Instituted Socialist policies

He was not president for life, he just kept winning elections, you asshat.

>socialist policies
I WANT
THIS MEME
TO DIE
YOUR COUNTRY IS NOT SOCIALIST IF YOU DO NOT SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION! FULL STOP. PERIOD!

WELFARE IS NOT SOCIALIST! PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND PUBLIC SERVICES LIKE FIREMEN AND POLICE ARE NOT SOCIALIST! HIGH TAXES ARE NOT SOCIALIST! PUBLIC ROADS ARE NOT SOCIALIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FUCK! OFF!

taxation is theft

You missed the helicopter ride

But you'd whine like a little bitch if your house was burning and no one came to put it out.

Silly user, you can't seize the means of production if your lefty politics kill the economy.

Perhaps if you'd take a bit of personal responsibility instead of expecting the government to help you your house wouldn't be on fire.

Daily reminder that when Trump gets elected and rescinds free-trade deals that will be LITERALLY socialist policies.

Murrifat-Bolshevism.

Don't leave your stove, oven, fireplace, or christmas tree on overnight. Don't grill within five feet of your house. Don't use electrical implements in the shower/sink.

There, risks minimized.

Can communist fuck off back to lefty pol to discuss 'real' communism? People who want an intelligent discussion about communism don't want to talk to communist

>>Basic tenants of civilization are now communism.

Ayn Rand get out.

Basic tenants of civilization change as the times change. Used to be that the mentally ill would be locked in cages in basements and starved off and on. Used to be that people were sent to jail or the military.

Now it's not. Times change, user.

Im sorry

Do not associate Milton Friedman with Ron Paul and Ayn rand.

One was a respectable economist, the others are complete and utter hacks.

Not all theft is wrong.

high taxes, welfare, public services, etc. are not socialist at all in fact they are all in place to fucking fight socialism by keeping workers and would-be socialists content.

He was just a Big Gov fetishist and many people who didn't like the Soviets supported them simply because they needed to beat the Nazis and blitzing the Nazis and the Soviets at the same time would have been bonkers, letting the Nazis take down the Soviets would have been equally bonkers.

fire extinguishers are a thing these days, my commie friend.

>Instituted Socialist policies
Just like Bismark, who was vehemently anti-socialist. And Napoleon III, who was a self-identified socialist before Marx even wrote his bullshit.

>Was effectively president for life
Four terms does not president for life make. Especially when the two term limit wasn't even implemented. In fact, it was only implemented after FDR. Before FDR it was simply an unwritten rule because Washington stepped down after two terms.

>Supported Communist states during WWII
Just like the Entente. The enemy of my enemy and all that jazz.

>Fought against Germany and Italy, who were attempting to protect Europe from Communism.
Now you're just fucking with me. Seriously, this is the point where you should just give up and shove your head up your ass where it belongs.

If Germany was "protecting" Europe from communism why did they invade Poland? Poland, the last bastion against communism, that heroically resisted the Soviet hordes in 1920? And not only that, they fucking gave half the country to the commies on a silver fucking platter.

Eat a dick and then go back to /pol/.

>Just like the Entente. The enemy of my enemy and all that jazz.

The Entente FOUGHT the communist revolution in Russia.

0/10 low troll

There is no such thing as muh proletariat that is a Jewish lie

lmbo everyone fucks up at some point

>The Entente FOUGHT the communist revolution in Russia
In what, the 1920s? When WW2 actually got going and the Soviets joined the war, they were pretty much rooting for them. The only anti-Soviet hostility that was actually there during the war was Operation Unthinkable, and that was just Churchill's retarded brainchild in no way representative of the entire British high command.

Also, don't leave frying oil unattended. Grease fires can get really bad, really fast.

> welfare, public services, etc. are not socialist at all in fact they are all in place to fucking fight socialism
>Big Gov fetishist
>letting the Nazis take down the Soviets would have been equally bonkers

And here we see Assmad the Conqueror ; with his unparalleled ignorance of history, he assaults any "leftard" and "social democrat fascist" he encounters with vague gesturing and /pol/ buzzwords.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War
Well, you got me there. Still, calling FDR a commie is pretty retarded.

FDR was the bloodiest dictator of 20th century we haven't heard about it only because FBI has hidden all the evidence.

what he did was necessary and needed for that time period and the events, sometimes things in the world require socialistic liberal politics and ideas and policies sometimes they require conservative and dictorial policies and ideas different times in the world and different places and events require people to come together and help each other in different ways and sometimes conform to different ideas and philosophies and theories

world war 2 was a time of great enlightnemtn in a way and of bringing the world together and for the people of the time especially young people to come together and help each other out and share ideas and physically labour and commit to each other, also communism is sometimes needed if a society gets too capitalistic and capitalism is needed if a society gets too communistic there has to be balance its not about what people want or think or believe its about whats needed for the greater good of everyone and the growth and advancement of the world

prove the FBI hid all the evidence

or did they hide the evidence that they hid the evidence?

Can you prove that?

Jesus Christ, this board was a mistake

This raid was brought to you by Veeky Forums. So long, suckers.

he needed to mass murder his own citizens

Shouldn't you be making a tinfoil hat?

why do you wish to remain alive?

begone questfaggot

>>/qst/

...

pls

This board was forged in the flames of the Finnish-Korean Hyperwars, and quenched in the waters of hateful knowledge. Late is the hour of your arrival, oh debased memelord of the board that is known to do things. You shall pass no further.

Any rightist pundit will trip over their own feet to be associated with Milton Friedman. They're mostly just cunts though. And he's a platform more often for their own pet policies which may or may not actually have anything to do with him in the first place.

What impressed me with him is how much he stuck to his guns on voluntarism. He was able to concede that a safety net would be beneficial to all, but he was against the conditional rules of said safety net. I find his negative income tax as a socialist program that functions according to voluntarism, to be fascinating from a thinker like him.

The problem is that they take the basic message of free markets = good, then ignore the disclaimer that sometimes markets fail ( externalities or "neighbourhood effects" as Milton called them etc ) and that's where the government ought to step in ( and public goods provision ).

In Capitalism and Freedom he says that social pressure would work to help the poor in small close-knit communities but not in our reality and therefore a negative income tax would be the least damaging policy. It really annoys me that people associate him as a support of Pinochet especially considering that he turned down awards/honourary degrees from Chile and due to this quote: "I do not consider it as evil for an economist to render technical economic advice to the Chilean Government, any more than I would regard it as evil for a physician to give technical medical advice to the Chilean Government to help end a medical plague."

I just hate that people associate pragmatic ( and consequentialist ) libertarianism ( i.e Milton ) with retards like Rand and Ron "gold standard" paul.

...

Well the problem is that it's in their best interests to do so, let the markets fail, and let the externalities be paid by bailout monis. If we, through the policy of deterrence, which we use to police literally every other aspect of our society, had taken any chance to tell them otherwise; maybe things would be different. But thus far we haven't.

He was a Bourgeoisie. A usually little man who got everywhere on his dad's money and connections.

A vain man also. He went to great effort to hide his disability from polio. Which seems rather pointless. Because it was a common disease and common knowledge he was cripple. Yet he though he must appear to be this strong mythic figure for the nation. Instead of humanizing himself to connect to the people.

He wasn't a man of the workers' revolution. He was an elite who thought he could run things better than other people. Has more in common with Hitler and NatSoc.

He had a disdain for things like the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As he passed the National Firearms Act. Then sent Japanese to concentration camps.

which is a lot like saying that rent is theft

Wasn't it to get people to start spending money again instead of hoarding it under their mattresses?

Ron Paul and Ayn Rand took Friedman's ideas, carried them to their logical conclusion, and turn economic policy into a secular religion.

Ronald Reagan is too far to the left for these enfant terribles.

rent is stupid, but at least it is voluntary.

a lot of taxes are involuntary, and it is hard for a lot of people to immigrate to a country of their choosing.

>but at least it is voluntary.
Please show me an apartment complex that makes rent voluntary because I'd really like to live there.

Unless of course if it's a shithole because the landlord doesn't have any money for repairs or upkeep.

no one forces you to live in an apartment, you dingus.

And nobody forces you to live in a country with modern infrastructure, either

other countries' immigration laws do.

Why the hell use the term "socialism" to describe a state of affairs that doesn't exist now, has never happened and never will?

Ask yourself if "seizing the means of production" actually means anything, or if it could even be managed by something aside from a centralized interventionist state.

The classical Marxist socialist revolution is totally imaginary, so people use the word to describe social democracy, which actually exists. You classical Marxcucks don't have to REEEE every time you hear it.

Why don't you go evolve into an SJW?

And its a giant hassle to move from one apartment complex to the next, too!

But you'd call me lazy if I refused to leave my apartment citing a difficult move while subsequently demanding that my landlord let me stay there rent and utilities-free. You'd say that I was just an ingrate who wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Well go homeless or go stateless I guess. Those are your "options"

I mean holy shit, since when and under what logic is an ultimatum an option. An ultimatum is the cause-effect dearth of any and all options.

So we should just bring them all over here? Why don't they fix their own countries?

Go live off the grid then. Taxation is and always has been the price of civilization.

If you are a middle class white or east asian. You just can't up and move to another developed country, with out great effort.

If you are poor and brown. You have the West falling over them selves to get you to move in.

If you are rich you go where ever you please. You become bound to no country. As your wealth allows you to live where ever.

That's why Friedman preferred rule based policies to discretionary policies as the latter are always more open to regulatory capture/rent seeking.
Losses are as essential a part of capitalism as gains ( note not a zero sum game ) but sadly: "With some notable exceptions, businessmen favor free enterprise in general but are opposed to it when it comes to themselves."

One question, what is your opinion on Milton Friedman?

Rand's work was published before Milton became famous. Ron Paul probably takes more from the worst school of economics - the Austrians.

I'm going to assume that you mean by extension that property is theft. I'll say that I would justify private property for its consequences (leads to a better standard of living for the average person ) and that a land value tax could be used to recompensate the people for "unearned" property I.e land ownership.
Thomas Paine agrees
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice

I'm unsure. I don't know a lot about economics, so I don't feel like I can make very sound value judgements on him. What I've said is based off of a layman's observation belonging to a 23 year old American who's only recently taken more than a cursory interest in govt, politics, and their relationship with the private sector and economics. I know enough terminology to navigate my way through a conceptual discussion. But that's about it.

But while I want to admit this. I think that there is detestable fanboyism inherent in saying that no judgement of Milton Friedman can be made without a complete understanding of economics. It's exclusionary and their motive is not to educate. Also, economics aren't a monolithic doctrine, but a collection of policies and models which are subject to cumulative change.

I don't actually know a great deal about him. But I know he's internally consistent with his intellectualism. Which is respectable, but it also means that if one cog doesn't work, the whole machine is faulty.

Also, I'm not sure how applicable he is to today, with the internet among other innovations.

As soon as I posted that it occurred to me that I should have clarified that I was talking about contemporary proponents of neoliberalism like Paul Ryan claiming to be a practicing Catholic who loves Ayn Rand (a staunch atheist) or internet Paulbots who were basically the Mongolian horde of the internet's political scene circa 2008 ~ 2012

But had Ayn Rand lived to see the Reagan administration, she probably would have been disgusted with it for not going far enough.

>I'm going to assume that you mean by extension that property is theft.
Don't. I'm not a socialist, I'm a guy who thinks Capitalism is a great idea but who also thinks that if you don't maintain it with a state-backed legal apparatus, it degenerates into oligarchy.

Strong property rights are the foundation for any modern market economy because they act as an economic base for fueling demand. But to separate the concept of private property from the legal apparatus which guarantees them is to divorce the abstract from concrete reality.

I think one can have an opinion of an economist without having a sense of all of economics. Did I suggest that one does? If so that wasn't my intention.

It was a video of him that made me realise that I was interested in economics, although I would not consider myself anything but a layman (armchair economist perhaps) although I'm going to start an undergraduate degree in economics in three months time. Something is great about the scientific/maths side of modelling etc but also how it's linked to normative things like political philosophy. Best of both worlds really.

I asked you that as I have seen a lot of people mention him with generally a negative view.

Neoliberalism is an odd term.
Among the left (especially the guardian ) is seen as being just as bad as fascism.

The real neoliberalism i would say would be a form of classical liberalism that has taken on criticisms from progressives, leading to the core concept of:

Free Markets + Social Insurance

In this way, the Scandinavian countries are the most neoliberal ( and are rather successful).
Sadly the term is misused to mean provide everything, but the actual ( I.e pragmatic) neoliberalism only advocates for privatisation when it is better than state ran. Another problem has been the government cocking up the privatisation process, not regulating enough etc
(Since free markets do not work for natural monopolies which form a lot of utilities).

themoneyillusion.com/?p=31603

I would recommend you to think of proper neoliberalism as similar to the concept of ordoliberalism.

I agree with you there.
I see a lot of people with the rousseauesque idea that private property is the root of all evil, what do you think of the land tax idea? To fund a basic income essentially.

Free markets are good ( in general), but i would actually include in my definition of free markets anti trust laws, otherwise it will degenerate.

Privatise everything* not provide

right, so you brainless cunts can spread even more disinformation about the shit you don't know about. get killed.

What sort of lefty are you?
I'm not the guy you are responding to btw.

Because he just wasn't communist. He was just a social democrat, that kind of saved the Overton window from moving to the extreme left.

>I would recommend you to think of proper neoliberalism as similar to the concept of ordoliberalism.
I associate it with the "free market fixes everything" meme,
>Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism)[1] is a term which has been used since the 1950s,[2] but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[3] and critics[4] primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[5] Its advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[7]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

which is different from someone who could still be considered a conservative, meaning they favor gradual, incremental but consistent approaches to societal change, but not necessarily one who shares that ideological puritanism. "We are all Keynesians now," being a famous admission by Richard Nixon, a conservative who hated hippies and commies while founding the EPA and imposing more new regulation on the economy than any president since FDR

>Bill Maher described the U.S. as socialist because of things like medicare or programs for homeless
>Bernie says he's a socialist when he's really a new deal democrat
>liberals will believe this and start calling themselves socialists

this meme isn't going to die is it?

>private ownership of the means of production
>this means anyone can own a means of production

lel, socialists are stupid

...

first post best post

he was

Both of you, kill yourselves

>Was effectively President for life.
He was re-elected in free and fair elections.

Considering the wartime circumstances it's unsurprising. The UK giving Churchill the boot was a shock.

>there is no such thing as people who work for a wage

Did your Mom drop you on your head as a baby or where you always this retarded?

>doesn't exist now, has never happened and never will?
USSR nationalized the means of production on behalf of the proletariat.

Now sure, it doesn't adhere to the spirit of the thing [where workers own and manage the factory] but it adheres to the letter of it [on behalf of the proletariat, the dictatorship of the proletariat runs them.]

>so people use the word to describe social democracy
Generally they do so either to virtue signal [Centre-right social democrats along a Blairite line.] or to disparage social-democracy by comparing it to the USSR. [You want a state-run healthcare to provide a baseline level of service? I know, let's get into a debate on the disadvantages of centrally planned manufacturing!]

>where
*were