Coercive Capitalism vs. Voluntary Socialism

What silliness you go on about. Still waiting for that link to published material defining government as socialism.

 

It is only your limited comprehension that disallows you to recognize the self-evident truth that any government exists only due to socialism, not capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

It is a self-evident Truth. Command economies are one example.

 

You would do well to Read Mises and Reisman. Your take on capitalism and socialism is totally outside of reality. Socialism cannot exist without authoritarianism/dictatorship. No thinking high achieving human being will accept a socialist economic system unless he is coerced by authorities in continuing to support the non-achievers.

 

Very few command economies exist in the world, and socialism is a dismal failure.

 

No one is arguing that command economies are not socialism. I and others are disputing your claims that government is socialism. Especially your claim that our government is socialism. And still waiting for that link to ANY published material defining government as socialism. You know, to show us it is something other than a product of the silly ideas bouncing around in that head of yours.

 

What part of government of a command economy is not socialism?

 

That is like asking, "what part of water is not water Daniel. Command economy is just another way of saying socialism, and we are not socialist in the US therefore there is no command economy in the US. Have you got that yet? I doubt it.

 

No one is arguing that command economies (OR THEIR GOVERNMENTS) are not socialism. Still waiting for that link to any published source that defines government as socialism, as you do.

- - - Updated - - -

He is like a parrot. He can say the words but has no clue as to their meaning.

 

The demented parrot has no idea what self evident means. Squark fallacy squark in several states, squark squark

 

Command economy is NOT another way of saying 'socialism'. Corparativism esp as exhorted by fascism and its counterpart in post war France as 'Dirigisme' is government direction of privately owned means of production where the profits remain in private hands. Socialism is about the ownership of means of production. Command economy is about its method of distribution. You can have free market socialism -such as in mutualism.

- - - Updated - - -

Still haven;t decided if he is a troll or is really a pretentious ignoramus.

 

Water is water even in our economy, that is the point. Water is distinct from Capitalism, but not Socialism, in your analogy.

 

Like someone who is full of fallacy, you keep missing the point of the argument with your habit of appealing to fallacy of composition. Government is socialism in a command economy. Why would government not be socialism in any other economy?

- - - Updated - - -

What part of the self-evident Truth that government is a form of socialism is too difficult a concept for you to understand?

 

Because they dont command the economy, of course. Still waiting for that link. Any published source that defines government as socialism. Youve provided us one source that doesnt as much as even contain a reference to socialism as your evidence. Do you have one that does?

 

Sounds like socialism to me. I choose not to try to reinvent the wheel. When I want to discuss a topic I want to know what the consensus is about what it is.

Definition of 'Command Economy'
A system where the government, rather than the free market, determines what goods should be produced, how much should be produced and the price at which the goods will be offered for sale. The command economy is a key feature of any communist society. China, Cuba, North Korea and the former Soviet Union are examples of countries that have command economies.

Investopedia explains 'Command Economy'
Also known as a planned economy, command economies are unable to efficiently allocate goods because of the knowledge problem - the central planner's inability to discern how much of a good should be produced. Shortages and surpluses are a common consequence of command economies. A free-market price system, on the other hand, signals to producers what they should be creating and in what quantities, resulting in a much more efficient allocation of goods.​

 

Water is water. Capitalism is capitalism. Socialism is socialism. Government in not socialism. A constitution is not socialism. So we can safely and reasonably say a government cannot be part socialism and part capitalism. The definition of socialism is well defined, and private enterprise it isn't.

 

It is your fallacy Daniel. You are trying to make out that socialism is something other than it really is. One could say that government is socialist in a socialist economy, but one cannot say government is socialist in a capitalist economy. That would be a major fallacy, one you seem to throw out on a regular basis.

Every part, because you are wrong; and every concept is more than you understand.

 

Did you miss the line of reasoning? Water is the same in both scenarios and is analogous to socialism but not capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

Why would government only be a form of socialism for a command economy and not a capital economy. Are the principles of operation not the same?

 

Why would government not be socialism in any other economy? Of course, it must be a form of socialism if there is any form of capitalism.

 

Socialism often bails out capitalism, for the public good if not the general welfare.

 

Still waiting for that link to any published source defining government as socialism. Provide that and we can get to all these stupid questions you like to ask in response to questions.

 

Not recognizing self-evident truths is more telling; appealing to authority is usually considered a fallacy.

 

Squark Squark fallay fallacy govern is socilaism, in several states, fallacy non sequiter squark squark
- - - Updated - - -

Squark self evident truth' squark

You dont know what self evident means you demented parrot.

 

Most self evident truths have been published before. Most silly ideas bouncing around in your head never have. I don't ask you to copy and paste ANY published source defining government as socialism, expecting you to do so but instead to demonstrate that you cannot.

 

Like someone who is full of fallacy, you keep missing the point of the argument with your habit of appealing to fallacy of composition. Government is socialism in a command economy. Why would government not be socialism in any other economy?

What part of the self-evident Truth that government is a form of socialism is too difficult a concept for you to understand?

Only trolls don't have a good argument; any questions?

 

Because, for instance, our government is a Constitutional Republic, a liberal democracy, not socialism. Socialism is an economic system. A Constitutional Republic is a system of government.What part dont you understand?