Page 4 of 60 FirstFirst 1234567891454 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 593

Thread: Free Market Capitalism Incompatible With Nationalism

  1. #31
    Spenglerian
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 06:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    I have debated this, I'm actually debating it right now, I even made a thread about capitalism and offered my position over how it's more productive over a planned economy. Seriously, it's like amateur night in Dixie on the Skadi Forum. Can someone bring forth some real competition?
    Paradigm your a funny man and I will continue to indulge you in the future.

    [Sometime later this week I'm sure.]

    At the moment I have to get some rest for the following work day tomorrow because not all of us have enough time to be on the internet always in our striving to make a living for ourselves.

    At any rate I'll let you have your cheap victory for now in that I cannot and am unable to make fast replies at this given point.
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    At the moment I have to get some rest for the following work day tomorrow because not all of us have enough time to be on the internet always in our striving to make a living for ourselves.
    At this moment, I have just over 100 post, and you have over 900 post. Seems like you spend more time on this than I, fact or no?
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  3. #33
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    9 Hours Ago @ 09:07 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,941
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,246
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,354
    Thanked in
    589 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    This was outside the market, this was state intervention. They made it law, they intervened, regulated, and manipulated, and decide their actions legal.
    The BANKS made it law.

    This is the entire problem. This didnt happen "suddenly" in 1913, there is a prestory to this, that already started in your Civil War, and the Civil War was agitated by banks to indebt the US so much that at one point "a central bank, the Federal Reserve (which has nothing to do with federal nor with reserve) was the only option" to save the US.

    Who signed the Federal Reserve Act?
    Piatt Andrew, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip (president of Kuhn Loeb & Co bank), Henry Davidson (senior partner of J.R. Morgan bank) Charles Norten (president of Morgan's First National Bank), Paul Warburg and Benjamin Strong (president of Morgan's Bankers Trust & Co).

    Kuhn Loeb & Co: Rothschild offspring bank
    Morgan is a Rothschild
    Paul Warburg is a Rothschild agent paid by the European Rothschild banks from Paris and London.
    Jabob Schiff and Paul Warburg rallied relentlessly for the private Central bank:
    "If we dont get a central bank with proper control over the credit procurement, then this land will see the strongest and most profound money panic in its history" (Jacob Schiff in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce, 1907).

    And since the government of the US refused the plans, America was thrown into the strongest and most profound money panik which eventually enabled the private banks of Rothschild to install their Federal Reserve Bank. Against the will of the American government and without knowledge of the American people, who obviously, like you, still dont understand that the Federal Reserve Bank is since 1913 the instance that exercises control over the USA, not the puppet government.

    The Federal Reserve is owned and run by Rothschild offspring to this day and ROTHSCHILDS POSSESS AMERICA.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    Do you not realize your own contradiction? You specifically discuss a government working against it's own people, yet at the end say it's naive that people believe these problems could be solved by the market.
    How is this a contradiction when the people who agitate the market are the government?

    You have lost control over your economy and your country, because it is now privately owned by people whose only interest is profit. THEY WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO SOLVE THE PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS, BECAUSE FOR THEM IT IS WHAT THEY WANTED: A FREE MARKET.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    Is your solution more government? Do you realize that it would be the same government regardless, no matter who's elected?
    Look, the point is to replace the government and re-nationalise the ownership of the nation in order to limit the power exercised by banks over the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    Our government seldom works in our own interest. It's in our history (I don't want to step out of bounds, but take the Civil War for example, the government was really working in the interest of the people, right?).
    Oh, your government back then tried indeed to work in the interest of the people. They just couldnt, and the first try to install a central bank after the Civil War ended with a Rothschild-ordered murder of the president because he refused. This put the plans a little off, but finally they succeeded in 1913.

    But what you really must understand is that your government is owned and directly controlled by Rothschild banks, who also own and run the ADL and its pre-organisations and most of all the Rockefeller ministry "Council of Foreign Relations" which is a private organisation that now appoints your puppet government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    Wrong. You won't find a single free-market supporter who's against property rights. Private property is the foundation of capitalism.
    Of course it is, but what they do effectively limits those property rights, because they also remove the 'neutral instance' that is supposed to protect these rights (because it is the same instance that would also limit, in order to protect the property rights, the free market).

    This obviously is a design error of capitalism.

    And this is where I say that the free market must be limited and the government must be of and for the people, a neutral instance that can and does enforce individual rights and protects private property.

    This isnt the case, because the government is the banks, and the banks want a free market, but the free market, maybe not willingly but it does, endangers and eventually destroys 'private property' through accumulating all property in the hands of a few who are both the 'free market', banks and the government at the same time. Who's interests do you think THEY will protect? That of your private property and your individual rights or the profit interests of banks and investors (which is anyway also the same)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    The greatest threat to private property and property rights is the state. Property rights must be upheld. This is a staple of libertarianism. The government must be regulated to that of the "night watchman". The government's sole purpose is to protect people and property (people being their own property), and nothing else.
    See above. The government has neither the will nor intention to protect individual rights. EVEN IF it has members who happen to be of the opinion that this would be due, they dont have the means to do so because the government is not neutral. It is "private property" of private banks, and this really is the only private property they protect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    The government can stay completely out of the market and it will prosper. When individuals rights are violated, there must be justice.
    LOL, who should enforce justice in your name?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    (I don't want to step out of topic, again, but in libertarian legal theory the courts, judges, and police would also be on the market competing to bring the best service [justice and protection] in the most efficient means. The government does not have this incentive, as it's not a for-profit business in the technical sense. They will get paid [taxes] regardless of how good the service is).
    Theory is funny, and just shows how naive you obviously are.

    When the justice system is on the "free market" (which really is ruleless, not 'free'), it is not neutral. Justice is either absolute or an absolute joke. Absolute it can only be when it is neutral and independend of competition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    They didn't lose in a battle of survival of the fittest, the banks lost due to bad business decisions
    Now this is great

    You want a free market where the only 'rule' is the survival of the fittest, and you dont think that 'bad business decisions' are a fuckn cornerstone of that???

    When you make bad decisions, you will obviously fail on the free market.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    The government was their pre-bought safety net. This is beyond free-market principles.
    But your government is a fuckn PART OF THE FREE MARKET, it is privately owned by market players.



    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    Sorry, economics knows no creed, nation, sex, or people. It's a neutral, value-free science. Whether you are a nationalist or not, the laws of economics will not change. Remember that.
    So, now finally you understood the central problem of the 'free (ruleless) market: it knows no creed, nation, sex or people. In short, it knows no limits.

    This is the problem really. You cannot maintain a nation, individual rights and the property rights of the people when the people, nation, rights are objects pushed around on a global chessboard of profit games.


    As said, a 'free market' has its positives (competition, development etc), but it also has shadow sides that are inherent to the "laws of economy" [of a ruleless and limitless market].

    When you lack the instance to protect the nation and the people and their rights, you will not be able to compete against the interests of this free market.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paradigm
    I'm not too fond of the "stupid Germanics" statement. Whether you are referring to yourself or everyone, unlike whatever intention you have, I'm well aware of what's going on, and I'm not naive, nor stupid.
    Boxer is the worker, and while the pigs throw out all the profit, Boxer must work more and longer and harder, and he does, because he believes that when he just works hard enough, all will turn out well for all.

    At the end Boxer, because he is old now and cannot work more more more anymore, he is put on a wagon and brought to the butcher. It is only then that he really understands that he himself, through his naive belief that when he just works enough and his participation in the pig's system and through his own effort (also because he thinks work is honourable and therefore he didnt care that much about what kind of work or more important, what is done with the profits of his work) has brought about this situation.

    He has sold himself as impersonlised work force, as is expected of him in the capitalistic free market where "people" and their "work force" are dispatched, and this is how he now is consequently treated, a broken machine that has no more use and therefore is thrown on the trash.

    When you see some parallels to the world we live in, you're a step closer.

    People ARE the work force and people ARE the consuments, people are those who have the individual rights and people possess private property. It all culminates in the people, its one and the same.

    The "laws of a capitalist free market" dispatches this unit into the trade objects of this free market. And this is where a capitalist free market must be 'boxed' into rules and regulations, in order to protect the people, their rights, their private property and with that also the foundation of a moderate 'capitalist' market.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  4. #34
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, September 28th, 2011 @ 10:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    England
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Florida Florida
    Location
    southland
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    investor
    Politics
    libertarian
    Religion
    asatru
    Posts
    64
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Okay alarichs theory:

    Free market doesn't work. National Socialize everything.

    Here's the thing: If John Q. Rockefeller owns a big private business and he isn't looking out for national interests how is John Q. Rockefeller who now runs the nationalized business going to serve the public interests any better?
    Now if John Q. Rockefeller is the owner of private industry but doesn't care, how much more will he care when is president of the nation?

    For the fault. No, it wasnt the state's fault. It was the fault of the people who give a shit about who leads them under what conditions into what abyss. That your country doesnt belong to you - the people - anymore, is the people's fault.

    People. Nations are run by people. Businesses are run by people.

    More or less I seek to divorce myself from the masses. I don't rely on the masses, on the giant nation or anything else to solve my problems. I need to rely on my own inward quality, my own accomplishment and ability to thrive in any environment.

    The only thing nationalizing will do primarily is it will decrease competition and therefore make most industries less competitive. This will raise prices and decrease wages. That won't solve anybody's problem at all. But those who need "big brother" to protect them, save them, provide for them from cradle to grave will feel much better then because they will be living in a less competitive world.

    This less competive world will create more and more incompetency. Over time we go back to the soviet union and its collapse, horribly low productivity levels etc.

    If the banks have all the power, go buy a bank. Find out how to weasle into the Fed. Reserve. Get elected to office and weaken the influence of the Fed. All that is far more practical and productive than saying "we need to overthrow the country and bring back NS ideas".

  5. #35
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    The BANKS made it law.
    Banks set laws now? Again, the banks lobbied the state, the state made it law. Your flaws are becoming more obvious, and frequent. Everything after that was irrelevant to your own argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    How is this a contradiction when the people who agitate the market are the government?

    You have lost control over your economy and your country, because it is now privately owned by people whose only interest is profit. THEY WILL NOT DO ANYTHING TO SOLVE THE PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS, BECAUSE FOR THEM IT IS WHAT THEY WANTED: A FREE MARKET.
    The contradiction is in what you say. You ask where's the contradiction when the people who agitate the [free] market are the government, when it's not a free market if the government is involved. See? I just blew your point up in less than 10 seconds.

    We have lost control over our economy and country, because it is not a free-market, but a Keynesian run economy with central banking, and government intervention. Do you realize all the problems with the US economy were started by government intervention and the Federal Reserve? Nothing in the free-market started it, only outside forces.

    It being privately owned is a good thing. You collectivization of production will be a better idea? If so, enlighten me. I've read everything from Marx to Mises so don't skip a beat if you want to elaborate.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Look, the point is to replace the government and re-nationalise the ownership of the nation in order to limit the power exercised by banks over the country.
    Since you don't live in the United States (from what your profile seems) you probably don't understand a lot of people are more interested in limiting the government to near extinction than replacing it with people they would "reflect their interest" etc etc. Same political nonsense over and over. This country was founded in a revolution against it's parent country in that of a limited government that would uphold life and liberty. Not to be replaced with some national socialist regime. I don't care about replacing the government for nationalist interest, I'm interested in removing the government out of our lives, and let the people live without being told what to do by someone who has no ties to the people at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Oh, your government back then tried indeed to work in the interest of the people. They just couldnt, and the first try to install a central bank after the Civil War ended with a Rothschild-ordered murder of the president because he refused. This put the plans a little off, but finally they succeeded in 1913.
    Uh, ha, you're way off. What I'm referring to is the mass murder of both Northerners and Southerners in a totalitarian war Lincoln wanted to "preserve the nation". Lincoln was shot for being a dictator, has nothing to do with banks. I guess you don't realize Andrew Jackson killing the central bank in his presidency.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    But what you really must understand is that your government is owned and directly controlled by Rothschild banks, who also own and run the ADL and its pre-organisations and most of all the Rockefeller ministry "Council of Foreign Relations" which is a private organisation that now appoints your puppet government.
    Yeah, uh-huh, like I haven't heard this from Alex Jones like FIVE YEARS AGO or all the conspiracy books sitting on my shelves spouting things I haven't heard a hundred times. Again, this is irrelevant to theory and the idea of nationalism and capitalism. Filler for your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Of course it is, but what they do effectively limits those property rights, because they also remove the 'neutral instance' that is supposed to protect these rights (because it is the same instance that would also limit, in order to protect the property rights, the free market).

    This obviously is a design error of capitalism.

    And this is where I say that the free market must be limited and the government must be of and for the people, a neutral instance that can and does enforce individual rights and protects private property.
    Again, why must the market be limited? In one instance does the market have to be limited to sacrifice more power for the government? There's no reasoning to back this up in the protection of property. As we have seen the greatest threat to property is the government.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    This isnt the case, because the government is the banks, and the banks want a free market, but the free market, maybe not willingly but it does, endangers and eventually destroys 'private property' through accumulating all property in the hands of a few who are both the 'free market', banks and the government at the same time. Who's interests do you think THEY will protect? That of your private property and your individual rights or the profit interests of banks and investors (which is anyway also the same)?
    *YAWN*

    The banks are granted a monopoly over the supply of money, so there is no free-market in banking. The [central] banks don't want a free-market, they want a monopoly, and have it. Accumulation of private property does not destroy private property. Doesn't even make sense.

    Also, again, I point out your contradiction with "Who's interests do you think THEY will protect? That of your private property and your individual rights or the profit interests of banks and investors (which is anyway also the same)?", do you realize you ask who will protect us, and then point out the government is not working in our interest, and then will blame the idea of limited government. Do you not realize what you're saying? Very inconsistent.


    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    See above. The government has neither the will nor intention to protect individual rights. EVEN IF it has members who happen to be of the opinion that this would be due, they dont have the means to do so because the government is not neutral. It is "private property" of private banks, and this really is the only private property they protect.
    The government is evil, so let's limit the market and expand government power to protect the people, is that right? Let's also wear tinfoil hats so the Rothschilds' can't read our minds.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    LOL, who should enforce justice in your name?

    Theory is funny, and just shows how naive you obviously are.

    When the justice system is on the "free market" (which really is ruleless, not 'free'), it is not neutral. Justice is either absolute or an absolute joke. Absolute it can only be when it is neutral and independend of competition.
    Either a minarchist government (extremely limited, constitution or not), or anarcho-capitalist society. The government has a monopoly over the judges, courts, and police. They have no incentive to protect people, only their own interest. This idea is actually an old one of a private arbitrator to settle disputes. The judges and courts would actually be on a for-profit system, so if they have bad service, and a majority of people do not like their decision making, they will lose service, and money, and eventually go out of business, compared to the same bad judge keeping his seat. The police would be privatized like any other business, and would have incentive to protect people and property, because if not they will not have a job. This would end the time wasted of cops beating up old couples and children or shooting dogs. If they are caught doing that, their service is rendered null and void instead of taking a paid 2 week break with our tax money for "anger management". The police would essentially be no different than security guards, they would be for profit and hired to protect neighborhoods and businesses. This is where insurance companies tie in. Insurance companies (unlike the government influenced ones we have now) would also have incentive to make sure their customers are protected the best way at the cheapest price to keep premiums low and customers happy.

    For a New Liberty: Chapter 12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts


    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    You want a free market where the only 'rule' is the survival of the fittest, and you dont think that 'bad business decisions' are a fuckn cornerstone of that???

    When you make bad decisions, you will obviously fail on the free market.
    Uh, yeah. You want bad businesses to stay in business? They make bad decisions, they deal with competition, others prove themselves better in the market, and businesses fail at the expense their resources will be re-allocated to more productive areas of the market. This is a great process to clear waste from the market. Are you insisting these bad businesses stay propped up with government (tax) money?

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    But your government is a fuckn PART OF THE FREE MARKET, it is privately owned by market players.
    The government has to play by the same rules of economics we do. For every action there is a reaction. For every cause there is an effect. The government is not privately owned (sometimes I wish it was). It's a shoddy democracy with no long term interest or investment in it's capital or people.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    So, now finally you understood the central problem of the 'free (ruleless) market: it knows no creed, nation, sex or people. In short, it knows no limits.
    Um, you misunderstood what I said. I said:

    Sorry, economics knows no creed, nation, sex, or people. It's a neutral, value-free science. Whether you are a nationalist or not, the laws of economics will not change. Remember that.

    Economics is a value-free science. I never said the free-market, because whether it's a planned economy, free-market, or socialist dictatorship the same rules of economics apply. The physics of this reality won't change in a capitalist society as it would in a planned economy. Next time don't take something out of context.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    This is the problem really. You cannot maintain a nation, individual rights and the property rights of the people when the people, nation, rights are objects pushed around on a global chessboard of profit games.

    As said, a 'free market' has its positives (competition, development etc), but it also has shadow sides that are inherent to the "laws of economy" [of a ruleless and limitless market].

    When you lack the instance to protect the nation and the people and their rights, you will not be able to compete against the interests of this free market.
    I really don't care.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Boxer is the worker, and while the pigs throw out all the profit, Boxer must work more and longer and harder, and he does, because he believes that when he just works hard enough, all will turn out well for all.

    At the end Boxer, because he is old now and cannot work more more more anymore, he is put on a wagon and brought to the butcher. It is only then that he really understands that he himself, through his naive belief that when he just works enough and his participation in the pig's system and through his own effort (also because he thinks work is honourable and therefore he didnt care that much about what kind of work or more important, what is done with the profits of his work) has brought about this situation.

    He has sold himself as impersonlised work force, as is expected of him in the capitalistic free market where "people" and their "work force" are dispatched, and this is how he now is consequently treated, a broken machine that has no more use and therefore is thrown on the trash.

    When you see some parallels to the world we live in, you're a step closer.
    If you were making an Animal Farm reference Animal Form was based on socialism, not capitalism, so your point just go flipped on itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    People ARE the work force and people ARE the consuments, people are those who have the individual rights and people possess private property. It all culminates in the people, its one and the same.

    The "laws of a capitalist free market" dispatches this unit into the trade objects of this free market. And this is where a capitalist free market must be 'boxed' into rules and regulations, in order to protect the people, their rights, their private property and with that also the foundation of a moderate 'capitalist' market.
    The government seldom does anything to protect people, only it's own interest. The market has manifested benefits and advancements for the people, not the government.
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  6. #36
    Senior Member Ardito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Online
    Wednesday, July 11th, 2012 @ 03:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Saxon
    Gender
    Politics
    Radical Traditionalism
    Religion
    Platonic Christianity
    Posts
    187
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Paradigm, why do you post here? Are you trolling? Your ideology is exactly the opposite of cultural preservation. It is the surest and most efficient destroyer of culture.

    You may protest and say that you, your friends, and your family choose to preserve Germanic culture, and that your argument is that others should be free not to, but this in itself is an anti-preservationist attitude. By saying that everyone should be simply able to choose, on a whim, not to subscribe to traditional culture, is to reduce culture to mere economic units, which is, again, exactly the opposite of the idea of cultural preservation. Thinking of everything in terms of economics is the poison which is destroying culture in the modern age.
    In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.
    -John 1:1

  7. #37
    Spenglerian
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 06:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by genius View Post
    Okay alarichs theory:

    Free market doesn't work. National Socialize everything.

    Here's the thing: If John Q. Rockefeller owns a big private business and he isn't looking out for national interests how is John Q. Rockefeller who now runs the nationalized business going to serve the public interests any better?
    Now if John Q. Rockefeller is the owner of private industry but doesn't care, how much more will he care when is president of the nation?

    For the fault. No, it wasnt the state's fault. It was the fault of the people who give a shit about who leads them under what conditions into what abyss. That your country doesnt belong to you - the people - anymore, is the people's fault.

    People. Nations are run by people. Businesses are run by people.

    More or less I seek to divorce myself from the masses. I don't rely on the masses, on the giant nation or anything else to solve my problems. I need to rely on my own inward quality, my own accomplishment and ability to thrive in any environment.

    The only thing nationalizing will do primarily is it will decrease competition and therefore make most industries less competitive. This will raise prices and decrease wages. That won't solve anybody's problem at all. But those who need "big brother" to protect them, save them, provide for them from cradle to grave will feel much better then because they will be living in a less competitive world.

    This less competive world will create more and more incompetency. Over time we go back to the soviet union and its collapse, horribly low productivity levels etc.

    If the banks have all the power, go buy a bank. Find out how to weasle into the Fed. Reserve. Get elected to office and weaken the influence of the Fed. All that is far more practical and productive than saying "we need to overthrow the country and bring back NS ideas".
    Okay alarichs theory:

    Free market doesn't work. National Socialize everything.
    Indeed.

    Here's the thing: If John Q. Rockefeller owns a big private business and he isn't looking out for national interests how is John Q. Rockefeller who now runs the nationalized business going to serve the public interests any better?
    Well for starters John won't be allowed to pursue private profit against the collective interests of the nation where through a regulated planned socialized economy John would only be able to profit for himself with his business only by making sure it is in line with the interests of the national economy whereby any agitation within the national economy on his part would be met with fines and severe penalties.

    Such measures would make sure that John serves the collective public interests of the nation in that he would be serving himself and his own security if he did where he wouldn't if he did otherwise.

    A individual that risks the collective security of a nation risks the security of their own lives as far as I'm concerned whereby in order to meet the security of their own individual life as a business owner it becomes necessary for them to pursue the interests of the collective nation of which they reside in to which they can individually profit with and prosper accordingly.

    I think it's about time that economics fits the description of that which fulfills collective social needs and not the self indulgence of any one individual or group of individuals.

    Any individual(s) that selfishly serves themselves only is of no benefit to the collective community around them.

    Likewise the means of a economy should not be entirely privatized either because the economy as a vehicle serves everybody not just a few individuals where it therefore should be made to be a public device of which everybody can benefit from in which a economy should symbolically be that which serves a national social purpose.



    For the fault. No, it wasnt the state's fault. It was the fault of the people who give a shit about who leads them under what conditions into what abyss. That your country doesnt belong to you - the people - anymore, is the people's fault.
    The people cannot always be the one to blame especially when they have bayonets pointed at them from which they cannot even mount a decent defense or offense.

    It's those that direct, control, and dictate the people who should be hold accountable.

    In many ways the actions and behaviors of the people has a direct parallel with the state's ability or lack of to lead them.

    Such deficiencies cannot be entirely blamed on the people themselves.

    More or less I seek to divorce myself from the masses. I don't rely on the masses, on the giant nation or anything else to solve my problems. I need to rely on my own inward quality, my own accomplishment and ability to thrive in any environment.

    While it's true that individuals forge their own destinies to say that they do it completely alone is dishonest in that a individual by themselves is no stronger than those individuals who come together in coordinated unifying strength.

    Individuals need other individuals where no individual lives completely isolated.

    I'm not saying that the individual should become a slave to a collective but what I am saying is that individuals can do better to serve themselves by helping to serve others of which can only be a benefit to themselves in a shared prosperity that safe guards a sense of common collective community.

    Obviously all individuals have a private life but such a private life is better suited when some of it is devoted to common communal activities to which strengthens private lives in relation to each other when it concerns the common public welfare of all private households.

    The only thing nationalizing will do primarily is it will decrease competition and therefore make most industries less competitive. This will raise prices and decrease wages. That won't solve anybody's problem at all. But those who need "big brother" to protect them, save them, provide for them from cradle to grave will feel much better then because they will be living in a less competitive world.
    Such is the defamation and ridicule of nationalized economies but the fact of the matter is that before the advent of capitalist free market economies historically nationalized territories of whole entire civilizations did pretty well competing against each other in a variety of means and by no way were they by some manner disabled of expansion in which onto the contrary such past examples of nationalized economies expanded quite well on their own by their independent exercised autonomy.

    But those who need "big brother"
    In my vision of leadership there is no big brother totalitarian state that forces the will of the people to become one with the will of the state's in that when I think of leadership I think of one that is forced to become one with the will of the people and not the other way around.

    When I think of leaders I think of those that have a stake with the interests of the commonwealth and community of which interacts with the people on a daily basis simply put because they don't see themselves as being any different.

    This less competive world will create more and more incompetency. Over time we go back to the soviet union and its collapse, horribly low productivity levels etc.
    I don't see how you derive how a planned nationalized economy would become less competitive considering it would be equally competitive on many fronts.

    Nations would still compete with each other in which citizens that make up any population of a nation would follow suit.

    If the banks have all the power, go buy a bank. Find out how to weasle into the Fed. Reserve. Get elected to office and weaken the influence of the Fed. All that is far more practical and productive than saying "we need to overthrow the country and bring back NS ideas".
    Sometimes things are too slow to reach where there is a need of force to speed up specific desired processes.

    At any rate I still nonetheless believe that a nationalized form of socialized planned economy woud be the best vehicle to serve us of which nothing has shown me contrary.
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  8. #38
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 5th, 2011 @ 02:02 PM
    Ethnicity
    German/Scottish
    Ancestry
    German/Scottish
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Location
    Eiskalt
    Gender
    Politics
    Bierhalle rutsch
    Religion
    Bolkstoff
    Posts
    113
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    From a point of view of sovereignty it is obvious who is correct...

    Name me all the Presidents who have ever been assassinated because of their opposition to Karl Marx fifth plank economics??? (I could throw in the Czar, Hitler and Franz Ferdinand.... but I won't)

    Four?

    Nevermind the attempts (at least as many), the last one being Reagan who explicitly stated he wanted to take the US back to the Gold Standard.

    Free market capitalism has been a lot more antogonistic to the power cabal than anything by far (other than a brief interlude of 3rd reich economic).


    Look, plain and simple, if the germans are all they are cracked up to be as the second highest IQ tribe on the planet they would see free market economics to be an advantage, whether in win-win exchanges, or in more win-lose exploitive situations. Honour prefers the former.....

  9. #39
    Senior Member Paradigm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 24th, 2011 @ 06:43 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English/Irish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Virginia Virginia
    Gender
    Politics
    Anarcho-Capitalist
    Posts
    297
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ardito View Post
    Paradigm, why do you post here? Are you trolling? Your ideology is exactly the opposite of cultural preservation. It is the surest and most efficient destroyer of culture.
    Why does anyone post here? I came here because of my interest in Asatru and the runes. I have a growing interest in ancient European history and culture. Whatever ideology I have is not against cultural preservation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ardito View Post
    You may protest and say that you, your friends, and your family choose to preserve Germanic culture, and that your argument is that others should be free not to, but this in itself is an anti-preservationist attitude.
    I honestly don't personally know anyone who's a cultural preservationist. I'm alone in that department, so it's another reason to be on this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ardito View Post
    By saying that everyone should be simply able to choose, on a whim, not to subscribe to traditional culture, is to reduce culture to mere economic units, which is, again, exactly the opposite of the idea of cultural preservation. Thinking of everything in terms of economics is the poison which is destroying culture in the modern age.
    Interesting that you make up these things. Not everyone cares about traditionalism, or their ancestry. This is no surprise, and you should realize those who do like the ones on this forum are a small group compared to the amount of Germanics there are in this country. People should be able to choose what they do with their life. Forcing culture on someone whether it's their own or not doesn't work. They have to accept it, not be forced into it.

    I'm not reducing anything in economic terms, but the topic is about capitalism and nationalism. I'm putting forth the argument that economics is a value-free science, and trying to explain how economics works. I'm not trying to reduce a culture or tradition in economic terms. What you're talking about isn't even relevant to the topic at hand, which just so happens to be about economics.

    Also, about cultural preservation. I see that you're a Christian, do you plan to push or put forth Christian ideas on Germanics compared to that of their ancestry? I certainly wouldn't accept Christianity nor would I put it on my children. I could put out that you believe in an eastern, universalist, multicultural religion that has roots outside of Germanics. Who's the real cultural preservationist?
    "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

  10. #40
    Spenglerian
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 06:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SpearBrave View Post
    Sorry but free markets and capitalism is much old than the last hundred years, that is too easy to prove in even in ancient times.




    Adam Smith only coined the term he did not invent it. Have you read The Wealth of Nations I have and no where does he lay claim to inventing anything only describing.

    http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot...apitalism.html

    It is very simple and I explained the nature of capitalism in another thread where tried to say wage slavery exist and were proven wrong.

    For every action there is reaction, I will used predator/prey population levels as a example of laws of supply and demand. When prey numbers are high so increases the level of predators and when prey levels decrease because of predators so do the predators levels. Cause and effect are the roots of capitalism it was not invented only termed. This also holds true in the plant kingdom as well, really it is quite natural.


    No I'm not twisting anything only pointing out that the article you posted uses a leftist view on capitalism and that you can have capitalism and Nationalism, in fact you have to have capitalism as it occurs in nature.

    Ever wonder why people create such article? As it is clearly created as it states no facts and it's sources are hard to trace.

    I don't view capitalism as a ideology marx did that, so it would be real hard for me to use it as a propaganda tool. I have made other post on this subject before and I will say it again capitalism is not a political ideology it is a description of trade and laws of supply and demand.




    You don't understand it because you view capitalism as a political ideology not as a fact of nature. Oppressive governments have trade same as non-oppressive governments. Even when free trade oppressed by a state black markets spring up. Nothing to complicated about that.

    In the future please refraim from quoteing me out of context it only makes your points seem weaker.
    Sorry but free markets and capitalism is much old than the last hundred years, that is too easy to prove in even in ancient times.
    How much older do you think capitalism is as a economical system?

    Curious.......

    Adam Smith only coined the term he did not invent it.
    It has been said that capitalism as a sort of economical model was embraced by various merchants at the end of the medieval period of Europe in a small scale before it ballooned to be embraced by whole entire nations.

    Nonetheless Adam Smith was the only writer to go into great depth when it concerns capitalism in that prior to Adam Smith's writing everybody was using a mercantile form of economy which later was consequently replaced because of his influence.

    Have you read The Wealth of Nations I have and no where does he lay claim to inventing anything only describing.
    Yes I have read the book.

    No I'm not twisting anything only pointing out that the article you posted uses a leftist view on capitalism and that you can have capitalism and Nationalism, in fact you have to have capitalism as it occurs in nature.
    So you have a esoteric view of capitalism as being somthing that is not just a economical system but instead is also found in nature as well.

    I would like to know how capitalism occurs in nature.

    Do flocks of birds have a open free market exchange amongst themselves that I don't know about?

    and that you can have capitalism and Nationalism,
    How can one have international free market capitalism and still have a intacted form of nationalism?

    I don't view capitalism as a ideology marx did that, so it would be real hard for me to use it as a propaganda tool. I have made other post on this subject before and I will say it again capitalism is not a political ideology it is a description of trade and laws of supply and demand.
    And yet several people beyond Marx who weren't even communist or Marxist viewed capitalism as a ideology as well.

    Since you like repeating this same old conjecture over and over again I think the burden of proof falls onto you to prove that capitalism is purely not some ideological framework.

    laws of supply and demand.
    There are various interpretations when one discusses trade centered around supply and demand.

    You don't understand it because you view capitalism as a political ideology not as a fact of nature.
    Well I would like to know more about this fact of nature you uphold.

    Oppressive governments have trade same as non-oppressive governments. Even when free trade oppressed by a state black markets spring up. Nothing to complicated about that.
    Explain more indepth please.

    In the future please refraim from quoteing me out of context it only makes your points seem weaker.
    I'll try to keep that in mind.
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

Page 4 of 60 FirstFirst 1234567891454 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. So Much for the 'Free' Market. Now What?
    By Hanna in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Friday, November 14th, 2008, 05:02 AM
  2. Anti-Capitalist Free Market
    By DanseMacabre in forum Economics, Business, & Finance
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, June 2nd, 2008, 04:00 PM
  3. Capitalism Versus Free Enterprise
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Monday, January 1st, 2007, 10:08 AM
  4. Replies: 33
    Last Post: Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 07:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •