As US cuts back, China aims to be top at science

Shanghai is not a country, it is the richest city in China, so any comparisons based on Shanghai representing all of China are completely ridiculous.

Shanghai is not a country, it is the richest city in China, so any comparisons based on Shanghai representing all of China are completely ridiculous

I get annoyed every time I hear about countries reducing their budgets for R&D and investment in science and technology.

It's so obvious that development of new technology is the catalyst for future prosperity. It has been proven many times in the past (starting with the industrial revolution). Why do these stupid narrow minded short sighted people think it's a good thing to cut these budgets for short term savings?!

It has been proven many times in the past (starting with the industrial revolution).

Every time the govt tries to pick winners, it, and we, lose.

Every time the govt tries to pick winners, it, and we, lose.

That's fine and the government should keep on picking. People who confuse the Greek military junta of '67 til '74 with socialism ought to lose. For the better of mankind.

It has been proven many times in the past (starting with the industrial revolution).

How much of that was funded by taxpayers?
The industrial revolution was funded by private enterprise.

Now the govt thinks it knows best what and were to 'invest'. Every time the govt tries to pick winners, it, and we, lose.

Shanghai is not a country, it is the richest city in China, so any comparisons based on Shanghai representing all of China are completely ridiculous.

Do the MIT, Princeton, Harvard, and Yale represent the USA?

Whatever the university, the country - they all represent the planet.
It is ridiculous to be proud of the village one happens to reside in, especially if one is born there. We may enjoy our epoch and our vicinity but the only thing one might be proud of is one's personal behavior.

Average per capita income of Shanghai.....1,033 USD.
Population of Shanghai....19,213,200

So Shanghai is not "rich" in any sense of the word compared to the US, and it is certainly large enough to be considered a country in and of itself when compared to EU countries for population.

Any better arguments?

The Republicans also want to slash funds for education by some $5 billion, even though Education Secretary Arne Duncan has warned that the United States must better educate its kids, especially in science and math, or risk becoming uncompetitive in the global economy.

The Republicans also want to slash funds for education by some $5 billion, even though Education Secretary Arne Duncan has warned that the United States must better educate its kids, especially in science and math, or risk becoming uncompetitive in the global economy.

I am not very familiar with American politics... but because of this i am now against republicans.

The CIA puts China's Gini coefficient at 41.5 and the US's at 45. The UN's basically got them flipped around, so if we average them out, the US and China have roughly the same wealth disparity. (A smaller Gini coefficient means less inequality)

And University admission and graduation stats aren't subject to the same pick-and-choose biases that afflict comparisons of primary and secondary education.

Correct me if i am wrong, but wouldn't cutting back fundings in education affect science research in the long run? Most research is done at universities...

The Republicans also want to slash funds for education by some $5 billion, even though Education Secretary Arne Duncan has warned that the United States must better educate its kids, especially in science and math, or risk becoming uncompetitive in the global economy.

I am not very familiar with American politics... but because of this i am now against republicans.

I don't think university enrollment is a good measure of education though.

The education quality you get in Chinese universities is still not even close to what it is in the developed world. They mainly focus on memorization and following procedures, and largely ignore innovation and critical thinking.

How many Chinese universities have you ever even heard of? Most Chinese people I have talked to know of tens of US schools.

"Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle."

It's called data.

It's called data.

Only if the topic of conversation was propaganda. Within this conversation, it is merely noise.

It's called data.

Only if the topic of conversation was propaganda. Within this conversation, it is merely noise.

Not a surprising POV from socialist exposed to data the once again destroys his socialist fantasy.

It's called data.

With whom do govt employee union bargain? Politicians. In most cases, these politicians received most of their campaign contribution from these govt unions. You see no conflict of interest?

With whom do govt employee union bargain? Politicians. In most cases, these politicians received most of their campaign contribution from these govt unions. You see no conflict of interest?

You don't see a conflict of interest in allowing the Koch borthers to buy up the Union workers livelyhoods through no bid contracts after removing their ability to bargain for better wages? How about the fact that your Republican party seems to only be able to destroy jobs and remove rights. That's freedom for you, isn't it?

You're a troll. Back to the under-bridge with you.

What are you talking about?

Which measures are better?
How do you know?
This is not a good measure of anything.
How many percent of those two countries know the language of the other country?

An axiom:

www.nypost.com

the reason why Government doesn't work is that the upper income earners (more than you or I make) are not sharing in the burdens of need.

Why is it meaningful? Because it's not the truth. But the US must take this stance in order to save a killer spy's neck.

That is what republican represent. ryggesogn2, You are what is wrong with government. You are what is wrong with America.

where did you get the idea that socialists do not want a free market?

A republican wont allow a poor man to become a billionair,

Socialists want to give everyone a chance to prove what they are worth

Socialists want to give ....

That's what defines the socialist: govt control of property and markets.

A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.

That's what defines the socialist: govt control of property and markets.

wrong...

A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.

Anything else you say about socialism is completely dumb since you dont even know what socialism is.

So you say.
That not the definition used by many expert economists.

It seems you are the ignorant one. I suggest "Socialism" by Mises or 'The Road to Serfdom' by Hayek.

"F.A. Hayek is not only the leading free-market economist; he has also led the way in attacking the mathematical models and the planning pretensions of the would-be "scientists," and in integrating economics into a wider libertarian social philosophy. "

None of your post above speaks to anything other than your blind hatred of paying your taxes. Mr. Rockwell has to rely on the vonMises Institute so he can sell books to pay for his undergrad English degree. Yes, English degree, not even an associates in economics.

Once again, SH cannot defend his statist/socialist fantasies

Once again, SH cannot defend his statist/socialist fantasies

That'd be because I don't have any.

If you want to have a conversation about economics, make sure you've actually read something on the topic.

If the professional economists you admire are so smart why is the economy so bad and why can't they fix it?

If the professional economists you admire are so smart why is the economy so bad and why can't they fix it?

Maybe because you conservative politicians prefer to fix economic policy according to the poetic nonsense of people like von Mises and Hayek rather than science? At least you're consistent that way, seeing as you prefer the poetry of the bible to the science of biology as well.

A group of people, powerful enough to shape the most pivotal moments of human history and remain completely hidden, and they're the good guys.

Now that's naive.

So you can't think of any favorite economist that predicted the current economic condition or one who has a proven plan to fix it.

So you can't think of any favorite economist that predicted the current economic condition or one who has a proven plan to fix it.

Peter Schiff, Nouriel Roubini, and George Magnus all come to mind.

Then again, even Bill Maher predicted this economic crisis.

Why haven't they fixed it?

Why haven't YOU fixed it?

I do what I can.

The best part of freedom of speech is that the clowns like you continue to amuse us for free.

The best part of freedom of speech is that the clowns like you continue to amuse us for free.

And of course you are free to ridicule instead of justifying your failed statist positions.

If the professional economists you admire are so smart why is the economy so bad and why can't they fix it?

Maybe because you conservative politicians prefer to fix economic policy according to the poetic nonsense of people like von Mises and Hayek rather than science? At least you're consistent that way, seeing as you prefer the poetry of the bible to the science of biology as well.

Walker isn't calling Soros to tell him, rather enthusiastically, about how he's going to cut jobs to force capitulation of the public.

That's tyranny.

What are you talking about?
Try to find a source that is not funded by the fascist Soros.

When I stop seeing Chinese and other foreign students coming to US universities to get a good education I'll worry about it. I don't see that happening in my lifetime. They don't even allow their researchers open access to the internet. Get real.

I will be happy to open the conversation to all.

I will be happy to open the conversation to all.

Unfortunately, first you'd have to understand the difference between conversation and preaching.

I don't see our government regulations killing the economy.

let math, science and engineering slip,

Quote of the night shall be: "astonishing genius of the men in tights" Lol.

Well let us see. GW paid us, $300 buck in a tax refund. Doesn't that cover the bill? No that was just spending the surplus that was left to him. In the mean time, you don't get rich. I don't get rich.

What does this have to do with govt inflating the currency?
Keynsian policies fail regardless of who is president.

What does this have to do with govt inflating the currency?
Keynsian policies fail regardless of who is president.

He had to borrow the money to give you that $300 check. That would be a direct example of currency inflation. Perhaps you should actually learn the economic system before you critique it.

No, that was not inflation. That was money being returned to the taxpayers.
The inflation occurs when the govt devalues the dollars by increasing the supply of dollars in the economy as they do with and an easy money policy by the federal reserve and fractional reserve banking.

China aims, and probably will be the first, but who cares ? Is it bad ? We all live in one world Earth, and we should cooperate not fight for the first or second place, it is not the point.
Science is for us all, when something will be discovered, developed in some country, sooner or later it will appear in whole world
(internet, cars, computers as an example)

So when the government borrows up to 90 billion dollars to send out in $300 checks, where do you think that money comes from?

So when the government borrows up to 90 billion dollars to send out in $300 checks, where do you think that money comes from?

It is coming from the thin air. The fed is monetizing the debt.

Taxing the companies and the rich individuals.

Borrowing does not create inflation.

But, SH supports unfettered govt regulations and therefore unlimited govt size and power: socialism.

Borrowing dollars from a bank for interest is THE cause of inflation.

the bank lends $100 to you and one year later you repay the bank $105. There is no inflation unless the govt devalues the currency by printing more.

And where did the additional $5 come from, idiot?

And where did the additional $5 come from, idiot?

Profit.

The govt pays in inflated dollars, which is why they inflate.

There was no inflation caused by this as banks could not loan more assets than they owned.

I know exactly how fractional reserve works. My example above does not assume fractional reserve banking.

There was no inflation caused by this as banks could not loan more assets than they owned.

Inflation occurs when the govt prints more money making it less valuable.

You lend me 1 oz of gold from your pile, I invest that gold, say in mining equipment to get more gold or in seed to raise crops. In one year I return your 1 oz of gold with .05 oz of gold for your opportunity cost of not having that 1 oz of gold in your pile for a year.
Where is the inflation?

I'm not an economist

Do you work for free?

even better with the New Deal economics by FDR.

Your claim that loaning money creates money depends upon a fractional reserve system, an artificial system imposed and regulated by govts and can be changed.
The act of loaning money, whatever you choose to use, does not create money and inflate the money as you assert.

Koch Industries has said it has no interest in Wisconsin's power plants.

No, I assert that Federal Reserve interest is a vehicle of inflation.

Koch Ind did not buy these plants. Why?

NOW you assert this. You were not clear the first time you claimed the simple act of loaning money creates money..

Inflation occurs when the govt prints more money making it less valuable.

And in our economy, that is done by borrowing currency from the federal reserve.

Only in a fractional reserve system.
In my detailed example, I did not assume fractional reserve banking.

How do you know Koch Ind. is hiring a plant manager? Your source was not clear, but that is not surprising coming from you.

Of course one reason they want to sell them is the costs to comply with federal EPA regulations are not certain.

And this is another typical example of the socialist regulatory state.

The source was the job posting section of a Koch industries website

But we were talking about the real world,

Why invest in new ventures if there is no demand for them?

The source was the job posting section of a Koch industries website

No, it was not.

But we were talking about the real world,

Again, the simple act of loaning money does not create inflation.

Only govt sanctioned fractional reserve banks can create money.

Wealth is simply the ability to command resource you don't have any use for, so you are willing to trade that command of resources for a command of different resources.

wealth is the ability to command resources whose use value is less than their exchange value

His theories barely work for bacteria in a petri dish, and work not at all on humans. Population growth doesn't contribute to inflation because most industrial nations aren't growing.

And Malthus has widely been debunked as a predictor of anything more than the math of exponential population growth.

Hes kind of hard to ignore given all the overpop-induced revolutions taking place in the middle east.

a demographic bulge that is producing mass unemployment among the young..."

Think Energy Group is a subsidiary of Koch Chemical Industries LLC

Again, the simple act of loaning money does not create inflation.

Yes it does.

How does loaning money in a non-fractional reserve system create inflation? NO new money is created.

Think Energy Group is a subsidiary of Koch Chemical Industries LLC

Really?

No, but it's nice to see you actually look something up for once.

Interest creates a requirement for the money supply to increase over time,

Only defaults inject money that's unbacked.

More lies from SH: fat and lies about money.
Seems to be a common thread in defense of your 'populism'.

In the long term, only an increasing ratio of money to non-money commodities can cause inflation.

The Great Depression that was CAUSED the Federal Reserve monetary policy and socialism?

The Great Depression that was CAUSED the Federal Reserve monetary policy and socialism?

In another sign that China is serious about moving into the top slot for science, the number of quality scientific papers coming out of the country -- measured by how often they are cited in other studies -- is growing exponentially.

Labor is what built us,

union jobs that restricts simple actions like plugging in an extension cord to an electrician.

Labor is what built us,

Who is 'us'? I 'labored' on a farm from age 6 until 18.

At 10 I was milking cows.

Cows don't take vacations and need to be milked twice a day EVERY day.

I know all about real labor.

That is what really built the USA: a solid, entrepreneurial work ethic, not union jobs that restricts simple actions like plugging in an extension cord to an electrician.

That's why when given the choice of joining a union, most who want to work do NOT join.

Unions are an extension of the dignity of man to his fellow man.

How dignified is it to force your fellow man to join a union in order to earn money from his labor and force him to give up the fruits of his labor to elect politicians he does not support?
Why must unions use coercion to keep members?

make it look as though there is coersion,

You want the government in our bedroom, so they can tell us who to love and how,

The prime function of govt is to defend human life. Promoting the murder of babies by their mothers abdicates that function.

Since your an atheist, you completely disregard the possibility that people will care for each other and default to statist solutions which leads down the path to tyranny.

you completely disregard the possibility that people will not care for each other

There are many religious organizations who will support women who do not want to kill their babies.

Since your an atheist, you completely disregard the possibility that people will care for each other and default to statist solutions which leads down the path to tyranny.

But ANYBODY will eventually turn against their neighbor

Since your an atheist, you completely disregard the possibility that people will care for each other and default to statist solutions which leads down the path to tyranny.

while mine are health and well being.

Your methods to achieve 'health and well being' require the use of the spears and swords of state power to coerce wealth from those with ability to 'giv'e to those in need.

Of course they don't practice what they preach as there are no laws prohibiting them from donating their fortunes to the govt.

Last time I was in church I saw no spears and swords.

It requires people with ethics,

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?

Since your an atheist, you completely disregard the possibility that people will care for each other and default to statist solutions which leads down the path to tyranny.

Bastiat was an extremist hardened by decades of war.

But ANYBODY will eventually turn against their neighbor

Why?
The only limits to growth are human caused so it can't be due to lack of resources. It must be due to some people's desire to control those who do not want to be controlled.

Bastiat was an extremist hardened by decades of war.

So? His observations still apply.

But must be viewed in context. This is a practice that you repeatedly fail at.

Government is force.

People still want to control others using that force.

Between the strong and the week,
between the wealthy and the poor
it is liberty which suppresses
and it is the law which yields freedom.

Starvation today is the result of govt interference in economies. A human cause.

But must be viewed in context. This is a practice that you repeatedly fail at.

That's the problem with 'sophistication'.

SH threatens and lies in attempts to stifle me. I am an 'other interest' of his.

People still want to control others using that force. SH is one example among many others here.

Starvation today is the result of govt interference in economies. A human cause.

Economies are incapable of dealing with the explosive pop growth which is resulting in massive starvation. This is not the govts fault unless the govt is exploiting it to reduce it's pops, as was the case in darfur.

Government is force.

Yes.

People still want to control others using that force.

Without government people not only want to control others - they do control others. J.B.H. Lacordaire:

Between the strong and the week,
between the wealthy and the poor
it is liberty which suppresses
and it is the law which yields freedom.

As I said above, I have no need to control you, nor would I care to.

As I said above, I have no need to control you, nor would I care to.

You have lied in the past. Why should anyone believe you?

Bastiat was an extremist hardened by decades of war. Then again, if you weren't reinventing history every day you'd probably know that.

'Hardened'? What does that mean?

Extreme? What he observed 150+ years ago applies today.

Bastiat was, in fact, advancing the same argument that George Osborne and his colleagues are putting forward the best part of two centuries later

Of course it is the fault of the govt. Zimbabwe is a great example. The govt destroyed their farms for politics.
The USSR had to allow their farmers to plant their own food and sell it to increase their food supplies. Cuba is now allowing their people to have their own gardens and sell the excess.
The US subsidizes sugar. Japan restricts rice imports. Most govts around the world subsidize or restrict food imports. New Zealand is one of the first countries to end ag subsidies.

Socialists ... their control of economies.

I don't know what 'hardened by war' means and SH can't explain his assertion.

Instead, he reverts to norm and calls people names.

People who do that typically can not answer and lash out at the one asking the question.

All human food problems are the result of socialist govt interference in the economy.

I don't know what 'hardened by war' means and SH can't explain his assertion.

Because you're a moron.

Instead, he reverts to norm and calls people names.

If you cannot grasp the meaning of a turn of phrase that you yourself have used on these forums, you are a moron. It isn't name calling, it is attribute description.

People who do that typically can not answer and lash out at the one asking the question.

Ah you mean like when you go on your 4 post tears, reposting blog articles for hours because someone asked you to explain your version of what you were saying.

Your insults are the only thing more descriptive of your lack of intellect, than your actions.

Hey Otto, how many species can grow food in a desert?
All human food problems are the result of socialist govt interference in the economy.

They had nowhere else to go.

constant overuse and abuse of those areas

How many species can CREATE deserts?

Sounds like a 'tragedy of the commons' which results from no private property rights.

The Saudis are growing wheat in the desert.
Israel turned their desert into a productive asset.

Mastodons were thought to have overgrazed.

Why don't they have an economy that creates wealth?

But it has never been able to provide for all the lives it has enabled

entrapped in these cultures

Even peasants refused to eat from a plant that produced ugly, misshapen tubers and that had come from a heathen civilization.

entrapped in these cultures

Who keeps people trapped in a culture?

entrapped in these cultures

Who keeps people trapped in a culture?

The various god worshippers would be one.

"This has helped reduce immiserating poverty. Notes Rajadhyaksha: Average dollar incomes have more than tripled since 1991.

Like your god, the state?

"I want to argue that Western democracy
at least as we have known it turns out,
itself, to be a kind of theocracy, too."

Zimbabwe is starving because they socialized their economy.

"This has helped reduce immiserating poverty. Notes Rajadhyaksha: Average dollar incomes have more than tripled since 1991.

Average IQ is 100. This doesn't imply that everybody has an average IQ. Some are left in dire need.

Zimbabwe is starving for a whole different reason, dolt.

@Otto, the shortage of food is not cause the lack of potential to grow more food. It is the fault of the culture of the state and societies.

All because the Indian govt began to 'liberalize' its economy.

Before the govt kicked the white farmers off of their land, Zimbabwe exported food.

"I want to argue that Western democracy
at least as we have known it turns out,
itself, to be a kind of theocracy, too."

I am not surprised SH would deny his atheist statism can be considered theocracy.

Sometimes it is necessary to set backfires in order to stop a conflagration, and to do controlled burns to prevent them. Someone uninformed who stumbled onto this Process might recoil at fires being set in forests, not knowing that this was being done to prevent losing the entire forest. They might think the rangers were heartless lunatics.

But such is the way of forest Management in the absence of natural checks and balances that nature used to provide, and which forests evolved to expect. Rangers know that in order to Preserve it is sometimes necessary to Destroy.

Capitalists understand creative destruction. That activity leads to growth and prosperity. Socialist destruction leads to poverty and contraction.

They were impoverished because the socialist government destroyed the capital equipment and assets that raised tobacco as a cash crop and maize for food.

Who planned the US Civil War?

Anarchy and lawlessness, something that you support, of the Mugabe regime

both historically and today,
individuals manage to exchange and maintain cooperative relations on a large
scale without state involvement

If state predation is severe enough, government can do more harm than good.

Anarchy is absence of government. How can this exist under the Mugabe regime, aka a GOVERNMENT?

Who planned the US Civil War?

Anarchy is absence of government.

Laws that are not enforced do not exist in practice.

The masters of slavery.

Gun lovers cannot be anarchists.

But they LOST the war and, as the Christians of England did, slavery would have been eliminated in the US even if the CSA had been allowed to secede.

Societies exist with rules and without leaders.

Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by absolute direct democracy or libertarianism.

Who planned the US Civil War?

The masters of slavery.

Hmm, aren't you a libertarian? But you conversely hold that direct democracy is a bad choice. After all you always complain about the tyranny of the majority

"India has a far more stable economy and is far more prosperous than before."
"This has helped reduce immiserating poverty. Notes Rajadhyaksha: Average dollar incomes have more than tripled since 1991. Diets have improved and more proteins are being consumed."
http://blogs.forbes.com..

He is a "Social Darwinist".

One who promotes the rule of force: The needy shall perish, the strong must rule.
This ideology has a lot to do with Nazism. The Nazis killed millions of people they defined to be subhuman in order to promote what they called their master race.

He is a "Social Darwinist".

Everyone by default is a social darwinist. In free speech societies, the goal is to have all ideas vetted to the public and allow the people to decide which ideas are socially unhealthy so they can be selected against and perish. I think you are misusing the term.

Social Darwinism is a term used for various late nineteenth century ideologies which, while often contradictory, exploited ideas of survival of the fittest. It especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. The most prominent form of such views stressed competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism but it is also connected to the ideas of the progressive era, in which many promoted eugenics or scientific racism or imperialism

the progressive era, in which many promoted eugenics or scientific racism or imperialism

Why do socialists have so much difficulty is supporting and promoting INDIVIDUAL rights as those rights apply to them as well? Socialists want MORE 'rights' than the unwashed masses?

Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

"Between the strong and the weak,
between the wealthy and the poor
it is freedom that leads to suppression
and it's the law that makes free."
[J.B.H. Lacordaire]

liberalism will be vanquished by an oppressive democracy or by unbridled autocracy, and this is why the union of liberty and Christianity is the sole possible salvation of the future.

Christianity alone can give liberty its real nature

liberalism will be vanquished by an oppressive democracy or by unbridled autocracy, and this is why the union of liberty and Christianity is the sole possible salvation of the future.

Completely ignorant of history.

Christianity alone can give liberty its real nature

Liberty is homophobic, sexist, and self hating?

I think you need a serious wake-up call.

Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

"Between the strong and the weak,
between the wealthy and the poor
it is freedom that leads to suppression
and it's the law that makes free."
[J.B.H. Lacordaire]

What law?

"liberalism will be vanquished by an oppressive democracy or by unbridled autocracy, and this is why the union of liberty and Christianity is the sole possible salvation of the future.

Jean-Baptiste-Henri Dominique Lacordaire

That was frajo source.

SH once again demonstrates his intolerance of Christians. Not very 'liberal' of you.

But SH does support socialism which has murdered millions in the past 100+ years.

He even defends Pol Pot.

This ideology has a lot to do with Nazism.

Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

"Between the strong and the weak,
between the wealthy and the poor
it is freedom that leads to suppression
and it's the law that makes free."
[J.B.H. Lacordaire]

What law?

The law that protects the weak against the strong and the poor against the wealthy.
The law that provides the protection you want to abolish.
The law that is welcomed by majorities in every existing society.

And no, you are not an anarchist. Proudhon, who "is considered among the most influential theorists and organisers of anarchism" (Wikipedia) coined the adage "Property is theft".

Frajo wants positive law that can can confiscate people's property, including the people themselves, to benefit the state.

Sounds just like what the NAZIs and Soviets did.

Fascists oppose liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being exclusive economic class-based movements. Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.

Like SH, Fascists/socialists/communists are opposed to classical liberalism.

Fascist and communists are socialists just as Hayek and many others have noted. Even the creator of Fascism, Mussolini stated quite clearly it is a national socialist movement.

Fascists used to toss around the words socialist and liberal as an insult quite often.

But neither were very successful at recruiting the classical liberal that supported limited government and personal property rights.

Neo-classical liberals were characterized by ideology which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom.

the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit.

That's technically socialism/communism. Try again.

"classical liberals reject the redistribution of wealth as a legitimate aim of government."

The key difference is the ownership of property. Socialists don't respect individual property rights. Classical liberals insist upon private property rights as the basis of their 'voluntary interaction' for their 'mutual benefit'.

You don't reject redistribution - you reject only redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.

You don't reject redistribution - you reject only redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.

Who has the wealth for the state to redistribute?

Obviously frajo and SH don't reject govt redistribution of wealth, which IS socialism.

Who defines 'wealthy'? Who defines 'poor'?

Redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is the most revealing symptom of actual capitalism.

Redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is the most revealing symptom of actual capitalism.

What do the poor have to 'redistribute'?

frajo, who is poor? Who is wealthy? Where do you draw the line?

When you set up a govt to take from the wealthy and 'give' to the poor, from whom do you take and to whom will you give?

Govts need to have some laws and standards to make those decisions.

Living conditions.

When you have command over enough resources to meet the needs of a great many people, yet refuse to trade or grant those who need them access to your resources, you are being greedy.

What do the poor have to 'redistribute'?

Living conditions.

How do you define that?
Living conditions in a big city like Boston may be quite atrocious and expensive compared to Montana.
Do you plan to guarantee everyone a house and the funds to pay utilities and cable TV and paint and roof and...?
Many cities tried these 'projects'. Obama's aunt lives in one in Boston. Many such 'projects' were torn down because the tennents didn't own and did not value what their socialist masters did for them.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd tried to create an 'ownership' society and look at the consequences of 'free' money for housing.

I think you and your fellow socialists need to use objective definitions when you advocate for forced redistribution of wealth.

Why won't you objectively define your socialistic definitions?

Oh, that's right, you said a while back that populists like yourself don't have standards.

Science and engineering can't progress without standards.

. It means command over you.

you mean contribute

I think you and your fellow socialists need to use objective definitions when you advocate for forced redistribution of wealth.

Again making slanderous accusations. The last recourse of someone who has lost an argument on all fronts.

Why won't you objectively define your socialistic definitions?

Do I even have to point out how stupid this statement is?

Oh, that's right, you said a while back that populists like yourself don't have standards.

No, you said that and I started ifgnoring you because it was painfully obvious that you were deprived of oxygen for a long period of time during your developmental years.

Science and engineering can't progress without standards.

That's not accurate as both have in the past, however social standards are not standards of measurement. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference.

. It means command over you.

That's socialism.

Why won't you define YOUR terms?

you'll simply ignore anything that you don't particularly like due to a prior misunderstanding of the term.

Define 'living conditions'.

Define 'living conditions'.

The means, especially financial means, whereby one lives.

SH: "Living conditions." Define 'living conditions'.

The means, especially financial means, whereby one lives.

Since you decided to answer for frajo, what defines 'poor' and 'wealthy'?

The poor in most third world countries would welcome the opportunity to be 'poor' in the USA.

The reason 'poor' needs to be defined

is that socialists will use that definition to justify wealth confiscation and to create class conflicts to buy them more votes.

www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sayings_of_chairman_maobama_FSOKC0BqmCpXK1ozBxXlrM#ixzz1GVH3KiHe

The events in Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries show that reality is different from your fairy tales of evil socialists and hard working, honorable millionaires.

Tyranny, state control of individuals and their property, is still tyranny regardless of the number of tyrants.

Attacks upon Christians are better tolerated.

You just prefer the tyranny of the wealthy minority.

do you deny that you support redistribution of wealth by a tyrannical majority

Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY

Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY

Is there any difference between being an "anti-socialist" and being anti-social?
Are monarchists socialists?
Is the pope socialist?
Is the government of Iran socialist?
Were Franco and Pinochet socialists?
Or are/were they all "anti-socialists", like you?

Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY

Is there any difference between being an "anti-socialist" and being anti-social?
Are monarchists socialists?
Is the pope socialist?
Is the government of Iran socialist?
Were Franco and Pinochet socialists?
Or are/were they all "anti-socialists", like you?

It depends if they respect and protect the individual's right to property.

Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY

Is there any difference between being an "anti-socialist" and being anti-social?
Are monarchists socialists?
Is the pope socialist?
Is the government of Iran socialist?
Were Franco and Pinochet socialists?
Or are/were they all "anti-socialists", like you?

It depends if they respect and protect the individual's right to property.

Whose property is Hawaii? Tibet? Jerusalem? Gibraltar? Bahrain? Australia?

Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY

Is there any difference between being an "anti-socialist" and being anti-social?
Are monarchists socialists?
Is the pope socialist?
Is the government of Iran socialist?
Were Franco and Pinochet socialists?
Or are/were they all "anti-socialists", like you?

It depends if they respect and protect the individual's right to property.

Whose property is Hawaii? Tibet? Jerusalem? Gibraltar? Bahrain? Australia?

Who ever claims it, develops it and fights to keep it.
That's how sovereignty is established.

Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY

Is there any difference between being an "anti-socialist" and being anti-social?
Are monarchists socialists?
Is the pope socialist?
Is the government of Iran socialist?
Were Franco and Pinochet socialists?
Or are/were they all "anti-socialists", like you?

It depends if they respect and protect the individual's right to property.

Whose property is Hawaii? Tibet? Jerusalem? Gibraltar? Bahrain? Australia?

Who ever claims it, develops it and fights to keep it.
That's how sovereignty is established.

Ok - if I claim your possessions, develop them, and fight to keep them then they are my property.

it's ok for you to redistribute things as you see fit,

when we want to help people out with taxation, we're evil socialists.

All ownership derives from occupation and violence.

It's ok if it's YOUR property.

All ownership derives from occupation and violence.

It's ok if it's YOUR property.

And thus is revealed the basic paradox of your moronic economic philosophy, marjon. If all ownership is ultimately justified only by violence and brute occupation, then the government's (or anybody else's) claim on what you think you own and backing it up with the threat of violence and brute occupation is equally well justified. Whenever there's anybody bigger and badder than you, you only own anything as long as they tolerate it.

What's the difference between negative laws and positive laws?

thus the possession of any property at all is unjust.

Read The Law by Bastiat. I referred to it earlier.

This is what socialism/communism/fascism preaches, state ownership.