Printable View
Well I guess you can call it nationalistic capitalism. Maybe State capitalism but I prefer corporatism. However, I don't think it even works domestically because certain businesses still get monopoly grants and subsidies causing imbalance in the pricing system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suicideking
Reagan definitely wasn't laissez-faire or purist capitalist in any sense. He used freedom of enterprise as a guise to promote a corporatist agenda.
There was definitely some of that, but compared to Carter, he was still a huge step towards freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
The freedom to starve and die, beaten and diseased, for lack of corporate sponsorship? Do more research, son.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Wow, I'm speechless. Truly. Perhaps you should actually know even slightest bit of 1970s US history before you speak. Just a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
First of all, DV is only a little bit to the left of "Society at large" as it refers to the world. For the US, views here may seem a bit extreme, but not all users are from the US.
Second, why does it matter? I'm the biggest Reagan-touting liberal-bashing bible-banging conservative for miles around here in NJ, but as per my beliefs, I'm fine with people having other beliefs. After all, we're here to LD, and whether you'd like to meet Benjamin Franklin or Karl Marx shouldn't matter.
If any of the Founding Fathers could be associated with modern-day US conservatism (really, the closest analogues at that time were the crown loyalists), Ben Franklin is probably not the best choice. Nor, really, does US liberalism much resemble Marx's ideas, with union influence waning and the liberal movement falling almost entirely into the hands of the middle class. If anything, Marx would probably champion libertarianism, to shift more of the middle class into the ranks of the working poor and hasten revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neoquestmoo
Regardless, I've met more than enough passionately earnest coffee-shop revolutionaries; this liberal, for one, would rather meet Ben Franklin.
ETA:Cheap gas =/= freedomQuote:
Originally Posted by cmind
Reagan did nothing to support freedom in general except for more freedom for the oligarchs to exploit people internationally.
And like Taoaur said a liberal is much more interested in meeting Ben Franklin than Karl Marx. a conservative would probably not enjoy Ben Franklin's company. Karl Marx was a fine philosopher on political science but definitely not a messiah, his ideas need evolving to fit our world structure.
Besides, I am as liberal as they come. But I don't want a unilateral socialist federal government either. I want local and state governments handling socialism. I just want the private sector to stay the fuck out of government. That's my liberal agenda. I believe the conservative agenda has been usurped to support the private sector which communally owns the publicly traded company known as the Federal Government.
Reagan was whacky. He was against corporatism but he increased government spending hugely... I prefer consistency.
He was against corporatism with his rhetoric but everything the man did was statist in reality, he just wanted the State to be unaccountable to voters. Blurring the lines between private and public is socialism, no matter how it's done.
Hey we agree on something!Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei