[Craig] No, I’m pointing out the problem with your point. Once you define ‘socialism’ as any government program/action/regulation, then to be consistent, you have to say Hitler was the all-time model of a socialist...
[Arlo] Except I didn't do this. You did. In fact, *I* said Hitler was NOT a socialist. You're acccusing me of blurring everything into "socialism", but that is exactly what YOU are doing. [Craig] In general my complaint is against the following kind of reasoning: Step 1) Take a concept like freedom (or meaning). Step 2) Define it in an EXTREME way. ‘Freedom’ is TOTAL absence of regulation or oversight. (‘Literal meaning’ is TOTALLY without any metaphorical component). Step 3) Draw the absurd conclusion. Free markets don’t exist. (All meaning is metaphorical.) In contrast to this “strawman” mode of reasoning, consider concepts on a spectrum. [Arlo] I wish you'd have the same complaints about how you do this to the concept of "socialism". My point is that railing against "socialism" IS railing against a strawman. It starts of with a concept, attempts to identify it with mass murder or genocide or some such thing, and demonizes everything associated with it. All *I* am doing is, in response to this strawman rhetoric, reminding you that "socialism" also encompasses many aspects of American government, and in a GOOD way. [Craig] In contrast to this “strawman” mode of reasoning, consider concepts on a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, markets can be highly regulated, with government owning the means of production, setting wages & prices, as in socialism proper. Or at the other end, government can just establish the structure of the market, without competing in it or dictating economic exchanges, as in free markets. [Arlo] Gee, Craig, forgive me but my entire point has always been to consider the spectrum and not using demonizing rhetoric "freedom v. tyranny" to set up absurd arguments. Of course it's about balance, which has always been my point, balancing public and private, social and personal, communal and restricted. This is precisely why I find the demonizing of those words so abhorrent, its idiotic demogoguery, nothing more. Most Western economies (all?) are a form of mixed socialism-capitalism, and that includes America. To demonize one while glorifying the other is absurd. To talk about out of balancing, or fine tuning the balance, that is something else, a good thing, a positive dialogue. But let me ask you something specific. Would it be an example of "socialism" for the state to regulate marriage as only between same-race couples? Or does such state control have nothing to do with "socialism"? You seemed to imply that the Nurenberg Laws stand as an example of socialist practice, so I'd gather that the laws therein that defined marriage as between two-Aryans was "socialist". Yes? No? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
