Conservative Political Forum

I think the best way to show me up and expose my "marxist" views for what they are is to debate my points and disprove them through some logical/empirical framework, rather than quipping third person one liners.

Wrong, the best way is to let your post illustrate your ignorance of Capitalism.
You're doing just fine on your own.

Wrong, the best way is to let your post illustrate your ignorance of Capitalism.
You're doing just fine on your own.

Well if you feel no need to go out and make falsifiable statements, there's not much that can be said.  But like it or not, you live in a partially capitalist, partially socialist society.  And if you want to live in a "real" capitalist world, well, it's never existed.  It's the communism of the right, and just as impossible.

What in the Hell is that supposed to mean?
Are you saying Capitalism doesn't work?

Hmm... Is this toad from out side the U.S. ??

I'm saying pure capitalism has never worked, that is, an utterly unregulated free market.  We all agree that some axiomatic regulation is necessary, so the question only becomes the extent, hardly a fundamental question of government philosophy.  And I've provided my own evidence to support the pragmatic necessity of certain regulations and programs; some of that evidence which you shipped off to an obscure forum as though you thought a compilation of scientific studies was too irrelevant for you to mind.

So you need to recognize that "should the government do X" is no longer an ideological but rather a factual question that you should justify with, you know results and evidence.

"Axiomatic regulation?"  Collectivism isn't an abjectly insane and idiotic theology that has murdered a hundred million people because there is no such thing as "real capitalism" -- and the explanation of that is that there is no such thing as "pure capitalism"....

You notice how almost every word he uses is an actual word, but the way he puts them together seems pretty much random?  Spell and grammar checkers are nifty, but it's a pain how nowadays you sometimes have to read an entire sentence before you figure out someone is a complete gibbering loon.

It's really fascinating to see what happens when extremists willingly insulate themselves and create a circle of confirmation bias - it's clear from the lack of form or structure in your responses that you don't understand debate, don't understand fundamental logical fallacies and concepts, and don't have any desire to.

Now it's a "circle of confirmation bias?"

So seriously, where does this kind of word salad come from?  A bunch of neo-hippies sit in a big drum circle and pass catch-phrases back and forth until they all come out sounding like this.  I suppose that's what tax dollars go to in the craziest liberal artiste colleges these days.

The difference is I came to these boards specifically because I grew tired of sitting around in liberal boards and not having any room to see the other side of the debate - of course, none of you seem interested in any formal debate, and will instead resort to silly snipes and ramblings.

Here's another cute question for you: find the volume of of a region in space where the projection onto the x-y plane is in between the circles x^2 + y^2 = 1 and x^2 + y^2 = 2 in the first quadrant, and where z = x.  Careful, I once tutored a 15 year old who easily answered this question.  You can't get one upped that easily.   

I'm sorry, maybe you shouldn't have accused me of not being able to count.  Oh, wait, now that I think of it...

Why don't you find the sum of all possible subsets of <1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9>?  It's just counting, right?

Somebody allowed you around a fifteen-year-old child?

Let's return to the original contention.  If you support any mode of economic regulation you shift the argument from "capitalism or socialism?" to "what degree of capitalism?".  And therefore you need to respond to questions of raising taxes or imposing new regulations with some cost-benefit analysis, preferably supported with actual data and evidence, rather than a copy-pasted "socialism is evil" kneejerk response.  Because you already support such "socialist" policies, it's only a matter of degree, a matter of actual analysis.

Regulations aren't necessarily capitalist or socialist.  That would depend on the nature of the regulation.  So, "No, regulatory economics can exist in both capitalist and socialist systems".  The existence of regulations alone does not equate to an acceptance of socialism.  Laissez faire free-market capitalism stresses the importance of preventing over regulation.  Socialist systems tend to be more regulated than systems which strive towards Laissez faire capitalism due in part to the wide divergence between socialism and more natural free markets.  This wider departure from a natural system of trade and property rights necessitates a higher degree of regulation to accomplish the reformation to the unnatural.

As an example, take a regulation preventing a merchant from advertising a sale on any LCD Television set in the store if the merchant HAS no LCD Television sets IN THE STORE and is merely announcing a fictitious prospective sale to lure customers into the store.  Or another example failing to disclose the fact all such sets available for sale are used.  This is in no way a socialist or capitalist regulation.