PDA

View Full Version : 46% in favor of Comrade Bernie's "Government Jobs for All" concept




Anti Federalist
05-02-2018, 12:18 PM
Freedom.

It's not popular.

I'm sure allowing millions and millions of migrants from around the world, who consistently and repeatedly poll in favor of larger and more active government, into the voting booths, will solve this.


46% Favor Government Guaranteed Jobs for All

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2018/46_favor_government_guaranteed_jobs_for_all

Monday, April 30, 2018

Senator Bernie Sanders is looking ahead to the 2020 presidential election with a proposed federal government program that guarantees all Americans a job with health insurance. Nearly half of voters like the idea.

The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on April 24-25, 2018 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 12:25 PM
Freedom.

It's not popular.

Correct


I'm sure allowing millions and millions of migrants from around the world, who consistently and repeatedly poll in favor of larger and more active government, into the voting booths, will solve this.

I'm sure that the 'oi polloi polled were overwhelmingly native born Americans of European descent.

Focusing on immigrants is ignoring the real source of the problem.

shakey1
05-02-2018, 12:38 PM
Free stuff.

It is popular.

https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1391642_979124075513687_3135263488203049064_n.jpg

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 12:44 PM
Free stuff.

It is popular.

https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1391642_979124075513687_3135263488203049064_n.jpg

Approximately the same as current US GDP, so requiring actual communism (and then would come up short, as that would crush GDP)

But don't worry scro, scarcity's unfair; we just need to vote to abolish it.

Madison320
05-02-2018, 01:31 PM
Approximately the same as current US GDP, so requiring actual communism (and then would come up short, as that would crush GDP)

But don't worry scro, scarcity's unfair; we just need to vote to abolish it.

I think that's 18 trillion a year! I figure the jobs program would easily cost 4 trillion a year. If they actually implemented a guaranteed jobs program the entire economy would collapse in a few weeks, guaranteed. I'm almost 99% sure even Sanders is not serious about it. I think it's just bait and switch.

The whole idea is so laughable that it's not even worth debating, yet I'm reading comments online and most people are seem to be supporting it. That's the really scary part.

This is why some people should absolutely not be allowed to vote. We are not supposed to be a democracy.

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 01:39 PM
Free stuff.

It is popular.

https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1391642_979124075513687_3135263488203049064_n.jpg

Cool,,
and they can just print all the money they need.

Anti Federalist
05-02-2018, 02:15 PM
I'm sure that the 'oi polloi polled were overwhelmingly native born Americans of European descent.

Focusing on immigrants is ignoring the real source of the problem.

Not focusing on it, just pointing out, again, that it is a significant part of the problem that will need to be addressed if there is going to be any chance of turning this around.

Anti Federalist
05-02-2018, 02:16 PM
Approximately the same as current US GDP, so requiring actual communism (and then would come up short, as that would crush GDP)

But don't worry scro, scarcity's unfair; we just need to vote to abolish it.

I hear ya scro, lots of 'tards lead kick ass lives.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 02:17 PM
Not focusing on it, just pointing out, again, that it is a significant part of the problem that will need to be addressed if there is going to be any chance of turning this around.

If by "significant part of the problem," you mean, "wasn't even on US soil at the time all the really pernicious legislation was passed," yes.


I hear ya scro, lots of 'tards lead kick ass lives.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/65/b8/e1/65b8e131c968297a8074c75148e2c95f.jpg

specsaregood
05-02-2018, 02:25 PM
Freedom.
It's not popular.


Half the people in favor are probably people that can't otherwise get such a job and want one and the other half are employed people jealous of the people without jobs having so much freetime while collecting the dole.

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 02:46 PM
If by "significant part of the problem," you mean, "wasn't even on US soil at the time all the really pernicious legislation was passed," yes.

You can keep pretending they don't make the problem worse and reduce the odds of fixing it but that won't change reality.

H_H
05-02-2018, 02:51 PM
46% Favor Government Guaranteed Jobs for All

Breakdown by demographic


Focusing on immigrants is ignoring the real source of the problem. True. Obviously. Let us focus instead on the high-agency people who actually determine the fate of our society. Moving the acceptable Overton Window for the opinions these men are allowed to hold on important issues, such as culture, values, and immigration, will act to reinvigorate and could ultimately save our society.

It's a long shot but worth a try.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 02:55 PM
You can keep pretending they don't make the problem worse and reduce the odds of fixing it but that won't change reality.

You didn't address my point about the (lack of) immigrant responsibility for modern America's real problems: welfare, Fed, income tax, et al.

Do you acknowledge that the current Leviathan is a result of the voting behavior of native born Americans of European descent?

...and, before some over-eager person intervenes with a "O so you're blaming whites" type comment, no, I'm blaming people; it's the same all over.

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 03:06 PM
You didn't address my point about the (lack of) immigrant responsibility for modern America's real problems: welfare, Fed, income tax, et al.

Do you acknowledge that the current Leviathan is a result of the voting behavior of native born Americans of European descent?

...and, before some over-eager person intervenes with a "O so you're blaming whites" type comment, no, I'm blaming people; it's the same all over.

Too many Americans have voted for very bad things but in many cases it was very close, the immigrants from those times and the first few generations of the descendants of previous immigrants voted for the bad things at a worse rate than the "natives", possibly at a bad enough rate to have tipped the scales in favor of the bad things.
Too many Americans still vote for bad things but bringing in too many immigrants who will vote poorly at a higher rate will tip more close races the wrong way and will make it increasingly hard to move things the right way.

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 03:15 PM
You can keep pretending they don't make the problem worse and reduce the odds of fixing it but that won't change reality.

But I can see it a totally irrelevant. as in affecting me none at all ever.

The police are a bigger issue..
an economy in collapse through no fault of the poor unemployed here or elsewhere.
An eminent War on the middle east,, which we are embroiled.
A ridiculous Government threatening the Nuclear World powers daily with challenges and threats.

I'll sit on a curb with the Mexican and the Somalian and share a 40.

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 03:18 PM
But I can see it a totally irrelevant. as in affecting me none at all ever.

The police are a bigger issue..
an economy in collapse through no fault of the poor unemployed here or elsewhere.
An eminent War on the middle east,, which we are embroiled.
A ridiculous Government threatening the Nuclear World powers daily with challenges and threats.

I'll sit on a curb with the Mexican and the Somalian and share a 40.

If you don't believe that we can make things better or even slow the decline then nothing matters.
For those of us who believe we can make a difference excessive immigration is a serious problem.

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 03:25 PM
If you don't believe that we can make things better or even slow the decline then nothing matters.
For those of us who believe we can make a difference excessive immigration is a serious problem.

I could pray that Yellowstone erupts.. That might be an improvement.

I expect decline.. but see immigrants as irrelevant to the issues.

Welfare is the issue. End that and end the draw. but until that ends the issue will remain.

Collapse the economy and welfare ends. Government Theft will increase..
Police will be paid with your daughters.

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 03:29 PM
I could pray that Yellowstone erupts.. That might be an improvement.

I expect decline.. but see immigrants as irrelevant to the issues.
Then we will never agree because I believe we can make a difference.



Welfare is the issue. End that and end the draw. but until that ends the issue will remain.
They would still come here for the prosperity, I am constantly told that many of them are hard workers who come here for the opportunity and there is SOME truth to that, but if we allow too many of them to come for the opportunity they will make our politics worse and destroy the opportunity for everyone.

Madison320
05-02-2018, 03:38 PM
You can keep pretending they don't make the problem worse and reduce the odds of fixing it but that won't change reality.


They do but immigration probably only makes it about .01% worse. When people make it sound like it's a HUGE problem, like 50%, it distracts from the real problem, which is the size and scope of government.

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2018, 03:38 PM
You didn't address my point about the (lack of) immigrant responsibility for modern America's real problems: welfare, Fed, income tax, et al.

Do you acknowledge that the current Leviathan is a result of the voting behavior of native born Americans of European descent?

...and, before some over-eager person intervenes with a "O so you're blaming whites" type comment, no, I'm blaming people; it's the same all over.

Talking out both sides of your mouth? "People are just people, but it's really the people from Europe".

And as a matter of fact, yes, it was immigrants that brought the ideas that result in the failed Leviathan state, unless you are claiming Karl Marx was born in the US...

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 03:47 PM
They do but immigration probably only makes it about .01% worse. When people make it sound like it's a HUGE problem, like 50%, it distracts from the real problem, which is the size and scope of government.

It isn't 50% but it is much more than .01%, it is enough to to make a noticeable difference in how bad things are and how hard it will be to fix them.

Zippyjuan
05-02-2018, 03:51 PM
Free stuff.

It is popular.

https://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1391642_979124075513687_3135263488203049064_n.jpg

I think those costs are over ten years.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/news/economy/sanders-medicare-for-all/index.html


How much would all this cost? Nearly $1.4 trillion a year.

To pay for it, all Americans and employers would see a tax hike. Sanders called for a new 2.2% income tax on all Americans and a 6.2% levy on employers. He would also increase taxes on the wealthy.

But, he argues, people would save money since they would no longer have to pay monthly premiums or deductibles. A family of four earning $50,000 would save more than $5,800 each year.

"As a patient, all you need to do is go to the doctor and show your insurance card," his campaign proposal said.

Businesses, meanwhile, would save more than $9,400 annually since they would no longer have to pick up their share of workers' health insurance premiums.


http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04/17/heres-how-much-bernie-sanders-free-college-for-all-plan-would-cost/


The estimated cost of the program is $47 billion a year. That would cover, Sanders estimates, 67% of the $70 billion it costs for tuition at public colleges and universities. States, he proposes, would cover the remaining 33%.

That would make them 10% of US GDP.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 04:28 PM
Too many Americans have voted for very bad things but in many cases it was very close, the immigrants from those times and the first few generations of the descendants of previous immigrants voted for the bad things at a worse rate than the "natives", possibly at a bad enough rate to have tipped the scales in favor of the bad things.

I don't know which time period you're referencing, but, at least in the 19th century (to 1896, when William Jennings Bryan fucked everything up), immigrants (primarily Germans, Italians, and Irish) voted overwhelmingly in favor of the then small government, Jeffersonian Democrat Party (opposed to inflationary monetary policy [in favor of the gold standard], opposed to subsidies to [largely Northern] industrial enterprises, opposes to protectionist tariffs [to protect those same Northern enterprises], opposed to prohibition of alcohol, opposed to attempts by the then GOP to outlaw German or Italian parochial schools and force everyone into a WASP, low-church dominated, tax-payer financed public school system, in favor of States' rights in general against an increasingly overweening federal government). Meanwhile, native born people (at least in the North, "yankees") voted overwhelmingly for the then big government GOP, representing the opposite of all of the aforementioned policies. The civil war was essentially a fight on these terms. Had the immigrants not happened to live in the North, and been impressed at gun point into the Union army, there is no question that they would have preferred the Confederate cause. The repeated riots in the Northern cities evidence this.

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 04:43 PM
I don't know which time period you're referencing, but, at least in the 19th century (to 1896, when William Jennings Bryan $#@!ed everything up), immigrants (primarily Germans, Italians, and Irish) voted overwhelmingly in favor of the then small government, Jeffersonian Democrat Party (opposed to inflationary monetary policy [in favor of the gold standard], opposed to subsidies to [largely Northern] industrial enterprises, opposes to protectionist tariffs [to protect those same Northern enterprises], opposed to prohibition of alcohol, opposed to attempts by the then GOP to outlaw German or Italian parochial schools and force everyone into a WASP, low-church dominated, tax-payer financed public school system, in favor of States' rights in general against an increasingly overweening federal government). Meanwhile, native born people (at least in the North, "yankees") voted overwhelmingly for the then big government GOP, representing the opposite of all of the aforementioned policies. The civil war was essentially a fight on these terms. Had the immigrants not happened to live in the North, and been impressed at gun point into the Union army, there is no question that they would have preferred the Confederate cause. The repeated riots in the Northern cities evidence this.

Your claims are disputable and have been disputed before but even if we accept them the worst damage was done in the 20th Century.
Even if we grant you the past all the way up to WWII it doesn't matter, what matters is the present and the future, the rest of the world is much more communist than the US and letting too many in will destroy us.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 04:53 PM
Talking out both sides of your mouth? "People are just people, but it's really the people from Europe".

Just one side, in fact; look, I wrote a whole extra line of text to make this plain for, just such an occasion.


...and, before some over-eager person intervenes with a "O so you're blaming whites" type comment, no, I'm blaming people; it's the same all over.

...


And as a matter of fact, yes, it was immigrants that brought the ideas that result in the failed Leviathan state, unless you are claiming Karl Marx was born in the US...

1. Karl Marx never lived or voted in the United States. If you're objection is to foreign ideas (and not just foreign people), you might have to expand the program to something like the isolation which China 'enjoyed' leading up to its humiliation and conquest in the 19th century. Do you have a specific plan for the burning or disposal by other means of the books/blogs/etc which might be crossing the border and tainting the ever-liberty-loving minds of native born Americans?

2. As for the reality of voting behavior by different groups, I've just addressed that in some detail. See post #23.

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 04:58 PM
They would still come here for the prosperity,

Good,, my ancestors too. Lots of room,, and get the government out of the way there would be jobs for them and more.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 04:58 PM
Your claims are disputable and have been disputed before but even if we accept them the worst damage was done in the 20th Century.
Even if we grant you the past all the way up to WWII it doesn't matter, what matters is the present and the future, the rest of the world is much more communist than the US and letting too many in will destroy us.

What matters is that history plainly refutes your claim that natives = libertarians, immigrants = socialists. It's hilarious that people whose own grandparents are responsible, directly and indisputably (as a simple matter of what year laws were passed), for all the serious problems in this country have the gall to blame the people who arrived last week. It is yet another example of what's wrong with democracy; the vox populi is divine (or something, if they're not Mexicans, or Catholic Germans, depending on which century we're in), and so any failing of the state has to be blamed on some magical deus ex machina.

P.S. I forgot to address this:


the rest of the world is much more communist than the US and letting too many in will destroy us

That is patently false. The US is not the freest country in the world, not remotely.

The US is presently a typical democratic socialist state, as are most "developed" states around the world.

Singapore, the United Arab Emirates, Hong Kong; these are the models of liberalism in the world today.

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 05:00 PM
and letting too many in will destroy us.

Who the phuck is "us"??

please do not include me in your wild paranoia. I take reality seriously.

H_H
05-02-2018, 05:01 PM
I am constantly told that many of them come here for the opportunity
Opportunity to what?

To access white people!

They have opportunity galore in their home countries. There's opportunity all across this big, exciting world of ours. They lack just one thing: living in close proximity to one very successful racial group, in the societies which that group built.

Why not stay home and build their own awesome societies, their own awesome way? Sounds great to me!

Sounds great to everybody!

That's the thing to do.

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 05:03 PM
Who the phuck is "us"??

please do not include me in your wild paranoia. I take reality seriously.
"Us" is all the people who are already here who will be subject to the communism the immigrants will promote in our country.

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 05:05 PM
What matters is that history plainly refutes your claim that natives = libertarians, immigrants = socialists. It's hilarious that people whose own grandparents are responsible, directly and indisputably (as a simple matter of what year laws were passed), for all the serious problems in this country have the gall to blame the people who arrived last week. It is yet another example of what's wrong with democracy; the vox populi is divine (or something, if they're not Mexicans, or Catholic Germans, depending on which century we're in), and so any failing of the state has to be blamed on some magical deus ex machina.

I do not blame current immigrants for actions in the past, I point out that they do and will make things worse in the present and the future.
Past immigrants (at least in some eras even if we accept your assertions about other eras) have made things worse than they would have been without them.

Zippyjuan
05-02-2018, 05:06 PM
Always some group we need to be afraid of (and for politicians to "protect us from")

The French are going to ruin the country!
The Germans are going to ruin the country!
The British are going to ruin the country!
The Italian are going to ruin the country!
The Jews are going to ruin the country!
The Irish are going to ruin the country!
The Chinese are going to ruin the country!
The Polish are going to ruin the country!
The Russians are going to ruin the country!
The Mexicans are going to ruin the country!
(I don't think anybody complained aboot the Canadians- eh)

http://clt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/usa-immigration-percentage_02.png

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 05:10 PM
The French are going to ruin the country!
The Germans are going to ruin the country!
The British are going to ruin the country!
The Italian are going to ruin the country!
The Jews are going to ruin the country!
The Irish are going to ruin the country!
The Chinese are going to ruin the country!
The Polish are going to ruin the country!
The Russians are going to ruin the country!
The Mexicans are going to ruin the country!

http://clt.biz/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/usa-immigration-percentage_02.png

Ask oyarde how well he thinks those immigrants worked out.


It doesn't matter where immigrants that have less of a liberty culture than America come from or what their skin color is zip, if we let too many in any of them will ruin the country.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 05:10 PM
I do not blame current immigrants for actions in the past, I point out that they do and will make things worse in the present and the future.

You ignore that the downward trend you're concerned with has nothing to do with immigration (being totally the result of native voting).


Past immigrants (at least in some eras even if we accept your assertions about other eras) have made things worse than they would have been without them.

Suppose I said that natives have made things worse than they would have been without them.

Prove me wrong.

They voted for the the Fed, income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, HUD, minimum wages...

Please list the immigrant-driven pieces of legislation which match up against the above.

P.S. And, for the benefit of Brian-with-an-i, let me repeat; the point isn't that native, European descended Americans are worse than mestizos or blacks or whatever. The point is that there's no meaningless difference at all, at least in the long run. The only reason that Mexicans didn't vote for social security is that they weren't here at the time. People are selfish, and will vote themselves their nauehgbor's wealth, everywhere, at all times and places regardless of muh race or muh kultur.

H_H
05-02-2018, 05:11 PM
2. As for the reality of voting behavior by different groups, I've just addressed that in some detail

Don't need much detail, Jack; she's pretty simple:


https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr03/2012/11/9/14/enhanced-buzz-wide-1035-1352488120-4.jpg


Oh, and then four years later:

http://orig00.deviantart.net/6f33/f/2016/328/d/7/usa_2016_election__white_voters_only__preliminary_ _by_reagentah-dapfdhy.png

That's even including the womyns!

Both colors, red and blue, represent parties which are less-then-ideal. However, since we are not blind, stupid ideologues (we aren't, are we? Of course not!), we can state the obvious that one party, the Outer Party (shown in blue) advocates for a lower level of socialism than the other, Inner Party (shown in blue) which advocates for a higher level of socialism.

Lower is better.

oyarde
05-02-2018, 05:14 PM
Ask oyarde how well he thinks those immigrants worked out.


It doesn't matter where immigrants that have less of a liberty culture than America come from or what their skin color is zip, if we let too many in any of them will ruin the country.
I am waiting for Zip to demonstrate they did not ruin the country . Remember , before these douchebags there was no federal reserve , property tax , income tax etc etc. Having spent quite a bit of time in latin america I assure you a large portion of these peoples have commie tendencies like Dankes fatherland .

Zippyjuan
05-02-2018, 05:17 PM
Ask oyarde how well he thinks those immigrants worked out.


It doesn't matter where immigrants that have less of a liberty culture than America come from or what their skin color is zip, if we let too many in any of them will ruin the country.

Ban humans. Then there will be no problems. Or start your own country of one person then you will agree with everything and everybody.

Zippyjuan
05-02-2018, 05:18 PM
I am waiting for Zip to demonstrate they did not ruin the country . Remember , before these douchebags there was no federal reserve , property tax , income tax etc etc. Having spent quite a bit of time in latin america I assure you a large portion of these peoples have commie tendencies like Dankes fatherland .

We had no immigration before 1913?

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 05:20 PM
You ignore that the downward trend you're concerned about has nothing to do with immigration (being totally the result of native voting behavior).
I can't ignore what isn't true, immigrants have had and do have much to do with it.




Suppose I said that natives have made things worse than they would have been without them.

Prove me wrong.

I'm not going to rehash the debate about older waves of immigrants, I say they contributed to the decline and I have provided evidence for that in the other threads, but if we grant you your version of history it still doesn't matter, in modern times if we gave the immigrants total power over the country we would be a communist nation right now, so unless you think being a communist country is better than where we are your conjecture has been proven wrong.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 05:22 PM
In response to the oddly named nationalist character, there is no meaningful difference between the modern Republican and Democrat Parties.

Also, water is wet.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 05:24 PM
I can't ignore what isn't true, immigrants have had and do have much to do with it.

I'm not going to rehash the debate about older waves of immigrants, I say they contributed to the decline and I have provided evidence for that in the other threads, but if we grant you your version of history it still doesn't matter, in modern times if we gave the immigrants total power over the country we would be a communist nation right now, so unless you think being a communist country is better than where we are your conjecture has been proven wrong.

To the extent they are here, and vote, of course they contribute to the decline; they're people.

The point is; why do you believe they contribute more than natives?

Again, examples of legislation passed largely with immigrant support (contra the legislation I cited passed almost solely on native support)?

oyarde
05-02-2018, 05:26 PM
We had no immigration before 1913?

Where I live became a state in 1816 . In less than 100 years these " immigrants " went from complete and total freedom to that . I define that as ruin . Then LBJ finished it off .

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 05:28 PM
They voted for the the Fed, income tax, social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, HUD, minimum wages...

Please list the immigrant-driven pieces of legislation which match up against the above.



Immigrants supported those things at a higher rate than the natives.

Zippyjuan
05-02-2018, 05:29 PM
Where I live became a state in 1816 . In less than 100 years these " immigrants " went from complete and total freedom to that . I define that as ruin . Then LBJ finished it off .

Americans are almost all either immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Immigrants contributed to all of it- the good and the bad.

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 05:30 PM
To the extent they are here, and vote, of course they contribute to the decline; they're people.

The point is; why do you believe they contribute more than natives?

Again, examples of legislation passed largely with immigrant support (contra the legislation I cited passed almost solely on native support)?

The immigrants supported the bad policies at a higher rate than the natives, even if you were right and they didn't in the past they do now.

dannno
05-02-2018, 05:30 PM
May Day Activists March Against High Rents
https://independent.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2018/05/02/20180501_Int_Workers_Day_12_t958.jpg?fef15e12b784e 9bbb22bf3f2924819218cda3d1a

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 05:31 PM
In response to the oddly named nationalist character, there is no meaningful difference between the modern Republican and Democrat Parties.

Also, water is wet.

There is a vast difference and it becomes even greater when discussing their voters instead of their leaders.

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 05:31 PM
"Us" is all the people who are already here who will be subject to the communism the immigrants will promote in our country.

I was born into a fully socialist country.. Corporatism flavor to be specific.. An Americanized form of Fabian Socialism to be definitive..

the Constitution of these United States has been given lip service at best my whole life. 60+ years..


Now what bullshit were you trying to push on me? some Fable?? I deal in realities.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 05:31 PM
Immigrants supported those things at a higher rate than the natives.

If you mean non-European immigrants, certainly not, since there were essentially none prior to 1965.

If you mean European immigrants, feel free to post evidence to that effect.

But suppose you're correct about European immigrants in the 20th century...

Given their record in the 19th century, what does this say about the "immigrants r bad" theory, in general?

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 05:33 PM
We had no immigration before 1913?
Your chart starts in the 1820's and Oyarde considers anyone who isn't an injun to be an immigrant.
Injuns didn't have the federal reserve , property tax , income tax etc etc.

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 05:34 PM
There is a vast difference and it becomes even greater when discussing their voters instead of their leaders.

Wow,,

well that explains it.
You are in some alternate reality,, How do you post from there?

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 05:35 PM
There is a vast difference and it becomes even greater when discussing their voters instead of their leaders.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=Total%20Spending&units=b&size=m&legend=&year=1900_2018&sname=US&bar=0&stack=1&col=c&source=i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i _a_i_i_i_i_a_i_i_i_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a_i_a _i_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i _i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_i_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_i_a_i_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_e_g_g&spending0=1.61_1.68_1.66_1.76_1.87_1.99_2.11_2.24_ 2.38_2.53_2.68_2.85_3.03_3.21_3.49_3.79_4.08_5.67_ 16.76_22.96_11.33_10.53_9.30_9.63_9.98_10.37_10.78 _11.22_11.44_11.68_11.92_12.17_12.44_12.62_12.81_1 4.78_16.76_17.22_17.68_19.05_20.42_24.35_45.58_92. 71_109.95_118.18_79.71_57.73_55.08_62.71_70.33_75. 94_99.90_110.05_111.33_110.72_115.80_125.46_134.73 _145.75_151.29_164.83_169.50_177.35_189.11_193.89_ 216.22_248.07_277.19_296.09_321.84_354.79_388.25_4 11.08_453.23_550.53_620.29_668.17_734.47_806.57_94 0.24_1073.12_1179.43_1283.58_1353.81_1496.29_1592. 72_1662.02_1771.33_1904.54_2083.06_2224.40_2350.64 _2426.03_2511.97_2638.58_2726.42_2823.85_2932.11_3 056.06_3245.99_3436.26_3705.24_3932.58_4147.35_440 7.64_4716.71_4947.69_5356.01_5968.67_5959.52_6151. 58_6140.16_6087.04_6191.22_6461.50_6685.42_6893.58 _7128.82

Please mark the chart to indicate the GOP's reductions in the size of government.

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 05:36 PM
If you mean non-European immigrants, certainly not, since there were essentially none prior to 1965.

If you mean European immigrants, feel free to post evidence to that effect.

But suppose you're correct about European immigrants in the 20th century...

Given their record in the 19th century, what does this say about the "immigrants r bad" theory, in general?

It says immigrant change your society to be more like the one they came from, if their society is better than your you might want to let them in vast hordes but since almost everywhere is currently worse than America we shouldn't let many in.

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 05:37 PM
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/2013.09.20.edwards.figure_2.jpg

Please mark the chart to indicate the GOP's reductions in the size of government.

Government is more than just spending and the GOP doesn't have a very good record but the Demoncrats do their best to make us communist which is much worse.

Zippyjuan
05-02-2018, 05:39 PM
Attacking immigrants is Divide and Conquer Politics. Blame somebody else to distract from what the politicians are doing.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/news/la-pn-ron-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201


"I believe Hispanics have been used as scapegoats, to say, they're the problem instead of being a symptom maybe of a problem with the welfare state," Paul told the group.

Ron Paul- February, 2012

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 05:41 PM
Attacking immigrants is Divide and Conquer Politics. Blame somebody else to distract from what the politicians are doing.

You see,,, we see that the same..

hope you don't get in trouble.

oyarde
05-02-2018, 05:41 PM
The immigrants supported the bad policies at a higher rate than the natives, even if you were right and they didn't in the past they do now.

I think they would have supported welfare in the past if given the opportunity because they would have used it . The real difference being then than now I believe is they would still have worked to not need it . Failed culture . Weak . When it falls the weak will be consumed .

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 05:41 PM
Attacking immigrants is Divide and Conquer Politics. Blame somebody else to distract from what the politicians are doing.
No it is putting a bandage on the wound until it can be healed and wearing protective clothing to prevent being cut again, even a hemophiliac needs to do those things.

oyarde
05-02-2018, 05:42 PM
Attacking immigrants is Divide and Conquer Politics. Blame somebody else to distract from what the politicians are doing.

I blame the politicians and those that support them , which is most people .

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 05:54 PM
Government is more than just spending and the GOP doesn't have a very good record but the Demoncrats do their best to make us communist which is much worse.

How about regulation then, which burdens the economy almost as much as spending (about $3 trillion per year [1/6th of GDP] in needless costs)?

Trump's "massive deregulation" will yield an annual savings of - wait for it, better sit down - $570 million (https://www.reginfo.gov/public/pdf/eo13771/FINAL_TOPLINE_All_20171207.pdf), i.e. 0.019% of the total.

Or perhaps you could tell me about the massive difference in foreign policy between the parties (we're out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, right?).

By golly, just what are these differences? The mascots? Theme songs? Team colors?

Swordsmyth
05-02-2018, 06:02 PM
How about regulation then, which burdens the economy almost as much as spending (about $3 trillion per year [1/6th of GDP] in needless costs)?

Trump's "massive deregulation" will yield an annual savings of - wait for it, better sit down - $570 million (https://www.reginfo.gov/public/pdf/eo13771/FINAL_TOPLINE_All_20171207.pdf), i.e. 0.019% of the total.

Or perhaps you could tell me about the massive difference in foreign policy between the parties (we're out of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, right?).

By golly, just what are these differences?

The massive differences are all about how much worse the Demoncrats are not about the GOP being much good, if the Demoncrats had their way we would be a communist country and we would be at war with Russia.

And again the voters are even more different, if the GOP didn't have the Demoncrats as an excuse to "compromise" their voters would have forced them to move towards smaller government or switched to a better party by now, the GOP base isn't perfect but they vote for smaller government than we have consistently and they have begun to shift towards noninterventionism.

Origanalist
05-02-2018, 06:12 PM
Who the phuck is "us"??

please do not include me in your wild paranoia. I take reality seriously.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to pcosmar again.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 06:16 PM
The massive differences are all about how much worse the Demoncrats are

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama...

Yes, I've heard this line before.

I remain unconvinced (see chart of unbroken increases in the size of government through administrations GOP and Dem).


if the Demoncrats had their way we would be a communist country and we would be at war with Russia.

The socialistically inclined are having their way, regardless of party in office. There is always resistance (ultimately futile, but it slows "progress") to socializing measures, whichever party is in office, which is why the Dem controlled government last time didn't, in fact, give us outright communism. They gave us the very same thing that, in fact, the GOP just declined to repeal, and now tacitly endorses as a part of the Great American Heritage (like the New Deal; I love how FDR is routinely praised by "conservatives"!) . See how that works, Dr. Pangloss? As for Russia, lol, the only reason the GOP is now kinda sorta publicly less critical of Russia is that continuing their traditional hostility to Russia (does no one remember anything that happened prior to November 2016..?), would harm the sitting GOP President, given his Russian scandal problem.


And again the voters are even more different, if the GOP didn't have the Demoncrats as an excuse to "compromise" their voters would have forced them to move towards smaller government or switched to a better party by now, the GOP base isn't perfect but they vote for smaller government than we have consistently and they have begun to shift towards noninterventionism.

The only reason there are two parties is that there are two tribal groups in this country which dislike each others' personal habits.

This is all that any of the candidates of either party ever really run on.

If the only political issues were those that mattered, they would simply merge (might as well).

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2018, 06:34 PM
Just one side, in fact; look, I wrote a whole extra line of text to make this plain for, just such an occasion.

...
1. Karl Marx never lived or voted in the United States. If you're objection is to foreign ideas (and not just foreign people), you might have to expand the program to something like the isolation which China 'enjoyed' leading up to its humiliation and conquest in the 19th century. Do you have a specific plan for the burning or disposal by other means of the books/blogs/etc which might be crossing the border and tainting the ever-liberty-loving minds of native born Americans?

2. As for the reality of voting behavior by different groups, I've just addressed that in some detail. See post #23.

Immigrants bring foreign ideas with them. The ideas of Marx and of socialism came to the US via immigration, where it then infected the US. We may agree more on the timeline than others. I date it back to Lincoln, who was a fan of Marx, and coincidently, the first Republican President.

As far as voting, in the prior century, that could be blamed on the importation of Northern Europeans, who have a tendency towards naive bleeding heart liberalism and thus favored socialism (the standard gross generalization caveat applies, and this certainly does not apply to every individual).

The rub occurs with those who still preach socialism and communism after it has been proven an abject failure over and over again, despite it's "good intentions" and promises of rainbows and unicorns. There are plenty of hidden agendas at work.

Now we have the classic Bernie Sanders communists preaching to the still naive bleeding heart liberals and the third world immigrants who march under the communist flag.

Here is the face of immigrant socialism (or better to say communism, as Kshama Sawant has called for the public/employee takeover of the means of production at Boeing):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpgPqXFYWGY

Origanalist
05-02-2018, 06:38 PM
Immigrants bring foreign ideas with them. The ideas of Marx and of socialism came to the US via immigration, where it then infected the US. We may agree more on the timeline than others. I date it back to Lincoln, who was a fan of Marx, and coincidently, the first Republican President.

As far as voting, in the prior century, that could be blamed on the importation of Northern Europeans, who have a tendency towards naive bleeding heart liberalism and thus favored socialism (the standard gross generalization caveat applies, and this certainly does not apply to every individual).

The rub occurs with those who still preach socialism and communism after it has been proven an abject failure over and over again, despite it's "good intentions" and promises of rainbows and unicorns. There are plenty of hidden agendas at work.

Now we have the classic Bernie Sanders communists preaching to the still naive bleeding heart liberals and the third world immigrants who march under the communist flag.

Here is the face of immigrant socialism (or better to say communism, as Kshama Sawant has called for the public/employee takeover of the means of production at Boeing):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpgPqXFYWGY

So it's the northern Europeans that's to blame?

AuH20
05-02-2018, 06:39 PM
I guess we have that many economically illiterate folks among us.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 06:44 PM
Immigrants bring foreign ideas with them. The ideas of Marx and of socialism came to the US via immigration, where it then infected the US. We may agree more on the timeline than others. I date it back to Lincoln, who was a fan of Marx, and coincidently, the first Republican President.

I would say it came by trans-Atlantic post, from various European universities to various East Coast universities.

The semi-literate cabbage and potato farmers on the boats who went to work in the steel mills had precious little to do with it.


As far as voting, in the prior century, that could be blamed on the importation of Northern Europeans, who have a tendency towards naive bleeding heart liberalism and thus favored socialism (the standard gross generalization caveat applies, and this certainly does not apply to every individual).

Except when, in the century prior to that, they stood as the only obstacle to Yankee/GOP proto-socialism.


The rub occurs with those who still preach socialism and communism after it has been proven an abject failure over and over again, despite it's "good intentions" and promises of rainbows and unicorns. There are plenty of hidden agendas at work.

Now we have the classic Bernie Sanders communists preaching to the still naive bleeding heart liberals and the third world immigrants who march under the communist flag.

Here is the face of immigrant socialism (or better to say communism, as Kshama Sawant has called for the public/employee takeover of the means of production at Boeing):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpgPqXFYWGY

Right, but there is really no difference between them and average American on main street (shiny TV coverage aside).

The immigrant wants welfare benefits he doesn't presently have.

The American is totally opposed to welfare...except the social security, medicare, medicare, HUD, and foodstamps that he presently receives.

https://transcendentalpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/medicare-keep-your-hands-off-my-medicare2.jpg

It's the same in Europe, though they might be a bit more honest about it (the Germans, Swedes, English etc talk quite openly not about welfare being a problem, but about welfare for foreigners cutting into welfare for natives, which is really what this is all about). At the end of the day, there's a large group of people who are efficiently looting their neighbors, and don't wish to be disturbed in this enterprise. And of course irrational fear of tacos, etc.

AuH20
05-02-2018, 06:48 PM
Third world immigrants have been led to believe that they can't compete with the indigenous Americans because of institutional racism, when it's far more complex than that.

AuH20
05-02-2018, 06:55 PM
The chief reason why immigrants are a liability in American Society. Many have no skin in the game. They can simply leave their temporary abode if conditions deteriorate.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ONuzEeczXHc/Uw93Suv0GeI/AAAAAAAAB8k/Ryv8SSZkHjI/s1600/Skin-in-the-Game.png

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 06:57 PM
Third world immigrants have been led to believe that they can't compete with the indigenous Americans because of institutional racism, when it's far more complex than that.

Indigenous Americans?

dude I have not been able to get hired,, in several attempts..

I am considered too dangerous to push shopping carts,or mow lawns in a cemetery.


That's Not immigrants. It's Government.

and ya all want more of it because of "those people".
It's disgusting.

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2018, 07:02 PM
So it's the northern Europeans that's to blame?

Plenty of blame to go around, and yes, I'll go ahead and place a good amount of blame on naive bleeding heart liberals, and there is that tendency in Northern Europe.

It's no coincidence that Bernie Sanders keeps referring to Sweden. Feel free to place some blame directly on ignorant, naive, bleeding heart Swedes that have failed to learn real world lessons on socialism and communism.

AuH20
05-02-2018, 07:13 PM
Attacking immigrants is Divide and Conquer Politics. Blame somebody else to distract from what the politicians are doing.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/01/news/la-pn-ron-paul-nevada-latino-forum-20120201



Ron Paul- February, 2012

Lethal symptoms can still kill you.

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2018, 07:16 PM
I would say it came by trans-Atlantic post, from various European universities to various East Coast universities.

The semi-literate cabbage and potato farmers on the boats who went to work in the steel mills had precious little to do with it.


The immigrants who went to the Universities led the "semi-literate" farmers on the protest marches and to the voting booths. Just like is happening today.


The immigrant wants welfare benefits he doesn't presently have.

That is certainly high on the list if applied to most immigrants from poor backgrounds. But immigrants from wealthy backgrounds have no aversion to free stuff either. Free stuff is popular.

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2018, 07:17 PM
Third world immigrants have been led to believe that they can't compete with the indigenous Americans because of institutional racism, when it's far more complex than that.

Kanye is disputing that brainwashing. Heard he was getting death threats for his ungood thought. The tolerant and peaceful left have been triggered.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 07:17 PM
Plenty of blame to go around, and yes, I'll go ahead and place a good amount of blame on naive bleeding heart liberals, and there is that tendency in Northern Europe.

It's no coincidence that Bernie Sanders keeps referring to Sweden. Feel free to place some blame directly on ignorant, naive, bleeding heart Swedes that have failed to learn real world lessons on socialism and communism.

Sweden is not a socialist/communist country; it is a fairly typical democratic socialist state, like the US.

Overall, Sweden is probably a bit more economically liberal (in the classical sense) than the US.

Economic Freedom Index:
--Sweden 15th
--US 18th

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Property Rights Index
--Sweden 3rd
--US 14th

https://www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/countries

Ease of Doing Business Index:
--US 6th
--Sweden 10th

http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings

phill4paul
05-02-2018, 07:26 PM
Indigenous Americans?

dude I have not been able to get hired,, in several attempts..

I am considered too dangerous to push shopping carts,or mow lawns in a cemetery.


That's Not immigrants. It's Government.

and ya all want more of it because of "those people".
It's disgusting.

Fucking shadow citizen is what you are. No benefits, but all the liabilities. Either ya is or ya ain't. Ex-Cons are aint's. Do the crime, serve the time. It should be like communion. Sins wiped, go forth and be Christ-like.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 07:28 PM
The immigrants who went to the Universities led the "semi-literate" farmers on the protest marches and to the voting booths. Just like is happening today.

Grouping the politically connected PhDs from Heidelberg with the potato farmers is extremely unfair. Not to make it personal (I loathe human interest stories), but my own ancestors (most of them) arrived here during the wave of migration we're discussing. Do you know what they did? They worked in the steel mills, bought modest houses, and - yes - kept growing potatoes in the backyard garden (this would be the Germans and Swedes). That certain elites from their home countries corresponded with already like-minded elites in the Ivies, with whom they could have just as easily corresponded by mail, from outside the country, says less than nothing about their preferences, or about the effect of these migrations on US politics.


That is certainly high on the list if applied to most immigrants from poor backgrounds. But immigrants from wealthy backgrounds have no aversion to free stuff either. Free stuff is popular.

Free potatoes, free Guinness, free pasta, free tacos, free rice noodles; yes, freeshit is universally popular.

At least we can agree on that.

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2018, 07:30 PM
Sweden is not a socialist/communist country; it is a fairly typical democratic socialist state, like the US.

Overall, Sweden is probably a bit more economically liberal (in the classical sense) than the US.

Economic Freedom Index:
--Sweden 15th
--US 18th

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Property Rights Index
--Sweden 3rd
--US 14th

https://www.internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/countries

Ease of Doing Business Index:
--US 6th
--Sweden 10th

http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings

Obviously it is Socialist and not full blown communist. "Democratic socialism"? Is that what you are selling?

Regardless, Bernie Sanders does use it as an example.


Sanders, who calls himself a democratic socialist, said, “I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden, and Norway and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people.”

Origanalist
05-02-2018, 07:35 PM
Plenty of blame to go around, and yes, I'll go ahead and place a good amount of blame on naive bleeding heart liberals, and there is that tendency in Northern Europe.

It's no coincidence that Bernie Sanders keeps referring to Sweden. Feel free to place some blame directly on ignorant, naive, bleeding heart Swedes that have failed to learn real world lessons on socialism and communism.

Why would I limit it to Sweden?

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 07:37 PM
Obviously it is Socialist and not full blown communist.

Can you define the word socialism?

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2018, 08:12 PM
Why would I limit it to Sweden?

Kind of makes sense when the topic turns to Sweden. Bernie cites it, and there is a similar debate revolving around it, socialism and the topic of immigration.

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2018, 08:13 PM
Can you define the word socialism?

An invention of the crony plutocracy to pacify the masses, increase their own power and hold off a full blown communist revolution. Redistribute the wealth from the mundanes to the peons, and take a big cut for themselves.

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 08:29 PM
Can you define the word socialism?

So, I ask because we seem to have different definitions. I'll go ahead and explain mine.

"Socialism," in the economic literature (e.g. Mises) means state ownership of the means of production (in effect, everything). On this definition, neither the US nor Sweden is a socialist state; the only socialist state on the planet is North Korea. The adjective "socialistic," on the hand, refers to a state which, while not actually owning the means of production (or everything), seriously interferes in the functioning of the market economy. In Misesian language, this would be called an "interventionist" state, but this is problematic, because people confuse it with foreign policy. And then we have the term "democratic socialism," which is a bit of a misnomer, since it almost always refers to states which are not socialist states (don't own the means of production, everything). In most of the world outside the United States, democratic socialism (or "social democracy," same thing) refers to a a highly socialistic and also democratic state. Virtually all states are democratic socialist states: the US, Sweden, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, India, Japan, South Korea, etc.

If that caused more confusion than it cured, my apologies, but the point is that Sweden and the US are very much the same sort of state.

In both cases, government massively interferes in the market economy (but short of actual socialism), and is democratically elected.


"Democratic socialism"? Is that what you are selling?

I am obviously selling laissez faire: liberalism in the original sense of the term.

I am equally disgusted by the socialistic (and democratic) tendencies of Sweden and the United States.

My point is that the US is not in any way special; it is just another bastard of 1789, slowly progressing to its predictable doom.

The color, language, etc of the rabble in the end won't warrant a footnote.

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2018, 09:02 PM
So, I ask because we seem to have different definitions. I'll go ahead and explain mine.

"Socialism," in the economic literature (e.g. Mises) means state ownership of the means of production (in effect, everything). On this definition, neither the US nor Sweden is a socialist state; the only socialist state on the planet is North Korea. The adjective "socialistic," on the hand, refers to a state which, while not actually owning the means of production (or everything), seriously interferes in the functioning of the market economy. In Misesian language, this would be called an "interventionist" state, but this is problematic, because people confuse it with foreign policy. And then we have the term "democratic socialism," which is a bit of a misnomer, since it almost always refers to states which are not socialist states (don't own the means of production, everything). In most of the world outside the United States, democratic socialism (or "social democracy," same thing) refers to a a highly socialistic and also democratic state. Virtually all states are democratic socialist states: the US, Sweden, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, India, Japan, South Korea, etc.

If that caused more confusion than it cured, my apologies, but the point is that Sweden and the US are very much the same sort of state.

In both cases, government massively interferes in the market economy (but short of actual socialism), and is democratically elected.



I am obviously selling laissez faire: liberalism in the original sense of the term.

I am equally disgusted by the socialistic (and democratic) tendencies of Sweden and the United States.

My point is that the US is not in any way special; it is just another bastard of 1789, slowly progressing to its predictable doom.

The color, language, etc of the rabble in the end won't warrant a footnote.

My definition of socialism is perhaps old school, stemming from the original definitions, and the rift between communism and socialism (per The Communist Manifesto). I am aware of the melding of the terms into almost synonyms, but it seems redundant to have two words for the same thing, especially when they were originally different (right around the time of Lincoln, coincidentally).

My definition takes the original definition and adjusts it to today's reality of socialism as implemented in Europe, Canada and to a certain extent, the US. I am more concerned about what it really is, not the sales pitch.

Yes, Sweden is similar, but it is worth pointing out a difference in that "democratic socialists" in the US want to move closer to the European model by instituting free healthcare and higher education. They also want housing and a living wage to be human rights, per the people manning the "Democratic Socialists of America" table I saw a couple of weeks ago. I didn't get into how much of the means of production that their Democratic Socialism would confiscate for the people.


Socialism can refer to a vast swath of the political spectrum, in theory and in practice. Its intellectual history is more varied than that of communism: the Communist Manifesto devotes a chapter to criticizing the half-dozen forms of socialism already in existence at the time, and proponents have taken just about every left-of-center stance on the ideal (or best achievable) structure of economic and political systems.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100214/what-difference-between-communism-and-socialism.asp

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 09:18 PM
Sins wiped, go forth and be Christ-like.

Not sure I'm like Him,, but I do try to follow.

Take after my namesake some.

When the world pushes me into shadow,,, God gives night vision. ;)

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 09:21 PM
Can you define the word socialism?

Functional Communism.

True communism cannot exist due to human nature.

phill4paul
05-02-2018, 09:28 PM
Not sure I'm like Him,, but I do try to follow.

Take after my namesake some.

When the world pushes me into shadow,,, God gives night vision. ;)

I'm just saying that if you've served your time then you should get full rights. Hell, even those of us that haven't done the time still don't get them. So your bitch ain't nothing special.

pcosmar
05-02-2018, 09:33 PM
I'm just saying that if you've served your time then you should get full rights. Hell, even those of us that haven't done the time still don't get them. So your bitch ain't nothing special.

and I'm getting too damn old to fight too,, and that makes me grumpy.

If I didn't have a bowl to chill with ,, I might actually become dangerous.

phill4paul
05-02-2018, 09:45 PM
and I'm getting too damn old to fight too,, and that makes me grumpy.

If I didn't have a bowl to chill with ,, I might actually become dangerous.

Then, please, have another bowl. If the revolution passes me by then it is what it is. My folks are in the end stage and diminishing. 5-10 years and it's a done deal. I really don't give a fuck about the government right now. But, in 5-10 years, who knows?

r3volution 3.0
05-02-2018, 09:49 PM
My definition of socialism is perhaps old school, stemming from the original definitions, and the rift between communism and socialism (per The Communist Manifesto). I am aware of the melding of the terms into almost synonyms, but it seems redundant to have two words for the same thing, especially when they were originally different (right around the time of Lincoln, coincidentally).

My definition takes the original definition and adjusts it to today's reality of socialism as implemented in Europe, Canada and to a certain extent, the US. I am more concerned about what it really is, not the sales pitch.

Yes, Sweden is similar, but it is worth pointing out a difference in that "democratic socialists" in the US want to move closer to the European model by instituting free healthcare and higher education. They also want housing and a living wage to be human rights, per the people manning the "Democratic Socialists of America" table I saw a couple of weeks ago. I didn't get into how much of the means of production that their Democratic Socialism would confiscate for the people.

Between Medicare and Medicaid, most healthcare in this country is already "free." There is no market in medicine. It is already centrally planned. Those welfare programs cost well over $1 trillion per year. This is not even considering the "Affordable Care Act" horseshit, the costs of which nobody seems able (or willing, now that a GOPer lives in the President's house) to estimate. As for housing and a "living wage," we have HUD and minimum wage both federally and in every state. And then education, lol; "loaning" students trillions of dollars with no intention of requiring repayment = taxpayer financed education.

Anti Federalist
05-02-2018, 10:01 PM
Attacking immigrants is Divide and Conquer Politics. Blame somebody else to distract from what the politicians are doing.

Oh what utter horseshit.

First generation immigrants vote/support in vast majorities, larger and more intrusive government.

Period.

You want smaller, less intrusive government?

Well you had better stop importing millions of people that are in favor of it.

Anti Federalist
05-02-2018, 10:05 PM
Plenty of blame to go around, and yes, I'll go ahead and place a good amount of blame on naive bleeding heart liberals, and there is that tendency in Northern Europe.

It's no coincidence that Bernie Sanders keeps referring to Sweden. Feel free to place some blame directly on ignorant, naive, bleeding heart Swedes that have failed to learn real world lessons on socialism and communism.

Bingo.

Who do you think supported and instituted the policies of the "Progressive Era"?

Brian4Liberty
05-02-2018, 10:23 PM
Bingo.

Who do you think supported and instituted the policies of the "Progressive Era"?

They were sold rainbows and unicorns. But that was before the experiments in socialism and communism were tried and failed in England and the Soviet Union.

There is no excuse to still fall for that con-job. Might be an indicator of a fatal flaw.

Madison320
05-03-2018, 08:05 AM
I think those costs are over ten years.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/12/news/economy/sanders-medicare-for-all/index.html




http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04/17/heres-how-much-bernie-sanders-free-college-for-all-plan-would-cost/



That would make them 10% of US GDP.

5.5 billion over 10 years for the free jobs program? That's .5 billion a year.

Here's some quick math:

There's 330,000,000 US citizens. Anyone making less than $20-$25 an hour is most likely going to want the guaranteed, easy job for $15 an hour. Remember if it's guaranteed, you can't get fired. So that's got to be at least 50,000,000 jobs at 30,000 a year.

50,000,000*30,000=1.5 trillion a year. Not .5 billion. Missed it by that much.

Madison320
05-03-2018, 08:22 AM
P.S. And, for the benefit of Brian-with-an-i, let me repeat; the point isn't that native, European descended Americans are worse than mestizos or blacks or whatever. The point is that there's no meaningless difference at all, at least in the long run. The only reason that Mexicans didn't vote for social security is that they weren't here at the time. People are selfish, and will vote themselves their nauehgbor's wealth, everywhere, at all times and places regardless of muh race or muh kultur.

I have mixed feelings about this comment. On the one hand I seriously doubt the political difference between certain groups is meaningless. Just look at the voting rates by political party. On the other hand trying to build a libertarian country based on ethnicity is immoral, impractical, and at best is only going to slow the rate of government growth.

As you know I think the best starting point is to return to a republic form of government where only those pulling the wagon get to vote.

Madison320
05-03-2018, 08:30 AM
https://transcendentalpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/medicare-keep-your-hands-off-my-medicare2.jpg


That's a good one!

AuH20
05-03-2018, 08:40 AM
Bingo.

Who do you think supported and instituted the policies of the "Progressive Era"?

Wisconsin, Minnesota...............I wonder who immigrated there?

H_H
05-03-2018, 09:17 AM
However, since we are not blind, stupid ideologues (we aren't, are we? Of course not!), we can state the obvious that one party, the Outer Party (shown in blue) advocates for a lower level of socialism than the other


In response, I declare my blindness to any meaningful difference between the modern US Republican and Democrat Parties.


Oh! :( And I had such high hopes.

2+2=3, as sure as water is wet.

Because there's really no difference between 3 and 4, you know. I reject everything, equally, because I'm so awesome and perfect and everyone else is garbage. I cannot discern any meaning nor difference between any non-me opinions nor non-me groups. They're all just garbage. You're all just garbage.

Thanks, Three-P-Oh, for the revelations. You're so high above us.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ElORM9O-0U

H_H
05-03-2018, 09:22 AM
On the other hand trying to build a libertarian country based on ethnicity is immoral.

Why?

I'm not saying it is or isn't. Just wondering. What is your thought process?

Madison320
05-03-2018, 09:34 AM
Why?

I'm not saying it is or isn't. Just wondering. What is your thought process?

My thought process is minimal, dammit!

But now that I think about it I guess it depends on "how" you build your libertarian country based on ethnicity. Only allow whites to vote? That doesn't seem to moral to me although I'm not sure there's an actual rights violation. On the other hand ethic cleansing might violate a few libertarian concepts.

Madison320
05-03-2018, 09:41 AM
One problem I have with the anti-immigration camp is they also are against H1Bs. H1Bs don't have any of the problems normally associated with most forms of immigration. They can't vote, they're smart and they're not on welfare and they're saving many companies that are already on life support thanks to socialism.

AuH20
05-03-2018, 09:44 AM
One problem I have with the anti-immigration camp is they also are against H1Bs. H1Bs don't have any of the problems normally associated with most forms of immigration. They can't vote, they're smart and they're not on welfare and they're saving many companies that are already on life support thanks to socialism.

But what if employers are intentionally undercutting domestic applicants with equal or superior credentials? That's the real fly in the ointment with H1Bs. Sometimes it's not even about securing the best applicant, but the cheapest one.

pcosmar
05-03-2018, 09:55 AM
Sometimes it's not even about securing the best applicant, but the cheapest one.

Ya get what you pay for.

Cheap help is always available.

Madison320
05-03-2018, 09:57 AM
But what if employers are intentionally undercutting domestic applicants with equal or superior credentials? That's the real fly in the ointment with H1Bs. Sometimes it's not even about securing the best applicant, but the cheapest one.

Of course it's about cost. That's the whole point. What's wrong with that?

pcosmar
05-03-2018, 10:16 AM
Of course it's about cost. That's the whole point. What's wrong with that?

There are people that think Maaco is a good paint job.. It's cheap. And they are still in business..

So are Johnny and Mack by the railroad track..
drinking their wine and smoking their crack.

AuH20
05-03-2018, 10:19 AM
Of course it's about cost. That's the whole point. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, but they need to stop lying that Indian IT engineers are better than their American counterparts. This is about cost displacement. Multinational corporations that want to partake in this scheme need to be completely cut off from the public dole. Private companies should be able to do whatever they please, but many of these corps are not private in the truest sense of the word.

Brian4Liberty
05-03-2018, 10:40 AM
One problem I have with the anti-immigration camp is they also are against H1Bs. H1Bs don't have any of the problems normally associated with most forms of immigration. They can't vote, they're smart and they're not on welfare and they're saving many companies that are already on life support thanks to socialism.

H1-B is a pathway to a green card to eventual citizenship. The west coast is filled with former H1-Bs that are now voting citizens. And it is fair to say that the majority of them are left-wing Democrats. Zuckerberg himself admits that Silicon Valley is predominantly leftist, as is the Seattle area. The socialist/communist city council member in the video I posted earlier is of Indian heritage.

If future voting direction of the citizenry is an issue, then immigration certainly does shift it leftward.

There are other issues with H1-B that have been beat to death in other threads, so no need to go there. This thread is about Bernie Sanders politics and ideas, and who supports them.

Madison320
05-03-2018, 11:10 AM
Nothing, but they need to stop lying that Indian IT engineers are better than their American counterparts. This is about cost displacement. Multinational corporations that want to partake in this scheme need to be completely cut off from the public dole. Private companies should be able to do whatever they please, but many of these corps are not private in the truest sense of the word.

I mostly agree with you although I'm opposed to the idea that being on the public dole is an excuse to regulate. You can make the case that everyone is on the "public dole" therefore you can make the case that everyone should be regulated.

H_H
05-03-2018, 11:46 AM
My thought process is minimal, dammit!

But now that I think about it I guess it depends on "how" you build your libertarian country based on ethnicity. Only allow whites to vote? That doesn't seem to moral to me although I'm not sure there's an actual rights violation.
If a group of people go to the moon, and they happen to all be Bavarians, and they build themselves a country and say, "This, what we built, is for us and our descendants. Not for anyone else," and they don't let anyone else come:

Whose rights are they violating?


On the other hand ethic cleansing might violate a few libertarian concepts. What if you just paid 1 mil a head to leave and never come back? Bargain. And all voluntary.

Swordsmyth
05-03-2018, 12:29 PM
I have mixed feelings about this comment. On the one hand I seriously doubt the political difference between certain groups is meaningless. Just look at the voting rates by political party. On the other hand trying to build a libertarian country based on ethnicity is immoral, impractical, and at best is only going to slow the rate of government growth.

As you know I think the best starting point is to return to a republic form of government where only those pulling the wagon get to vote.

You don't "try to build a libertarian country based on ethnicity", you limit immigration from anywhere so that cultural assimilation can minimize the problem.

Madison320
05-03-2018, 01:03 PM
If a group of people go to the moon, and they happen to all be Bavarians, and they build themselves a country and say, "This, what we built, is for us and our descendants. Not for anyone else," and they don't let anyone else come:

Whose rights are they violating?

What if you just paid 1 mil a head to leave and never come back? Bargain. And all voluntary.

That's true but in 99.99% of the cases you don't have one group forming a country in an uninhabited area.



What if you just paid 1 mil a head to leave and never come back? Bargain. And all voluntary.

Too expensive and some would still refuse.

I'd rather form a country with a system that is resilient enough to handle all groups.

H_H
05-04-2018, 08:09 AM
You don't "try to build a libertarian country based on ethnicity"

Why not?

I'd try to build a libertarian country based on ice cream if I thought it would work. Whatever works, man. Whatever works. Lack of really serious deep-in-our-hearts caring is a (the?) big problem we have. Sometimes it seems some of us don't really care about results, we'd be perfectly happy whining on the side lines indefinitely, our whole lives, as the Cassandra peanut gallery.

Results matter. If something offends my sensibilities, but yet works, or even seems to stand a good chance of working, I will take the working offensive over the hapless acceptable. Every time.

H_H
05-04-2018, 08:10 AM
Too expensive

Bargain basement, man. Don't be penny wise.


and some would still refuse. Perfection is not an option.

H_H
05-04-2018, 08:18 AM
Bargain basement, man. Don't be penny wise.

Anyway, we could do a progressive payment scheme. First year just offer $10,000. The next year $50,000. Maybe that gets rid of enough people.

The goal would be to get the pop down to 200 million. 30 million+ can just be deported without any pay, to Antarctica. They came here illegally. Bye bye. Oh, and counting the illegal criminals' kids might bring that up to 40 mil or even 50 mil. Halfway there already!

Many rabbits will self-deport, being rabbits.

This whole thing is going to be a lot easier than most people think.

H_H
05-04-2018, 08:26 AM
This whole thing is going to be a lot easier than most people think.

The real challenge is (just as 3PO said): changing the opinions of the people that matter: White, multigenerationally-American men. They (we) are the ones that allowed this degenerate insane falling-apart socialist mess to happen; they (we) are the ones who can reverse it all.

Once we decide to do it, reversing the immigration policy of the past 50 years will be a piece of cake. Trivial logistical problem. About 100 times simpler and easier than, say, WWII. Shrinking down the federal government will be easy, too. Burning huge swaths of the Federal Code in bonfires: also easy. Look, all of this stuff is easy. Ain't nothing to it but to do it.

The real work is to finally come to the decision.

Swordsmyth
05-04-2018, 12:14 PM
Why not?

I'd try to build a libertarian country based on ice cream if I thought it would work. Whatever works, man. Whatever works. Lack of really serious deep-in-our-hearts caring is a (the?) big problem we have. Sometimes it seems some of us don't really care about results, we'd be perfectly happy whining on the side lines indefinitely, our whole lives, as the Cassandra peanut gallery.

Results matter. If something offends my sensibilities, but yet works, or even seems to stand a good chance of working, I will take the working offensive over the hapless acceptable. Every time.

Because it doesn't work, if you use ethnicity as your criteria you will find yourself letting in too many foreigners of whatever ethnicity you choose, culture is what matters and culture dictates that you let in very few foreigners of any kind.

H_H
05-04-2018, 01:32 PM
Because it doesn't work

Well that's a good reason!

It is, by my criteria, the only good reason possible. Right?


if you use ethnicity as your criteria you will find yourself letting in too many foreigners of whatever ethnicity you choose, culture is what matters and culture dictates that you let in very few foreigners of any kind. But wait, this does not follow. Not logically, not historically, not any way.

Logically: We found New Awesomeland as a homeland for libertarians. It is also an ethnically homogenous country. There's the premises. How do you get from there to: this will be the immigration policy we'll need to have? Why would New Awesomeland need to have open borders? It totally wouldn't! We'd have learned some lessons from the experience of the USA. Shut 'er down! Why let any new interlopers in?

Historically: The colonies and then states of America were formed as white ethnostates, both in practical reality and by intention (with the exception of some slavery stupidity). These became, most would probably argue, the most successful libertarian experiment ever conducted, and indeed perhaps the most successful society of all time. They did nothave open immigration. It was extremely difficult to immigrate here for about the first two hundred years -- more difficult than anywhere on Earth, except Australia and such. Mother Geography made us a very, very closed-to-immigration country (despite the extreme geographical red tape, some hundreds of thousands did come -- the extremely motivated). Then a few decades after transportation advances made it too relatively easy to get here, America shut the doors legally. From 1920 to 1965 it was, broadly speaking, a closed door. Zero immigration. With one big exception: during and after WWII, there was one persecuted racial-religious group the politicians decided to let in. So, with the exception of a few decades and a very Special People, up until 1965 America was one of the hardest countries on Earth to which to immigrate. And that seemed to work out OK for us, by and large. Yes?

Swordsmyth
05-04-2018, 01:39 PM
Well that's a good reason!

It is, by my criteria, the only good reason possible. Right?

But wait, this does not follow. Not logically, not historically, not any way.

Logically: We found New Awesomeland as a homeland for libertarians. It is also an ethnically homogenous country. There's the premises. How do you get from there to: this will be the immigration policy we'll need to have? Why would New Awesomeland need to have open borders? It totally wouldn't! We'd have learned some lessons from the experience of the USA. Shut 'er down! Why let any new interlopers in?

Historically: The colonies and then states of America were formed as white ethnostates, both in practical reality and by intention (with the exception of some slavery stupidity). These became, most would probably argue, the most successful libertarian experiment ever conducted, and indeed perhaps the most successful society of all time. They did nothave open immigration. It was extremely difficult to immigrate here for about the first two hundred years -- more difficult than anywhere on Earth, except Australia and such. Mother Geography made us a very, very closed-to-immigration country (despite the extreme geographical red tape, some hundreds of thousands did come -- the extremely motivated). Then a few decades after transportation advances made it too relatively easy to get here, America shut the doors legally. From 1920 to 1965 it was, broadly speaking, a closed door. Zero immigration. With one big exception: during and after WWII, there was one persecuted racial-religious group the politicians decided to let in. So, with the exception of a few decades and a very Special People, up until 1965 America was one of the hardest countries on Earth to which to immigrate. And that seemed to work out OK for us, by and large. Yes?

If you intend to have very little immigration then you don't need an ethnic factor in your decision making, just start your country with the most liberty oriented people you can find of whatever genetic background they happen to have and then limit immigration, adding the ethnic element only gives your enemies a weakness to attack and misrepresent while possibly undermining your immigration policy by making future generations think that X ethnicity is "safe".

H_H
05-04-2018, 01:48 PM
If you intend to have very little immigration then you don't need an ethnic factor in your decision making Indeed the two are logically unrelated.


adding the ethnic element only gives your enemies a weakness Homogeneity is no weakness; it is a strength. It is diversity that is a weakness. People like people that are like them. Of course. "Like" and "like" in this case are not just coincidental homonyms. You want to build an organic, cohesive, successful community? Be homogeneous.


gives your enemies a weakness to attack and misrepresent Oh please. Attack how? Denmark issues statement: "America is being really super racist." Who would care about this? Answer: no one. This anti-racism thing we have right now is a temporary insanity and will not last much longer.

But I do get that you're trying to stay within the PC lines. Can't fault you for that. Much.

Swordsmyth
05-04-2018, 01:59 PM
Indeed the two are logically unrelated.

Homogeneity is no weakness; it is a strength. It is diversity that is a weakness. People like people that are like them. Of course. "Like" and "like" in this case are not just coincidental homonyms. You want to build an organic, cohesive, successful community? Be homogeneous.

Oh please. Attack how? Denmark issues statement: "America is being really super racist." Who would care about this? Answer: no one. This anti-racism thing we have right now is a temporary insanity and will not last much longer.

But I do get that you're trying to stay within the PC lines. Can't fault you for that. Much.

I am trying to make the movement grow in the current environment, if we don't grow we will lose.
Also I have much more in common with liberty lovers of any other race than I do with leftist maniacs who happen to share a significant portion of my distant ancestors, philosophy is what is important, nearly all current ethnicities are the result of different peoples who mixed and merged in the past, homogeneity will be achieved by starting with compatible liberty lovers and limiting immigration.
Creating the idea that a certain ethnicity is "safe" other than the ethnicity that results from your own liberty nation is dangerous because it will be misinterpreted in the future to allow in too many people of that ethnicity.

H_H
05-04-2018, 02:52 PM
I am trying to make the movement grow in the current environment, if we don't grow we will lose. Right on, but what are people actually interested in?

A) Reading The Counter-Keynesian Case for Chemical Privatization In Terms of Economic Analysis
B) Having their kids not going to school with gang-bangers and whores

You have thirty seconds to write down your answer. Remember to phrase it in the form of a question.



philosophy is what is importantIt's important, no doubt. We are philosophical creatures. But we are also biological creatures. To even understand philosophy requires certain biological factors. So which is really more important and fundamental? Most of us will never understand Wittgenstein. We simply biologically do not have the equipment. There exist other groups among whom most will never understand Dave Barry.


nearly all current ethnicities are the result of different peoples who mixed and merged in the past Backwards. Races and ethnicities have been separating and diverging for the past, well, long time. Look at India and you see thousands of micro-races, with virtually no intermixing, each of them genetically very, very different and only becoming more-so. Compare the appearance of an Australian aboriginal and a German Bavarian and a Papua New Guinea pygmy and, if you were just an impartial, uninvested, alien biologist encountering these specimens, you'd probably classify them as different species until you discovered they could successfully reproduce. I mean, a grizzly bear and a polar bear are more similar.

Swordsmyth
05-04-2018, 03:10 PM
Right on, but what are people actually interested in?

A) Reading The Counter-Keynesian Case for Chemical Privatization In Terms of Economic Analysis
B) Having their kids not going to school with gang-bangers and whores

You have thirty seconds to write down your answer. Remember to phrase it in the form of a question.
B, but distracting them with an ethnic factor that will largely take care of itself if we concentrate on culture won't help.



It's important, no doubt. We are philosophical creatures. But we are also biological creatures. To even understand philosophy requires certain biological factors. So which is really more important and fundamental? Most of us will never understand Wittgenstein. We simply biologically do not have the equipment. There exist other groups among whom most will never understand Dave Barry.
Fortunately for us liberty is simple enough for most people to understand, those that don't are not wanted no matter what their ancestry is.


Backwards. Races and ethnicities have been separating and diverging for the past, well, long time. Look at India and you see thousands of micro-races, with virtually no intermixing, each of them genetically very, very different and only becoming more-so. Compare the appearance of an Australian aboriginal and a German Bavarian and a Papua New Guinea pygmy and, if you were just an impartial, uninvested, alien biologist encountering these specimens, you'd probably classify them as different species until you discovered they could successfully reproduce. I mean, a grizzly bear and a polar bear are more similar.
Like most things there is some of both going on, history is as full of examples of ethnicity changing as different groups mixed as it is of examples like you gave, the important thing is to separate off liberty lovers who will have more in common with eachother no matter what their background than they will with liberty haters in their own families, if there is a correlation between race and philosophy than it will take care of itself.
If you keep immigration to a minimum you will have a new breed in a few centuries.
Think about it this way: If you wanted to domesticate some kind of wild animal would you select for your breeding program based on hide color or based on attitude towards humans?

H_H
05-04-2018, 04:21 PM
Think about it this way: If you wanted to domesticate some kind of wild animal would you select for your breeding program based on hide color or based on attitude towards humans?
Depends on whatchu wanna get.

Is liberty really the ONE AND ONLY THING ANYONE SHOULD CARE ABOUT? The grand unitary equation that all human existence can, and should, be reduced to?

Raginfridus
05-04-2018, 04:25 PM
Think about it this way: If you wanted to domesticate some kind of wild animal would you select for your breeding program based on hide color or based on attitude towards humans?
https://youtu.be/0jFGNQScRNY

Danke
05-04-2018, 04:52 PM
https://youtu.be/0jFGNQScRNY


That's how you can breed more Democrat voters.

Raginfridus
05-04-2018, 05:11 PM
That's how you can breed more Democrat voters.

Woof

RJB
05-04-2018, 05:18 PM
If I were a poodle or some other little foo foo dog, I would forever hate people. Everyday I would bark bitterly, "I could have been a wolf!"




https://youtu.be/0jFGNQScRNY

Swordsmyth
05-04-2018, 07:17 PM
Depends on whatchu wanna get.

Is liberty really the ONE AND ONLY THING ANYONE SHOULD CARE ABOUT? The grand unitary equation that all human existence can, and should, be reduced to?

It is one of the most important factors and most of those with a halfway decent affinity for liberty have a halfway decent affinity for the other important things, in any case if you want to base your society on other factors like religion or intelligence or anything else you should select for those things, if there is a correlation with ethnicity it will take care of itself.

r3volution 3.0
05-04-2018, 07:56 PM
I have mixed feelings about this comment. On the one hand I seriously doubt the political difference between certain groups is meaningless. Just look at the voting rates by political party. On the other hand trying to build a libertarian country based on ethnicity is immoral, impractical, and at best is only going to slow the rate of government growth.

As you know I think the best starting point is to return to a republic form of government where only those pulling the wagon get to vote.

The best starting point would be returning to the system of enlightened absolutism which existed before 1789.

Anti Globalist
05-04-2018, 09:17 PM
Go away Bernie.

Danke
05-04-2018, 09:24 PM
Go away Bernie.


https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/uploads/2017/11/gettyimages-687339814.jpg?itok=H2x3aigv

r3volution 3.0
05-04-2018, 09:38 PM
Oh! :( And I had such high hopes.

2+2=3, as sure as water is wet.

Because there's really no difference between 3 and 4, you know. I reject everything, equally, because I'm so awesome and perfect and everyone else is garbage. I cannot discern any meaning nor difference between any non-me opinions nor non-me groups. They're all just garbage. You're all just garbage.

Thanks, Three-P-Oh, for the revelations. You're so high above us.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ElORM9O-0U

If you think you have something interesting to say NAZI, go ahead and say it.

I don't have time to dick about.

RJB
05-05-2018, 06:21 AM
Right on, but what are people actually interested in?

A) Reading The Counter-Keynesian Case for Chemical Privatization In Terms of Economic Analysis. Keynesian or counter-Keynesian? Bah! People are more interested in the theories and philosophies of Kanye theses days.

Madison320
05-05-2018, 03:16 PM
The best starting point would be returning to the system of enlightened absolutism which existed before 1789.

Yeah, but it sucks when you get an unenlightened absolutist.

RJB
05-05-2018, 03:42 PM
I don't have time to dick about.
If you are posting on this forum, you obviously do have leisure time to dick about.

eleganz
05-05-2018, 08:50 PM
Is it me or does nothing in the link provide how the question was posed? No survey details offered, how the hell is this survey result justified?

Pauls' Revere
05-05-2018, 09:04 PM
Bernie Sanders 2020: "FREE JOBS FOR ALL/UBI MONEY FOR ALL"

The GOP isnt going to beat that.

specsaregood
05-05-2018, 09:28 PM
, if you were just an impartial, uninvested, alien biologist encountering these specimens, you'd probably classify them as different species until you discovered they could successfully reproduce. I mean, a grizzly bear and a polar bear are more similar.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid

Polar bears and grizzlies can successfully reproduce and create viable nonsterile offspring. Just fyi

opal
05-06-2018, 10:21 AM
46%.. they didn't ask me...

they never ask me

Brian4Liberty
05-06-2018, 10:50 AM
46%.. they didn't ask me...

they never ask me

They try to ask me, but I refuse to participate in their polls. Perhaps the results of these polls are always skewed by the type of people who happily give out a lot of personal information to strangers (and automated systems) who call on the phone.

Suzanimal
05-06-2018, 10:53 AM
They try to ask me, but I refuse to participate in their polls. Perhaps the results of these polls are always skewed by the type of people who happily give out a lot of personal information to strangers (and automated systems) who call on the phone.

I finally got one last month and ended up hanging up because I didn't want to tell them anything. I always wanted to get polled and when it finally happened, I chickened out.

opal
05-06-2018, 11:08 AM
I got one call during the presidential cycle.. they asked if I preferred Trump or Clinton.. I said no.. they hung up

Madison320
05-07-2018, 01:18 PM
Homogeneity is no weakness; it is a strength. It is diversity that is a weakness. People like people that are like them. Of course. "Like" and "like" in this case are not just coincidental homonyms. You want to build an organic, cohesive, successful community? Be homogeneous.


No hot looking latin women? No thanks!

H_H
05-07-2018, 02:40 PM
No hot looking latin women? No thanks!

Sigh. Degeneracy.

Y U so racist? Is white skin not beautiful enough for you?

H_H
05-07-2018, 02:42 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly%E2%80%93polar_bear_hybrid

Polar bears and grizzlies can successfully reproduce and create viable nonsterile offspring. Just fyi
Indeed -- which is why they no longer are/should be considered two separate species. Technically speaking. My choice of beasts was not coincidental. :)

H_H
05-07-2018, 03:23 PM
If you think you have something interesting to say NAZI, go ahead and say it.


How 'bout this, 3PO: Hitler was an authoritarian. Hitler was a monarch. Hitler was an autocrat.

You likee?

Dem apples, dem apples,
So tasty, it's true,
You throw some at me,
I may throw some at you,
We'll have a grand time!
But Kanye see it through?

H_H
05-07-2018, 03:25 PM
. Keynesian or counter-Keynesian? Bah! People are more interested in the theories and philosophies of Kanye theses days.

Yes! I am all for Kanyesanism. I'm a big time Kanyesian. That's my boy.

r3volution 3.0
05-07-2018, 08:23 PM
How 'bout this, 3PO: Hitler was an authoritarian. Hitler was a monarch. Hitler was an autocrat.

You likee?

Dem apples, dem apples,
So tasty, it's true,
You throw some at me,
I may throw some at you,
We'll have a grand time!
But Kanye see it through?

Incorrect

Hitler was a democratically elected demagogue.

Had the House of Hohenzollern remained on the throne in Prussia-Germany, the angry little painter would have just kept unsuccessfully painting.

r3volution 3.0
05-07-2018, 08:35 PM
Yeah, but it sucks when you get an unenlightened absolutist.

Enlightened absolutism is a bit of a misnomer.

It wasn't so much that the ruler was an ideological liberal ("enlightened"). Rather, the beauty of the arrangement was that simply selfish rulers were compelled by their own self-interest to liberalize the economy, disenfranchise the nobility, free the serfs, abolish the guilds, lower taxes, eliminate protectionist tariffs (something our not so enlightened rulers still can't quite figure out...), and generally look toward the well-being of the people: because they represented the future taxable surplus of the kingdom. Of course, there were also genuinely humanitarian rulers from time to time, but they were unnecessary. That, I repeat, is the whole point. People can be relied on to be nothing but selfish. The way to a functional society is to exploit and make socially useful their greed (just as with the invisible hand of the market economy), not to fight it (with communism, or democracy, which are the same thing in effect).

Swordsmyth
05-07-2018, 08:40 PM
Enlightened absolutism is a bit of a misnomer.

It wasn't so much that the ruler was an ideological liberal ("enlightened"). Rather, the beauty of the arrangement was that simply selfish rulers were compelled by their own self-interest to liberalize the economy, disenfranchise the nobility, free the serfs, abolish the guilds, lower taxes, eliminate protectionist tariffs (something our not so enlightened rulers still can't quite figure out...), and generally look toward the well-being of the people: because they represented the future taxable surplus of the kingdom. Of course, there were also genuinely humanitarian rulers from time to time, but they were unnecessary. That, I repeat, is the whole point. People can be relied on to be nothing but selfish. The way to a functional society is to exploit and make socially useful their greed (just as with the invisible hand of the market economy), not to fight it (with communism, or democracy, which are the same thing in effect).

It's a nice theory but not all humans are rational.

r3volution 3.0
05-07-2018, 08:47 PM
It's a nice theory but not all humans are rational.

The vast majority are rational in the sense that they value material wealth, for themselves and their family or friends, well above ideology.

(Socrates was wrong)

Most people truly have no ideology, not beyond pretending to at the water cooler.

The characters who blows themselves up over people eating pork, or whatever it is they're on about, are quite rare.

Swordsmyth
05-07-2018, 08:54 PM
The vast majority are rational in the sense that they value material wealth, for themselves and their family or friends, well above ideology.

(Socrates was wrong)

Most people truly have no ideology, not beyond pretending to at the water cooler.

The characters who blows themselves up over people eating pork, or whatever it is they're on about, are quite rare.

Not all people are rational enough to properly judge what is in their best interests. (financial or otherwise)

r3volution 3.0
05-07-2018, 09:03 PM
Not all people are rational enough to properly judge what is in their best interests. (financial or otherwise)

Errors will be made, of course, but the same is true of the market economy.

The private property owner, with a profit motive, will make fewer errors than the state (without one).

The king, with a profit motive, will make fewer errors than the parliament (without one).

Swordsmyth
05-07-2018, 09:09 PM
Errors will be made, of course, but the same is true of the market economy.

The private property owner, with a profit motive, will make fewer errors than the state (without one).

The king, with a profit motive, will make fewer errors than the parliament (without one).

Questionable, but even if it is true a Monarchy doesn't have a correction mechanism and a Republic does.

Since we've been around this track before I will now stop no matter what you respond.

r3volution 3.0
05-07-2018, 09:18 PM
Questionable, but even if it is true a Monarchy doesn't have a correction mechanism and a Republic does.

Yes, the people who voted the politicians into office specifically to get 'free' stuff could...

....suddenly change their minds and become libertarians.

Boy, we wouldn't want to foreclose on that highly realistic possibility.

H_H
05-08-2018, 07:11 AM
Hitler was a democratically elected demagogue.

There is nothing incompatible with being elected initially, and then morphing into an autocratic ruler. Indeed, this is almost certainly how it will happen in this modern era. E.g. Trump is elected, and then declares martial law and rules as God Emperor, succeeded by his descendants, for the next 100 years.

For somebody who's so psychotically hopped up about monarchy, you sure don't seem to have devoted much mental effort to thinking about how, realistically, we might get it.

But that's all cool. Blind ideologues don't need to dick around with junk like that. You've got important Big Ideas to..... to...... umm....... well.... to repeat over and over!! Yeah! Take that, world!

Madison320
05-08-2018, 07:48 AM
Yes, the people who voted the politicians into office specifically to get 'free' stuff could...

....suddenly change their minds and become libertarians.

Boy, we wouldn't want to foreclose on that highly realistic possibility.

Republic not Democracy.

I would argue that most taxpayers tend to be libertarian, or at least they'd vote for smaller government.

The Gold Standard
05-08-2018, 01:55 PM
"Us" is all the people who are already here who will be subject to the communism the immigrants will promote in our country.

You're about a century too late to be worrying about this. You can't recognize that though, because 100 years ago, you couldn't blame the dark people.

The Gold Standard
05-08-2018, 01:57 PM
The only advantage of a monarchy is that you can kill the king to hold him accountable. Which would be an improvement over today.

Swordsmyth
05-08-2018, 01:58 PM
You're about a century too late to be worrying about this. You can't recognize that though, because 100 years ago, you couldn't blame the dark people.

I oppose excessive immigration no matter what color they are.

The Gold Standard
05-08-2018, 02:00 PM
I oppose excessive immigration no matter what color they are.

I'm sure.

Swordsmyth
05-08-2018, 02:02 PM
I'm sure.

I have been quite clear about it in many posts.
You just like to play the race card. (Hint: that indicates a weakness in your argument)

r3volution 3.0
05-09-2018, 08:41 PM
Republic not Democracy.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people in the liberty movement trot out that distinction over the years. And, trust me, I understand what they're trying to propose: i.e. that the powers of the popularly elected state be limited (by a written constitution, natural law, the rights of Englishmen, whatever), and this is fine as a proposal (in the same way that the proposal "people should be moral" is a fine one), but it is not a recipe for actually bringing about an acceptably good form of social organization. It misses the whole point (people aren't good). If stating "be good" were sufficient, we could have dispensed with this whole political philosophy business a couple millennia ago.


would argue that most taxpayers tend to be libertarian, or at least they'd vote for smaller government.

Everyone who buys things (so everyone but the totally self-sufficient mountain man) is a taxpayer.

r3volution 3.0
05-09-2018, 09:07 PM
There is nothing incompatible with being elected initially, and then morphing into an autocratic ruler.

There is something incompatible in simultaneously being a thing and also what that thing hypothetically morphs into.

http://www.heartandsoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sprouting-seed.jpg

That is not an oak tree.

All monarchies began as military dictatorships, but that does not mean that monarchy is military dictatorship. The essential difference between Adolf the bad painter and the Frederick the King was that the latter was secure in his rule, because it had followed peacefully (more or less) from his father's rule, which had followed from his father's rule, which had followed from his father's rule, etc. It Hitler had managed to shore up his position and pass it along peacefully to his son (or daughter, or adoptive successor, whatever the succession principle), he may have eventually been recognized as the founder of a dynasty of monarchs (a degenerate, inhuman weasel of a founder, but nonetheless). But he didn't, so he won't. Instead, he will be recognized as a democratically elected demagogue.


Indeed, this is almost certainly how it will happen in this modern era. E.g. Trump is elected, and then declares martial law and rules as God Emperor, succeeded by his descendants, for the next 100 years

That will eventually happen, of course, but not with Trump. He is far too stupid to accomplish something like that.

The 10th installment of a dynasty can safely be a moron, but the first has to be especially talented.


For somebody who's so psychotically hopped up about monarchy, you sure don't seem to have devoted much mental effort to thinking about how, realistically, we might get it.

See above (in which I said nothing I haven't said dozens of times before)


But that's all cool. Blind ideologues don't need to dick around with junk like that. You've got important Big Ideas to..... to...... umm....... well.... to repeat over and over!! Yeah! Take that, world!

https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/bbd79fca74ccc42b0a899e79c7cec9de/5B3830D0/t51.2885-15/s480x480/e15/11186961_659608167501295_666728224_n.jpg?ig_cache_ key=OTY5MTUxMjEyNDkwMzMwNDQ0.2

H_H
05-10-2018, 08:33 AM
The essential difference between Frederick the Great and Adolf the Almost Great was that the latter was secure in his rule. If Hitler had managed to shore up his position and pass it along peacefully to his son (or daughter [editor's note: Yes! Gender-neutral dictatorship!], or adoptive successor, whatever the succession principle), he would have been the founder of a dynasty of monarchs.

https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/vp/bbd79fca74ccc42b0a899e79c7cec9de/5B3830D0/t51.2885-15/s480x480/e15/11186961_659608167501295_666728224_n.jpg?ig_cache_ key=OTY5MTUxMjEyNDkwMzMwNDQ0.2

Awesome, 3Poh. So I'm hearing you saying -- and correct me if I got it wrong, but you seem loud and clear! (Nailed It!) -- that the only (one and only!) hitch you've got about Good Ole Adolph -- or as we on RPF commonly refer to him: "Your Boy" -- is he wasn't secure enough in his rule. If only he hadn't been plagued by such insecurity and self-doubt. If only he would have been more decisive and authoritative. Then he would have been exactly what you've so productively and wisely spent the past 2-1/2 years on RPF trying to convince us to install: a supreme, autocratic, and yes dictatorial (his dictates are law) ruler. "And secure, HH! Don't forget secure!" Yes, secure, 3Poh. Good boy.

If only they'd called him "Your Highness" instead of "Der Fuhrer." That would have been totally different.

I wish that all your interlocutors here could have known this whole time that you've been just arguing, "If Herr Hitler (may he live forever) could have got his act together and been more secure, that would have been awesome for Germany and that's exactly what we need here in America, too!"

Ahh, well, we all pine that Hitler (God rest his soul) could have won the war and retired in security in an awesome stainless steel castle, glistening in the sun, atop a peak in the Austrian Alps, universally lauded as the hero he was.

<Sniff> Yes, things could have been different. A different world. A better world. <blows nose> A world without sin. Miranda. And 3Poh, you coulda won state. No doubt, no doubt in my mind.

But idly pining does make us Masters, now does it? No, it does not. So, keep up the good work, agitating for the dictatorship -- Open-Borders Dictatorship, of course [also Enlightened and Gender-Neutral] -- that will make all our dreams come true.



https://tribzap2it.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/take-on-me-gif-psych.gif

r3volution 3.0
05-10-2018, 09:42 PM
The essential difference between Frederick the Great and Adolf the Almost Great was that the latter was secure in his rule. If Hitler had managed to shore up his position and pass it along peacefully to his son (or daughter [editor's note: Yes! Gender-neutral dictatorship!], or adoptive successor, whatever the succession principle), he would have been the founder of a dynasty of monarchs.

It is impolite to intentionally misquote a person without using brackets et al to indicate what was done.


Awesome, 3Poh. So I'm hearing you saying -- and correct me if I got it wrong, but you seem loud and clear! (Nailed It!) -- that the only (one and only!) hitch you've got about Good Ole Adolph -- or as we on RPF commonly refer to him: "Your Boy" -- is he wasn't secure enough in his rule. If only he hadn't been plagued by such insecurity and self-doubt. If only he would have been more decisive and authoritative. Then he would have been exactly what you've so productively and wisely spent the past 2-1/2 years on RPF trying to convince us to install: a supreme, autocratic, and yes dictatorial (his dictates are law) ruler. "And secure, HH! Don't forget secure!" Yes, secure, 3Poh. Good boy.

No, that's incorrect.


If only they'd called him "Your Highness" instead of "Der Fuhrer." That would have been totally different.

You don't have a talent for sarcasm.

(I stopped reading at this point)

H_H
05-11-2018, 08:44 AM
It is impolite to intentionally misquote a person without using brackets et al to indicate what was done.


https://i.pinimg.com/736x/26/23/28/26232842cefb17f8891eaca4392aa2e2--so-funny-funny-stuff.jpg




No, that's incorrect. Well go ahead and clear it up, then! Elaborate on the subtle nuances of your feelings for Your Boy. We're all listening attentively. And respectfully. As Your Luminescence deserves, my liege.



You don't have a talent for sarcasm. I will assume you're being sarcastic.


(I stopped reading at this point) And here as well.

You have a talent for this!

Anti Globalist
05-11-2018, 04:04 PM
I wonder what percentage of Trump supporters make up that 46%.

Swordsmyth
05-11-2018, 04:14 PM
I wonder what percentage of Trump supporters make up that 46%.

Little to none.

Madison320
05-13-2018, 02:05 PM
I can't tell you how many times I've heard people in the liberty movement trot out that distinction over the years. And, trust me, I understand what they're trying to propose: i.e. that the powers of the popularly elected state be limited (by a written constitution, natural law, the rights of Englishmen, whatever), and this is fine as a proposal (in the same way that the proposal "people should be moral" is a fine one), but it is not a recipe for actually bringing about an acceptably good form of social organization. It misses the whole point (people aren't good). If stating "be good" were sufficient, we could have dispensed with this whole political philosophy business a couple millennia ago.



Everyone who buys things (so everyone but the totally self-sufficient mountain man) is a taxpayer.

I thought by now it was understood that "taxpayer" meant "net taxpayer". Meaning that they were taking more in welfare then giving in taxes.

Awhile back we were having this same argument and I asked you a question but I don't think you replied. Unless I missed it. Let me ask again.

Suppose there were 2 politicians running for office. One promises to reduce the size of government, flatten the tax rate and reduce your taxes. The other promises you welfare and no taxes. Which one would YOU vote for?

James_Madison_Lives
05-13-2018, 04:02 PM
Right now the only people guaranteed government subsidized jobs are people in the defense industry. Military socialism how do you feel about that?

r3volution 3.0
05-13-2018, 08:55 PM
I thought by now it was understood that "taxpayer" meant "net taxpayer". Meaning that they were taking more in welfare then giving in taxes.

Awhile back we were having this same argument and I asked you a question but I don't think you replied. Unless I missed it. Let me ask again.

Suppose there were 2 politicians running for office. One promises to reduce the size of government, flatten the tax rate and reduce your taxes. The other promises you welfare and no taxes. Which one would YOU vote for?

I'd vote for the former, of course, but a sizeable majority will always vote for the latter, as that's in their self-interest: hence the predicament.

Swordsmyth
05-13-2018, 08:58 PM
I'd vote for the former, of course, but a sizeable majority will always vote for the latter, as that's in their self-interest: hence the predicament.
Which is why the rule should be that if you get a single penny from the government you don't get to vote.

Krugminator2
05-13-2018, 09:02 PM
Right now the only people guaranteed government subsidized jobs are people in the defense industry. Military socialism how do you feel about that?


Good point. Teachers are super hard workers that get fired all the time for poor performance. Or there are school districts that go decades without firing a teacher. One of the two.

r3volution 3.0
05-13-2018, 09:02 PM
Which is why the rule should be that if you get a single penny from the government you don't get to vote.

...to be enforced by a Congress elected by the very people inclined to violate the rule.

What could go wrong?

Alternately titled: Didn't We Try This Already?

Danke
05-13-2018, 11:02 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=93&amp;v=-g0aWbNqPLw

H_H
05-14-2018, 08:29 AM
Suppose there were 2 politicians running for office. One promises to reduce the size of government, flatten the tax rate and reduce your taxes. The other promises you welfare and no taxes. Which one would YOU vote for?

You're ignoring the most important 3Poh consideration: which one is going to abridge, or not abridge, the fundamental right of the peasants of the world to access white people? Open border or not open border? That's the question. No Decent, Right-Thinking Droid like 3Poh can answer this question while missing such a vital criterium. Your other criteria you listed are stupid distractions. Distinctions without a difference. Don't you know: both American political parties and all American political persons are identically the same! 3Poh's told you it often enough. Sink in, already!

H_H
05-14-2018, 08:32 AM
hence the predicament.

3Poh's pretty much given up on politics. That's why nowadays he generally just writes in His Boy.

If ya can't win, at least show your undying loyalty.


https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.k_0UY9Zrf1OVcAO6cx3_KgHaKT&pid=Api

Madison320
05-14-2018, 01:39 PM
I'd vote for the former, of course, but a sizeable majority will always vote for the latter, as that's in their self-interest: hence the predicament.

I agree that some people with crappy, low paying jobs would vote for welfare but I think the majority would vote for smaller govt and lower taxes. Most people with jobs are making more than they would on welfare and most people with jobs don't want to go from independency to dependency. I can't even imagine what the platform would be for the politician that is going to promise to completely flip all taxpayers into welfare recipients and all welfare recipients into taxpayers, "Vote for me and I'll pay you to do nothing at home. And I'll magically get the money from the 50% who are currently not working." I think the overwhelming majority of taxpayers would vote to remain independent and be allowed to keep more of their earnings by flattening the tax base and shrinking the size of government. Really I don't think it would even be close.

Madison320
05-14-2018, 01:48 PM
You're ignoring the most important 3Poh consideration: which one is going to abridge, or not abridge, the fundamental right of the peasants of the world to access white people? Open border or not open border? That's the question. No Decent, Right-Thinking Droid like 3Poh can answer this question while missing such a vital criterium. Your other criteria you listed are stupid distractions. Distinctions without a difference. Don't you know: both American political parties and all American political persons are identically the same! 3Poh's told you it often enough. Sink in, already!


I'm confused about your post. Let me ask you a question. If you could choose would you rather allow only "whites to vote" or "net taxpayers of any race"?

I'd much rather allow a "non white net taxpayer" to vote than a "white welfare recipient". Green usually trumps white and black.

H_H
05-14-2018, 01:53 PM
I'm confused about your post. Let me ask you a question. If you could choose would you rather allow only "whites to vote" or "net taxpayers of any race"?

I don't know, which would be more offensive and outrageous to you? I pick that one.

r3volution 3.0
05-14-2018, 03:50 PM
I agree that some people with crappy, low paying jobs would vote for welfare but I think the majority would vote for smaller govt and lower taxes. Most people with jobs are making more than they would on welfare and most people with jobs don't want to go from independency to dependency. I can't even imagine what the platform would be for the politician that is going to promise to completely flip all taxpayers into welfare recipients and all welfare recipients into taxpayers, "Vote for me and I'll pay you to do nothing at home. And I'll magically get the money from the 50% who are currently not working." I think the overwhelming majority of taxpayers would vote to remain independent and be allowed to keep more of their earnings by flattening the tax base and shrinking the size of government. Really I don't think it would even be close.

Voters don't care how a welfare program is financed, provided it isn't financed (visibly) by them.

This is the GOP's whole shtick: free stuff and tax cuts (nevermind the debt clock/grocery bill).

Madison320
05-14-2018, 04:10 PM
Voters don't care how a welfare program is financed, provided it isn't financed (visibly) by them.


Right, that's the problem with unlimited democracy. There's a conflict of interest because the majority can vote for bigger government at the expense of the minority. The "net taxpayer" system corrects that problem because the voters have to raise taxes ON THEMSELVES if they want bigger government.

H_H
05-14-2018, 04:15 PM
The "net taxpayer" system corrects that problem

Ahh, starry-eyed youth.

Anti Globalist
05-14-2018, 04:16 PM
Remember when Bernie Sanders had no name recognition? Lets go back to that.

opal
05-14-2018, 04:29 PM
I thought by now it was understood that "taxpayer" meant "net taxpayer". Meaning that they were taking more in welfare then giving in taxes.

Awhile back we were having this same argument and I asked you a question but I don't think you replied. Unless I missed it. Let me ask again.

Suppose there were 2 politicians running for office. One promises to reduce the size of government, flatten the tax rate and reduce your taxes. The other promises you welfare and no taxes. Which one would YOU vote for?

um... I think I'd have to write in Ron Paul

r3volution 3.0
05-14-2018, 04:32 PM
Right, that's the problem with unlimited democracy. There's a conflict of interest because the majority can vote for bigger government at the expense of the minority. The "net taxpayer" system corrects that problem because the voters have to raise taxes ON THEMSELVES if they want bigger government.

Say there are 100 people. 10 of them are eligible to vote, each paying $2000 and receiving benefits worth $1000

It's election time and there are two candidates.

Smith says: "Let's keep things as they are."
Jones says: "Let's double your benefits and halve your taxes."

i.e. If they vote for Jones, they'll switch from paying $1000 net to receiving $1000 net.

Why wouldn't they vote for Jones?

If the problem is that they don't want to be disenfranchised, that's easily solved.

Jones can just say: "Let's double your benefits and halve your taxes and change the constitution to remove this net tax requirement."

Swordsmyth
05-14-2018, 04:45 PM
Say there are 100 people. 10 of them are eligible to vote, each paying $2000 and receiving benefits worth $1000

It's election time and there are two candidates.

Smith says: "Let's keep things as they are."
Jones says: "Let's double your benefits and halve your taxes."

i.e. If they vote for Jones, they'll switch from paying $1000 net to receiving $1000 net.

Why wouldn't they vote for Jones?

If the problem is that they don't want to be disenfranchised, that's easily solved.

Jones can just say: "Let's double your benefits and halve your taxes and change the constitution to remove this net tax requirement."

That's why you disqualify anyone who gets ANY money from the government.

r3volution 3.0
05-14-2018, 04:51 PM
That's why you disqualify anyone who gets ANY money from the government.

That presents the same problem as Madison's net taxpayer rule.

Politician says: "Let's lower your taxes, give you benefits for the first time, and change the constitution to remove this no-welfare requirement."

Why wouldn't they support this?

H_H
05-14-2018, 04:55 PM
Say there are 100 people.

Why wouldn't they vote for the Gibs?
And, in his own jerky, awkward, protocol-droid way, 3Poh is starry-eyed and innocent as well. He neglects entirely the importance of ideology. Also of culture. Also, in short, of anything that smacks of "being a human." It's a common prejudice. And understandable, in a galaxy where in so many places they "don't serve his kind."

"If only we stop everyone from voting, then everything will be solved!"
"If only we only stop the parasites from voting, then everything will be solved!"

Oh, to look at the world again,
with fresh, dewy eyes; all thrilled again,
Solutions around every corner and glen,
Each insight, the final. Each truth, well, The End.

Swordsmyth
05-14-2018, 04:55 PM
That presents the same problem as Madison's net taxpayer rule.

Politician says: "Let's lower your taxes, give you benefits for the first time, and change the constitution to remove this no-welfare requirement."

Why wouldn't they support this?
Because their taxes are already low, most of them are proud of standing on their own two feet and those people most likely to support the growth of government can't vote because they get a government paycheck.
We don't need perfection, we only need to tilt the scales in favor of small government.

r3volution 3.0
05-14-2018, 05:04 PM
Because their taxes are already low, most of them are proud of standing on their own two feet and those people most likely to support the growth of government can't vote because they get a government paycheck.
We don't need perfection, we only need to tilt the scales in favor of small government.

If you're expecting voters to sacrifice their material self-interest for ideology (esp. libertarian-ish ideology), you're going to be disappointed.

Swordsmyth
05-14-2018, 05:09 PM
If you're expecting voters to sacrifice their material self-interest for ideology (esp. libertarian-ish ideology), you're going to be disappointed.
I doubt that, most of the elections that have brought us the worst results have been close, if we tip the odds in our favor you will be surprised how well things might turn out.

r3volution 3.0
05-14-2018, 05:15 PM
I doubt that, most of the elections that have brought us the worst results have been close, if we tip the odds in our favor you will be surprised how well things might turn out.

You mean, like, if the GOP controlled all three branches of government?

(pause for laughter)

The elections are usually close as between the GOP and the Dems, but not at all close as between statists and libertarians.

It's almost always a massive landslide victory for the statists.

Swordsmyth
05-14-2018, 05:22 PM
You mean, like, if the GOP controlled all three branches of government?

(pause for laughter)

The elections are usually close as between the GOP and the Dems, but not at all close as between statists and libertarians.

It's almost always a massive landslide victory for the statists.

We would be better off if the Dems never won, the Swampublicans would not have an excuse to compromise with them and they wouldn't be able to con people into not voting 3rd party.

Even if we stick to the two main parties important primaries have often been close as well.

Even if we didn't have a perfect libertarian paradise we would be MUCH better off.

r3volution 3.0
05-14-2018, 05:26 PM
We would be better off if the Dems never won, the Swampublicans would not have an excuse to compromise with them and they wouldn't be able to con people into not voting 3rd party.

Even if we stick to the two main parties important primaries have often been close as well.

Even if we didn't have a perfect libertarian paradise we would be MUCH better off.

https://i.imgur.com/naNEzNm.gif

Madison320
05-15-2018, 08:43 AM
Say there are 100 people. 10 of them are eligible to vote, each paying $2000 and receiving benefits worth $1000

It's election time and there are two candidates.

Smith says: "Let's keep things as they are."
Jones says: "Let's double your benefits and halve your taxes."

i.e. If they vote for Jones, they'll switch from paying $1000 net to receiving $1000 net.

Why wouldn't they vote for Jones?

If the problem is that they don't want to be disenfranchised, that's easily solved.

Jones can just say: "Let's double your benefits and halve your taxes and change the constitution to remove this net tax requirement."

Paying $2,000 in taxes and receiving $1,000 in benefits is the logical equivalent of paying 1,000 in taxes. So basically 10 out of the 100 are paying $1,000 a year in taxes for a total of $10,000 a year to fund their little government. If I was one of those 10 I'd vote for the guy who was going to spread the tax burden around and make all 100 pay for some of that $10,000. That would be only $100 a year in taxes with the added benefit that now everyone can vote.

You could argue that some of the 10 will vote to lower their tax bill and just let the government borrow or print the rest but they would have to outnumber the ones that are smart enough to know this will never work. The same logic goes for any candidate who is promising to change the net tax requirement. They'd have to get more votes from the net taxpayers. I don't see how that's possible.

I think the theory is fundamentally sound, after all that's how it works in just about every situation BESIDES running a government. The owners of a corporation don't let non-owners vote on how to run the business. If a group of friends decide to have a keg party the ones chipping in for the keg are the ones who decide what flavor. It's only in a democracy that we allow the non contributors to decide the rules.

The real problem that I see is in the implementation. If you wanted to do the "net taxpayer" thing you'd have to know how much everyone was paying in taxes so you'd probably have to have only direct taxes like income and property. Another system would be to just focus on benefits. If you're receiving government benefits you can't vote regardless of how much you pay in taxes.

Madison320
05-15-2018, 08:47 AM
I don't know, which would be more offensive and outrageous to you? I pick that one.

"In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement."

H_H
05-15-2018, 09:16 AM
"In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement."

It's kinda like that, man, but more, like, metaphysical. And all deep and junk. See, our civilization is in collapse. Everything has failed or is failing. Thus, everything that any normie, like yourself, thinks, is completely and utterly wrong, and the more likely one's opinion is to upset such a normie, the more likely it has at least some sliver of sanity or truth to it. For nothing offends and inflames a normie like truth.

It doesn't even have to be a whole lot of truth. It can be a tiny little pea of truth, or even half-truth, and it can be buried under mountains of lie mattresses. The normie can still detect it, somehow. He can feel its threat to the Safe, Conventional World View in which he has so carefully nestled and cushioned himself. It nags at him, it grates on him, like an infected splinter in the amygdala.

But it's good for you, man. It makes you tougher. And eventually, that which you do not understand now, will be that which you embrace and fight a war for in the future.

Don't fear the truth.

Love it.

Love it with utter abandon.

Come what may.

r3volution 3.0
05-15-2018, 10:40 AM
Paying $2,000 in taxes and receiving $1,000 in benefits is the logical equivalent of paying 1,000 in taxes. So basically 10 out of the 100 are paying $1,000 a year in taxes for a total of $10,000 a year to fund their little government. If I was one of those 10 I'd vote for the guy who was going to spread the tax burden around and make all 100 pay for some of that $10,000. That would be only $100 a year in taxes

Or, they could vote for Jones, and pay negative net taxes, and still retain their right to vote.

No one (rare ideological zealots such as you and I aside) is going to choose paying low taxes over paying negative taxes.


with the added benefit that now everyone can vote.

Why wouldn't the majority of that new electorate (identical to the current electorate) just revert to wealth redistribution policies?

"They're net tax payers, so..."

Right, but they don't have to stay net tax payers. They are totally free to vote for redistributionist candidates (as they do now).


You could argue that some of the 10 will vote to lower their tax bill and just let the government borrow or print the rest but they would have to outnumber the ones that are smart enough to know this will never work.

For whom?

Welfare works fine for the recipients, at least within the time horizon they care about (otherwise they wouldn't support it).


The same logic goes for any candidate who is promising to change the net tax requirement. They'd have to get more votes from the net taxpayers. I don't see how that's possible.

I can't imagine that more than a tiny fraction of them would care (about expanding the franchise and diluting their votes).

What's more, the overwhelming majority would happily vote themselves welfare even if it meant their own disenfranchisement.

There's a reason that vote selling is illegal in every democracy (if it weren't, it'd be awfully popular).


I think the theory is fundamentally sound, after all that's how it works in just about every situation BESIDES running a government. The owners of a corporation don't let non-owners vote on how to run the business. If a group of friends decide to have a keg party the ones chipping in for the keg are the ones who decide what flavor. It's only in a democracy that we allow the non contributors to decide the rules.

What's right about the theory is that net tax payers have an incentive to keep government relatively small.

What's wrong with the theory is that it assumes that net taxpayers will choose to remain as such, given an opportunity to do otherwise.

It's sort of like saying "Hindus don't eat beef, therefore anyone who is now a Hindu will never eat beef."


the real problem that I see is in the implementation. If you wanted to do the "net taxpayer" thing you'd have to know how much everyone was paying in taxes so you'd probably have to have only direct taxes like income and property. Another system would be to just focus on benefits. If you're receiving government benefits you can't vote regardless of how much you pay in taxes.

There's also regulation, which costs about as much as welfare, and involves a redistribution of wealth (generally from hapless consumers to the business interests that lobbied for the regulation). I don't know how you'd begin to assign those ill-gotten gains on an individual basis.

As for taxes, yes you'd need to only use direct taxes, but how would you actually prevent the government/voters from implementing indirect taxes? A written constitution prohibiting it? To be enforced by whom? ...the very same people trying to violate it? As you say though, this would only be a problem for the net taxpayer model (not the welfare recipient model).