Why is dreamviews more liberal than society at large?

**Laughing Man** · 10-03-2011 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Suicideking

Nationalistic capitalists can exist, think Reagan. But it only works as long as domestic companies are competing against each other and not international businesses coming in.

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.

**Original Poster** · 10-03-2011 09:29 PM

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.

**cmind** · 10-03-2011 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

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.

**Taosaur** · 10-04-2011 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by cmind

There was definitely some of that, but compared to Carter, he was still a huge step towards freedom.

The freedom to starve and die, beaten and diseased, for lack of corporate sponsorship? Do more research, son.

**cmind** · 10-04-2011 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The freedom to starve and die, beaten and diseased, for lack of corporate sponsorship? Do more research, son.

Wow, I'm speechless. Truly. Perhaps you should actually know even slightest bit of 1970s US history before you speak. Just a thought.

**Neoquestmoo** · 10-04-2011 12:38 AM

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.

**Taosaur** · 10-04-2011 02:16 AM

Originally Posted by Neoquestmoo

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.

Regardless, I've met more than enough passionately earnest coffee-shop revolutionaries; this liberal, for one, would rather meet Ben Franklin.

ETA:

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.

Cheap gas =/= freedom

**Original Poster** · 10-04-2011 07:04 PM

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.

**ThePreserver** · 10-04-2011 09:38 PM

Reagan was whacky. He was against corporatism but he increased government spending hugely... I prefer consistency.

**Original Poster** · 10-04-2011 11:08 PM

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.