Romney pulls ahead in Polls.

[Gummug]

A friend of mine loaned me a book by David Mamet called "The Secret Knowledge". The interesting thing about this book is it is written by an ex-liberal, that is, he converted from liberalism to libertarianism. He writes a rather scathing critique of liberalism, and I believe him, because, I figure, you know, he should know! He was one!

eta: I'll bet this guy is as popular among liberals as Ann Coulter. Another guy that converted from liberalism was Andrew Breitbart, may God rest his soul.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Gummug

[CommunitarianKevin]

A friend of mine loaned me a book by David Mamet called "The Secret Knowledge". The interesting thing about this book is it is written by an ex-liberal, that is, he converted from liberalism to libertarianism. He writes a rather scathing critique of liberalism, and I believe him, because, I figure, you know, he should know! He was one!

eta: I'll bet this guy is as popular among liberals as Ann Coulter. Another guy that converted from liberalism was Andrew Breitbart, may God rest his soul.

Maybe I will check it out. I mean a buddy of mine, the guy I admire the most, is a Libertarian. I think if anyone "converts" me, it will be him. We put our discussions on hold but I just keep moving further and further away from Free Market.

[Gummug]

Maybe I will check it out. I mean a buddy of mine, the guy I admire the most, is a Libertarian. I think if anyone "converts" me, it will be him. We put our discussions on hold but I just keep moving further and further away from Free Market.

I don't know hardly squat about economics, so I don't like to talk about it much (although I am trying to learn about it), but there are two things I guess that are bad about capitalism..."crony capitalism" and "predator capitalism". The latter would be where you pay children minimum wage to work 16 hours a day in a sweat shop (or even adults I guess), crony capitalism, as I understand it (and I could be wrong here) is where you do what Obama did with Solyndra...pay them, what was it, 500 million dollars because they contributed to your campaign. How or if this connects with the free market, I don't know. I'm probably not understanding crony capitalism correctly anyway...other than those two caveats I'm a capitalist all the way. I believe rewarding people for industry and integrity is better than rewarding irresponsibility.

[CommunitarianKevin]

Maybe I will check it out. I mean a buddy of mine, the guy I admire the most, is a Libertarian. I think if anyone "converts" me, it will be him. We put our discussions on hold but I just keep moving further and further away from Free Market.

I read the description of the book. I will probably get it...69 cents...I have the money...

I will read the reviews about it. I guess for me it is going to take more than pointing out that the liberal media may be wrong. I only really started watching the liberal media a few months ago, really only since the primaries. I never watched Jon Stewart or Colbert up until about a month ago and never watch Bill Maher until we got HBO a month or so ago. I get my knowledge from my well rounded education. It points me in a direction and I do self-study from there. History is the major reason I am a Liberal and I do not believe FM capitalism is the way to go. Socially, maybe I am a bit of a tree hugger...but I still believe in hard work and being being rewarded for working harder than the other.

For this book to sway me, he will need to convince me WHY the Libertarian views are correct, not just that the Liberal view is wrong. The theory of the Libertarian plan sounds nice but I do not think it is plausible, especially FM capitalism. But it won't hurt to read it none-the-less.

[CommunitarianKevin]

I don't know hardly squat about economics, so I don't like to talk about it much (although I am trying to learn about it), but there are two things I guess that are bad about capitalism..."crony capitalism" and "predator capitalism". The latter would be where you pay children minimum wage to work 16 hours a day in a sweat shop (or even adults I guess), crony capitalism, as I understand it (and I could be wrong here) is where you do what Obama did with Solyndra...pay them, what was it, 500 million dollars because they contributed to your campaign. How or if this connects with the free market, I don't know. I'm probably not understanding crony capitalism correctly anyway...other than those two caveats I'm a capitalist all the way. I believe rewarding people for industry and integrity is better than rewarding irresponsibility.

We are all capitalists (unless you are a socialist) it is just a matter of how much government regulation should be involved. I would personally point you in the direction of the history of capitalism. Learn about the history of it, not just want some economist has to say, because without understanding the history and the models, it will do little for you.

[supervike]

^{John Stossel's book}

Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media

details how he went from a liberal to a libertarian. It's a very good read, and highly recommended.

He was my first real introduction to libertarianism. I like alot of what that stands for.

[Michelle]

.Socially, maybe I am a bit of a tree hugger...but I still believe in hard work and being being rewarded for working harder than the other.

What has being a tree hugger got to do with economics?

[CommunitarianKevin]

What has being a tree hugger got to do with economics?

Nothing...that is why I said "socially." A political party is composed of 2 points...social issues and economic issues. Economically, I am a Liberal. Socially I am a Liberal, or more correctly I am a Communitarian, which is the most extreme of the social Liberals.

[Jeremiah65]

We are all capitalists (unless you are a socialist) it is just a matter of how much government regulation should be involved. I would personally point you in the direction of the history of capitalism. Learn about the history of it, not just want some economist has to say, because without understanding the history and the models, it will do little for you.

You should read "An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations" by Adam Smith. Generally referred to as 'The wealth of nations". It is pretty much the blueprint of our modern economic philosophy. First published in 1776...it IS the American philosophy of economics. Many have challenged it and attempted to change course...but in all seriousness....this is the American model. It has ....layers like an onion...some are good...some...not so good...but it is what it is.

Here is a link to the electronic book....totally free to read.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN.html

[Jeremiah65]

Nothing...that is why I said "socially." A political party is composed of 2 points...social issues and economic issues. Economically, I am a Liberal. Socially I am a Liberal, or more correctly I am a Communitarian, which is the most extreme of the social Liberals.

I am a Libertarian on both issues. Fiscally...I believe we need to be responsible. You do not spend more than you can afford to pay back. That is not a crack at credit...that is simply "when you have to use one creditor to pay another creditor...you are in over your head'. We should not be so deep in debt. We have overspent our capacity to repay because we were so arrogant to think no one would challenge us. I am challenging us...repay the money the Gov stole from social security to balance the budget. They say SSI is insolvent...well...part of that is the trillions that Gov has "borrowed" from the fund to balance the budget. That is priority number one...pay the debt we owe to ourselves. In all honesty...."f" the other guys...wanna go to war over debt...Great! win or lose we write it off as "paid in full"....if china wants a limited exchange...fine...that absolves of the debt to them...hey///bombs landed just fine...guess what?...we don't owe you shiz...now go f off and die.

so now...we jut eliminated about 50% of the debt...debt to china...debt to ourselves...woo-hoo...this thing is suddenly manageable now...WW2 debt...f off...you aint getting it...that's several billion.

Debt from Korea and Vietnam...Bite me...debt is not going to be paid...ever...f off and die.

woot!...there goes another chunk of debt.

see the pattern? The debt we have is honorary at best and stupid at worst...we DO NOT owe 16 trillion dollars...we owe whatever we feel like addressing....this discussion is retarded actually....we flip the bird to the countries and say..."we are done here'...and that is that.

"But it will hurt our credit rating"....once we become Libertarians and live within our means..."f" our credit ratings...we don't need credit.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Jeremiah65

[Michelle]

Nothing...that is why I said "socially." A political party is composed of 2 points...social issues and economic issues. Economically, I am a Liberal. Socially I am a Liberal, or more correctly I am a Communitarian, which is the most extreme of the social Liberals.

You needn't teach me anything...I just thought it was an odd use of the term, considering the conversation had nothing to do with environmentalism. There are many more aspects to socialism that would seem to be better suited.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Michelle

[CommunitarianKevin]

You needn't teach me anything...I just thought it was an odd use of the term, considering the conversation had nothing to do with environmentalism.

Maybe it was kind of out of place but I do not consider "tree hugger" in only environmental terms. I guess I also mean it as far as waste of food goes an caring in general.

[Gummug]

^{John Stossel's book}

Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media

details how he went from a liberal to a libertarian. It's a very good read, and highly recommended.

He was my first real introduction to libertarianism. I like alot of what that stands for.

Thanks Super! I think I had heard of that book...anyway that's another of the (hundreds? thousands?) of books I'd like to read. Hutton has recommended some to me that I want to read, too. Anyway, I think I will make a special point to read "Give Me a Break". Thanks again!

[Gummug]

You should read "An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations" by Adam Smith. Generally referred to as 'The wealth of nations". It is pretty much the blueprint of our modern economic philosophy. First published in 1776...it IS the American philosophy of economics. Many have challenged it and attempted to change course...but in all seriousness....this is the American model. It has ....layers like an onion...some are good...some...not so good...but it is what it is.

Here is a link to the electronic book....totally free to read.

http://www.econlib.o...Smith/smWN.html

I always wanted to read that, and now I can for free! Very valuable link, thanks so much! Also, I'm thinking they probably have many other free e-books! Thanks again! eta: I realize you posted for Hutton but I scrounge when I can

Edited October 12, 2012 by Gummug

[bee]

.

I'm not American....but I like Obama...I'm talking about THE MAN....

I like him enough that I hope he loses.

I hope for his sake he doesn't get re-elected....

I'm not talking about the politics. Just the man...and his family.

Does the US need him...? don't know enough about his policies to know the answer to that.

I could be wrong, but he looks like he's had enough....well that's the impression I've got sometimes.

[CommunitarianKevin]

You should read "An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations" by Adam Smith. Generally referred to as 'The wealth of nations". It is pretty much the blueprint of our modern economic philosophy. First published in 1776...it IS the American philosophy of economics. Many have challenged it and attempted to change course...but in all seriousness....this is the American model. It has ....layers like an onion...some are good...some...not so good...but it is what it is.

Here is a link to the electronic book....totally free to read.

http://www.econlib.o...Smith/smWN.html

You should also read Thomas Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population and Karl Marx's Capital. In it he (Marx) discusses the issues with BOTH Smith's and Malthus' theory. Marx wrote later than the both of them so he saw more of history and where both of their theories worked and did not work. It appears that Smith was right half of the time, while Malthus was right half the time.

Edited October 12, 2012 by HuttonEtAl

[Harte]

So the state legislatures say "Okay democracy on this decision" and you are okay with that? Did you not just say that democracy is a horrible idea?

It is crap like this that I do not understand. You have the nerve to throw out "tyranny of the majority" and then justifiy it by saying "well that's how their laws work, if you don't like it, move."

Convincing argument dude...

As opposed to your "Every state should convene an electoral college when voting on constitutional issues" argument?

Harte

[+joc]

You should also read Thomas Malthus' An Essay on the Principle of Population and Karl Marx's Capital. In it he (Marx) discusses the issues with BOTH Smith's and Malthus' theory. Marx wrote later than the both of them so he saw more of history and where both of their theories worked and did not work. It appears that Smith was right half of the time, while Malthus was right half the time.

We have more than enough history to show that Marxism fails everywhere and everytime it is tried...and also that Capitalism succeeds everywhere and everytime it is tried, however; that being said...a prerequisite for Capitalism is personal freedom. Think about it...Capitalism only works when a people are free. Marxism doesn't work and destroys personal liberty. That's what the choice here is in 3 weeks. As Mark Levin wrote.... Liberty or Tyranny?

[Tiggs]

We have more than enough history to show that Marxism fails everywhere and everytime it is tried...and also that Capitalism succeeds everywhere and everytime it is tried, however; that being said...a prerequisite for Capitalism is personal freedom. Think about it...Capitalism only works when a people are free. Marxism doesn't work and destroys personal liberty. That's what the choice here is in 3 weeks. As Mark Levin wrote.... Liberty or Tyranny?

So do the Klu Klux Klan call the Republican's Marxists, too?

Curious minds wish to know.

[+joc]

So do the Klu Klux Klan call the Republican's Marxists, too?

Curious minds wish to know.

Sorry, I don't see what any of this has to do with Fringe Lunacy Groups.

[Tiggs]

Sorry, I don't see what any of this has to do with Fringe Lunacy Groups.

Then, let me explain it for you, slowly.

The Democratic party is Center-right of the political Spectrum. The Republican party is at the Far right of the political Spectrum. The Klu Klux Klan are (allegedly) further right than the Republicans.

Thus, to the Republicans, the Democrats look more like Marxists, just as to the Klu Klux Klan, the Republicans look more like Marxists.

Neither, however, are even remotely Marxist.

[questionmark]

Then, let me explain it for you, slowly.

The Democratic party is Center-right of the political Spectrum. The Republican party is at the Far right of the political Spectrum. The Klu Klux Klan are (allegedly) further right than the Republicans.

Thus, to the Republicans, the Democrats look more like Marxists, just as to the Klu Klux Klan, the Republicans look more like Marxists.

Neither, however, are even remotely Marxist.

... and such can only be claimed by those who don't have the faintest idea what a Marxist is (to the contrary of Tiggs I am seldom political correct). But ignorance does not change the fact that the adjective is wrong.

[CommunitarianKevin]

We have more than enough history to show that Marxism fails everywhere and everytime it is tried...and also that Capitalism succeeds everywhere and everytime it is tried, however; that being said...a prerequisite for Capitalism is personal freedom. Think about it...Capitalism only works when a people are free. Marxism doesn't work and destroys personal liberty. That's what the choice here is in 3 weeks. As Mark Levin wrote.... Liberty or Tyranny?

I am not saying Communism works...I am saying that one should read it because he evaluates Smith and Malthus. I said to read his work Capital. You are very ignorant on this topic. You should really study European history to see exactly how capitalism arose and what it has done. Capitalism came about because of a power stuggle and politics, which left a lot of people landless. Capitalism arises when the majority of the population is dependant on the market. If personal freedom is the key, how do you explain slavery or child labor? And it always works? Look at our situation in America right now. Look at Europe...look at the Great Depression. You know who wasn't affected by the Great Depression? The Soviet Union...Also it does not work well for the countries that are being controlled. It does not work well for the Global South, who is having their resoruces stripped and their people getting paid very little. You need to understand the big picture.

You need to stop assuming I am saying certain things. Reading Marx criticisms on Smith and Malthus is part of a well-rounded education. No one said you have to agree with Communism...

[+joc]

Then, let me explain it for you, slowly.

The Democratic party is Center-right of the political Spectrum. The Republican party is at the Far right of the political Spectrum. The Klu Klux Klan are (allegedly) further right than the Republicans.

Thus, to the Republicans, the Democrats look more like Marxists, just as to the Klu Klux Klan, the Republicans look more like Marxists.

Neither, however, are even remotely Marxist.

I totally disagree with your premise and your explanation. The Democratic Party, first of all, is NOT the DemocratIC Party...it is the Democrat Party. Secondly, The Democrat Party is not Center-right of the political Spectrum...they are far left of the Center. Thirdly, the Republican party is NOT far right of Center. The Republican Party IS the Center. And fourthly, the KKK is not a political party...they are as previously stated a Lunatic Fringe Group.

Your explanation is vapid of any rational thought. It just is. And if you want to compare in any shape form or fashion the Republicans to the KKK...you would be better served by asking questions such as, oh, I don't know...why was Robert Bird so loved by the Democrats when he was an admitted member of the KKK? Republicans would have run him out of the party. Come on Tiggly...you must be able to do better than that!

Edited October 15, 2012 by joc

[+joc]

... and such can only be claimed by those who don't have the faintest idea what a Marxist is (to the contrary of Tiggs I am seldom political correct). But ignorance does not change the fact that the adjective is wrong.

So, please, enlightened one, explain for us...if you can...in your own words please, not from some inane Google search..exactly what is a Marxist?