This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] flyawayhigh 6 points -4 points 2 points (+2|-6) ago (edited ago)
I have to wonder .. are you one of the many misguided people who think regulation is "anti-capitalist"?
It's not.
Are there people who will use any fact available to promote a big political ends?
Always.
Can we stop that by distorting, hiding, or mitigating the facts?
Not likely.
So, I have an idea.
Let's stick with the actual facts.
Your comment is politicization -- the very thing that seems to concern you.
No response. Just an immediate downVoat. That's what happens when you corner yourself by making preemptive accusations of political motives which are the very political motives that you manifest. :)
[–] deathcomesilent 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The term "capitalism" has been so bastardized via politics in the last 50 years, that they abandoned that actual meaning and started using "true capitalism" to describe the former.
According to macroeconomics, regulation of trade is always anti-capitalist. No way around it. However, people are so brainwashed that when someone says "anti-capitalist" they hear "bad." Economic theory does not have a moral compass, good and bad are bullshit concepts (when applied outside the self) to enforce guilt and promote compliance.
AND FINALLY: the word "politic" is a bullshit misnomer that never quite means anything. Everything anyone cares about is technically politics. If you say "I don't like politics" you're basically saying "i don't like things that involve planning and tactful no-nonsense dealing." It's all political double speak put there to keep people arguing semantics while the world burns.
[–] flyawayhigh 3 points -2 points 1 point (+1|-3) ago (edited ago)
Since the libertarians around here are absolutely intolerant of the free speech of anyone who would post basic factual or reasoning errors, and since the libertarians defy their own "personal responsibility" dogma by actively violating the voluntary convention of not using the downVoat button as a disagree button, utterly discrediting this bankrupt ideology, no point in mincing words. Here goes. :)
True.
True, but the new connotation is unworkable. Capitalism, to have unique meaning, and to properly contrast "socialism," is simply the means of production, investment and transportation in the hands of non-governmental parties. All other meanings are ambiguous and subject to manipulation.
Exactly and utterly false. The first chapter explains the prerequisites of macroeconomic analysis. Try reading it.
Punctuating the false claim. Nice.
Not sure how this fits into the comment.
The purpose of economics, in chapter one again, is certainly an application of morality. But, the technical applications of the science, once you get past that purpose could be described as amoral.
Whether to choose one economic model or another is determined by a very low-level and basic understanding of good and bad -- once it has been determined that the economic model would objectively produce the desired effects.
Well, sure. And if you agree with this, to be consistent, you should also agree with my analysis of the prior comment.
But words have multiple meanings. In context, the word politics is usually referred to as involving issues of governance. When Exxon and the Koch brothers get together to pay vast sums to create science-like papers denying global warming, this is definitely political. Obviously, they do it to change the governance environment and to maximize profits (which hopefully will refine my initial disagreement with the prior comment).
Context and semantics matter. Use of the term 'semantics' itself is a semantic tool often for the purpose of draining out specific meanings from discussions and reverting to simpler sloganeering. (I am not saying your comment did this, but that's usually what happens when people bring up 'semantics.')
Thanks for being the bold one to reply. As you can see, I had some agreements and disagreements. This might actually become a conversation -- something that happens less and less here at Voat.