are you democrat?????
It's basically the end of the world as we know it, but it happened, and that's where our world's at. I genuinely have no clue how to process something for *maybe* the third time in my life, and I'm scared as shit. If you ever want to talk, feel free to message me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
I think a lot of us are
I could barely sleep last night.
And hearing about something similar possibly happening in France, I'm scared for the state of the world.
THIS IS A PLACE FOR POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
No this is a place for random.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'm definitely glad Hillary got her ass kicked.
It's going to take a minute for everyone to adjust, a lot of people thought Hillary was going to win, not that I want that to happen but this line up was awful. Nothing to do but move forward and adapt.
It's nice to see /b/ get some activity though
While I admit to being a sexual deviant, I don't like the idea of a sexual deviant for president.
Good thing Huma's beard didn't win then, huh? Also that's some wonderfully inane hypocrisy you fail to grasp…
fill me in on who exactly is a sexual deviant
It won't be the first time and probably not the last
>>369>implying a sexual deviant is worse than a rapist defender
might want to get your shit straight anon
Jesus fuck am I tired of this shit being everywhere I go.
Also, do the words COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY mean anything to you?
do the words LAUGHED AT A LITTLE GIRL THAT GOT RAPED BY THE GUY SHE WAS DEFENDING mean anything to you?
don't like it because it's true
suck a dick
I'm going to risk playing the Devil's Advocate here and say OP never clarified they were having a bad time due to the election. Hell, I had a bad Wednesday and it had nothing to do with the election; regardless of who won, I had more immediate problems to deal with, and still do.
I just wanted a place to vent lol. I didn't expect this thread to become a debate. I even tried to post site relevant imagery. But people have to instantly jump to insulting each other and arguing. I left what I was having a bad day about vague cause what exactly it wasn't really was something I wanted to discuss. And now the thread has just derailed into pointless shit flinging. That's disheartening. Not like it matters at this point.
I'll just wish you guys a better time than I'm having right now and try to avoid this thread.>>381
Welcome to politics.
She didn't laugh at her.
She laughed over the fact that the rapist passed a lie detector test, and that she wouldn't trust the results.
You didn't even bother to check if what you said was true, and parroted what people wanted you to parrot.
Oh, so she only laughed at everyone who believed either of them. What a wonderful person.
That isn't what I said.
Context is key, and either you're not aware of the context, or intentionally leaving it out.
Can we get a mod to close this thread and delete it? Its only a separating point for the community,
Requesting a lock/deletion on this thread. It has nothing to do with what pregchan was made for, and it's a huge division point for the community.
None of this has left the thread and most commentary is anonymous anyways. Besides, this is random shit and despite disagreement this is relatively tame compared to what the conversation could be like.
I honestly don't feel comfortable being silent on the subject. I'm honestly really afraid of where this nation is headed. Not figuratively afraid but actually afraid of the route we're heading down. The many cues and flags of a facist government are going up with rapidly increasing pace. We've got a president to be who is instigating hate speech while dissenters are drowned out by mob mentality and insults.
But this is a place to escape reality and enjoy fantasy so I wouldn't object if the mods did decide to lock this thread.
can we stop with this whole, "trump is a fascist" thing?
being nationalist ≠ fascist.
trump has no plans to do any harm to this country, and he has already been doing great things for it and he hasn't even been inaugurated.
meanwhile, if clinton had been elected, we would be most surely preparing for WWIII, considering her policy to set up a no-fly zone over syria, which would, by proxy, begin a war with russia.
why do people not understand that hillary is far more corrupt and we dodged a bullet by not having her elected?
i mean sure he ran a fascist campaign and most of his supporters are racists and the first thing his party has done since winning power is try to defund what little health care support americans have ever had, and he has done nothing but fluff his own ego and screw over everyone around him for his entire career built out of being given money by his dad, but yeah, no, he's totally not a fascist or terrible, and will totally fix the ecomony by yelling at the brown people, sure.
>>460>most of his supporters are racists
you do know that the racists are at best a vocal minority, and a decent amount of his voters were working class people who were sick of getting fucked over by the establishment and jobs being shipped off to other countries.
the racists who voted for him are honestly extremely misled, and should've voted for hillary, the true racist.
not one policy or thing trump has said is actually racist, no matter what the media tries to say.
barring immigration from the middle east until they can correctly get the security in place to stop radical islamists from coming through isn't racist in any way.
reinforcing the border and stopping drug cartels, other assorted criminals, and funny enough, islamists yet again, also isn't racist.
putting tariffs on imported goods from places like china to remove the economic loopholes for companies to basically betray their countries and put their men out of jobs for basically slave labor to make a quick buck isn't racist either.
why did racists support him?
beats me, considering he's got plans to do the exact opposite of what they want, like trying to help poor minorities out of the rut they're in, which is definitely something they wouldn't want, considering they're just as retarded as the left with their stupid identity politics.
and I'm pretty sure trump's campaign was better considering he was supported by his voters, and not by big, very oppressive countries like saudi arabia, and evil warmongers like george soros, like hillary was.
Do you even know what fascism is Hidon? He isn't even a demagogue, as his arguments on the trail have been fairly reasonable. I cannot say his personal attacks have improved the american political system, but such is a natural result of LCD universal democracy. Donald Trump was one of the first mainstream american candidates to be unapologetically nationalist, and after years of calling anyone who was so a racist, people had enough.
It really saddens me that people honestly believe that you must be a rascist to support donald trump. The word is used so flippantly these days I fear when an actual racist makes it into the spotlight, such accusations shall be ignored. Its absurd to think that people who merely hold different views on the role of government must be inherently prejudiced.
I'd gladly get down to specifics, but political memes and personal attacks are not my realm of knowledge. What i do know is that most of these attacks mentioned in the thread are unsubstantiated, not false, but without ability to be proven, and thereby useless to actual discussion.
I agree with stuff like racist being so overused
the more stuff like rape and racist gets abused, the less value it has
it is extremely sad because one day, real racists and rapists won't matter because the left has just driven them into the ground
I'm only chipping in because I feel like it's getting a bit to one-sided.
I don't think Trump is a fascist (and I come from a country with fascist background - I know), I also don't think he is racist (at least not in an active way, he's just more the clueless white privilege type).
I think he is not fit to be POTUS for a few reasons, but the main one is his behaviour: He cannot take criticism and is not reflective and admits to faults (thats a good personality trait for anyone - shows backbone and integrity).
He just doesn't have that or doesn't show it.
I don't like him dismantling the ACA, and his stance on climate change is more than worrying; fighting overbloated bureaucracy and corruption is definitely a good move though.
I can't and won't talk much about Hillary, I'm sure she wouldn't be the best candidate either, but if really all of her emails are out there and she's still not prosecuted for any crime, than than she's better than 50% of all citizens. :P (don't take this too serious guise). Anyway she's not the president, so she kinda doesn't matter anymore.
In general the US parties are both very center right, they are not that different. The irrational fear and stigma with anything just smelling of "socialism" (which is NOT communism) just amuses me to no end.
Culturally I really like the US, the people are super friendly too, but damn, some of your laws and legislation just terrify me.
I wish you all hope, reason and progress this year, there's potential. Go foward and not back.
Comments like This is exactly why trump won, and why the pendulum is swinging right.
Your average normie is starting to think the left is crazy. Which at this point im convinced that it is.
Jesus Christ, this is still going/here/not locked? Yeah, really want to see political commentary HERE of all fucking places…
no, comments like that one aren't why Trump won, and many "normies" are pretty afraid of the next couple of years
I can't believe people are still defending one of the worst people to ever win the elections
like, "nuh-uh he's not racist" or "nuh-uh, he's not a sexual deviant" (you forgot to deny him being a woman-hater, too), or "yeah, but REAL rapists and racists…" (wow, really?)
I mean, how many examples of disgusting behavior do you need to finally see that he's a stupid, aggressive bigot who's proud of being ignorant (I mean, who's gonna educate such a powerful, egoistic big baby?), and who's totally clueless when it comes to actually being the POTUS?
*his own* acts, tweets and speeches are perfect examples of just how much the US is screwed right now
oh, and also the people he's chosen, who are probably as bad or even worse than he is, ranging from hateful bigots to people who actively fuck over schools or who, like him, deny a tiny little thing called climate change (aren't you glad that they will be in charge of education or environment-related issues now?)
but yeah, sure, Hillary was the worst (even though fact-checking shows that most of this evil is due to her having the audacity of being a woman, plus urban legends, plus the fact that no politician, especially an experienced one, is going to have clean hands) and he's totally not corrupt at all, guise (even though there are countless examples of him being corrupt, like most of his aforementioned people being rewarded that way after they threw tons of money at him as his supporters during the elections)
maybe let's return to our regular porn, because the longer this thread goes on, the creepier some of the Dorito supporters' comments get
Everybody is going crazy, considering how bad the economy has gotten, I don't blame them
Incredulousness is not an argument; how is it that he is a racist or a sexual deviant or a woman hater, and how is everyone who voted for him any of those things?
Please provide examples, rather than keeping vague and lazy in order to slander a guy who, while hardly a good politician or person, really has not done much of anything that is unreasonable.
It is absurd to think that Clinton lost for being a woman. She lost because she kept the same rhetoric that was used for the last eight years and divided the nation.
Your pathetic pleads to try and throw shit and then run is emblematic of the reasons why he won.
I'm not advocating burying your head in the sand ostrich-style. I'm saying, maybe it doesn't HAVE to bleed over. Politics are the most inane and potentially inflammatory topic you could choose to bring up. Whatever, let's all fucking shitpost until the cows come home; I'm just personally tired of going everywhere and being unable to escape this 'BUT YOU MUST BE OUTRAGED TOO RIGHT?' mindset. No, I'm not. I don't give two fucks, just shut the fuck up about it already. Besides, this is literally the last place I want to see 'holier than thou' comments from the community at large. Seriously, what the hell do you want us to do about it?
Let's be honest. You're sealioning right now. If you don't already have enough evidence to believe Trump is a racist and sexist then you're either incredibly willfully ignorant or already know and don't care. It's pointless to try and argue with either somebody who is so insanely unaware of the situation, or somebody who is a liar.
Yeah, keep insulting everybody who asks for evidence, I'm sure one day it'll work.
>>473>typical hillary supporter who can't come up with an ounce of proof for their claims against trump, and resort to non-arguments like insulting someone
it would be nice if for once a hillary supporter could actually be good at debating and not just make claims that are either unsubstantiated or proven false
but then again, most people with enough of a brain to debate probably voted for someone else
I'm with you on on this and I'm in the US. LOL I didn't vote this year because i felt the lending my support to either candidate would only reflect poorly on my own intelligence. Plus there is the Psychotic side to me the just want's to see watch world burn. I knew the voting would just be a waste of good gas that i could pour on the fire later.
The worse case scenario is that hes an asshole that doesnt know when to shut hes mouth.Which if you dont want to vote for one, thats your right and certainly understandable.
Its pretty hard for be to believe a muh soggy knees type guy would be advocating things like tax breaks for children care and six weeks materinity leave.
hes pratically more pro women than hillarys
platform on alot of issues.
Also you might want to read more about your us presidents.
He hasnt been elected yet and hes no where near the levels of awful fdr(i know im going to get shit for this but he pretty much trampled on rights and unlawfullly imprisoned japanese citizens) or andrew jackson.
Its always nice to see some positivity :D
See previous post, incredulousness is not an argument. If its so obvious, please point out how Donald Trump is a racist or a sexist or a sexual deviant. You are only further proving my point by being so elusive and baselessly calling me a liar when I have neither lied or misled you.
I have ideas of what remarks you may be referring to, and I am waiting for you to point it out so I may dismantle it and show to you why this train of thought has zero reasoning.
You asked what I wanted you yo do. I want you to join the discussion. Failing that, I want you to block the thread so you can ignore it and stop trying to shut down discussion. Don't get mad at me because I gave you a choice.
Kazuvistan is a wonderful country.
Depends what you mean by that. Being swayed by propaganda, or reading the works of marx, engels, etc? Having just finished Das Kapital and the manifesto, Communism is an interesting proposal, but collectivism as a whole has proven to only work on culturally homogenous socieities.
Then again, what does communism actually mean to you, because no true communist was all I got when I tried to actually engage on its glaring issues.
To me it means abandoning the market system as a means of allocating resources and labor. Working to meet the needs of the whole instead of telling everyone to acquire them yourself
Best I can tell no matter how you apply capitalism you always wind up with a bloated commercial sector and the needs of the majority never really met.
There really is no need for competition, there are enough resources for everyone to live comfortably and ethic of greed is good just leads to conflict.
If you want to run your issues by me I'll weigh in on them
Economic philosophies can't kill people by itself, dictators can kill people, war can kill people, shady businesses doing whatever they want can kill people, a lack of food, clean water and healthcare can kill people.
There are many factors that determine how a society can go right or wrong
Ah, so in the market critic angle. Then there is a single question which has never been properly addressed. How do you find value of a good without using capitalist principles and, if a method is found, how does it do it better. The idea that "it will be provided as needed" is nice, but that is fundamentally how a market works, where I would then beg the question "Why the middleman?"
As to the 'ideologies dont kill people' they absolutely do. Command economies tragically failed in the soviet union and in socialist china, playing to traditional socialist principles. This was not because of a mad dictator, as that is more a condemnation of totalitarianism, but the famines, breadlines, and lack of luxury goods are evident of the failures of a supposed post-capitalist system.
As far as capitalism's shortcomings, I disagree when you say the majority dont have what they need, as evidently the majority have the necessities, and many have luxuries that the middle and upper classes of the last century never had access to.
In addition, at the fundamental level, competition seen throughout history, nature, and life as an indisputable source of progress. It is rediculous to assume that any supposed benefit of doing away with it would outweigh the value of it. Biology is one great dice game, winners and losers are inevitable, and letting losers be winners, while noble in intent, weaken the whole.
Value without a market system is what a good can do for someone and how rare it is. You could ask "why the middleman" but one could say having to put a price tag on everything and having to market it to a desired customer is more of a burden than determining who needs what.
It's not the ideology but how it's applied. Communism doesn't need totalitarianism in fact most advocates of it would call for a democracy much like the one we have. There are many factors for why the US is doing better than Russia and China and ideology is not the only factor
We could debate over whether or not the majority has what they need but either way we both know that as a global civilization we could stand to do a lot better. It is possible for everyone to not be homeless, have food, water electricity and healthcare but the market system has no incentive to end any form of scarcity so it'll probably never happen as is.
You have to pay money to see Karl marx tomb.
Since the commies that own it could find a viable means to maintain it.
Check mate communists :^)
In all seriousness it's a failed ideology.
There's a reason why it always turns into despots or dictatorships.
It will never work as long as humans have and act on the emotions that cause materialism
Not to interrupt your fascinating discussion, but I'd like to correct you on one thing- and believe me, this is an extremely common misconception. The US, despite popular belief, is NOT a democracy. It is, by definition, a republic.
We are not the people who make the decisions- that would be a democracy. Instead, we elect people to make decisions for us. That's a republic.
(seriously though, it even says it right in the pledge of allegiance- 'and to the /republic/, for which it stands')
and socialism has gone wrong
as long as it's run by a living creature capable of free will, it's going to fail
ffs they even did it with mice and it fucking failed
Why is this crap on a fetish board? Take this to Reddit or any of the chans ffs.
because this is the random board
you are more than free to filter this thread, just because you don't like politics doesn't mean nobody should be allowed to discuss it
I originally thought that way as well but, if people can have a constructive discussion I'm all good.
No point fighting among those who understand your fetish when you can be enjoying the same thing, especially if you're in the minority.
But how do you quantify good and rarity? Just because something is rare, does not mean you need more of them. For example, MRI machines do a lot of good, and are pretty rare, but if the state were to demand/the commune desire we build more, the materiel would be wasted to create an excess of a good that requires specific training. The only way you can correctly use resorces is by quantifying demand and providing a supply for it, to which I say why not have private companies do so. The idea of 'finding how much is needed' is simply put state capitalism, which has been proven to be inefficient because capitalism without market incentives is not going to put every bit of labor/currency/resources to the best use.
There is a fundamental difference between communism and democracy, let us be very clear here. Communism has no room for dissent, and refusesA purely theoretical ideology is a useless lure for people who believe in higher purposes. If such an ideology, in practice, results in only economic mismanagement, the rise of a totalitarian state
But how do you quantify good and rarity? Just because something is rare, does not mean you need more of them. For example, MRI machines do a lot of good, and are pretty rare, but if the state were to demand/the commune desire we build more, the materiel would be wasted to create an excess of a good that requires specific training. The only way you can correctly use resorces is by quantifying demand and providing a supply for it, to which I say why not have private companies do so. The idea of 'finding how much is needed' is simply put state capitalism, which has been proven to be inefficient because capitalism without market incentives is not going to put every bit of labor/currency/resources to the best use.
There is a fundamental difference between communism/socialism and democracy/ the republic, let us be very clear here. Communism has no room for dissent, and refuses to create such room, as it must quash all opposing ideologies to be effective. A republic especially allows for any ideology to take hold and for there to be a marketplace of ideas. Communism is a totalitarian ideology at its core, even Marx's end society is a distopian wreck where nobody can dare to go against the commune.
A purely theoretical ideology is a useless lure for people who believe in higher purposes. If such an ideology, in practice, results in only economic mismanagement, the rise of a totalitarian state, and the purge of any dissentor, its not one that has any right to succeed in the market of ideas.
As far as the 'global civilization' (one that capitalism created mind you, but that is beside the point). The nation states, and the cultural/ethnic breakdown thereof are the ones responsible for the states each country is in. The talk of a global world is a different one however, and as far as scarcity, that is the truth of the world. There are those who do not succeed. I pity them, but I do not believe that any state should enforce charity upon its populace. Guarantees come at costs, and any one that claims it doesn't is being deceptive. If one is guaranteed the necessities, they will never have the drive to compete and succeed, resulting only in stalling and government-funded dead ends that one can see in the modern lower class.
The problem with leaving anything in the hands of private industries is that a business will always put itself before the consumer especially if we treat businesses like entities that need to kept alive. The need for profit will always come before you and everyone else
>>There is a fundamental difference between communism/socialism and democracy/ the republic, let us be very clear here. Communism has no room for dissent, and refuses to create such room, as it must quash all opposing ideologies to be effective. A republic especially allows for any ideology to take hold and for there to be a marketplace of ideas. Communism is a totalitarian ideology at its core, even Marx's end society is a distopian wreck where nobody can dare to go against the commune.
Only what the market demands, every thing else is deemed a waste of time. The only freedom it provides is the illusion of such.
>>A purely theoretical ideology is a useless lure for people who believe in higher purposes. If such an ideology, in practice, results in only economic mismanagement, the rise of a totalitarian state, and the purge of any dissentor, its not one that has any right to succeed in the market of ideas.
Capitalism was purely theoretical at some point too and arguably has led to a totalitarian state too. For example have you seen what happens to countries who refuse to accept the US dollar.
>>There are those who do not succeed. I pity them, but I do not believe that any state should enforce charity upon its populace. Guarantees come at costs, and any one that claims it doesn't is being deceptive. If one is guaranteed the necessities, they will never have the drive to compete and succeed, resulting only in stalling and government-funded dead ends that one can see in the modern lower class.
The problem is at some point around fifty years it became easier to provide for people than making them find a job, which there are less and less of and there will be even less in the years to come. Now you could say this is their problem and you would be right if everyone lived in their own bubble, but personal problems tend to bleed over. Even if it’s just millions of people trying to hustle their way out of poverty the legal way it would lead to more wasted resources and more wasted energy when the only thing it would cost to feed and house them is the food and the home.
To make a long story short it would cost less to give a homeless person a home than make him work at Walmart
This has been a lot of fun for me by the way, keep the questions coming
>>506>Capitalism was purely theoretical at some point too and arguably has led to a totalitarian state too. For example have you seen what happens to countries who refuse to accept the US dollar.
It was theoretical over 200 years ago.
It stopped being that after people figured out it worked.
Communism has yet to achieve that.
Also the united states isn't totalitarian
flexing your power and influence =/= totalitarian
As for society taking care of peoples basic needs ie shelter food.
Its a noble and great idea in concept but its not sustainable long term.
Ultimately what it would cause is economic migrants in from 3rd world countries who ultimately just want the handouts and don't actually want to be productive members in society or integrate.
You can see this happening right now in places like sweden and germany.
In a few decades(maybe even less) they are going to have to find a solution to this problem once their migrant problem starts getting even worse. How would you address problems like that.
As someone with first-hand experience with migrants and refugees: You are wrong.
People always want to make a living for themselves, they don't want handouts, no matter where they are from. Problem is laws prohibiting them from doing so or short sighted and close minded people/politicians/corporations not seeing that potential.
>inb4 example of lazy people not doing shit
you have that everywhere, one might be a migrant, one might be a citzien, there's always some assholes - all around the world. But they are such a small margin.
Countries like Germany and Sweden not only have the resources to sustain immigration, they actually need it because of their aging and declining own population.
Plus freaking people have always migrated everywhere. I mean the US is a migrant country.
>The problem with leaving anything in the hands of private industries is that a business will always put itself before the consumer especially if we treat businesses like entities that need to kept alive. The need for profit will always come before you and everyone else
Incorrect. A company that prioritizes their margins over consumers will soon find that they have no margin. The consumer has the power in a capitalist system, and can choose what products to buy. Government intervention to keep businesses afloat is an abomination created from state capitalists. The need for profit assumes that you have people to profit from, which means you must provide a service or good for purchase. Marx's critiques never seem to account for the power the consumer (worker) holds within the system (beyond their ability to destroy it).
>Only what the market demands, every thing else is deemed a waste of time. The only freedom it provides is the illusion of such.
Illusion of such? Elaborate, because as it stands, a free market does not preclude discussions of ideology. This is self evident in this conversation and the ability to have the communist ideology exist legally in capitalist societies.
>Capitalism was purely theoretical at some point too and arguably has led to a totalitarian state too. For example have you seen what happens to countries who refuse to accept the US dollar.
It was, but the key difference was that capitalism was a result of better quantification of resources. Capitalism in its most basic forms came about with currency, and the underlying principles of supply and demand existed even in barter economies. The other key difference is that capitalism and the governments that practice it are separate entities, whereas in communism the government (or commune in an An-com ideal) is the economy. A free market says nothing about the governments that allow it, while a central planning system automatically assumes government has the power to intervene in every section of industry.
The US petrodollar is a result of state capitalism, which I have already condemned wildly, but the same would have happened in any economic system with such an oil demand.
>The problem is at some point around fifty years it became easier to provide for people than making them find a job, which there are less and less of and there will be even less in the years to come. Now you could say this is their problem and you would be right if everyone lived in their own bubble, but personal problems tend to bleed over. Even if it’s just millions of people trying to hustle their way out of poverty the legal way it would lead to more wasted resources and more wasted energy when the only thing it would cost to feed and house them is the food and the home.
To the contrary, it has not. Government welfare is not a capitalist idea, and growing inflation and debt as a result has hidden the true cost of such programs. These are problems that occur with fiat currencies. Provision of basic needs will not last forever, until we reach some magical post scarcity (the debate on the possibility of that is another thing). Personal bubbles are the freedoms we are allowed, and what our governments should guard. The interconnectivity of the modern world does not obligate those who succeed to provide for those who fail. If the millions currently in the modern dead ends were mobilized (they cant be due to minimum wage laws in low labor participation countries), then there would only be waste if the government just threw money at them. If it provided impetus for private sector jobs, the waste would be minimized (for example, a private rail/road company making new infrastructure in the American's case). If you were to provide the incentives for them to work, and remove minimum wages, then they can be effectively brought back into the work force
>To make a long story short it would cost less to give a homeless person a home than make him work at Walmart
What costs are there in making him work, precisely? There are massive costs in providing people necessities, and at least there are services rendered if such a person is put to work.
If we streamline our infrastructure to the point where we can attract all the immigrants we can take care of them too.
There won’t be an immigration problem because at that point immigration won’t be a problem
It always amuses me the kind of hate communism and socialism get on imageboards where even identity is given up to the gestalt and everyone bitches about paywalls.
>>Personal bubbles are the freedoms we are allowed, and what our governments should guard. The interconnectivity of the modern world does not obligate those who succeed to provide for those who fail.
Personal bubbles are a mental construct. There is no such thing existing in a bubble. The existence of any homeless is going negatively effect the area you are in, so will starving children and sick people being everywhere will definitely have an a negative effect on where you are. You can tell those people to take care of their problems themselves but ultimately it won’t fix anything.
>>What costs are there in making him work, precisely? There are massive costs in providing people necessities, and at least there are services rendered if such a person is put to work.
You have to create a work place, something for him to do, and he has to commute. All these take up resources, even if he finds all these things himself. On top of getting himself a home, healthcare, food and whatever he needs. At this point having a job is just an unnecessary middleman for acquiring what he needs. Especially if we are currently at full employment and there really is no need for him to do anything because there is no job for him.
Even with citizens sure its a problem but not as bad. My entire city is basically filled with post USSR refugees like Bosnians. Most of them are honest hard working people who genuinely want to make a life here.
Your right thats most refugees.
However whats happening in europe, or in the southern united states is very different from your typical refugee.
Theres a reason why they are all trying to go to places like germany, sweden, UK rather than eastern Europe or some other european country. This is also why groups like AFD are suddenly becoming polltically relevant despite being actually somewhat fascist(well some of the supporters anyways). People realize its a problem. Even for a socialist welfare state.
Also needing immigration =/= poorly controlled immigration.
Germany has the infrastructure to support the current refugee population but what happens when that population doubles or triples.
MFw i cant remember the last time ive seen a political discussion stay this civil on the internet.
Good job guys
>>513>what happens when that population doubles or triples?
GERMANY WILL SURE FIND OUT LOL. Only it'll be because the 'children' refugees (the ones that came with gray facial hair and age lines wider than the rings of some trees) start having babies with the locals.
The vast majority of refugees flooding into Germany are not families, women or children. They're men. They aren't in Germany for any other reason than to get around needing immigration papers and the process. They aren't in Germany to become German citizens, they're there to trojan horse an easier way in to sponsor other people from their assorted countries.
Did you know the Deobandi muslims in Britain/the UK comprise over 80% of all muslims there? The deobandi sect was created as a way to resist assimilation in Pakistan and India, back when Britain colonized it. The deobandi muslims have been erecting mosque after mosque in redundant distances, have been conducting 'sharia patrols' in neighborhoods they bully into being mono-culture shelters for themselves and have been running around calling everybody a racist who disagrees with this behavior.
They are, in fact, colonizing the fertile soil of European socialist welfare states and being shown exactly why it is North America does not tolerate that very much. Because all they do is try to cordone themselves off as minorities under the idea being a minority makes you a precious baby that needs protection and nurturing to grow vs. the big bad entrenched historical ethnicity already living there until your numbers are too big to ever fully assimilate.
They had not accounted for the idea that the people who aren't forced to assimilate or diversify might try to seize control of the whole thing from the bottom, seeing no resistance and having every reason to try and take it for their people, their religion, their ideology, their homeland.
Or maybe they did. You know, communists absolutely hate nation states, and they absolutely hate entrenched cultural powers that are not communism. The reason they love to preach diversity in western countries is because they imagine if they play different ethnic groups off one another, then they'll balance out and be forced to intermix until there's only mutts left with no ethno-national heritage that keeps people different and apart. That's not how it works, but that's what they want to imagine will help bring in their "inevitable evolution of mankind."
What we're seeing right now is Europe being torn apart on the inside by people who are letting the wolves in "for the greater good." It's not wide eyed innocence. It's unconscionable, benefit-of-the-doubt having evil.
>Personal bubbles are a mental construct. There is no such thing existing in a bubble. The existence of any homeless is going negatively effect the area you are in, so will starving children and sick people being everywhere will definitely have an a negative effect on where you are. You can tell those people to take care of their problems themselves but ultimately it won’t fix anything.
A person should have every right to choose if they wish to address the problems in society around them. People may well be personally motivated to improve the situations of people around them (people are naturally supportive of their fellow man for the most part). Government intervention is coercion, which is an injustice, regardless of how noble an intent. Before the advent of the modern welfare state, charities both organized and personal were able to provide for the needy.
>You have to create a work place, something for him to do, and he has to commute. All these take up resources, even if he finds all these things himself. On top of getting himself a home, healthcare, food and whatever he needs. At this point having a job is just an unnecessary middleman for acquiring what he needs. Especially if we are currently at full employment and there really is no need for him to do anything because there is no job for him.
If a government was just creating such in order to provide work, it would be a waste. However, if there were not government limitations, people could be put to work in things that would be of value (again, low wage menial labor is always in massive demand, but not at the current minimum wage.) The only serious costs are the necessities, which is an expense in both systems, except now people are providing value to society. The value provided by laborers outweighs the cost of the equipment used and transportation needed. It is inane to think that it would cost a company would operate such a thing if it were not worth the value provided.
To the people who are in favor of a default welfare state:
How do you deal with the people whose only compulsion or interest is to fuck, do drugs and make children? Because believe it or not, they exist. They may be racists, they may be ethno-supremacists whom see it as the perfect opportunity to saturate the gene pool with their own offspring in order to make the civilization and society guarantee the success of their progeny.
How do you deal with that without destroying these peoples civil rights? Because this is exactly what we are dealing with. From the Mormons to the ethnosupremacist afrocentrists, to probably a few white supremacists, this is the source of a considerable amount of children winding up in orphanages or on the dole of the state. People born solely to grow up and fight a numbers game by existing, where before the existence of such a system, they'd have simply met unfortunate ends of the street or died.
A state generally does not care where its new workers and people come from; it's neutral. However, understandably, people naturally do not like being used to subsidize other families growing, growing, growing while their own cannot, despite them doing everything right and these self-appointed racist "breeders" just scraping the bottom of the barrel enough to bed loose and fertile women. Why can't we all do that? The only thing stopping us is dignity, a sense of right and wrong and some desire to not race out and flood the genetic market with as many copies of us as possible.
With a big welfare state set up to support and protect and shelter and feed every new body that is born, you give people like this all the inspiration and encouragement they need to indiscriminately just breed and drop their spawn off at the state's doorstep to raise them, using tax payer money to do it. This is not the way it should be. If you want to breed and give your children a good life, not starving to death, you should have a job and the resources to accomplish it. Whether you can afford it by your hard work, and not by the efforts of a government that can just devour *everybody elses* resources, is the acid test of a parent.
A government shouldn't subsidize the costs and difficulties of raising children for the same reason it shouldn't arrange who you live and breed with. A government should merely make jobs more accessible for people to finance. Until and unless we address exactly how we're going to dissuade this 'genetic flooding' behavior by unscrupulous, racist, selfish people who'll lob as many chunks of their genetic copies down the drain as possible for themselves, we should not think about subsidizing their shelter, their food, their educations or their access to jobs. Because they aren't playing the game right and they're taking capital away from everybody else.
Being able to only afford what you're worth from the worth of your job is one of the only ways to curb and bottleneck rampant reproduction. It helps birth rates level out. Europe is only beginning to understand exactly what it is to deal with this sort of thing now that the refugees and immigrants are trying to carve out a little piece of home in their own countries while refusing to assimilate and trying to change it with a nation of warm bodies.
this is why we need to incentivize vasectomies in the poor community, the less poor people shitting out babies left and right to continue the vicious cycle, the better
Yes but vasectomies are voluntary. If someone is DELIBERATELY doing this as a way to leech off the government and turn their children/"their people" into a standing force, meant solely to perpetuate their population and with it, their identity and ideas?
Came to this thread for the overwatch pics, was deeply disapointed when I found out where they had been put. They had better homes elsewhere, where I could look at them without having all the politics just kinda sitting there and stinking.
I don't know why people are posting pics here either, but all you gotta do is save and move along.
>>515>>A person should have every right to choose if they wish to address the problems in society around them. People may well be personally motivated to improve the situations of people around them (people are naturally supportive of their fellow man for the most part). Government intervention is coercion, which is an injustice, regardless of how noble an intent. Before the advent of the modern welfare state, charities both organized and personal were able to provide for the needy.
Social responsibility is one of the government’s biggest duties. It is not a matter of being noble, it is a country doing what is best for the country. Leaving it in the hands of individuals will only lead to many groups doing some good in small amounts but ultimately be useless on the whole. There has to be something bigger than churches or nonprofits handling the problem.
>>The value provided by laborers outweighs the cost of the equipment used and transportation needed. It is inane to think that it would cost a company would operate such a thing if it were not worth the value provided.
Many jobs provide no actual value to society but only help the company itself. There are many jobs out there that we both would agree are useless for society.
All but one of the overwatch pics were made by http://plus1b.deviantart.com/
so far he drew all of them except for Ana and Pharah.
>>Being able to only afford what you're worth from the worth of your job is one of the only ways to curb and bottleneck rampant reproduction.
Actually the birth rate has been going down on it’s own. Fertility has gone down with time and when it became apparent that more than one out of three of your children will reach adulthood the need to make children to make children goes away.
The majority is aware of the fact that child raising is difficult even when you’re financially provided for and most women would prefer to terminate or prevent an unwanted pregnancy with birth control than just go through with it and leave their spawn for the state to deal with. On top of that over producing will still be socially discouraged like it is now, making more children than you can take care of is still frowned upon.
Regardless, it’s possible with the resources and technology we have to provide for a population more than five times the size of the world’s, although we’ll more than likely cap ourselves before we hit those numbers.
This is a funny place to talk about over population isn't it?
Social responsibility is not the responsibility of government (if the term social did not already say that). Social responsibility is the job of each of us who wish to see improvement in our overall society. A government coercing out such efforts will only serve to lower the resolve of the people to try and take social responsibility, with more waste all around (because again, a state led effort that is unmotivated by market incentives will fail to provide the most efficient system).
Please provide to me a job that is not worth itself existing (in the private sector)
Actually, it sounds fairly apropos to me. But having read those huge chunks of political discussion all at once, I just find that my head is kinda spinning. It seems like some of the points were being raised based on firsthand or secondhand experience, and so it became (to a small extent) a debate between subjective experiences that only reflect certain parts of the whole.
Not that I'm denying the validity of any points raised here. I just wish there was a better way to quantify them, so that people could come closer to figuring out what political ideologies are better for humanity overall.
I know that wishful thinking like that doesn't really have a place in political discussion, but it's kinda the end goal, right?
It's indeed true that those whom have embraced *western values*, like secularism, like science, like sexual equality, reason and liberalism eventually tone it down a bit.
Cultures that have not, do not. And those are the ones behind a great deal of the breeding going on. Those are the ones producing fundamentalist, xenophobic crazy people that quite literally want to use having children among themselves as a way to flood competing groups of people with their own people. And so long as we continue to say that imposing these cultural vlaues, such as secularism, sexual equality and more on their communities is somehow "white imperialism," we will continue to experience partitioned communities that do nothing but breed.
If they had an unending tap to public money, they'd have even more numbers. They'd be further subsidized by everybody elses labor for their own families to become oversized.
The birth rate has gone down across western countries, but it is ballooning in those places that still keep their women culturally subdued as a piece of their cultural heritage and identity. And make no mistake, some of those population balloons are groing *deliberately* to sweep competitor cultures away or assimilate them.
in general great discussion here and it became more civilized over time, usually it's the opposite.>>526
this seems drastic, but overall you are probably right.
So what do to about it?
A lot of cultures and civilisations have problems and are still struggling with secularity (hell, it's always put into question even in today's age in western countrys, even though IT SHOULD BE THE STANDARD).
You cannot force the development to secularism on a culture, or if you do it will probably lead to war - which in turn would produce more fundamentalism and extremism.
Other option: Leave them alone and figure out their own shit. The problem with this is that technology and globalization connected this world already, and it's hard to turn it off. If a country tries to curb it with trade sanctions, firewalls or other means, the people or even corporations cry out about restricting freedom.
In my honest opinion we should take a more serious version of the first, and return to true imperialism from europe. Our exportation of european values increased the quality of life in the nations colonized drastically. When we decided to try and live and let live with cultures that do not believe the same, we gave up on the rest of the world. It is through the enforcement of european laws that the culture will shift. Those people must be kept from countries that have adopted basic principles of secularism and common law, lest they try to politically advance their backwards ideologies.
The race question is one I prefer to avoid, as IQ mapping and HDI mapping correllate pretty well, which, while convincing to many, I believe is more of a result of culture. Until we can wash away cultures that result in backwards people, we cannot hope to advance together.
This is why I am in favor of nationalism, as then only nations and cultures that can succeed will, and we will not waste our resources trying to advance those who would prefer darkness. If we are going to civilize them in a globalist sense, it must regrettably happen through western occupation/colonialism.
>>524>Social responsibility is the job of each of us who wish to see improvement in our overall society.
And some of those people work within a government. If you work for the government and your goal is no to serve the people than what are you there for? What is the government there for?
There is a job out there that you don't think highly of, it's ok if you can't recall it right now. Maybe it's programming adware or selling sketchy drugs for the pharmaceutical industry
This seems like a really easy thing to deter with a cap on benefits. If you gave everybody a limited amount of benefits, enough to garuntee survival, health care, a home and food, then you'll be set. People will continue to work because they want more than the basic necessities. Taking care of a bunch of kids isn't going to be a good time when you don't have the resources to do anything but raise them. Raising them will be such a full time job that they won't even be able to actually work. Thus having too many kids would trap them at the bare minimum required to take care of all their kids and the issue solves itself. Just make sure social services are improved to handle it too.
Just do the bare minimum to stop people from dying in the streets. Please for the love of our fellow people. We can prevent all this starvation and homelessness but we make all these excuses for how it's not practical when we all know what the real issue is that it's not profitable. I'm sick and tired of people pretending the US is the greatest country in the world when we let our people die in droves because we can't pay for medication, homes, and food despite having a surplus of all of those. We are failing our fellow Americans and instead of devoting so much time trying to explain why we are letting our people die maybe we should start doing something about it.
The other countries on the whole are moving towards our attitude. Even with those cultures, making more kids than you can handle is still frowned upon.
These groups are also small, even when motivated you can only make so many babies at a time, enlightenment will hit them eventually or at least the women who don't want be baby machines for some cause she doesn't want to be apart of.
While I can respect the fear of overpopulation, I find that the problems of mass wealth inequality and a large chunk of the world population without clean water or electricity to be a bigger more imminent matter
Delete this already.
The birth rate going down is only reflected in white people and Asians from my understanding.
If you look at minority communities even in the united states that isn't happening.
From my understanding most western countries population would be like japan if we didn't have immigrants.
In America it's primarily because we just don't have the money at the grass roots to have babies anymore. Medical liability alone is huge.
Meanwhile minority communities keep ratttling on about socializing healthcare and child care and free college. Mostly because when you're 14% of the population and most of you have lousy jobs that don't pay much but offer federal pensions, you won't really be paying into it much but reaping the rewards.
And while I'm not one of those people that goes "this is all feminism's fault!" I will say it's close, but that would be a gross, gross misunderstanding. Feminism is an enormous tent with many views. All of them want to pass themselves off as feminism without shutting an idea out, all of them get validation as REAL feminism under the tent, so when learning and interacting under that tent you're taught not to question any views as 'fake feminism.'
Outside the tent when it's applied, the hair brained hateful versions run around with all the privileges of 'female equality' feminism and browbeat, chastise and harass people under the cover of hunting for sexism or misogyny. And when called on it, other feminists go, "well those aren't real feminists. So I don't know why you're talking about them to me. They don't exist/aren't important."
Women of different ethnic groups are being taught histrionic hate of themselves in the name of social justice. White women are being taught that white people are monsters, and to 'make good' they need to compensate by not having children, if only as "some small way" to make it up for "all the horrors their people wrought." So having babies is such a small priority to so many, it's just not likely to happen. They're so wrapped up in this horrible guilt and culture of what they believe is 'social justice' that it's all but forcing men to go interracial, just because of the lack of sexual partners within their own ethnic group. And it's a self-affirming loop. They just won't snap out of it unless they as individuals get tired of it. It's a racist and self-destructive sentiment to have, but these days many would rather be gender-trenders to escape being a white woman than just be a white woman.
I don't believe imperialism is needed. I think we just need to make it impossible to raise children unless you work your ass off to do so and the only way they'll advance is to go to school, otherwise they'll not have the money to raise them and trying to make more will make them a pariah in their own communities. All that can be accomplished with making technical skill jobs have standards to reach in performance that dumber or less responsible people won't be able to attain by design. In a few decades it'll sort itself out. Just a few generations.
Japan also isn't fading the way China with its "1 child, 1 family policy" is. Japan's population is leveling off. As soon as more of the older generation dies off, they'll start having more children.
We don't need immigrants. Immigrants need new lands to live in. We developed new and better ways of accomplishing more labor with less hands for this.
As for taking care of our fellow man: I'm okay with taking care of my fellow *responsible* man. I don't want to subsidize irresponsible selfish assholes whose only compulsion is to abuse the relationship between government and citizens in order to clear their plate and then demand more dinner. A man needs to be paid according to his work to eat, and not more.
The people are there for the steady checks and job security. I am a minarchist, and believe the government's power should be in civil and criminal law, national defense, and diplomacy. Those are the only things that governments have demonstrated a better ability to manage than a private system. I believe that, for the most part, government /shouldn't/ be there for the average man, average men should be there for the average man.
When it comes to jobs, there is almost never a wasteful position. An adware product is designed to help companies draw in new customers, which is essential to all businesses. People who do such in the sense of malware are criminals looking for a cheap buck; not an honest job.
>>535>>The people are there for the steady checks and job security. I am a minarchist, and believe the government's power should be in civil and criminal law, national defense, and diplomacy.
Eliminating poverty would be the most effective way to prevent crime, eliminate the incentive, give the children of the world the things they need so they won’t have to take it by force. Improve national defense by giving the people a system they can be proud of, a country that works for the people, making people want to work for their country.
>>When it comes to jobs, there is almost never a wasteful position. An adware product is designed to help companies draw in new customers, which is essential to all businesses. People who do such in the sense of malware are criminals looking for a cheap buck; not an honest job.
I’m happy enough that we at least agree that not all jobs are good.
It takes time for new values and ideas to set in. Typically the ones who haven't accepted the new ideas are in the lower classes, which are usually made up of a higher minority population.
Sometimes ideas dont set in at all.
Alot of these minority communities dont want to integrate properly or just dont care.
The Bosnians where im at basically integrated well despite being muslim refugees from the Serbian genocide in less than a decade.
You can say well x group needs more time for y idea to set in, but i dont really think thats the issue.
Sometimes you have to wait for a generation or two to die off but the notion that we don't need more people is what the majority thinks in a hundred years that view will be almost unanimous
"Wash away cultures"
"only cultures that succees"
Seriously, you talk like a straight up nazi now.
And what exactly do you mean "European Values"?
Before you launch into your spiel, just pause:
Every human on the planet is the same race: Human. Sure, there's lemons, but thats in every species.
The species evolved the best when cultures came together and learned from each other.
We got democracy from the greek.
An arabic numbersystem (remember how our numbers go from right-to-left instead of the rest of our language? because they are middle eastern)
We have books from Gutenberg - a true revolution for spreading knowledge.
And we have frickin italian pizza
and delicious american coca-cola.
When we forget all that nationalist thinking bullshit, and cherry pick cultures, humanity as a whole improves.
Every frickin time in history.
Everytime something else comes into play, there is war and death.
Technology develops from a culture and the other way around. So the goal should be to give the cultural exchange an open platform, with no fear of political or even genocidal consequences.
Even if you just isolate yourself, you will not progress, more likely decline.
When I say european values I mean the lessons learned from the history of western civilization. No other parts of the world accepted the ideals of democracy and the power of the governed. No other culture had the protestant reformation which brought about the idea of secularism in government. You look everywhere outside of western europe and see traditions of totalitarian monarchies and dictatorships that went unchallenged. No other culture has been tempered and reformed to accept individualism as much as the west. The origin of an idea matters very little without the context therein. It is entirely reasonable to argue cultural superiority, and while a bigoted opinion, it is one that any measure of human rights, national success, and overall happiness, supports. If your logic were true, we would have adopted traditions from native americans, indians, africans, and orientals. The near east has not had anything to offer western culture for almost a millenium, and even in 'modern' arab states there are egregious violations of human rights. As it stands now, western ideas are so much more developed and tested that most other ideologies and cultures are holding us back. I am not advocating a forced removal, merely a recognition that european cultures have superiority when it comes to ideology, something most european nations are too cowardly to claim.
Conflict occurs only when cultures clash, which nationalism prevents far better than the forced intermingling of global agendas. Isolation would mean nothing, as there is very little culture to offer outside of europe, especially when it comes to philisophical and political theory (the heart of any cultural background). I believe that european nations should maintain their illustrious culture and not choke on their own humanist ideals. It poetic that they became so accepting and individualist that they will capitulate to the less developed.
A lot of the rhetoric in this thread comes off as "my culture is the best" ethnocentricity.
That's an incredibly charitable way of phrasing it.
And yet it is entirely rational to be ethnocentric, as there is not a single historical example of secularism or even democracy outside of Europe that wasn't influenced by Europeans. Please provide me an example of a philosophical or political tradition outside of europe that can claim to be even close to the achievements of the western world.
World history in a nutshell
Lol read a book. Take responsibility for your own ignorance and stop crying when every single person doesn't spoon feed you the entire history of the world every time you have an internet disagreement.
When somebody asks for proof it's always somebody who never provides any proof themselves. Like everybody has a damn reference sheet for every thing they've ever learned. And then they try to redirect it as "see you have no proof" while ignoring that they don't have proof either.
If you believe your ethnicity is so uniquely superior, then why don't you have any accomplishments?
Because he's not his entire race.
This. Broad sweeping generalizations on contributions to human civilization are only acceptable when used to deny that people outside of western europe did things Then the appropriate response is to yell WE WUZ KANGs until your opponent loses by forfeit.
Ive been providing the point that the west has had traditions of secularism and democracy for hundreds of years ever since this has become a topic. If you require specifics (more precise than the general ideas I proposed earlier) then I will point to the american constitution that provides for seperation of church and state and government requiring the consent of the governed, neither of these simple ideas have been propogated independently of western rule. I am very knowledgeable when it comes to history and have not been asking for a lesson, just a single example where a non-western culture developed either of those ideas.
The fact that you immediately jump to saying that I have not provided example (when I think I have sufficiently, but may as well be precise enough to pin it down.) rather than taking your percieved high ground and actually arguing the contrary is telling.>>549>>550
Trying to redirect the argument to ad-hominem when you have no real arguments is pathetic, please actually try to stick to a debate of facts and ideas. But because I relish in being a smart ass, I have been rather successful by this point in my life, and while I may not be a global mover or shaker (nor will I likely ever be), I can still point out and reassert the rich cultural tradition I was born into using the arena of discussion and logic (that ancient western culture created).
I have not argued for ethnic superiority, I have already established that I am unconvinced that ethnicity has that much power over people. I have argued (I'd say successfully but I do hope someone can bring a reasoning that can be discussed) that culture is far more important and that western culture has managed to achieve things that no other culture was able to until the west showed it to them. I mean even if we can cherry pick some nation somewhere in the orient that distanced itself from faith and allowed the people to elect officials, I can still reasonably say that weetern traditions have done the most for the world, and that they have advanced mankind the most (through spreading these ideas and overall increasing the freedoms and reasoning ability of people everywhere.
Do you even know what religious freedom and separation of church and state are? Public opinions and personal views are not the same as state religions, theocracies, god-kings, church tithes, or anything of that sort. Its absurd to say that religious in group preferances are somehow the same as state enforcement of faith.
Democracy runs on argument ad populum. If the populace decides one religion is good and the others bad, you effectively have a shadow theocracy, no matter what laws are on paper.
Actually one the few things that impressed me about this election cycle is how none of the candidates brought up Bernie's religion, at least in public
It got drowned out in "Those muslims tho".
most of the successful countries are European, or places that have had European values imposed on them like some asian countries.
It has more to do with culture and religious influence than ethnicity though.
Except in a democracy with freedom of religion, you are free to practice it regardless of faith. Its absurd to call it a 'shadow theocracy' just because most leaders had the same faith. It is socially expediant to have the same faith as the majority, sure, but it does not prevent you from running, nor does it effectively preclude you from winning (see someone else mentioning Bernie, as much as I disagree with him, his faith never meant anything).
If you are seriously arguing that we should be able to have a muslim run in the US and if we can't we are not religiously free? Would you expect the US in 1944 to elect a Nazi in order to prove that we are ideologically diverse? My problems with islam are manifold, but I can simply argue that it is impossible to elect someone who's ideology we have been at war with for the last decade.
That's a little unfair considering how European expansion is responsible for causing issues throughout the world. "Most successful" tend to also mean the ones that were ruined the least be European influence.
Imperialism is fine provided you're born into the empire.
also how do you define success?
I think in humanity's history the main goal has shifted (with its development and . First it was mostly survival. Then maybe it was exploration and conquest.
Later it was wealth.
Nowadays it should mostly be sustainability and natural impact.
By that regard, we should all be like Costa Rica.
The idea that Europe ruined everything in colonies is another weak (though at least viable) proposal. As I already explained, no other culture on earth ever developed the same things that europeans did. You need only look at non-european cultures before their 'exploitation' to see the extent of their cultural advancement.
While I will concede that lack of european interest in the politics of the regions prior to colonization wreaked havoc on the cultures there, I do not believe that there was much there in the first place worth preserving beyond thier histories, which were preserved. The simple tribal and religious systems were frail, unsophisticated, and backwards in many regions colonized (namely in the americas and africa, the orient was a stranger affair, and one with little actual colonization and imposition of european culture.
Sustainability is a fantasy, as scarcity is a reality. Efficiency is the true way forward as waste is what makes most things 'unsustainable.' The only way further is to push the boundaries of our species and societies, to go among the stars in an eternal competition that will produce untold wonders. Perhaps some day scarcity will become something we can look back on, but I do not see such a situation happening in my lifetime. The story of biology and history is the story of competition, adaptation, and expansion, these things are crucial to human success, as it has been crucial to everything that has come before us.
sustainability and efficiency are not mutually exclusive!? the oppisite is the case. Yes, humanity should strive, push boundaries, push efficiency. All of the above is possible in lowering the impact and exploit of our resources.
No, efficiency is not sustainability. Efficiency is merely using everything to the maximum benefit. Sustainability is limiting your use and thereby limiting benefit.
Scarcity is a reality, but we've progressed beyond scarcity having an effect on humanity. These days manufactured scarcity, that which is the creation of scarcity where there is none, is much more prevalent. We have the technology to power the entire world. We have more houses than we have homeless. We have so much food that we're often throwing it away.
We don't because it's not profitable, not because it's not possible. You've bought into the scam that people have to suffer so that you don't.
Certainly agree that individuals have the resources to feed, clothe, and shelter everyone in the nation. I do not believe that people are thereby obligated to surrender our resources to do so. Just because someone lacks something does not entitle them to it. Unfortunate certainly, but your options to rectify are all grossly immoral. The scarcity is from the lack of abundance to the point where everyone is able to afford such things. Most of these artificial scarcities are result of government interventions, but just because there is enough of something to go around, does not mean that people have the right to take it.
It's pretty fucked up that you consider sharing more immoral than letting people die when it can be prevented.
>>569>Just because someone lacks something does not entitle them to it.
So are you paying for the pics you enjoy seeing posted here?
I am not, but I am also not forcing people to post them here against their will, nor am I forcing people to create content against their will.>>570
I consider it fundamentally immoral to use the guns of the state to force people to give away their things against their will. While regrettable that people die, it does not necessitate generosity. I will still say that if there were not government-imposed limits on housing quality and food production, there would be less of such artificial scarcity. Please provide a solution to this issue that does not allow for even greater evil.
Guns of the state? You realize people pay taxes, right? That's what taxes are for. To make sure that everybody in a society has what they need. We pay taxes so we can take care of our people. Everybody pays taxes, and there are plenty of rich people who have so much money that they wouldn't even notice it if they had to pay higher taxes. Just tax them a bit more and everybody gets to live.
But you're somehow convinced that letting people die is somehow the lesser evil, so chances are trying to reason with you isn't going to get us anywhere. You're either so rich that you could afford to save lives but don't want to because you're selfish, or not rich enough to be affected by my suggestion and are just for some reason intent on defending the money of people who you owe nothing to even if that means advocating for letting your fellow human beings die. Just be honest that you care more about protecting money and stop pretending that there's any real logic behind your way of thinking.
>>573>Everybody pays taxes, and there are plenty of rich people who have so much money that they wouldn't even notice it if they had to pay higher taxes. Just tax them a bit more and everybody gets to live.
All that's going to do is make the rich get out of the country and make business in whatever country doesn't take 50% of their salary.
Let them go. It's better than letting them stay and draining all the money out of the country and hoarding it for themselves.
Yeah, who needs jobs anyway.
I care more about protecting freedoms, as the solution you see to imply sets the premise for a totalitarian state that is allowed to appropriate anything it wants at will. I am not wealthy, but I do believe that people are entitled to what they own, and are entitled to not being coerced by government into giving up what they have.
Its always 'just tax the rich a bit more' marxist bullshit. You would think that maybe the problems would have been solved every other time that rhetoric resulted in a tax hike. Some european countries look at 70+% taxes on the rich, and yet they still have poor, hungry, and homeless people, but I am sure that bumping it to 75% will magically solve all of the problems poor people have. The reality is that governments are wasteful entities that cannot solve societies problems, as they rely on force to cram people's morals down another person's throat. Do remember that if you refuse to pay taxes you are rounded up at gunpoint and sent to prison, so do not act as if taxes are somehow this morally good way to achieve things.
Honestly what is it with you bleeding hearts that always skip over the principles of the matter to say 'you heartless monster.' Seriously its always ad hominem every time I ask for a solution that is more morally sound than allowing people to donate as they please.
I'm gonna call you Andrew Ryan from now on. Go and live in Rapture.
It is kind of interesting how this kind of objectivist dogma never prevents you from taking charity, just giving it.
Almost as funny as how everyone lhere gives their tacit approval to piracy and theft and complains about paywalls and then turns around and talks about how everyone else (most often those smelly brown people) are the true leeches.
Google ponzi schemes.
Still waiting on an alternative.>>580
Tell me how this idea prevents people from donating to charity? Substantiate your claim, also taxing into welfare is not chatity.>>582
I believe that piracy and theft are wrong be it some guy stealing porn off the internet or the state demanding the product of my effort because some cokehead with 5 kids made poor life choices. I will donate my time, money, and abilities to those I believe need it.
Doesn't stop you from supporting it with your presence here.
Because it's theirs.
Because """"democracy"""" is a great smokescreen for the plutocratic oligarchy.
Didn't you ever see Aladdin? Whoever has the gold makes the rules. Even the perception of basic morality is skewed to favor the wealthy, as evidenced by this thread.
The rich don't make jobs. Time and time again we've seen that trickle down economics don't work. What they do is set up systems to gain as much money as possible while making sure that they pay as little as possible to those who work for them.
And that doesn't even cover the possibility of more and more CEOs exhibiting sociopathic or narcissistic behaviors.
They don't want to be held accountable for their misdeeds if it makes them more money. That's why we need regulations. To hold them accountable and protect us from their irresponsible actions.
For they sure as hell won't do it themselves.
because morality is relative, and by the sounds you're going to spew some socialist/marxist rhetoric about now.
Fair enough, in that case I'll ask the same question again but change "moral" with "good for society"
Trickle down economics actually works.
Its effects are just debatable and typically doesn't benefit anyone but the middle and upper middle class and the wealthy. If you make it cheaper to invest, companies will be more likely to invest.
Its still very debatable if its a good economic theory though to base economic policy for a government.
Because as a society we are allowed to do what we want with our money. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.
Including hoarding it.
Also what do you mean by accountablity.
Business are still held accountable.
I never heard anyone getting away from the wrath of the EPA when they fug up.
Pardon? If you mean to say that people are posting things that shouldnt be (I havent seen an indication of this, but okay). I am not 'supporting' it by seeing something posted. People posting things they shouldnt is a problem, but how am I supporting it by frequenting this site?>>587
Because any good moral system is universal. Saying that wealth suddenly generates new moral rules only for the wealthy is faulty logic>>589
Edgy, now provide actual proof.>>593
Nobody here is saying that people shouldnt be held accountable if they illegally use their money. It is not somehow enforcing responsibility if the state takes large chuncks of it then inefficiently doles it out. Who owned the money before has zero bearing if it was legally and honestly exchanged to the current owner.>>594
Massive difference, 'good of society' is a term used to justify anything, almost never to the actual good of society. The 'good of society' has been misused. I will argue that private charity did more for people than government ever did, so your 'good for society' bullshit can rest. Just look at the poverty rate after the great society, wealth redistibution did not do society good.
>>601>private charity did more for people than government ever did>private charity built our roads, pay our fire fighters, and fund our schools, and protects our nation
Welp, I've entirely given up on trying to reason with you. You're ignoring objective facts and there's really no point in making dialogue with you. You're literally living in some kind of delusion.
>>601>but how am I supporting it by frequenting this site?
The redistrubution of goods is theft and theft is wrong but you have no problem consuming the stolen goods and reaping a benefit. That makes you a hypocrite.
You want to be an ultracapitalist go pay for your porn directly iinstead of using a third party vector.
Pretty sure we were talking about using tax money for welfare, but maybe if you keep practicing those jumps between topics you can find a job as a stunt double for Super Mario.
Not an argument.
Imageboards are by their very nature communist. You've got no problem being a part of communism when you benefit from it.
Given the past 50+ posts were about welfare I was hoping that you wouldnt be obtuse enough to say that, but here I am finally being proven wrong for once here. I'll gladly take you up on the massive failures of public education however if we want to add yet another piece to this clusterfuck.>>603
So this is the part where you magically prove that I have viewed pirated content on this site right? I'm pretty sure since I only ever go on the quest threads and the writing threads I handily avoid any such bullshit. So please prove that 1. I have viewed pirated content. and 2. That I knew any of the content was pirated (malice requires intent) or 3. That by me not viewing pirated content but merely being on this site is tantamount to supporting piracy.>>605
(Yous) are a currency my man. In all seriousness anarchy maybe, there is no board hivemind that magically determines what porn has the most use value and creates it out of thin air, so communism is right out.
if you view so strictly about everyone has to earn their own and can do with their own as they please, I'd like to hear your take on Banks.
And in follow the bank bailouts?
Anyone else psyched to see a president do so much, so quickly? After voting in three elections, I was starting to think campaign promises were meant to be broken.
What are you excited about specifically?
Banks as an institution should be carefully watched by those who invest in them. The people who put their money in need to recognize the risks involved and be more hesitant. Banks that are contractually obligated to pay must do so, failure to do so means that their assets should be liquidated to pay off those contracts. Government intervention has made banking an industry where the banks can never lose, to the detriment of the average person. Banking regulation that favored certain loans was disasterous, and the bank should have never been incentivized to take on such shitty deals. Their covering up of these risks was likewise misleading, and should have led to multiple class action lawsuits.
I apologize if i read too far into this, but the 2008 crash is generally the reason why banking became such a massive issue recently, and is a very good case study to see how pretty much everyone involved did shitty things.
That reminds me, there's a documentary about what led to the 2008 crisis, you should check it out sometime.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(2010_film)
That is a great movie for understanding the bank's role and was great for giving context. Just wish there was more focus on what the HCDA and CRA did to push the bankers toward risky business practices. The bankers sure as hell arent innocent, but they were being given all the wrong incentives for all the noble causes.
3rd world hellholes that couldn't be solved by either side. Prove that socialism would magically solve hunger and medical needs, because those famines under communists countries really speak well to communism's ability to actually provide.
I would also like to know where that info from CHOP is, because its no where in their international section.
As cool as he was, I have a feeling that ANY past president could look awful today, in the age of constant media attention and the quick proliferation of information through social media.
In addition to your points, it's also worth noting that the graphic operates under the assumption that capitalism deaths and communism deaths can be compared 1:1.
They can't. Why? Because of a difference in scale. Of course communism is going to kill less people over 100 years, because there's leagues less people affected by it. If the numbers were reversed, things would probably look much less favorable for communism.
Really, the only reason 'capitalism kills more' is because of the differences in scale.
I'd also like to point out that not all of the things mentioned by the graphic are actually relevant to capitalism anyway. Some people will- and for a simple, and somewhat valid reason- refuse help to begin with. Because they want to be self-sufficient, instead of relying on other countries- or because they're already working on the issue themselves.
Really, this is a much more complicated issue than a set of numbers.
FUUUUUUCKING POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN website
Trump's president, get triggered, grab your friends, grab your shit, AND GET THIS THREAD OF OUR PORN SITE!
This is the Random board, where anything can be discussed.
If you don't want to see this stuff, go to the other porn-dedicated boards, you snowflake.
It's become more of a capitalism vs. alternatives to capitalism debate. There's a lot to read but it's gotten pretty good
all I see is a thriving economy now, liberals will hate anything.
u can thank Obama, except he made the rich richer, not a socialist, just a Clintonite+ Reaganite, I hate being Democrat(ic) now.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Good luck with that
Sidenote, what is this picture from?
I could probably go on about how its more complicated than "HURR TAX DUH RICH", but I'm not sure you'd either listen or understand.
Capitalism is a failed economic solution, not because of "HUR MUH FEE FEEs", but because its not inherently stable, nor efficient, and it eventually keeps crashing.
Then we get back to this concept people have of "mine" and "yours". Monies that are taxed are never yours to begin with. Why? Because its owed to the state. The same state the gives corporations the right to exist, and the same state that defines property in the first place, the same state that prints the money. This notion you have of property is entirely artificial.
But as much as you scream about "marxists", i.e. anyone who's not a neo-liberal not knowing anything about economics, you really don't know shit about economics.
Europe might have poor people, but there is nowhere like Gary, Indiana in Europe, and nowhere like Flint, Michigan, or Detroit.
Capitalism was proven mathematically to be unstable last century by Maynard Keynes.
As far as the rest of you, someone just having a case of the sads and then insisting everyone is happy all the time because Trump is president is some real dystopian shit. Just saying.
Funny thing though. Everyone (at least where I am) is always complaining that the unemployed do nothing to contribute to society.
Yet if anyone dares to suggest that the rich should contribute something (in the form of taxes that everyone else has to pay and they routinely evade), then suddenly everyone acts like that's the most insane idea ever.
Real dystopian shit is about right. Double-standards like that are a result of either mass brainwashing or some kind of weird idol-worship of the rich where they can do no wrong. And ordinary people get blamed for not being able to "win" a game where the rules are obviously rigged against them.
I never really understood why they say that about unemployed people, one they know there aren't enough jobs to go around and there are even less jobs that pay enough to live, at all.
So it's like they're bad because they aren't doing anything but when I ask what do you want them to do I get a weak answer like join the military or work harder to get a better job or start their own business which even they will admit is not for everyone yet will still push that as a viable solution on everyone
Because the rich can simply move their businesses to a foreign country where they will pay less taxes, so now not only are they not contributing but even more jobs have been lost.
people who bitch about the unemployed-underemployed are just insecure about persuing their own dreams, and therefore project on others.
Those who think the rich/corporations should be taxed as low as possible have no comprehension of economic principles whatsoever.
here, have an anecdote. If Walmart, Target and Costco, combined, occupied every food market in all of America (which isn't much of a stress), then there's no more 'virgin' markets left for super stores to move into. Thusly, all these 3 stores could hope to do with a new location is to chip away at portion of the other two's share of the market. This fundamentally means less profit than when these businesses were barrelling over competition in the 80s&90s. What happens in this situation? These 3 corporations have significantly less incentive to open new locations. Less GDP growth. Now imagine this situation for every industry in the United States, and you've grasped the idea of the phrase "economy-wide overcorporatization". Then ask yourself "if tax cuts are an incentive for growth, why cut their taxes if they aren't expanding? Why not focus on cutting taxes on the smallest businesses? The ones that have the most potential for rapid expansion?" and suddenly you're fiscally left.
It depends. What taxes should the rich be paying?
The problem people have is they actually know the sorts of people that dislike or hate the rich. The sorts of people that talk about "end stage capitalism." They know exactly what these people are selling, and it isn't about just making the rich "pay more of their share."
Because that's inevitably where any discussion of what the rich ultimately "should ""morally"" do" end up.
To hell with these back door socialist/communist solutions, and to hell with the people who keep trying to force feed their shit to people hidden in piecemeal legislation after piecemeal legislation after convoluted gaslightning campaigns carried out by colleges and universities.
guys, don't post pictures here. The mods will only tolerate this thread's existence so long as we refrain from taking big visual shits on the front page.
they don't seem to care when the RP threads take big visual shits on the front page??
Reading this now sounds like its from some bizarro universe. 'Dissenters drowned out by mob mentality and insults'. Sounds a lot like berkley. People can wear their bernie/hillary wear all they want, but god forbid I wear my trump hat here. I'll get called a nazi, and punched.
Or at least spit on.
It sure is. Trump wouldn't have had much of a chance if his opponents weren't so convinced speech is violence and violence is speech. Thank you for making us the good guys.
The best thing about this is you won't have learned a thing by 2020.
Welcome to politics, I too am afraid to represent in public, the police are not fans of communist symbols and I would like to not get harassed and/or shot because I put on a sickle and hammer shirt today
Strange how so many people in the pregnancy fetish community seem to espouse the virtues of conservationism and capitalism but then there's also a shitload of whining about paywalls.
Almost like you guys hate only communism when it means you might have to kick in.
I also hate communism when it's time to eat. I like food on my plate. I dunno, I'm that kind of guy.
You speak as if all anonymous are a collective. Which doesn't surprise me much.
The fact is, the biggest whiners about paywalls are in fact the very same people that believe art needs to be pure and free. Also that other peoples tax dollars need to go to art grants, degrees and institutions.
Fascism is the go-to complaint by would-be collectivists and socialists, because fascism for them allows them to use doublethink. People remember the fascism of Italy and the fascism of Nazi Germany, and so they associate it with the 'raw evil' of antisemitism, racism and violence.
When an antifa or Berkley type whine about fascism, what they're REALLY talking about is any system of governance and economy/industry that is not centralized, socialized and collectivized, running not off brass tacks and budgeting, but by ideology. They see any government or system of governance or law that does not incorporate their ideas of "fairness" and "equality" (which are neither fair nor equal) as fascist.
They keep whining about "end stage captalism" and talking about "the rise of right-wing hate groups", when in fact all statistical records from legitimate and credible FBI sources have shown, hate crimes have gone down even as false hate crimes have gone up. It's nothing short of alarmism. A kind of reverse McCarthyism. Or, well, just plain ole Stalinist, Leninist and Maoist boogymen.
There is no rise in hate groups. It's propaganda designed to get susceptible, emotionally driven pseudo-intellectual hacks and NuMen chomping at the bit to believe in The Revolution and that there are nazis around every corner. When in fact, there are not.
The truth is, there's already too much socialism in the United States. It's just the kind that privatizes the profit and publicizes the risks involved. And that's partly because of deals made on an ideological basis between the government and both the real estate market as well as the healthcare industry.
Ever wonder why the government allows the healthcare industry to effectively write their own checks? It's because it's a financial disaster to try and pay for peoples healthcare whom are dying or have chronic illnesses. I believe it was Reagan that signed to law the compromise that hospitals are no longer allowed to refuse care for somebody because of the associated costs. Which meant those businesses, and healthcare is a bunch of businesses, had to provide care at their own expense. Which then gets passed on to the government in order to cover the losses.
And the real estate market? Well, special interest groups wanted more non-whites to own land and get out of the trapped cities. More black and hispanic and asian suburbs in America meant more people invested in the concept of private property ownership, safer communities and less stress, which meant a better opportunity for jobs and wealth. Of course, since most minorities couldn't actually afford a house or provide collatoral or offer enough wages to pay for real estate, they got creative with investments. Which would've worked out, except for the fact said minorities were unable to pay the mortgages. They got greedy, the ideologically compromised markets and methods the businesses used to make money went up, and the entire economy was stiffed with the bill.
That's socialism. Ideological fuckups by incompetent people given god-like powers who are not accountable to reality, using the fat and wealth of the entire nation to insulate themselves from forces such as entropy, gravity and scarcity. They don't have to pay the bill, so they don't have a problem charging it.
We don't need more socialism in the free world, we need LESS. We need more education so people can modify their CULTURES around how the markets work, and not expect SOCIETY to compensate for when your CULTURE is insufficient to survive or generate wealth.
But having this conversation with actual socialists or communists is like arguing triangles to circles, because they refuse to separate evil from capitalism, or the idea that their schemes aren't automatically inherently morally and intellectually superior. They will not divorce their idea from what capitalism and free markets are from their propaganda, like proper tankies and revolutionary pseudo-intellectuals, and so will not accept anything less than purity of getting their way. Even if they have to feed it pixel by pixel, atom by atom, to slowly change culture and society to get their way.
Sexism used to be the discrimination or derogatory policies levied at people on the basis of their sex. These days we're probably just 5 years away from mainstream far-leftists saying acknowledging that biological sex itself is a "myth" and if you don't comply with the gender theory that male and female are states of mind, while chromosomes and genitals are arbitrary and random, you are a sexist, which inherently makes you a bigot. We already have ivory tower academic assholes in sociology departments browbeating medicine and biologists to use "proper terms" when describing things with pronouns, regardless of whether or not they're human.
Racism used to be the discrimination and prejudice one man held against another on the basis of their historical regional heritage and genetic culture. Now they try and define racism as the phenomenon of exclusively white interference in "Person of Color" lives, and their existence and participation is inherently oppressive, as the demographic collectively bears the burden of guilt for race crimes.
By trying to marry the definition of racism to privilege theory, by trying to use collective demographics and hierarchies of power and oppression, they try and push Marxist critical theory into written law and discourse as facts and legitimate theory, rather than nonsense and assertions by pretentious asshats. They appeal from authority in the most semantic arguments against actual material scientists and biologists as if they should have seniority and the final say, they coo to afrocentric nationalists while bemoaning the continued EXISTENCE of unmixed white people as fly in the ointment to their social revolution, they continue to try and make so many imaginary genders just to make them as important as the only real two based on sexes, to invalidate those too.
In my life I've learned socialists and communists are fearsome for their ability to manipulate and lie and deceive to try and get what they want. If they can't beat you in an argument directly, they'll use underhanded tricks to try and get you disqualified from debating. They'll simply attack you through proxies or control the environment you debate in.
But thankfully, the world is waking up to their ineffectual nonsense and the chaos they're reaping, allegedly in the name of social justice and gender equality.
Now I can see why people are complaining about this thread, I was trying to get my morning yank in but then I came across this post, but this post is also exactly why we need this thread to stay up.
I don't think you know what socialism or capitalism is or why you like one or dislike the other but that's ok, I'm here to help.
Capitalism is the idea that industry should be privately controlled by individuals. If you hate Obama, Clinton or any other democrat president doing whatever they want without any real interference you hate capitalism, if you hate the liberal media bashing your president, you hate individuals having control of the media and that means you hate capitalism.
Capitalism is not free markets, innovation or encouraging people to work on themselves for the betterment of society but these will commonly be used as selling points.
Socialism is the idea that industry should be regulated by the community as a whole. If you like democracy you like socialism. If you want tax cuts for businesses because you think it'll help the market system you like socialism, if you want to push your ideas of where culture should go or if you believe immigrants should be turned away because it's better for the country you also like socialism.
Socialism is not the end of businesses, the creation of a giant welfare state or the government controlling everything but will be brought up as possible symptoms to scare people away.
Now that we know what these words mean we can have a real debate
No. If I hate Obama, Clinton or any other Democrat presidents I hate Democrats. If I hate the liberal media I hate liberals.
Also, it's funny how you're somehow pretending Donald fucking Trump is a socialist.
>Capitalism is not free markets
>If you like democracy you like socialism.
>If you want tax cuts for businesses because you think it'll help the market system you like socialism
Never before have I seen anyone so deluded.
In a capitalist system you are allowed to dislike things (unlike in a socialist system where you are required to have the state-sponsored service/product) Disliking the media is in fact capitalistic at its core, as I can refuse to watch said media and excersice my power as a capitalistic consumer to not give them my money through ratings or direct contribution (Unlike state media, which is funded through tax dollars and can have zero ratings or credibility but stay afloat).
Capitalism, fundamentally, is a system of economics where people invest and purchase things, and the core of the system is the idea of a free market where people can buy and sell what they want, when they want, and the supply and demand of a product or service will determine its value. This creates incentives for individuals which drives innovation (as innovation leads to increased profits). The idea that people better themselves in capitalist systems is a strawman, and has no relation, but people have the freedom to better themselves if they choose to do so.
Socialism is the idea of communal ownership of property, thus it is true that there are communal standards. Democracy is simply the idea of governance through the consent of the people, which has nothing to do with economics or property. Socialism is the socialization (its in the name!) of industry, which fundamentally means that a socialist system cannot have private businesses, communal regulation is simply a byproduct of communal ownership, not the fundamental idea. The nationalization of industry does lead to a welfare state as the government now produces and provides for all aspects of society (government is the operator through which socialization is achieved, as communally owned businesses do not work in capitalist societies due to their inefficiencies, so the use of state power is required to destroy the more efficient model of economics).
Before I throw my hat in the ring, I have a question to ask the three of you:
1.) What do you personally believe is the role of government in society?
2.) How should the government achieve that role?
1.) I believe that the role of the government is to both work for the good of its citizens and to create an equal footing upon which free markets can thrive.
2.) I believe it should achieve those roles by regulating utilities and utility-like services (things that can't be done well or easily by the free market), and by using certain forms of wealth redistribution (universal healthcare, universal quality education and welfare/social security (or a universal basic income)) to ensure that even the poorest of it's citizens can maintain a decent quality of life.
This is why I see myself as a socialist in the same vein as the Nordic countries, because regardless of how well or how poorly your parents did, you should have the (approximately) same chance of succeeding as everyone else.
Universal basic income is paying people to not work. How many people would work if they could choose not to and still get paid?
Everyone but teenagers and new mothers, when Canada tried it.
The role of government in society is simply to ensure certain policies, rules and laws to allow individuals to be as free as possible. To provide legitimate and accountable above the board policies and legislations that are agreed upon either through representatives debating and arguing for them, or direct democratic policies. To enact laws and policies within guidelines and boundaries bowing to personal freedom and the barest of bone civil rights.
Its role is not inherently to seize control of things like water, power, communication, education. It is only to even consider these things when the individual people cannot provide or manage these things for themselves with devices, tools or work of their own, and it simply makes no ecological sense to expect them to do so.
The government's role is not to indiscriminately apply force, but to carry out legitimate force based on the rule of law and the most stringent of standards. It is not to have a monopoly on force, like in the Netherlands, and dole out punishments and sentencing for individuals who violate this government monopoly.
I believe the role of government is to provide a legitimacy of last resort when no other source, be it private or personal, can do. And if private or personal can do to meet standards that the government could not exceed given the same budget and legal constrains as a private institution or corporation or enterprise, then it needs to not try to seize it but get out of the way.
Too many would-be "saviors" and moral busybodies think that so long as they work in government, and government INHERENTLY has the right to move goal posts and exert ultimate authority 'for the greater good' that whatever they want or do is effective and moral. It is not. Too many village idiots believe in redistribution of wealth to people that either wouldn't properly use it or shouldn't have the money to breed, shouldn't have a hand into everybody elses pockets to succeed, refuse to participate in society in the ways that would make them successful, so they pout and hole up and wither on the vine. We don't need advocates for these peoples "justice," because they serve justice unto themselves.
The best way government can function is when it acts not as a nanny or overbearing solar deity, but merely as a legislative and judicial rubber stamp. To provide legitimacy to currency, the restrained and constitutionally defined use of force, to offer a little boost to private business in return for meeting certain performance criteria or benchmarks in order to meet the needs of both rural and urban communities, making it worth a group's while to put their labor into making things like cable internet, telephones and mining possible.
Fuck Mao, fuck Stalin, fuck Lenin, fuck Trotsky, fuck Frankfurt and FUCK INUYASHA!
1. Government has the right to anything that people refuse to stand up for. In my opinion the legitimate purview of government is national defense, enforcement of civil and criminal law, diplomacy and interactions with other government, and construction of infrastructure. The state is an inevitability, but should be restrained from encroaching on the natural rights of individuals. The state should not enforce morality or proactive justice upon people, as the state itself is an immoral institution.
2. Such a state is achieved by the establishment of a government that is managed only by those with the moral fortitude to recognize those limitations. The best way to do that I believe is explained in the novel starship troopers where the government is an elective democracy, but the only electorate are those who are willing to give up their time and risk themselves to protect and provide for their fellow man. This does not necessitate a military state, as service can be done through civil service. It is a good screen to ensure that most of the electorate are more selfless and devoted to ensuring personal freedoms than the current democracies, which inevitably devolve into socialist stagnation due to the nature of being able to promise anything to the electorate and gain power.
A universal basic income is functionally living on minimum wage, so I imagine that there would still be a large incentive to work (because everyone wants what they don't have). Also, I don't know about you, but doing nothing all day makes me go stir crazy.>>815
Honestly, there are large portions of both this post and your previous post (>>808) that I agree with (the sections on racism and sexism jump to mind), but there are also certain portions that I disagree with (like your assertions on healthcare in your first post and >We need more education so people can modify their CULTURES around how the markets work, and not expect SOCIETY to compensate for when your CULTURE is insufficient to survive or generate wealth.) What you said about healthcare is why I think we need universal coverage in America; the law you talked about is a stopgap measure, done with good intentions but not enough follow through. A more universal healthcare solution would allow for things like preventative healthcare instead of relying on emergency room solutions to a problem that could have been caught/solved earlier and at a lower cost. As for the second statement (the greentext), something about this struck me as overly harsh and reductionistic, like you were a doctor treating the symptoms but not the root of the problem.
I was talking to one of my friends while I was writing this (which is why it took me so long to respond) and he and I both came to the conclusion that what I ultimately want is for the government to provide an equal opportunity for anyone to succeed, regardless of race/socioeconomic status/sex. The "how government does it" answer I gave was a heavy handed way to demonstrate that we should lifting from the bottom instead of cutting from the top.
You don't just dislike those presidents, you also don't like the things they did or that they could do it in the first place. That's individual ownership and control of the government albeit temporary and they got it through a democratic process. Which is capitalism
Individual ownership does not always lead to free markets. One can own an entire market. If that happens then it is not a free market. Which means you can have a capitalist system and a not free market.
Democracy is a system of government by the whole population. If it is regulated by the population through voting then it is socialist.
I thought I had some logic behind tax cuts but I think I wrote myself into a dead end on that one, it happens.
Socialism is not the communal ownership of all property including personal property it is the communal ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Enforcing laws on the owners of the means of production is not socialism because then the means of production would still be individually owned and not communal.
>>818>You don't just dislike those presidents, you also don't like the things they did or that they could do it in the first place. That's individual ownership and control of the government albeit temporary and they got it through a democratic process. Which is capitalism.>Democracy is a system of government by the whole population. If it is regulated by the population through voting then it is socialist.
Okay, so a president being a president is capitalism but the people electing a president is socialism. Glad we've cleared that up. By the way, capitalism and socialism are economic systems. Just thought you'd like to know.
>Individual ownership does not always lead to free markets.
Government intervention by definition never leads to free markets.
There's no such thing as a truly free market.
False, regulation is still socialism because you are forcing businesses to operate in such a way that the free market would not. It is still state control of the means of production as the 'private' entities must comply with government regulation, giving the government control over how the entity operates. It would be like saying that you can have any car you want (capitalism), as long as it meets our standards (socialism). That is not a capitalist economic model, it is socialist control over private entities.
No. Socialism is control of the means of production. Some minor constitutional democratic representative republic measures is not inherently socialist. The same way ethics are not Christian morality.
Government itself is not socialist in nature. It's just government. Capitalist markets are still capitalist markets, there are just certain minimum benchmarks and standards for reasonable safety. That is most definitely not the same thing as socialism. The same way government representatives are not inherently fascist for being singular representatives with veto power instead of committees.
Regulation is not inherently socialist. However, socialists like using regulation and bureaucracy to continually tighten the noose, drag people through the coals and bread crumb them and penalize them into doing what they want for the sake of ideology.
So I'd say the difference between socialism and minarchism is the government only does what is absolutely required of it when no private or personal means is rational or reasonable, and socialism is voluntarily surrendering personal responsibility and capitalism in favor of political ideology.
It is through this relationship that socialists continuously try and seize more and more power and control away from individuals so they can't tell where their money goes, or even say no. Stating more and more things should be human rights, and so that gives government power over those things, trumping private business and taxing the fuck out of both industry and private citizens in order to make their hare brained schemes possible. That I find to be completely unacceptable.
They just want so hard to live in a ridiculous rainbow and glitter sprinkled Star Trekian universe, where the federated powers hold ALL the power and individuals dance to the tune of whatever arbitrary declarations made to them.
Regulation, at its core, is imposing the standards of people through the government upon the free market. Socialism, at its core, is the imposition of the standards of the people through government seizure of the means of production. While not as direct, government controls and regulation have a similar result to nationalization insofar as the moral idea of imposing the will of state/majority upon a free market. To a certain extent I suppose you are right, but as you later put, if you can morally justify regulation, you can morally justify nationalization further down the line. Any law or regulation that is necessary would be selected out (for example a company that had poor safety standards would find itself with a smaller, more desperate, or higher cost labor pool, and would be undercut by competitors offering better safety standards).
The difference is regular old standards SHOULD ideally merely be used in the interests of public health, whereas in socialism they are actively used as a legal truncheon to attack, control and rob from private individuals and corporations. They do not see any line between corporations and private individuals and the government, the state has the inherent right to do whatever they want because they are the state, and there are near to no real concrete tethers to make sure the state isn't being used that way.
It's still not inherently socialistic to have health standards for being able to sell food. Standards that are created by as close to objective scientific necessity is just good sense in public policy, erring on the side of the state only when it'd be a hazard not to.
Whereas with socialism, it's not just the occasional pipe up, it's deliberately crafting health codes so individuals make "better choices" by making sodas cost $10 per 8 oz as "luxuries", trying to morally tax meats out of the market or make it increasingly less and less profitable to produce cattle, poultry or mutton until those businesses have to shut down. But it's all, "in the name of health." Like the WHO would have you believe, effectively not being vegetarian or vegan is a form of violence against not just 3rd world peoples, but the planet, and so meat eating has to go.
Socialism is arbitrary government ideology passing itself off as "the greater good," through legitimized force. If individual rights or businesses aren't part of that "greater good" and the morals and beliefs of said socialist dictators or "representatives" (heads of the party) then they can be quashed and ignored. Or the people re-educated to see what they're doing as exceptions, not violations.
Legitimate representative government with checks, balances and laws is not inherently socialist, else the Berkley nutters would stop crowing about capitalist immorality and talking about America having so much democracy it's detrimental to progress.