Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye
But there isn't grey here because the definition of a capitalist free market is very specific. If it doesn't fit the definition, then it doesn't get to claim that status.
|
I don't think that's his point. He contends that there can be systems that are not 100% laissez-faire capitalism and not 100% socialism, but rather take aspects from both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye
Besides, socialism didn't happen overnight. It started with little sprinklings here and there. Do I really have to remind everyone that socialism resulted in shortages, riots and even war?
|
Is this unique to socialism and entirely consequent of socialism? I do not believe so on either count. Capitalism can easily be blamed for these same results in just as many cases, so you might want to have a better ground to deny socialism in favor of capitalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye
Socialism had it's chance and failed. Get over it folks.
|
I'm not so sure about this. Social democracies still seem to be doing just fine. The problem with chucking around the word "socialist" anymore seems that it is too often an appeal to McCarthyan paranoia by tying it intimately with Soviet Russia without any appreciation for divergences in socialist theory. To that extent, the use of it more and more seems to reflect Godwin's Law.
Dalek, I'm a bit confused with your problem with Al Gore. While I understand questioning him, what does he have to gain, personally, from his environmentalist efforts? Isn't he basically set for life financially after his senatorial and vice-presidential tenure and the speaking engagements he can get as a result? Hasn't money he's earned from, namely, An Inconvenient Truth been given to fund environmentally-minded foundations? Basically, I believe you're suggesting that there is some ulterior motive and I would like to understand what it is and why you believe it exists.