Bell claims Ronald Reagan a "socialist"

13 views
Skip to first unread message

spar...@yahoo.ca

unread,
Jun 17, 2012, 11:43:39 PM6/17/12
to
"We're going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some
of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some
of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes
made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver
was paying ten percent of his salary, and that's crazy." - Ronald
Reagan

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm

Charles Bell

unread,
Jun 18, 2012, 7:26:13 AM6/18/12
to
> http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index...

Nothing whatsoever with any definition of "socialism". "Fair share"
of taxation in which some pay nothing and others pay something or
absurdly too much -- like we have today in which almost half the
population pay nothing and the top 1% pay in 20% of the total -- is
simply unfair taxation. Reagan was presaging either a flat tax or
fair tax (national sales tax) and what we got is a three-tier
progressive taxation with massive loopholes for the lower three
quintile income groups which pay very little income taxes, and the
bottom two are at (- 6%).which is welfare-state socialism that I do
not recall Reagan asking for.

spar...@yahoo.ca

unread,
Jun 18, 2012, 12:18:02 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 7:26 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
None of which negatives Reagan still believed in taxation. Reagan
believed in services. Reagan believed in regulation According to your
view anyone that in any way supports any of these concepts must be a
socialist right? Thus according to your own views Reagan was a
socialist. (as was every US president since its inception).

My own view is while modern economists tend to use socialism and
capitalism terms to describe the two extreme positions (i.e.
effectively authors Marx and Rand), in practical real world use of
terms socialism and capitalism have been used to describe a wide range
of beliefs and systems. Swedish socialism is hardly Nazi Germany.
Communist socialism is hardly the NDP in Canada.

Likewise within the Republican party there are Oists, libertarians,
social conservatives, even liberals who may all call themselves
"capitalists" for pet interests. Similarly within the Democrats there
are moderate conservatives, liberals, socialists and likely even a
few Marxists. Despite we tend to describe politics in polar terms,
the reality is there are many many points of disagreement even within
factions.

As for Reagan, he was not against the concepts of altruism, taxation,
regulation, and services. What he was against is the abuse of these
things by those that promote an unproductive entitlement mentality (as
well as the totalitarian oppression that comes with extremists like
commies). Reagan was clearly not aligned with your views on
capitalism. According to your stated definitions on what constitutes
coercion, Reagan would qualify as a socialist. (i.e. you are
rationally inconsistent even in your own arguments and instead resort
to herd mentality to arrive at your views)










Charles Bell

unread,
Jun 18, 2012, 6:29:27 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 12:18 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> None of which negatives Reagan still believed in taxation.

Which has nothing to do with socialism, but rather as for what taxes
are spent. In Pierre Leroux, "Individualism and Socialism" posted
here, he does not mention taxation (or anything like it) once, but
American founders' inspiration Baron de Montesquieu does many times,
and he was hardly any socialist or pre-socialist Rousseauvian volonte
generale adherent, and as to the matter of taxation in the years
leading up to the Civil War. for example, it was never so much that
the South paid some 75% of federal taxes but that the money was
redistirbuted largely to the North for 'internal improvements' there
(a weak kind of socialism as in internal mercantilism).

So that you should suggest Reagan's complaint that some wealthy paid
little taxes is completely irrelevant, but what is relevant is that
Reagan frequently complained that taxation could be redistributive --
that is: it mattered more on what taxes were spent -- in his
contribution to anti-socialism which gave him his political start
coming out against Social Security (earlier) and 'welfare
queens' (later).

spar...@yahoo.ca

unread,
Jun 18, 2012, 11:59:49 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 6:29 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 12:18�pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > None of which negatives Reagan still believed in taxation.
>
> Which has nothing to do with socialism,

Are you now suggesting you are fine with taxation, services and
regulations like Reagan then? (assuming in some sort of moderate
sense).

If so, you do realize that Reagan's views on capitalism contradicts
Rand in many areas right? Despite that they are both using the term
"capitalism" to describe their views. their conceptualize of
capitalism was distinct. Its actually these sort of observations that
makes me distrust language. Its still too chaotic around abstract
terms.

but rather as for what taxes
> are spent. In Pierre Leroux, "Individualism and Socialism" posted
> here, he does not mention taxation (or anything like it) once, but
> American founders' inspiration Baron de Montesquieu does many times,
> and he was hardly any socialist or pre-socialist Rousseauvian volonte
> generale adherent, and as to the matter of taxation in the years
> leading up to the Civil War.

The terms capitalism and socialism existed prior to the 20th century
but were essentially popularized due to the Soviet Union and Marx's
framing of politics as capitalism versus socialism. The US founding
fathers knew nothing of capitalism and socialism. They thought it
terms of freedom, liberty, democracy and republics.

Charles Bell

unread,
Jun 19, 2012, 4:52:16 AM6/19/12
to
On Jun 18, 11:59 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:29�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 12:18�pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > None of which negatives Reagan still believed in taxation.
>
> > Which has nothing to do with socialism,
>
> Are you now suggesting you are fine with taxation, services and
> regulations like Reagan then? (assuming in some sort of moderate
> sense).
>

I am suggesting that you have said nothing which relates to socialism
by any measure of the definition of socialism, and I repeat that any
politican, Reagan or any other, who complains that some are paying
taxes while others are not, is complaining that some are paying taxes
and others are not.

spar...@yahoo.ca

unread,
Jun 19, 2012, 10:30:36 AM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 4:52 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I am suggesting that you have said nothing which relates to socialism by any measure of the definition of socialism,

Taxation, services and regulations have nothing to do with socialism?
That's a new one.

Ok then why don't you precisely define socialism.

Charles Bell

unread,
Jun 19, 2012, 6:07:54 PM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 10:30 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
Okay. Why don't you read what I have already posted from the man who
first coined the term? De l'humanité by Leroux is better but I don't
think there is a good English translation through the net. What is
important that it is *not* primarily socialism as an economic system
but rather *why* there *ought to be* economic systems of a socialist
kind: e.g., Owen, Proudon and Marx -- in there being a common thread
of society as an organic whole progressing by stages though history --
historical determinism and society is never, never defined as a
collection of individuals (as Rand did, as Margaret Thatcher famously
did.)

spar...@yahoo.ca

unread,
Jun 19, 2012, 9:05:23 PM6/19/12
to
On Jun 19, 6:07 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 10:30�am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 4:52�am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > I am suggesting that you have said nothing which relates to socialism by any measure of the definition of socialism,
>
> > Taxation, services and regulations have nothing to do with socialism?
> > That's a new one.
>
> > Ok then why don't you precisely define socialism.
>
> Okay. Why don't you read what I have already posted from the man who
> first coined the term?

Do you equally argue Rand's conceptualization of capitalism is null
because she didn't invent the term?

IMO you're just evading because you don't want to face the fact Reagan
and Rands conceptualization of capitalism were clearly not the same
thing. If one conceptualizes socialism as meaning any sort of
government wealth redistribution through taxation, services and
regulations (i.e. activities beyond purely protecting individual
private property), then Reagan was a socialist. The only logical way
to maintain him as a capitalist is if one leaves a little ideological
room in capitalism for aforementioned ways. Can't have your cake and
eat it to.










Charles Bell

unread,
Jun 20, 2012, 5:24:06 AM6/20/12
to
On Jun 19, 9:05 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Jun 19, 6:07 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 10:30�am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 19, 4:52�am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > I am suggesting that you have said nothing which relates to socialism by any measure of the definition of socialism,
>
> > > Taxation, services and regulations have nothing to do with socialism?
> > > That's a new one.
>
> > > Ok then why don't you precisely define socialism.
>
> > Okay. Why don't you read what I have already posted from the man who
> > first coined the term?
>
> Do you equally argue Rand's conceptualization of capitalism is null
> because she didn't invent the term?
>

You haven't described "Rand's conceptualization of capitalism" and we
haven't been discussing "Rand's conceptualization of capitalism." And
you haven't, as a matter of fact, been discussing socialism at any
time in this thread.

Moreover, capitalism and socialism are not equivalently dichotomous
terms.


> IMO you're just evading because you don't want to face the fact Reagan
> and Rands conceptualization of capitalism were clearly not the same
> thing.

The title of the thread alleges that I would consider a Reagan a
'socialist' because he thought that some paid taxes and others did not
was not fair, it being a political dissussion over the fairness of
imposing what became the AMT, and I have said that has nothing to do
with socialism. It also has nothing to do with capitalism.


> If one conceptualizes socialism as meaning any sort of
> government wealth redistribution through taxation, services and
> regulations (i.e. activities beyond purely protecting individual
> private property), then Reagan was a socialist.

The quotation from Reagan indicated that he, like almost anyone on the
"right", thinks it is unfair that some pay taxes while others do not.
It has nothing to with socialism.

spar...@yahoo.ca

unread,
Jun 20, 2012, 12:27:01 PM6/20/12
to
On Jun 20, 5:24 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > IMO you're just evading because you don't want to face the fact Reagan
> > and Rands conceptualization of capitalism were clearly not the same
> > thing.
>
> The title of the thread alleges that I would consider a Reagan a
> 'socialist' because he thought that some paid taxes and others did not

I'm really just pointing out the logical inconsistency of your views.
On one side you claim certain actions and beliefs as "socialist". On
the other when Reagan did them they weren't? (or any Republican
President in history for that matter)

Reagan could have completely eliminated taxes. Could have completely
eliminated public schools, welfare, FDA, Nasa, SEC, social security,
etc.. etc. Instead federal spending actually increased under Reagan.
You confuse political narratives with actions. Reagan clearly
supported spending that Rand would have found immoral.

You are trying to pretend Reagan's and Rand belong to the same
ideology because they used similar words like capitalism and shared
some commonalities but under Rand's far different description of
capitalism some of Reagan's economic policies would indisputably
qualify as socialist.

> was not fair, it being a political dissussion over the fairness of
> imposing what became  the AMT, and I have said that has nothing to do
> with socialism. It also has nothing to do with capitalism.

Still evading an answer. Define socialism.

Taxation, services and regulations most certainty have something to do
with socialism. Why do we call socialists "socialists" and not do the
same for self-declared capitalists... that in practice also spend
money on social programs and tax "socialists"? (like Reagan...or even
Bush)

You very well know the answer to that question. It has to do with
degrees of government intervention. There is a vague economic and
ideological threshold point . Rather than argue honestly though, what
you do instead is resort to dishonest political rhetoric and label
those that disagree with you "socialist" (presumably to analogize them
with communists). Well two can play that game gestapo boy.

Charles Bell

unread,
Jun 20, 2012, 7:00:56 PM6/20/12
to
On Jun 20, 12:27 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Jun 20, 5:24 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > IMO you're just evading because you don't want to face the fact Reagan
> > > and Rands conceptualization of capitalism were clearly not the same
> > > thing.
>
> > The title of the thread alleges that I would consider a Reagan a
> > 'socialist' because he thought that some paid taxes and others did not
>
> I'm really just pointing out the logical inconsistency of your views.

No, You quoted Reagan on taxation and incorrectly assumed/claimed that
had anything to do with socialism.

> Still evading an answer. Define socialism.
>

Already have.


> Taxation, services and regulations most certainty have something to do
> with socialism.

That's not the issue. You talk about an attribute as if that were the
entity: (1) That pear is yellow. (2) The sun is yellow. (3)
Therefore a pear is the sun.

Now deal with 'socialism" as I have referred to it via its inventor
(of the word, at least) Leroux - who never once (AFAIK) wrote about
taxes or regulation even though he was known as an economist:

(1) There is 'society' and it is a whole apart from any one or several
individuals.

(2) There is no such thing as 'society' that is not a creation of or
dissolution by an association of individuals.

(1) <<But do not say any more that society is everything and that the
individual is nothing, or that society comes before the individuals,
or that the citizens are not anything but some devoted subjects of
society, functionaries of society who must find, for good or ill,
their satisfaction in all that which contributes to the social aim; do
not make of society a sort of large animal of which we would be the
molecules, the parts, or the members, of which some would be the head,
the others the stomach, the others the feet, the hands, the nails or
the hair. Instead of society being the result of a free and
spontaneous life for all those who compose it, will not want the life
of each man to be a function of the social life that you would have
imagined: for you will arrive by that path only at brutalization and
despotism; you would arrest, you would immobilize the human spirit,
all while pretending to lead it.>>

<<Each man, like each generation of men, draws his sap and his life
from Humanity. But each man draws his life there by virtue of the
faculties that he has in him, by virtue of his own spontaneity. Thus,
he remains free, though associated. He is divinely united to Humanity;
but Humanity, instead of absorbing him, is revealed in him.>>


(2) <<Since there is no such entity as "society," since society is
only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the
rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to
traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience--
on the implicit principle of: "The good is that which is good for
society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler's
edicts are its voice on earth."

<<Individual rights are the means to subordinate society to moral
law.>>


spar...@yahoo.ca

unread,
Jun 21, 2012, 1:13:02 AM6/21/12
to
On Jun 20, 7:00 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jun 20, 12:27 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 5:24 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > IMO you're just evading because you don't want to face the fact Reagan
> > > > and Rands conceptualization of capitalism were clearly not the same
> > > > thing.
>
> > > The title of the thread alleges that I would consider a Reagan a
> > > 'socialist' because he thought that some paid taxes and others did not
>
> > I'm really just pointing out the logical inconsistency of your views.
>
> No, You quoted Reagan on taxation and incorrectly assumed/claimed that
> had anything to do with socialism.
>
> > Still evading an answer. Define socialism.
>
> Already have.

Where? Your definition that socialism is about hating the wealthy?
Where exactly did Marx, Engels or any other socialist write such a
thing? Socialism has many definitions but a key element deals with
what socialists consider a fair distribution of wealth. Even from the
pure capitalist perspective that same is true. The difference is their
conclusions as to what is fair.

Frankly, I see problems with both evaluations but i don't know a
better system than our current mixed economies (although if Oism could
be demonstated to work on a large nation scale I would happily eat my
words) About the only system I can think of that would be potentially
better is if the means of production was put in the hand of advanced
ai that could out think us but was designed to serve our interests.
(assuming such a thing is even possible - and not our evolutionary
replacement)

> > Taxation, services and regulations most certainty have something to do
> > with socialism.
>
> That's not the issue.  You talk about an attribute as if that were the
> entity: (1) That pear is yellow.  (2) The sun is yellow.  (3)
> Therefore a pear is the sun.

And you pretend that sunlight doesn't have anything to do with the
sun.

Since you keep evading let me ask a more specific questions. Is a
Liberal that supports capitalism a "socialist"? Is a liberarian that
support GW regulations a "socialist"? Is a conservative that taxes to
fund public schools 'socialist"? Where do you draw the line in terms
of specific actions?

Charles Bell

unread,
Jun 21, 2012, 6:00:27 AM6/21/12
to
On Jun 21, 1:13 am, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Jun 20, 7:00 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 12:27 pm, spare...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 20, 5:24 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > IMO you're just evading because you don't want to face the fact Reagan
> > > > > and Rands conceptualization of capitalism were clearly not the same
> > > > > thing.
>
> > > > The title of the thread alleges that I would consider a Reagan a
> > > > 'socialist' because he thought that some paid taxes and others did not
>
> > > I'm really just pointing out the logical inconsistency of your views.
>
> > No, You quoted Reagan on taxation and incorrectly assumed/claimed that
> > had anything to do with socialism.
>
> > > Still evading an answer. Define socialism.
>
> > Already have.
>
> Where?


Previously cited at least three times. And below which you have
snipped and failed to reply.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages