Philosophy Now Forum

Above us only sky wrote: The French high speed railway was built because in the battle of policy-making, the airline industries have slightly less influences than railway industries. In France, the Alstom company enjoy enormous political influences.
Here is their link http://www.alstom.com/

So what? France is a liberal democracy and has built high-speed railways. Japan is a liberal democracy and has built high-speed railways. Britain is a liberal democracy and has built high-speed railways. Your point about having to have a nazi party to build stuff is bollocks.

Above us only sky wrote:Edward Snowden is a whistle blower fighting for civil rights, to some extent he is an American political dissent, yet we have seen him being accused for treason by the government. ...

Presumably because he worked for the CIA and signed your equivalent of our Official Secrets Act hence he is guilty of treason.

if next time there is another whistle blower fighting for civil rights, I guess you would be the one who wish to persecute the whistle blower for 'treason' ASAP before he mentioning the civil right violation issue ?

And yet, as FDP pointed out to you, the state you wish to live under would have no such thing as civil rights and more than likely would have just shot Snowden in a puppet trial.

BTW, Liu Xiaobo was also being persecuted for 'treason'.

Exactly an example of what is wrong with your nazi state. You appear very confused?

Above us only sky wrote:...
Russia and China are national socialist if you look closely at their ideology and the design of their political & economical system. ...

Yes you should look very closely, Putin is doing what all 'national socialist' states do, stoking xenophobia and hatred towards the 'outside' and some of his minorities to keep his populace from looking closely at what he is doing and to divert their discontent, all whilst he steals a fortune for himself and his cronies until his time comes up, an estimated tidy $40 billion so far but other estimates put it at as much as $200 billion. All while overseeing a state where the life expectancy of the Russian male is 64 years and a quarter of them die before 55. What a paradise.

State your economic model for national socialism.

We know historically that national socialism was an economic failure. Germany during WWII was less productive in producing weapons than it was during WWI. Germany had to adopt capitalist reforms to increase its weapons manufacturing, because it was crumbling so badly. Not to mention that there were numerous malinvestments occurring within the system. Hitler wanted such things as giant rockets, which given the existing pay-loads, was a waste militarily. Basically, what Hitler did was used loans given to Germany to build up his military. This resulted in Germany being unable to pay back such loans, because military production was not profitable. This forced Germany into invading other countries and stealing their wealth. That's basically all national socialism is --- stealing from other people through military force. Hitler himself had little understanding of economics, which is why no fan of Hitler can point to anything significant regarding economic models by referencing his speeches and writings. It all comes down to military aggression and stealing from others. That's not a functioning model that any sane person would advocate for.

But go ahead and amuse us by stating an actual economic model that you think is functional, based on this national socialism you speak so highly of.

Above us only sky wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:49 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:49 pm

Above us only sky wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:38 am Here I have a good example:

A high-speed railway provides lots of economical and social benefits.Russia is planning to build its own high speed railway while China already has the best high speed railway network on earth, yet how many high speed bullet trains have we seen in America?

They don't provide lots of economic advantage. We're planing one for the UK and the numbers don't justify it at all.

'the numbers don't justify it at all' is a common truism in liberal-democracy capitalism.
If communism wages the war of poor against the rich, then capitalism wages the war of rich against the poor; and this war of rich against the poor is waged through the liberal democracy system. In this war of rich against the poor , the phrase ''the numbers don't justify it at all' is always the best ammunition.

Capitalism isn't the war of the rich against the poor.

Above us only sky wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:49 am Let me explain:
in capitalism, the sole purpose of almost any enterprise is to earn profits and maximize profits earned, this means in the policy making of a liberal democracy, whether a high speed railway has economical values (profits) determines whether a high speed railway can ever be built.

Government is an enterprise that employs variously between a third and close to a half of all workers in a developed capitalist country and does not fit your definition. Charities are much more common in Europe than they are in China (which bans many of them) or Russia (which lists many as foreign agents and starves them of resources). the PTA at your local school is a shared enterprise with goals that do not include profit.

If you want to limit a wide open phrase such as "almost any enterprise" to only include companies, then just say "the purpose of companies is to make money". It makes your claims much less dramatic, but also less wrong.

Above us only sky wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:49 am However, in national socialist system, the highest purpose of almost any major national enterprise is to achieve national unity and maximize the prosperity and wellbeing of every nationals within a nation, because every individuals, poor or rich, in the end of the day is a family member of a big family, the nation.

Why are you holding up Russia and China as examples then? Both countries have highly distorted economies which are as much if not more about maintaining control through almost medieval networks of patronage as any other purpose. We both know that the crackdowns both countries have on their rampant corruption always target political enemies. Putin routinely steal companies from his enemies to give to his friends. In neither case is there any recourse before the courts because Chinese judges tend not to be legal professionals but are always party hacks, and Russian judges just do what their boss tells them.

Reality simply does not intersect with your rhetoric.

Above us only sky wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:49 am Therefore a national socialist country will decide whether a high speed railway network be built by adding up all the benefits of the railway, includes not only economical benefits, but also social benefits ( travel safety,jobs to the poor, experienced engineers, technological know-hows and national prestige) and environmental benefits (less carbon dioxide released than airlines) to make the decision.

While in liberal democracy capitalism, a project with less profits but huge social and environmental benefits can never be built, because as you have said 'the numbers can never justify it at all'.

All you have done is describe a system in which opportunity cost is ignored in favour of pursuing economically poor choices for political purposes.
Also, I did mention that the HS2 system which is due to be built in Britain (a Liberal Democracy) is the one where the numbers don't add up right?
So it should go without argument that Liberal Democracies do build these things even when they don't make economic sense.
So "can never be built" is untrue. Hopefully it won't be though.

Above us only sky wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:04 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:21 pm

But more to the point, you shouldn't be trying. If you like this national socialism so much you should be arguing that it is right for governments to lock up dissenters for the common good and to preserve harmony because that is a basic function of the systems you are praising. If you can't bring yourself to wish for the dictatorship to send you to prison when you fail to observe the faith, you aren't really committed to the case you are presenting, nor to the political systems you keep trying to sell us.

Edward Snowden is a whistle blower fighting for civil rights, to some extent he is an American political dissent, yet we have seen him being accused for treason by the government. if next time there is another whistle blower fighting for civil rights, I guess you would be the one who wish to persecute the whistle blower for 'treason' ASAP before he mentioning the civil right violation issue ?

BTW, Liu Xiaobo was also being persecuted for 'treason'.

Edward Snowden is indeed a whistle blower fighting for civil rights. He's also a traitor who leaked highly secret intelligence documentation.
I'm of the view that he should be let off, but I am not a supreme court judge. In a liberal democracy those legal matters are decided by independent courts.

Liu Xiaobo may have been accused of treason, but his crime was only to oppose a single party state. He was never in possession of a state secret, nor did he ever do anything that would merit prosecution as a traitor in any decent country.

These are not the same things and you make yourself look really foolish for pursuing the false equivalence. The oppressive regimes you favour do this sort of thing all the time and if you wish to present them as good, you will have to present the thing they do as good. Trying to present the mass incarceration of people whose only crime is to demand rights as no worse than punishing actual traitors isn't going to work for you.

Above us only sky wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:00 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:49 pm

Above us only sky wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:38 amMeanwhile a national socialist system is able to break those vested interests and push the plan through by political might.

Just like China recently achieved the useless distinction of end to end ballpoint pen manufacture by directing a state owned company to waste a lot of money on a nonsense investment.

The news is not accurate at all, what China has invested money on is the technical know-how of making and installing the tiny steel ball on the tip of a half-finished ballpoint pen.

Given how small the tiny steel ball is and the lifespan of a ballpoint pen, you won't be surprised to realize it has been a technical secret for some big Swiss companies for a long time. If you consider the task super easy, then I will donate 1000 dollars to you so you can produce the tiny steel ball for me.

Because they respect the intellectual property right of tiny steel ball hold by some foreign companies therefore they did not hire some spies to steal that technology, instead, they are willing to put much more money to figure it out by themselves.

What Bloomberg really hates is not the fact that China spends big money on research, what Bloomberg hates is China did not send the annual big tributes to some foreign companies to buy the right to use their intellectual property right of tiny steel ball, instead they use the money to fund their own research.

You've clearly misunderstood.
Spending big R&D bucks on something that is already available cheaply and ubiquitously has a corresponding Opportunity Cost in that those same R&D bucks could have been spent on something that has actual value and the potential to repay the investment.

The technical know-how of putting a tiny ball bearing into a ballpoint pen just isn't valuable any more. The fact that the Swiss competitors have been doing it for a long time makes it worse. They have already recouped their investment and they are selling the ball point nibs at commodity rates, while the Chinese now need to somehow recoup a large investment on a product that they too can only sell at commodity rates which deprives them of the premium required to repay the costs of development.

Above us only sky wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:21 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:37 pm Some people seemed to enjoy having the Olympics in London, most of us thought it was a bit annoying. But we defintely wouldn't trade away our human rights to have more of that.

If 'most of us thought it was a bit annoying' then why in a liberal democracy the 2012 London Olympics became a reality? Is it because the pressure group and lobbyists are working?

Dude, you replied to me 4 times in about 2 hours. Get a life.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:01 pm
You've clearly misunderstood.
Spending big R&D bucks on something that is already available cheaply and ubiquitously has a corresponding Opportunity Cost in that those same R&D bucks could have been spent on something that has actual value and the potential to repay the investment.

The technical know-how of putting a tiny ball bearing into a ballpoint pen just isn't valuable any more. The fact that the Swiss competitors have been doing it for a long time makes it worse. They have already recouped their investment and they are selling the ball point nibs at commodity rates, while the Chinese now need to somehow recoup a large investment on a product that they too can only sell at commodity rates which deprives them of the premium required to repay the costs of development.

Have you ever heard of the word 'technological monopoly'? in capitalism, a company will never sell a thing at commodity rates after recouping its R & D investment as long as that company enjoy technological monopoly.
And this is one major reason why the developing world finds it very difficult to ever become 'developed world'.

Most of the ballpoint pens we use are made in China, yet every year Chinese companies spend about 200 millions to import the tiny bearings and the machines to install those tiny bearings, given how much a finished ballpoint pen can sell in a supermarket, you won't be surprised to realize how little profit a Chinese ballpoint pen company can make.

A developing country lead by a national socialist party is able to gather enough political will to relocate enough recourses to do their own R & D in order to break those technical monopoly tells the world national socialism has its competitive advantage.

In fact, some developing countries with liberal democracy is considering whether they should abandon liberal democracy and choose national socialism instead. For example, the Republic of the Philippines has made the first move towards national socialism by electing Rodrigo Duterte as the president.

Science Fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:32 pm State your economic model for national socialism.

We know historically that national socialism was an economic failure. Germany during WWII was less productive in producing weapons than it was during WWI. Germany had to adopt capitalist reforms to increase its weapons manufacturing, because it was crumbling so badly. Not to mention that there were numerous malinvestments occurring within the system. Hitler wanted such things as giant rockets, which given the existing pay-loads, was a waste militarily. Basically, what Hitler did was used loans given to Germany to build up his military. This resulted in Germany being unable to pay back such loans, because military production was not profitable. This forced Germany into invading other countries and stealing their wealth. That's basically all national socialism is --- stealing from other people through military force. Hitler himself had little understanding of economics, which is why no fan of Hitler can point to anything significant regarding economic models by referencing his speeches and writings. It all comes down to military aggression and stealing from others. That's not a functioning model that any sane person would advocate for.

First of all, let me get the basic fact right:
Nazi Germany invade other countries not because they want to steal some foreign treasure, but mainly because the backbone of Nazi ideology---- Aryan racism dictates that it is the holy duty of Aryan German people to unite the whole European Aryan race into a single Aryan state in Europe, no matter the costs.

If Nazi Germany simply wants treasure, why not confiscate all the processions of German upper class, why not close the stock exchange in Berlin take all the money there? why not confiscate the Mercedes car plant? The Soviets in Russia did all those things to get the money.

However I have to point it out that Nazism does not equal national socialism. Nazism is a combination of White
Aryan racism, anti-Semitism and Jingoism, national socialism is merely a means to achieve Aryan racism, anti-Semitism and Jingoism goals. You can't blame the airplane if a hijacker gives us a 911.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/H6V1GZNvJ9uUjsza2

The economic model of national socialism is this:
Capitalism functions as the backbone of a national socialist economy, yet under national socialism, the state, not individual capitalists, hold over 50% of the shares of any major heavy industry. By controlling a fair amount of shares of those major industry the state gains the revenues from them and use those revenues to fund a welfare system for the have-not, while allowing the capitalists to retain enough shares and thus profits as incentives for them to innovate.
By doing so, an equilibrium between the have and the have-not is achieved; due to those social welfare, the common working people could consume the excess industrial output, while the capitalists could take their profits and re-invest those profits to upgrade the industry, in this process, a healthy economical upwards spiral is created, leads to ever-increasing national prosperity with both the have and the have-not better off; in time of economical recession, this healthy upwards spiral sustained by the equilibrium between the have and the have-not can offset any bad effects of the recession.

Here is a perfect example: Volkswagen.
When you drive a Volkswagen, do you realize that this company is founded on May 28, 1937 by the German Labour Front ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front
In fact, the name of Volkswagen, or folks' wagen, reflects its national socialist ideals: The owner of a car company hire the working people, pay a good wage to the working people to produce high -quality cars for the working people to improve their living standards, in this process, capitalists earn a fair amount of profits and the have and have-not unites as a one big family.
While in a liberal democracy, we see the rich bulling the poor, as during the 2008 crisis, billions of dollars spent to bail out those big bankers while common people who can not pay their mortgages were driven out their houses like cattle.

The liberal democracy system has some major flaws in its design, one of the flaws is that the growing gap between the rich and poor is its inevitable logical results, while there is no mechanism within the liberal democracy system to deal with the growing gap between the rich and poor .

Above us only sky wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:59 am

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:01 pm
You've clearly misunderstood.
Spending big R&D bucks on something that is already available cheaply and ubiquitously has a corresponding Opportunity Cost in that those same R&D bucks could have been spent on something that has actual value and the potential to repay the investment.

The technical know-how of putting a tiny ball bearing into a ballpoint pen just isn't valuable any more. The fact that the Swiss competitors have been doing it for a long time makes it worse. They have already recouped their investment and they are selling the ball point nibs at commodity rates, while the Chinese now need to somehow recoup a large investment on a product that they too can only sell at commodity rates which deprives them of the premium required to repay the costs of development.

Have you ever heard of the word 'technical monopoly'? in capitalism, a company will never sell a thing at commodity rates after recouping its R & D investment as long as that company enjoy technical monopoly.
And this is one major reason why the developing world finds it very difficult to ever become 'developed world'.

Most of the ballpoint pens we use are made in China, yet every year Chinese companies spend about 200 millions to import the tiny bearings and the machines to install those tiny bearings, given how much a finished ballpoint pen can sell in a supermarket, you won't be surprised to realize how little profit a Chinese ballpoint pen company can make.

A developing country lead by a national socialist party is able to gather enough political will to relocate enough recourses to do their own R & D in order to break those technical monopoly tells the world national socialism has its competitive advantage.

In fact, some developing countries with liberal democracy is considering whether they should abandon liberal democracy and choose national socialism instead. For example, the Republic of the Philippines has made the first move towards national socialism by electing Rodrigo Duterte as the president.

Yeah, well again, I don't understand what you are trying to sell us with this Duterte thing, he employs death squads and that's not an improvement on not having death squads. the fact that 8 out of 10 vicious dictators agree with you doesn't make me want to agree with you.

I'm bored of the pen thing, if you actually think that is an impressive achievement and a good use of investment resources then fell free. Whatever puts a breeze up your skirt mate.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:42 am Yeah, well again, I don't understand what you are trying to sell us with this Duterte thing, he employs death squads and that's not an improvement on not having death squads. the fact that 8 out of 10 vicious dictators agree with you doesn't make me want to agree with you.

First of all, I don't like the way Duterte handling those drug dealers without a due process of law, because rule of law is the foundation upon which national socialism can be built.

In the Philippines, under its liberal democracy system, huge drug money is used by drug dealers to fund the election campaigns of various politicians. if those politicians get elected, those politicians will rewards the drug dealers by allowing them to keep and expand their drug business; as the drug dealers making more profits, they will continue to send a fraction of the profits to those politicians to help their future campaigns or give them money to bribe their superior officials. Even if those drug dealers ever got caught, they can walk off easily by bribing the judge in a lawful court because if the police get you in to trouble and you can't bribe them, you can still bribe the court since in a liberal democracy, the court is independent from the police.

This creates a vicious circle in which liberal democracy function as a protective shield for the drug business.

Duterte is the first president in the Philippines to take assertive measures against the illegal drug industry, unlike politicians in a liberal democracy, he made that decision based upon the interests of his nation, not the interests of his political party, which is what national socialism is all about.

Above us only sky wrote:First of all, let me get the basic fact right:
Nazi Germany invade other countries not because they want to steal some foreign treasure, but mainly because the backbone of Nazi ideology---- Aryan racism dictates that it is the holy duty of Aryan German people to unite the whole European Aryan race into a single Aryan state in Europe, no matter the costs. ...

Er!? No, Lebensraum was exactly about stealing the land and agricultural surplus from their neighbours to feed their population expansion.

If Nazi Germany simply wants treasure, why not confiscate all the processions of German upper class, ...

Because they stole it from the Jews.

why not close the stock exchange in Berlin take all the money there? ...

Because Stock Exchanges aren't banks

why not confiscate the Mercedes car plant? ...

Because they didn't have to as MBZ pretty much became the Nazi's military vehicle producer.

The Soviets in Russia did all those things to get the money. ...

I doubt it but post the links.

However I have to point it out that Nazism does not equal national socialism. ...

I think you'll find that it does, "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" - the National Socialist German Worker's Party."

The economic model of national socialism is this:
Capitalism functions as the backbone of a national socialist economy, yet under national socialism, the state, not individual capitalists, hold over 50% of the shares of any major heavy industry. By controlling a fair amount of shares of those major industry the state gains the revenues from them and use those revenues to fund a welfare system for the have-not, while allowing the capitalists to retain enough shares and thus profits as incentives for them to innovate.
By doing so, an equilibrium between the have and the have-not is achieved; due to those social welfare, the common working people could consume the excess industrial output, while the capitalists could take their profits and re-invest those profits to upgrade the industry, in this process, a healthy economical upwards spiral is created, leads to ever-increasing national prosperity with both the have and the have-not better off; in time of economical recession, this healthy upwards spiral sustained by the equilibrium between the have and the have-not can offset any bad effects of the recession. ...

We just call it a mixed-economy over here in Europe.

Here is a perfect example: Volkswagen.
When you drive a Volkswagen, do you realize that this company is founded on May 28, 1937 by the German Labour Front ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front
In fact, the name of Volkswagen, or folks' wagen, reflects its national socialist ideals: The owner of a car company hire the working people, pay a good wage to the working people to produce high -quality cars for the working people to improve their living standards, in this process, capitalists earn a fair amount of profits and the have and have-not unites as a one big family. ...

You do know that all those Germans who paid in to get their wagens didn't get them don't you?

While in a liberal democracy, we see the rich bulling the poor, as during the 2008 crisis, billions of dollars spent to bail out those big bankers while common people who can not pay their mortgages were driven out their houses like cattle.

We bailed out those banks so that the bulk of the house-owners wouldn't lose their houses.

The liberal democracy system has some major flaws in its design, one of the flaws is that the growing gap between the rich and poor is its inevitable logical results, while there is no mechanism within the liberal democracy system to deal with the growing gap between the rich and poor .

Is it because you are an American that you can't use the word Socialism? It's not liberal democracy that has these flaws it's Capitalism and liberal democracies, at least over here, mitigate them by having mixed-economies, a welfare system and a heath-care system paid for by taxation.

I've been told by Americans here that you don't live in a liberal democracy but a federal republic, as such I think you should maybe try the former first before going for nazism. Still, no worries there as Trump appears to be putting forward a nationalistic agenda so maybe you'll get a chance to live in the state you wish. Or maybe move to Alaska where they will pay you a citizens income.

government based on envy...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: government based on envy...

-Imp

Who Trump's? I agree.