Air America Radio is a failure.....GOOD!!!

POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Saturday, May 21, 2005 09:18
VIEWED: 10998
PAGE 5 of 8

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Listen to me you arrogrant peice of shit. Socialism isn't something that can be nailed down in one sentence. It is a broad term that encompases a range.

---

According to the dictionary, you’re wrong. If you have a problem with that, complain to Miriam-Webster.

Also ‘arrogant’ is spelled with only two ‘r,’ not three, and “i before e,” you know, Vizzini. If you’re going to use amateurish insults, try to spell them right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There is many ways that a government can administer the means of production. The way you are using this term (you stated that AT was right), states that the government would own all production.

---

You mean “own and administrate.” Yes, there are many forms of Socialism, such as National Socialism and Communism. There are many ways that the government can own and administrate economic capital, but the fact is that by definition, socialism is government ownership of the means of production. That is a fact, and you are so inculcated with Left-wing nonsense that you will actually attempt to dispute the definition in the dictionary if it doesn't suit your ideological bias. That is arrogance - or stupidity.

Don’t you realize this makes you look dumb? Why do you do this to yourself? It’s one thing to hold an opinion; it’s another entirely to try to argue that accepted definitions are wrong, because they don’t suit your opinion. Maybe if you were twelve I could see it, but I get the feeling, that you’re an adult and there’s just no excuse for you to be calling people an “arrogant(sic) piece(sic) of shit” because they hold to the accepted definitions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So then, the government owns all the facilities in a country that is Socialist?!?!? This is pure crap.

---

No, it’s not ‘pure crap.’ According to the dictionary, a government that owns all the facilities in a country is probably socialist.




“INCONCEIVABLE!!!!”



-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hey, hey, hey, dictionaries are not the final word on language, usage is. Dictionaries simply do their best to record the most common and authoritative meaning of a word. Also, dictionaries are, on the whole, very classist accademic institutions. And beyond denotative meaning there is always connotative meaning. Sure Marx and Engles bring us a socialism where the State owns everything, but what does that have to do with this country?

Lots of folks go on and on about how the left want this country to go socialist, but I think very few people really want the government to own all the means of production. Does having robust social programs make a state socialist? Not according to M-W, not according to Finn Mac Cumhal (at the moment), but that's what most people are talking about when they talk about FDR and socialism rearing its ugly head.

It comes down to a game of bait & switch. The right simply changes the definition to suit its needs.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

Edited for clarity

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hi all,

I'm not sure what all the hurrah is about. Certainly we don't need to be calling people names.

If we want to remember, this began as a discussion about how a military could possibly be fielded without taxes. More accurately, how a decent military with modern and standardized equipment could be fielded without taxes.

It seemed to me to boil down to three possibilities:

1) Your army units provide their own stuff, which means it will usually be substandard and/or mismatched.

2) You collect money from the citizenry (taxes) and hire solders/buy planes/tanks/ships/etc.

3) You (the government) owns the means of production (which I think we've agreed is socialism?) and so you produce the standard gear your army is to use.

Is that about right?

--Anthony

P.S. Please don't get caught up in the nuances between owning production and controlling production. If you control something, and can do what you want with it, it's yours. You own it.



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
It comes down to a game of bate & switch. The right simply changes the definition to suit its needs.

---

Let’s be honest. The only people in this discussion trying to change the definition of socialism to suit them are on the Left side this debate.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It seemed to me to boil down to three possibilities:

1) Your army units provide their own stuff, which means it will usually be substandard and/or mismatched.

2) You collect money from the citizenry (taxes) and hire solders/buy planes/tanks/ships/etc.

3) You (the government) owns the means of production (which I think we've agreed is socialism?) and so you produce the standard gear your army is to use.

Is that about right?

---

Yes, that’s about right.

Although the Early Roman and Greek military equipment was not substandard. In fact, both the Romans and the Greeks generally had much better equipped militaries then their enemies. Even the Persians and Pheonicians, who were major contemporary military powers did not have as good equipment. So you can’t say that a patrician or aristocratic private military would necessarily have substandard equipment.

I’m not sure what you mean by mismatched. The Romans (not sure about the Greeks) had standards of military appearance, the red cloak for instance. The bigger problem was that there was a mismatch perhaps in the quality of equipment. Wealthier families could afforded to equip their sons much better then less wealthy families. This created a gradient of soldiers: light infantry were composed of the sons of the poorer patrician families while the heavier infantry were composed of the sons of wealthier families. And this played a great deal into early Roman military strategy. Unlike today where military units are named with respect to their practice, (i.e Marines, Rangers ect), Greco-Roman military units were named based on the type of equipment they carried. The Greek Hoplite for instance was called so because the shield they carried was called a Hoplon. Basicaly, this means that soldiers whose families could afford to equipe them with Hoplons (and other armour) became Hoplites in a Greek military.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

I’m not sure what you mean by mismatched. The Romans (not sure about the Greeks) had standards of military appearance, the red cloak for instance. The bigger problem was that there was a mismatch perhaps in the quality of equipment. Wealthier families could afforded to equip their sons much better then less wealthy families. This created a gradient of soldiers: light infantry were composed of the sons of the poorer patrician families while the heavier infantry were composed of the sons of wealthier families. And this played a great deal into early Roman military strategy. Unlike today where military units are named with respect to their practice, (i.e Marines, Rangers ect), Greco-Roman military units were named based on the type of equipment they carried. The Greek Hoplite for instance was called so because the shield they carried was called a Hoplon. Basicaly, this means that soldiers whose families could afford to equipe them with Hoplons (and other armour) became Hoplites in a Greek military.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

---

Hello,

That's about exactly what I mean. A military M-16 with all the bells and whistles might cost you ten grand. Military Body Armor. Boots. Jeeps. Tanks. This stuff is expensive.

So if we had a militia armed with whatever American families could afford... we'd have a pretty sad militia. The guy on your left might be carrying his Dad's 1911 pistol, the guy in front of you might have an AR-15, and the guy to your right might have a Ruger Mini-14. You might all pile into a fifth fellow's Jeep Grand Cherokee and ride into battle.

It doesn't seem like a viable way to operate a modern military. And don't even think about buying a naval warship. Even Bill Gates would feel the pain in his wallet at that one.

It's the cumulative tax base of an entire US Population that allows us to do things like buy an Aircraft carrier... and all the planes on it.

Perhaps if we were a small country with nothing that anybody wanted, a tax-free militia might make more sense. In such a case, it wouldn't be important to be riding into battle in anything more substantial than a Jeep Grand Cherokee.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME