"In this last post, I again agree with sometihng he said. Our social nature as a major benefit."

The problem, SteveO, is that muirduck's statements do not exist in a vacumm, they are all constructed to take you somewhere and that somewhere is sympathy for socialism. While you may think of "social nature" as being an inclination to cooperate with others and enjoy their company, muriduck sees it as the behavior of an ant bed or bee hive, compulsory.

You're correct, I should have let you just find out yourself, but I was amazed that you could read his drivel on such a surface level. And, state any agreement in such a vague way.

Later I thought to myself, why not just ask SteveO if he agreed with muirduck that corporatism is strictly a republican phenomena. Your answer would have told me all I needed to know about your thought process.

Anyway, here is something I stumbled on yesterday that is very appropriate in understanding muirduck. As methinks has told you, he is a doctor in California named George Bella and he is a stauch advocate of socialized medicine.

Here:
http://www.freemarketcure.com/
is what he wants for you. Check out all the info there.

I have too defended certain elements of Enron in the fiasco. Not all.

Wal-Mart has done much good, and some stupid. A tiny bit of evil. But mostly good. I differentiate. I don't play black hat, white hat, gotch politics.

So I'm not taking any of your bair about Clinton V. Bush doing this or that. When either does stupid, it's stupid.

I'm against rent seeking. I'm against force and redistribution of wealth. I do believe that both parties favor corporate interests when they can. I think it's a little more the Republican's forte, whereas the Dems lean more towards hippie causes.

If Muirgeo is a nut, give me enough respect to find that out for myself. But I appreciate the warning.

In this last post, I again agree with sometihng he said. Our social nature as a major benefit. Now, I don't extrapolate that to defend totalitarianism. I think he also displays what I recently mentioned about the perception of Libertarians/ Republicans/ Classical Liberals/ Free traders/ Laizes Fairegoers etc. whathaveyou… to sometimes come across as hermit like individualist- or demanding such.

In my work on Personality Type, one thing I've found is that a lot of the behaviors that we don't like about people are their type defense mechanisms. Maybe he's a strong NF (idealist, feeler-type) or a strong SP (action oriented, we must DO something). Those are both valid feelings. Giving him room to spool out, he may have the chance ro explain his values, and maybe we can find little places to convince him of things- or, heaven forbid, learn something from him.

By slamming someone in the corner, you will generally get fight or flight behavior. In Type, a similar thing happens- otherwise delightful cocktail party guests suddenly feel threatened to the core of their being, and behave with maladaptive responses.

I've worked with snakes a lot. They are beautiful and amazing animals, and I don't fear them. However, I don't back them into a corner and keep poking at them.

You guys live the lie that convinces you that we are solitary creatures individually successful and even more successful the less we plan because you believe in the Great Invisible Hand that always plans better then our evolved intelligence.

You have a misguided understanding of Liberty. Yes, we are social creatures who depend on many others of our kind. But where your "thinking" goes astray is when you want to herd of all of us into thinking and acting in a way as to fulfill your vision of the world.

Libertarians believe in co-operation and community based on voluntary contract. They believe in partnerships based on voluntary contract. They also believe in voluntary exchange of thoughts, ideas, goods and services.

Where as forces of socialism herds every one to their vision of the world, regardless of how each individual wants to live his/her life. Individual desires, wishes, dreams, aspirations are not important to socialist. If something is good for majority, it is good for everybody – the minority is just collateral damage in the search for "common good".

Posted by: Hammer

Hammer,

It is a fact that what most "believers" here tout is the ideology of classical liberalism. It exist successfully no where in the world. ALL of the most successful world societies that have advanced and continue to advance the human condition are social democracies.

Any basic understanding of the nature of Homo sapiens sapiens reveals the obvious fact of our success is our social nature. You guys live the lie that convinces you that we are solitary creatures individually successful and even more successful the less we plan because you believe in the Great Invisible Hand that always plans better then our evolved intelligence.

The facts, history and basic common sense shows the evidence is against the libertarian position as the natural or best state of human societies. Indeed its quirky that some people likely hold your position based on evolved genetic traits that give preference to you left brain over your right ( the opposite of your politics). Concrete black and white thinking likely had and still has some adaptive genetic advantage for war making and playing out one side of the prisoners dilemma scenarios for short term success. It was indeed important in the history of man to have totalitarian regimes and concentrated autocratic powers to continue the advance of the human condition. To control the masses. Now I believe the conservative/classic liberal position is likely to be less adaptive and less successful to conditions of the modern world that require better and more right-sided planning. The future of human culture lies in the left and its right sided nuanced contemplative brain.

This is careless talk:

"Hey Vidyohs. =)
I'm surprised at your lashes at Muirgeo(duck?). I have to assume he's been a nut in the past. Based on this post though, I actually agree with what he says (for the most part)."

Thats fuzzy, vauge, and wishy washy. What actually do you agree with? For the most part?

For instance, do you agree that Enron was the largest single contributor to Geoprge Bushes gubinatorial campaign? If so, so what" And, how is that relevant to this thing called Republican Economics?

If you deem that relevant than wouldn't you expect muirduck to also mention the fact that Democratic Economics had Bill Clinton running interference and blocking for Enron for eight years, hosted Ken Lay in the Lincoln bedroom over 11 times in 8 years and received millions in donation from Enron. But no, in muirduck's world there is the glorious goal of the socialist victory and to all else he gives the lie.

But wait SteveO, maybe it's the "spend other people's money…." statement. But SteveO, muirduck is a devout socialist which means he believes devoutly in stealing other people's moeny and spending it, and he believes in stealing their children's money as well…..why would he be calling the pot black?

Maybe it's the "privatize profits and socialize losses"? You mean as in the system set up by democrats where corporations are forced into dealing with people they know are going to renege, but having the safety net constructed by democrats. Now that the safety net has been triggered, it is suddenly the republicans fault?

Maybe in this discussion of republican economics we should talk about the 1993 Clinton administration gifting Archer Daniels Midlands with 600 million dollars so they could "advertise" their products overseas; or, 300 million to the Popcorn Council of America for the goal? You'll never hear a democrat besmirched by muirduck.

Last, maybe SteveO, you agree that republican economics is corporatism? Hmmm, which party created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, federal corporations? Where would Enron be today without the inflexible support of the Clinton administration. Where would the unions be? Gosh corporation after corporation owes its existence to the democrats.

I direct your attention to Don's last post just previous to this one. "Force may protect, it never creates."

On it I posted the collected idiocies of muirduck. Look toward the end of the discussions. His muirpidities are numbered so the post won't be hard to find.

No SteveO, muirduck has never made sense on anything. muirduck sees the world through the heavily enculturated lens of the socialist evangelical and all of his expression is nothing more than a twisting of all to fit his idiot's view of the world.

Irrelevancies, red herrings, lies, distortions, and misrepresentations of the whole truth are muirduck's stock in trade.

Go back to the last thread and read those muirpidities, choose any of them and ask yourself, "How can any intelligent person come up with this shit?"

If you have by now formed the opinion (shared by many) that martinduck can hijack the topic on this cafe, let me advise you that he is still junior to muirduck.

If you think martinduck can take an obscure point out of a post and fabricate an extended pontification on that while ignoring the thesis of the essay he is attacking, wait until you see muirduck in action. Only with muirduck it is always about twisting things to advance socialism.

Nuff said about the duck.

Hammer,
Very true, faith is faith.

*sigh*

Now, you must die.

I'm surprised at your lashes at Muirgeo(duck?). I have to assume he's been a nut in the past. Based on this post though, I actually agree with what he says (for the most part).

Although I think he's just blabbing what he's been fed, the stopped clock is right when the time comes around.

One of the things that always surprises people I talk to after some time; they assume I'm defending Bush or Republicans, or that I am a republican. (I do very occasionally defend Bush, only because the attacks are constant and have little to do with reality in some cases). I frequently extol the virtues of Wal-Mart also.

So, after people get to know my arguments and assume I'm a little to the right of Attila the Hun, they're surprised when I say I'm against Wal-Mart taking eminent domain, and against Enron and a lot of Repulican corporatist nonsense.

I think it's become very difficult for people to differentiate, discriminate, and determine issues one at a time. For lack of a real general theory, I'm jokingly positing that a generation raised on simple comic book villains require primary colored good guys and bad guys in order to understand the world.

A growing number of states have stepped in to fill the void. Maryland lawmakers set the wage at $6.15 two years ago. "The effect of the law was modest – a lot of employers already paid more." (quotes mine) Its chief accomplishment may have been to give Democrats more sway with blue-collar voters.

Imagine that, a lot of employers already paid more! What does "a lot" consist of, hmmmm? Like 95%, maybe?

And, oh my God, "Its chief accomplishment may have been to give Democrats more sway with blue-collar workers."

Hey, SteveO, maybe I do want to become a hermit after all, wonder what the minimum wage is for that…..well off to the dept of labor statistics to research.

As you understand neither the word republican or the word economics, instead of trying to tell people more of what you don't know, how about you concentrate on explaing the muirpidities I listed on the last thread. Do you need them repeated here?

Tell us again about "Invisible hand, you're fired!" How does that work?

You may be totally devoid of intellectual capability and understanding, but you're even useless as a community joke as well.

Moveon.org is looking for your presence, you fit in there.

It only changes who is employed and advocates of minimum wage don't much care if it's the lowest skilled workers with the least number of options that get the boot.

Posted by: Crusader

Republican Economics in a nutshell;

Enron (manipulate legislatures and markets and your own accounting to defraud the public of billion of dollars.) They were the largest single contributor to Republican Texas Governor George W Bush.

Spend other peoples money and if that's not enough spend their children's money too.

It is also
Privatize profits socialize losses.

Do you actually want to defend Republican economic policies as Free market, Hayekian or classically liberal?

Basically Republican economics is corporatism.