Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
This is the problem, Spinout: socialists have their ideas & "theories" that look good on paper. They manage to get some countries they proceed with implementing socialism. Things don't go as expected or desired in these countries, and it turns parts of their economies into crap; it's because of a "mysterious" type of phenomenon known as unintended consequences. They try to compensate for these unintended consequences by doing things such as creating more laws that require people to request permission to do things that normally don't need permission, mandating certain things, banning other things, controlling speech and the media, or even building a wall and putting armed guards on them - to keep people in like prisoners, not to keep anyone from illegally entering the country. It's like trying to squeeze a balloon with your hands only to have "bubbles" of the balloon shoot out between your fingers & all that effort, in turn, turns even more of their economies to crap. After those countries crumble, and the rest of the world points to those as examples of the results of socialism; instead of conceding this, though, the advocates of socialism not only shirk responsibility with this "how dare you" tone, they even go so far as to say things such as "that's not socialism", "you need to study what Marx wrote", "you don't understand what socialism truly is", etc.
The socialist policies that are working well are never addressed by your ilk or you come up with reasons like, 'it only works in small countries'. Which theories look good on paper? Who is they? What expected things? What are the unintended consequences? Who are they, again? What colours are these balloons? Where is this 'rest of the world' pointing from and what are their objectives in doing so? Why do the socialist shirk responsibility? Who has this tone? Why are they saying you need to read what Marx wrote or what Peter Joseph wrote or what Jacque Fresco wrote? Why are they saying you don't understand? We won't be adding value to this forum if all our efforts are in defending what would work well for this movement and just because the idea is under this banner. Its the ideas that matter and the way they are implemented that count in the end.

Milton Friedman, really. If I'm exporting gas and extracting it from certain regions around the world do you really think this is going to impact me as an executive of that company if the aquifers in a region are destroyed and I live elsewhere? How does this type of economics work in these situation without impacting peoples communities? And how does this have any resemblance to what TZM is conveying? Give me one paragraph from TZM Defined for a rebuttal that Milton Friedman economics is better than a Marxist approach in this situation?


Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
This failure to acknowledge what the evidence shows us is called cognitive dissonance. Advocates of socialism seem to be in some sort of mind lock about their ideology. This is what it looks like, to me.
We haven't even touched on any theory regarding socialism due to your mind lock and the lack of any credible evidence surfacing from you. All I seem to be doing is exposing the flood of cognitive dissonance coming from you. So yes it may look like this to you, but what is the science saying?


Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Have you ever heard the expression "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"? Once an advocate of socialism has been shown this, will they drink their water?
How can you keep doing this? These analogies are lame at best, where is the evidence. Your observations won't cut it.


Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
You're not the first advocate of socialism that I've run into; you're also not the first to come to TZM to talk about WSM. There was someone (might have been a few people) on the first forum who posted links to WSM and talked about it in a similar way that you did
What did these people talk about? What theories were they comparing to TZM theories? And which ones were seen as credible and which ones weren't, especially the ones that juxtapose what this movement is advocating?

Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
(actually, they were a bit more calm & relaxed about talking about socialism than you tend to be, here).
ad hominem!!!