Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Religion & Politics' started by Baya Rae 4900, May 22, 2012.
TL;DR fuck the nazis
I'm sure you can take some time out from your busy life to read the article. You might even become somewhat enlightened.
you're probably right, Maybe after some breakfast. my attention span in the early morning is utterly pathetic.
just wasting every second of my worthy precious time in my life to read such a provocative issue
@Zaichata Read the article, retard.
In relation to the OP, didn't Thomas Jefferson say that when the public learn they can vote in the public treasury for themselves it's the end of America?
It's funny how the best arguments against Nazism were made by a Jew, and therefore disqualified.
What an interesting perspective! I'm sure it has it has its own share of naysayers, but it soundly expresses its argument.
Here is another article detailing the psychological aspect of most authorities and their intellectual stooges.
I'm pretty sure that was Franklin.
That's a pretty inane statement, gramps. Of course it will have naysayers. They won't be particularly smart or sane but they will exist. That's because everything has naysayers. There are some that still think the world is flat.
My, my what a pompous essay on how Marxism and Nazism are utter fiddlesticks and it only took 1597 words to do it too. You use to post shit like this, but now you are posting urls and having us react to them, have you gotten so lazy at this point?
I'm trying to educate you unwashed heathens.
I don't think you need to lecture us on how marxism and nazism doesn't work, we have seen the results. But we also can see the results of what is currently the status quo, we see that these policies are economically and environmentally unsustainable.
Did you even read the article?
But yeah, central planning in all its forms doesn't work. If only there was an alternative...
I read the article, it was a drag. In between central planning and free trade, there is the fine balance of what is best for society and business http://www.economist.com/node/21542924
I've already explain to you that the market serves consumers and anybody who serves consumers. It doesn't serve business, unless they serve consumers. The only thing that serves business is government, in one form or another.
I remember hearing of a pastor who accepted that the world was round, but was flat. He was offering a reward if anyone could prove to him otherwise.
I stopped reading after polylogism. Smells like a straw man.
And someone please solve this equation: 2 + 2
Your loss, fool.
I stopped reading when the first few lines showed that the article you linked had nothing to do with the OP.
And that's not an equation.
But it does. The OP article is like "ha-ha, I've got dirt on the nazis and the commies". But my link shows that there may be a public truth and a personal truth.
What totalitarianism tries to do is making the public truth the only truth. And that is something the totally unimportant objectivists and austrian economists should ponder upon.
But this is: 2 + 2 = X
By your own admission; you didn't even read the Mises article.
I really fucking hope that you're a pubescent. Otherwise you're a fucking retard.
Just read that article. It was quite interesting, but it told me what I kinda figured out for myself.
When the Nazis or Marxists saw something their own ideology couldn't address and they were called on it, they just called the other side a bastard traitor faggot instead of trying to make concrete arguments for why their belief systems weren't full of shit.
Better, they had unwarranted self importance built into each school of thought, believing they already had the answers to how economics and politics worked, so to hell with trying to prove they had good arguments, they were already perfect.
The only thing about the article I disagreed with was that the Nazis did a copypasta of "polylogism". If anything, they built up a philosophy they wanted to believe was totally accurate, just like the Marxists did, and when both had an obvious hole in why their ideology worked, they had no way to refute the accusation by logical argument.
So they just decided to react like a religious fundamentalist when you poke a hole in their argument.
By insulting you as an idiot/heretic instead of going back to the drawing board.
In short, I don't really think "polylogism" is a concept they stole from each other, but I'd say both sides were guilty of it.
Von Mises stole all of his key Ideas from Marx and merely inverted Nazism - he believes the government should protect capital and hedge all risks by socializing it for investors rather than having individuals do that for themselves.
Glad to see you supporting Nazi-socialist communism of Mises and admitting you're wrong for the n'th time in a row.