Say Anything Blog

First of all, Wikipedia isn’t a reliable reference source since it can be edited by any monkey with a keyboard. Here is how The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy defines liberalism

A political ideology centred upon the individual (see individualism), thought of as possessing rights against the government, including rights of equality of respect, freedom of expression and action, and freedom from religious and ideological constraint....It is attacked from the right as insufficiently sensitive to the value of settled institutions and customs, or the need for social structure and constraint in providing the matrix for individual freedoms.

Secondly, you don’t know the first thing about modern liberalism---all you know is what the far-right corporate media tells you about liberalism, most of which is bullshit. You could read this book---it’s only about 100 pages---but you probably aren’t open minded enough to do so.

Here is one of the best expressions of modern liberalism I’ve heard in years---Sen. Obama’s keynote address to the 2004 DNC:

[I]t’s not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we are all connected as one people.

If there’s a child on the south side of Chicago who can’t read, that matters to me, even if it’s not my child.

If there’s a senior citizen somewhere who can’t pay for their prescription and having to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it’s not my grandparent.

If there’s an Arab-American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties.

It is that fundamental belief—I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper—that makes this country work.

Compare that to the hate-filled paranoid ravings of the 2004 RNC keynote speech, and you’ll see the true face of liberal v. conservative in 21st Century America.

Child labour laws...socialism in action?

Child labour laws…socialism in action?
Why we do even have child labour laws today?  I believe they were originally enacted against so-called sweat shops which used child labor. Virtually all labor intense industry has moved to Asia, the usual economic down-side of liberalist programs.

In my youth in the 40s, like most children in relatively poor families, I work as soon (about 10 years old) as I was able not so much to help finance my family but to get my own money.  No handouts or allowances.  I worked a variety of jobs, some that are probably forbidden to youths today and I’m certainly not the worse for it, in fact one gets a greater appreciation for income and wage when you have to earn them.

Thanks doc,
And for those who have not take an economics course, the congress gave BellTell the monopoly causing our retardation in the computer industry in the 80s.

Chief, I’m sure that we could go down the list of liberal programs and identify the negative outcome of each program.  For instance, environmental programs have made us more dependent of mid-east oil; drug laws have increased our prison populations by at least 100 percent and denied medical care of some of the prohibited drugs to the sick.

Lik, you noticed that I didn’t respond to Don’s latest rant. He was so intent on ridiculing my article that he didn’t even realize that I was attacking liberalism and not the democrats.  Liberal programs are enacted from both sides these days.

Don Myers spews, Secondly, you don’t know the first thing about modern liberalism—all you know is what the far-right corporate media tells you about liberalism, most of which is bullshit.

Are you kidding? We see your ramblings. Why don’t you explain to us what “modern liberalism” entails instead of the accusations of buying into a “far-right corporate media”?

You could read this book—it’s only about 100 pages—but you probably aren’t open minded enough to do so.

Oh! An insult. Modern liberalism - childish and petty. You’re helping out the definition already! Much obliged.

Compare that to the hate-filled paranoid ravings of the 2004 RNC keynote speech, and you’ll see the true face of liberal v. conservative in 21st Century America.

What “hate-filled paranoid ravings”? You don’t say.

Oh, and the lure of modern Marxism “progressivism” liberalism can boiled down to this: it says to you, “you are entitled by virtue of the fact that you breathe. You are entitled to that which has been earned by other people because their earnings are somehow immoral and the true immorality of their production is only made whole again when you recieve it.”

Don: Modern liberalism is just the opposite of the definition you gave.  Modern liberalism believes in an all-powerful central govt that forces individuals to fund their equality of outcome social programs.  Modern conservatism supports individual independence.  The only far-right groups in the US today are the Neo-Nazis and the Black Muslims.  Wake up.  The US is a fundamentally conservative country, so conservatives are the mainstream.  The “progressives” are against anything that changes the big govt status quo, and the DNC represents the radical left wing.  It’s a different world from the one you fantasize about.  The Dems defended slavery and opposed the civil rights movement, and the Republicans came into being to end slavery.  Read some US history.  Algore’s dad was a Dixiecrat who voted against the Civil Rights Act. Your leftie propaganda is a well-known pack of lies.

Child labor laws were enacted to protect “union” monopoly labor.  The young people are and were able to outproduce the inefficient other labor.  They were passed off as “protecting” children.  What propaganda!
The same is true of the minimum age laws on school attendance.  They were actually passed to prevent some parents from bringing their 2-3 year olds for free babysitting service.  I took History of Education at the graduate level.  A nice course.  I recently re-met my professor of ten years ago recently at our Church.

Carrick said, I didn’t particularly like the definition Don included from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. The writer doesn’t even know the difference between a right and an entitlement.

Good point. Especially in regards to this whopper:

...including rights of equality of respect…

“Rights of equality of respect”? Respect is earned and in no way is it a “right” that it be equal among different people.

Chief RZ:

Most “companies” are small, mom-and-pop “S-Corporations” who work 8-10-12 hours a day trying to make an honest living. They (we/I) like to make decisions myself and not act like a victim waiting for some big brother government to rush in and “save” me every time something happens. I enjoy just the freedom to make my own decisions, and living with those consequences, good or bad.

Subchapter S corporations and limited liability corporations, I’d say.  My wife owns an LLC.  My consulting work gets done under a subchapter S.

And for the record, I only enjoy living with the “good consequences”.  That’s not a bad thing, because it keeps me from wanting to experience the “bad consequences” any more frequently than necessary. :wink:

Carrick,
I accept your refinement.  What I was getting at was that many conservatives are “down home”, hard working individuals.  Of course, I, too like the good consequences, but will not wimp out on the bad ones, and accept them if they were outcomes from my poor choice(s).  I am able to learn from mistakes, and don’t blame others.

Chief: Not only Bell, almost all pub utilities are govt subsidized monopolies, with predictable results: skewed price and supply problems, not to mention your point of delayed innovation.

Most “companies” are small, mom-and-pop “S-Corporations” who work 8-10-12 hours a day trying to make an honest living.

Subchapter S corporations. The “evil rich” who the “liberals” want to tax, tax, tax on one hand while hypocritically going on about how they are for “individualism” and “equality”.

By the way, Don Myer’s rantings aside, there is little evidence that the Wikipedia is less accurate that e.g., the Encyclopedia Britannica. So I just don’t see what the big deal is about, other than as usual when something hurts Don’s feelings, it throws him into an uncontrolled rage.

Most people distinguish “classical liberalism” from “modern liberalism”.  That part is reasonable. I’d have to go to the wiki to see why they included exactly what they did in the classic definition.  (For example, “free market” part of classical liberalism?) I’d have to go back and review Tocqueville and John Cardinal Newman (who would you guys say other than this that are associated with the rise of classical liberalism?)

I would agree that Obama’s explanation of liberalism is better than the one DocDave posed from the Nuttall dictionary.  It makes it clear that a fair amount of modern liberalism is steeped in socialistic values---for better or for worse.  Once again, the Wikipedia seemed to be pretty close on.

I didn’t particularly like the definition Don included from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. The writer doesn’t even know the difference between a right and an entitlement.  I’m just sayin’.

Robert,
I would add:  hard working, honest, self-respect and respect for others until proved evil.  Most “companies” are small, mom-and-pop “S-Corporations” who work 8-10-12 hours a day trying to make an honest living.  They (we/I) like to make decisions myself and not act like a victim waiting for some big brother government to rush in and “save” me every time something happens.  I enjoy just the freedom to make my own decisions, and living with those consequences, good or bad.

Don:

On one hand we have Simon Blackburn, a professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University and the editor of The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.

Who it turns out doesn’t understand the distinction between a right and an entitlement.  Any grade school child knows that difference.

On the other hand we have Carrick, an ill-informed nobody so lacking in the courage of his convictions that he refuses to sign his name to them.

Whenever I get lik, bob, and carrick’s panties in a bunch, I know that on the right track.

Carrick:

I didn’t particularly like the definition Don included from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. The writer doesn’t even know the difference between a right and an entitlement. I’m just sayin’.

It’s time to play another edition of WHO HAS MORE CREDIBILITY?

[cue music]
[cue applause]

On one hand we have Simon Blackburn, a professor of Philosophy at Cambridge University and the editor of The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.

On the other hand we have Carrick, an ill-informed nobody so lacking in the courage of his convictions that he refuses to sign his name to them.

So here’s the big question...on matters involving philosophy---WHO HAS MORE CREDIBILITY?

Don:

Whenever I get lik, bob, and carrick’s panties in a bunch, I know that on the right track.

That puts you on the wrong track here. You’re the only one blowing up ‘round here.  Per normal.  Please get help.  I can send you a list for your area.

Likwidshoe:

“Rights of equality of respect”? Respect is earned and in no way is it a “right” that it be equal among different people.

That would be in classical liberalism.  In modern liberalism, I would suggest “entitlement of equality of respect” is how they would see it.  (You know, sort of like extra credit in class---you aren’t supposed to feel like you earned it.)

Part of DocDave’s definition I did like, is the “denial of quality and intrinsic worth of things”.  When you think you are entitled to something that you have not earned, then that is basically what you are doing.

Chief RZ:

Of course, I, too like the good consequences, but will not wimp out on the bad ones, and accept them if they were outcomes from my poor choice(s).

Extremely well put, as usual.  When you make bad consequences, you expect bad outcomes.  Only modern liberals and people under about 28 (over-generalizing in the second case) expect to be protected from their own poor decision making.

[cue music]
[cue applause]

And welcome back to WHO HAS MORE CREDIBILITY?

Bofore the break we asked our contestents to look at a Cambridge professor of philosophy and an internet nobody and decide...WHO HAS MORE CREDIBILITY?

And our players had these answers:

Why do you always have to be such a fuckhead?

No, you’re on Fantasy Island, as usual.

Oooooo...I’m sorry players, but that’s incorrect. The corect answer is Prof. Blackburn. On issues regarding philosophy, Prof. Blackburn has more credibility than an internet nobody.

I’m afraid you don’t win any fabulous prizes, but you do get a copy of the WHO HAS MORE CREDIBILITY? home game. Perhaps someday you’ll use it to develop some critical thinking skills and who knows? Perhaps you’ll even crack open a book someday!

That’s it for tonight’s edition of WHO HAS MORE CREDIBILITY? Good night everybody!

[cue applause]
[cue music]

Don: It’s certainly not you, I agree.

Don: Carrick, along with most conservatives, thinks for himself.  You, on the other hand, are essentially a parrot for the ideas of others.  Which has more credibility?

Boy, lik, you suck at this game. Try again.

And for the record, Dubya was only elected once.

Don Myers spews, Boy, lik, you suck at this game. Try again.

How? You never explain how.

And for the record, Dubya was only elected once.

Cool! Then he can run again.

“denial of quality and intrinsic worth of things” and particularlyl the quality and worth of people.  The common good emphasis of liberalism does not consider the individuality of people or cultures or situations.  Each program is a collective approach to an alleged problem.  Individuals are sacrificed for the ‘good’ of the whole.  One dramatic example of this was what was done to the plains Indians to open the plains area for occupation of non-whites. In his book The Harrowing of Eden, J.E. Chamberlain wrote: 

Traditional and native lands, and the possibilities of their continued use and occupancy by their indigenous inhabitants had been reduce to small, neat splotches on the national map.  The illusion of native tribal sovereignty which had earlier been entertained was rudely shattered.  the new and non-native social and economic structures were inexorably established throughout the continent.  Land became a commodity, something that belonged to someone, and the Indian became a somebody, and eventually a nobody, like everybody else.  The idea of a usufructuary right (or a right of use and occupancey) of land, an idea which had been brought over from England with the Royal Proclamation of 1763, was obliterated not so much by treaties, though they were a crucial factor in the process, as by one of the most misunderstood of the engines of progress—the Modern Government State—with its righteous conviction and inordinate power to do anything at all, to anybody, if it is convinced or convinces itself that this is for the common good.  Such a sinister machine was the product of the political thinkers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and its awesome consequence is just beginning to be felt by the non-native citizens of Canada and United States.  But it has long been a part of the life of the native peoples of those lands.  It was for the common good that the western lands opened up for settlement, even as the eastern lands had been settled; it was for the common good that treaties were signed, and often broken, and that provision was made in these treaties for roads, way stations, trading houses and forts, which could be built at governmental whim on lands reserved for Indians; it was for the common good that rail and road links were established through Indian lands to link east and west; it was for the common good that Indian hunting and fishing rights, guaranteed by treaty or solemn promise, were revoked to make room for people, or things (such as dams) to serve people, or programs (such as conservationist schemes) to satisfy people; it was for the common good that the Indians were herded like cattle, treated like children, swatted like flies and quarantined like animals suspected of having rabies.  Meanwhile, it was little wonder that the cry of lamentation was everywhere heard, above the hum of the engines of civilization.

This is what liberals call progress (they like to be called progressives).  Progessive programs are not limited to executive and legislative decrees.  Some of the most blatant ‘progressiveness’ come from the supreme court who recently upset centuries of understanding on the eminent domain issue.  I’m sure that the liberal justices that voted to include private considerations into eminent domain thought that they were doing it for the ‘common good’ of the nation.

Don: No, you’re on Fantasy Island, as usual.

Don Myers spews, Whenever I get lik, bob, and carrick’s panties in a bunch, I know that on the right track.

You don’t have that power Don. You’re just an angry and confused Marxist who spews hate. You almost never respond to what is written. You only insult. So much for the clap-trap of “I am my brother’s keeper”.

The corect answer is Prof. Blackburn. On issues regarding philosophy, Prof. Blackburn has more credibility than an internet nobody.

Who has more credibility on issues regarding Presidential matters? President Bush, a former governor who has been elected twice as President of the United States or Don Myers, an Internet bloviator who brags about being in two gay porn movies and whose argumentive modus operandi consists of calling everybody who doesn’t agree “paranoid”?

Oooooo…I’m sorry Don. On issues regarding Presidential matters, President Bush has more credibility than an internet nobody such as yourself.

You’ll lose your own game Don if you want to play like this Don. Disagreeing with the above will only make you look like a hypocrite. You didn’t think this one out, did you?

By the way - you don’t look cute answering the way you do. You look foolish.

Carrick, labor unions probably served a good purpose when they were first founded, but what good do they do today except drive up the costs to make their employers less competative.  The problem with all social programs is that they don’t go away after the reason for their existing is resolved.

welfare state saved capitalism’s butt

Mike, you’ve lost me on that one. Can you give examples or references for your statement.

If I could sneak a thought in here...modern liberalism surely evolved in reaction to the worst features of the classical liberal economy in the 19th century. The Invisible Hand may work well in the long run but if in the meantime the workers all become socialist revolutionaries or, more likely, too sick or too uneducated or too dead to perform labour’s role then the Hand will not be permitted to perform its magic. Many have argued that the welfare state saved capitalism’s butt...it certainly removed much of the incentive for the working class to subscribe to socialist theories and programs.

In the classical sense, the Invisible Hand Doctrine could be considered a liberal concept, because it stresses the benefit of individual effort.  In today’s terminology, it is the essence of Conservatism.  If labor acted as Adam Smith prescribed, no labor unions would be necessary, nor would the welfare state be necessary.  Due to the pernicious teachings of Marx, among others, workers do not regard themselves as a valuable resource, and act like helpless victims of the “capitalists”, with predictable results.  It is primarily up to the individual, in a free enterprise system, to make himself or herself more valuable in the labor market, thus increasing their compensation.  However, we have been brainwashed into thinking that employers(who are people too) have all the power, and so the heavy hand of govt or quasi-govt entities(labor unions) are the only way for them to be “fairly” compensated.  In other words, abandonment of personal responsibility, leading to entitlement mentality. 
As far as the “working class"(as if it’s hereditary, like it is in Europe) will subscribe to socialism, it’s more a matter of propaganda lying than reality.  Socialism is the denial of upward mobility, unless you get into the ruling elite.

Are you sure that the “Invisible Hand” is part of classical liberalism?  (Looking for some kind of reference here, if you have one.  ‘Cause thinking “internet nobodies wanna know").

Personally, I give more credit to labor unions and better labor law to protect individuals rights than I do to the welfare state, which frankly has done at least as much bad as good through the creation of a culture of dependency among some of the poor.

Don Myers:

Oooooo…I’m sorry players, but that’s incorrect. The corect answer is Prof. Blackburn. On issues regarding philosophy, Prof. Blackburn has more credibility than an internet nobody.

In the meantime, Prof. Blackburn still doesn’t understand the distinction between a “right” and an “entitlement”, and Don Myers is still intellectually incapable of grasping this obvious fact.

Mike Said

The Invisible Hand may work well in the long run

It’s my contention that the invisible hand works in the short run provided the government isn’t impeding it’s efficiency.

Carrick asks

Are you sure that the “Invisible Hand” is part of classical liberalism?

I’m not sure of my name some days but I believe that the Invisible Hand is an important link between classical liberal philosophy and classical capitalist theory. You wouldn’t have seen the development of either if the other didn’t exist...throw in the Protestant Reformation and the importance it placed on the work ethic and you’ve got a world view that’s good to go. Max Weber captures the topic best IMO.

docdave...fair queston and one that I can’t adequately answer right now due to time constraints. Take a look at T.H. Green who is regarded as the philosophical father of the modern liberal welfare state.

The Whistler...fair enough but I don’t think so.

IMO, what is now called conservatism is almost identical with classical liberalism.

I agree completely.

MikeA: I guess I wasn’t clear enough.  Today’s liberalism is almost the exact opposite of classical liberalism.  IMO, what is now called conservatism is almost identical with classical liberalism.  Classical liberalism was the counterforce to monarchism, whereas today’s liberalism is a reaction to the sucesses of what you call capitalism, and I call free people making free choices.

MikeA: Cool! It’s good when civilized discourse gets to an agreeable place.

The Invisible Hand works. Period.  It’s the Visible Hand of govt interference that screws things up.

MikeAdamson: It’s interesting that your Max Weber link starts out with social stratification.  Of course Weber was referring to Germany, so I don’t know how applicable that is today.  TH Green also seemed to be mostly concerned with the status of the socioeconomic structure in the mid-eighteenth century.

Anyway, one of the main criticisms of socialism is that it locks people into a cycle of dependency, and hence locks them into a particular social and economic class.  These days in the US, there aren’t many other forces that inhibit shifting of individuals between “classes”, of course.

In other words, marxism is simply the latest version of monarchy, dressed in everyday clothes.

Not to put too fine a point on things but marxism is really nothing like monarchy but rather more like an idyllic commune. Marx’s program was a response to the liberal and capitalist (free market) transformations taking place...he knew that the monarchical and aristocratic models were already doomed.

Carrick: One of Marx’s premises about humanity is that it is characterized by “class struggle”.  Until the ascendancy of the US, that was true, since the traditional way of organizing a state was around a hereditary monarchy.  To cure that, Marx proposed another type of monarchy, essentially, and called it communism.  Of course, there was a political elite at the top, but the promise was that, after a period of “re-education” by the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state would “wither away”, leaving the perfect state, ruled by the consensus of the people, who would all share a common interest, just like a great big family, acting on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Of course, a gigantic bureaucracy would be necesary to administer such a state, but everyone would gladly give almost all their earnings to support it.  In other words, marxism is simply the latest version of monarchy, dressed in everyday clothes.
If you have a society that isn’t based on hereditary classes, like the US, socialism isn’t the answer.  That’s why they have to lie to get their agenda across.

The kind of “liberalism” most people on the American right like to rail against is just a strawman; any suggestion that government might have a role to play in regulating markets or providing a service to citizens somehow gets translated into some sort of Stalinist plot. It would be laughable if it wasn’t taken so seriously by so many people.

An Iraqi told me Sadam killed all the people who were or acted smart or smarter than he.

That included thousands of members of Iraq’s Communist Party; or at least alleged members whose names were given to him by the CIA in the `80’s.

I don’t “re-education camps” are ever mentioned by MArx or Engels. (and no, I’m not here to defend COmmunists or Marxists. but there is an awful lot of misinformation and misconception out there..)

Hermit: The results of govt regulating markets is to screw up those markets and to line the pockets of the special interest groups that have captured the attention of the govt to the detriment of the markets.  The results of the govt trying to provide services to some groups screws up the correct allocation of resources, to the disservice of us all.  No stalinist plot here, just mismanagement.  Your hyperbole would be laughable if the hate-filled left didn’t parrot it so much.

Interesting that most of the most vocal leftist liberals today are marxists as well.  I’m sure that given the opportunity, they would use totalitarianism to force their measures on the populace.

Communism is evil.  Marx and Engles couch their terms which are lies such as “re-education camps”.  They are torture gulags.  After Stalin killed between 50 to 120 million people, those left were “all in agreement” with “the state”.

The Truth:  An Iraqi told me Sadam killed all the people who were or acted smart or smarter than he.

This is how he appeared (and enforced) his despotism.  Same MO as communism.  Kill anyone who thinks, speaks out or disagrees.

Hermit: When you don’t have the support of the majority, you have to use some sort of coercion to keep your power.  You have to control the economy and ultimately, forcibly rule.  It really doesn’t matter who you kill, if you are making some sort of point that Saddam killed Iraqi communists.  That doesn’t make them OK, as they would have killed someone else if they had the power.  Marx used the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat”, but that is a distinction without a difference.  It was the Chicoms who used the term “re-education camps”.  Birds of a feather.  You didn’t refute any of Chief’s points in a meaningful way.  And don’t even start with any of that “CIA in the ‘80s cr*p”.  He did the killing, not the CIA.  The commies were then, and are now, the enemies of the type of life you and all the rest of us lead.  How long would you have lasted in Saddam’s Iraq?

MikeA:  That is the promise of Marx, but the actuality is more like the Red Guard period in China.  Monarchy seems to work well with a philosopher King, as well.  It’s that lack of individual independence that gets me.  BTW, don’t forget the influence of Malthus at the time.  Karl had good intentions, no doubt.

And don’t even start with any of that “CIA in the ’80s cr*p”. He did the killing, not the CIA.

So it’s OK if we outsource the mass killing? Just wondering…

The commies were then, and are now, the enemies of the type of life you and all the rest of us lead. How long would you have lasted in Saddam’s Iraq?

I’d have lasted about two seconds in Saddam’s Iraq, Stalin’s Russia, Pinochet’s Chile or any other totalitarian state. I have this bad habit of speaking out against authoritarianism, state violations of human or civil rights and opression.

I used to get called “Anti-American” in the eighties for criticizing the Reagan administration for playing footsie with Saddam, now I get the same epithets thrown at me for criticizing the Bush administration for playing footsie with the Uzbeks, the Egyptians and the Syrians. Funny how that workst…

Thing is I’ve been consistent in my principles. I support democratic governance, and the provision of services and duely legislated economic policy by democratically elected governments. That is NOT Marxism, or socialism or leftism or any of the othe rphony “isms” you people like to throw around.

And I oppose any government (Marxist, Communist, Fascist, military dictatorship, theocracy, right, left or whatever) which ignores the principles of human rights, or violates its own laws in order to infringe the rights of individuals.

I also recognize that large, private corporate interests can often be just as much a threat to those individual rights as any government. (ask a South American coffee grower, or the slave labour used to harvest cocoa in West Africa if you don’t believe me. Or read a history of the American Fruit companies in central America...)

Sorry if I don’t fit your pigeonhole, I’m just ornery that way...

Interesting that most of the most vocal leftist liberals today are marxists as well.

What’s interesting to me is how cavalierly the term “marxist” is tossed around here just as the term “nazi” is tossed around on some leftist sites. It’s entertaining but not terribly illuminating.

The results of govt regulating markets is to screw up those markets

And the failure to regulate markets gives you Enron and Lycos and unrestricteed monopolies. Worked great for Mussolini, but I’m not sure we want to see it here…

At least with a government you can vote the bastards out when they screw you over.

The results of govt regulating markets is to screw up those markets and to line the pockets of the special interest groups that have captured the attention of the govt to the detriment of the markets.

robert, One only has to look at the many liberal scandals in Canada to verify your statement.  The UN is another place run under modern liberalism that has done the same, line the pockets of the proponets with illicit moneys.

docdave: They already are; it’s called the MSM.  They are angry as hell that talk radio and blogs have broken up their monopoly on public information.  Their tactic:  lies and censorship.  What a surprise!

Hermit: Wrong again.  Enron was an example of a govt subsidized and regulated product being sold in a govt controlled market. I don’t know the story of Lycos, so can’t comment, but generally bad businesses go out of business unless they are propped up by govt in the form of subsidy and/or regulation. In a free market, monopoly is a short term phenomenon.  The high profits attract competition, unless govt regulations restrict entry.  Long term monopoly is always caused by govt interference.  Econ 101.  All your monopoly examples took place under dictatorial govts.  Did you know that corporations are govt creations?  If you want to go into business, you hang out your shingle.  If you want to incorporate, you have to go to the govt.  Corporations are not representative of the free market. Govt doing “provision of services and (duly) legislated economic policy” is socialism.  Sorry to harpoon your sacred cows, but that’s what I do, when it comes to faulty economic knowledge.

I personally have communicated with liberals that brag about their marxist ideology.

I personally have communicated with conservatives that(sic) brag about their White Supremacist ideology, but I don’t interpret that as a link between conservativism and White Supremacy.

Also, one can practice Marxist literary criticism (or provide Marxist interpretations of literary texts) without being a Marxist, just as one can provide a feminist interpretation of literature without being a feminist.

What’s interesting to me is how cavalierly the term “marxist” is tossed around here
Mike, my reference to the liberals attraction to marxism l was not just tossed out.  I personally have communicated with liberals that brag about their marxist ideology.  There is much proof of extensive marxism in academia.  A google search on ‘marxist professors’ will give you more hits than you can manage.  This article on Marxism in academia states in part

that Marxist scholarship is commonplace in literary studies, sociology, anthropology, and history. In some fields, Marxism and feminism are the dominant worldviews of scholars. Between 1970 and 1982, four Marxist textbooks in American government were published. In the 1960s, only a few universities taught courses on Marxism; today there are over 400 such courses at universities around the country.

Like it or not the Marxist influence on liberals in significant.

I personally have communicated with conservatives that(sic) brag about their White Supremacist ideology, but I don’t interpret that as a link between conservativism and White Supremacy.

It seems that you just like to argue Dave. The difference you refuse to see here is that conservativism and white supremacist ideology are not one and the same and share very little, if any, common goals. They are two seperate ideologies. Can you say the same about Marxism and modern day liberalism?

lik wid shoe:  you bark alot and all but bottom line is (without presenting an argument why) that YOU ARE A MISEDUCATED PERSON.

Dave: Conservatism supports individual independence; neither marxism or white supremacy does.  Marxism does preach govt control of the economy, just like socialism.  The difference is in degree, not in kind. You can’t advocate govt control of the economy and individual behavior without being a marxist/socialist.

docdave says

Like it or not the Marxist influence on liberals in significant.

That’s a debatable point and defintely depends upon what is meant by “a liberal.” The Kennedys are liberals but not too influenced by Marxism, nor was Jimmy Carter nor was Bill Clinton.  Hilary is often described as liberal but I’ve yet to see any evidnece of Marxist influence in her thoughts let alone her actions.

Who the SA gang calls liberals are often just that...liberals. Marxists don’t believe in private property while liberals do, Marxists reduce every important social relationship to economics while liberals don’t. Liberals are not Marxists...some, many or most may have been influenced by something that Karl Marx wrote or by something written by someone writing about something that Karl Marx wrote but the level of the significance of Marxism on any given liberal’s politics varies from none to lots.

The problem that devotees of extremely right wing and extremely left wing views is that they see the world in terms of “us” vs. “them”. If you’re not us then you are them...thus Stalinists view any non-Stalinist as a fascist or an imperialist, Islamic fundamentalists view any non-Moslem as an infidel, Christian fundamentalists view non Christian fundamentalists as secularists, arch-conservatives view non-conservatives as liberals or Marxists.

The world is not a place where we choose between two options. The great big mushy middle with its varying righy and lefty leanings doesn’t choose from black and white but from a nearly infinite supply of grey. Grey doesn’t exist to the believer in the extreme.

lik wid shoe: you bark alot and all but bottom line is (without presenting an argument why) that YOU ARE A MISEDUCATED PERSON.

Great comment there chief. You have no argument. Who’s barking? Heh.

MikeAdamson said, The Kennedys are liberals but not too influenced by Marxism, nor was Jimmy Carter nor was Bill Clinton.

They just want a Marxist tax code and they like to group people based not only on economic class, but sexual identity, gender, skin color, religion and others. They also want to control things like my health care, my retirement, my paycheck, the amount of water in my toilet, the gas mileage on my car, what schools my kids can go to, and on and on. Just don’t call them “Marxists”.

They want to and have created a society where the government knows everybody’s income.

They want to create a society where only the government is allowed to be armed.

They want to and have created a society where the government is the biggest property owner.

They want to and have created a society with bourgeoisie elites UN diplomats who can commit murder and get away with it by claiming the law doesn’t apply “diplomatic immunity”.

Just don’t call them “Marxists”.

Hilary is often described as liberal but I’ve yet to see any evidnece of Marxist influence in her thoughts let alone her actions.

She just wants Marxist health care and a Marxist tax code. Also likes to separate and group people.

Marxists don’t believe in private property while liberals do...

Like Kelo vs. New London.

...Marxists reduce every important social relationship to economics while liberals don’t.

Perhaps we should more accurately call these “liberals” cultural Marxists. You’d probably recognize it as “multiculturalism” and “political correctness”.

Liberals are not Marxists…some, many or most may have been influenced by something that Karl Marx wrote or by something written by someone writing about something that Karl Marx wrote but the level of the significance of Marxism on any given liberal’s politics varies from none to lots.

They just want a Marxist tax code. They call it “progressive”, which is the new buzzword for...Marxist!

jThe world is not a place where we choose between two options. The great big mushy middle with its varying righy and lefty leanings doesn’t choose from black and white but from a nearly infinite supply of grey. Grey doesn’t exist to the believer in the extreme.

yeah i like that nigga....but these little kids won’t realize that until the grey cloud reveals itself to them at there death beds...(no I’m not making a threat you paranoid nuts...its inevitable last time i checked.) what happens at death is not known?  sure player...everything can be learned and experienced and the secret is related to the above quote.  no peaces in the whole.  one whole seemlessness.  if i sound like a philospher to you, then your right back at the dividing game again…

and if you don’t believe what I’m saying then just read lik’s post...it illustrates my point very nicely.

TW said

A polite name for it is statism.

Exactly. Extremists either want an all controlling State or a do nothing State. The mushy middle’s view of the State is the very broad range in between...conservatives want less and liberals want more but both recognise that the State has a role to play.

The Kennedy’s, Clinton’s et al are not communists nor socialists.

They believe in Private ownership of property (usually).  They believe that they have the power, duty and responsibility to regulate it and tax it as much as possible.  “Anything for the ‘common good.’”

A polite name for it is statism.  There’s a more correct name for it meaning a bundle of sticks(Italian) but I don’t think I can name it without invoking an internet forum law that would shut down coversation on this thread.

I’m describing the economic system not the other parts of those rules.

likwid: You nailed it, dude! Many thanks. 
TW/Mike: There is a fundamental difference between free people making free choices and all other systems.  The primary econ unit for us is the individual, and for all other systems it’s the state at some level.  I call all the other systems either “marxist” or “collectivist” because they all disempower the individual.  Some amount of legislative influence on the econ system is OK with me if it originates with the majority of the electorate and not the political class.  It’s not an extreme position of having no control, which would be anarchy, or “rule of none”.  It is the subservience of central govt to the people, though. It takes constant and ongoing debate about everything, and doesn’t work on automatic pilot.  “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."-TJ

Mike, I do not go around labeling individuals, but generalities are useful for beginning a discussion.  Whether a person consideres him or herself a Marxist, Leninist, leftist, socialist or communist would be parsing the point.  I believe in free exercise of choice.  Robert was correct on his 12:04 post.  There is no pure monopoly as long as people are free to enter or exit the trade.  Governments have caused and held up monopolies. 
A Hermit--were you around in the early 70s when the US government tried to control the price of gasoline?  There always seemed to be an abundance on the first day of each month when the price was allowed to increase by 10 cents.  No deliveries were made overnight either.  I was there.