that travel bans don't work and are racist and xenophobic? Is this one somehow diFFerENt? I'm not familiar with the etiquette of hypocrisy. Can any of you lefties elaborate? You all must be PISSED.

Why would lefties be pissed?

 

[Medic007]

Why would lefties be pissed?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Syskatine]

Thanks for proving my point.

Everyone's not in a cult, flailey. Did Levin tell you I have to reconcile anything with what Biden says or does?

 

[Medic007]

You really shouldn't be posting while you're on the "job." Gross.

 

[OUSOONER67]

Damn, Son, I gave you credit for not being a blood thirsty monster like Stalin, Mao and Castro and you mount a backwater defense of their regimes! Maybe I have misjudged you after all.

But to answer your questions, no I do not think Czar Nicholas would have established a Gulag Archipelego that imprisoned and enslaved and murdered tens of millions of his citizens as Lenin and Stalin did. And no I do not think Chaing Kai-shek would have intentionally allowed 80-100 million of his own people to die a brutally painful death by starvation like Mao did. And no, as bad as Bautista was I do not think he approached (or would have approached) the brutality against his people like Castro.

Do not interpret this as my defending their predecessors, it is simply my response to your response defending their actions. Maybe you didn’t realize it but you basically said it was okay for them to kill all those people because if they didn’t their predecessors would have.

I don’t have a time frame for Norway. I said their system, which is a high tax welfare state - kind of a modified diluted form of true socialism - works very well for them, a country of 5 million people that are culturally singular and have the good fortune to be sitting on North Sea oil deposits that can finance them. So I suppose my time frame would probably start about the time the oil runs dry or the Green New Deal eliminates their oil advantage.

I appreciate your disdain for “outside forces,” I suppose. But I’m unclear what you mean by the term. I think an argument can be made that every government in human history has gained and kept control by claiming it is necessary in order to defend its people from nefarious outside forces. Enemies must be created even when none exist.

Told ya so Dan.