46% in favor of Comrade Bernie's "Government Jobs for All" concept

[r3volution 3.0]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

I oppose excessive immigration no matter what color they are.

I'm sure.

[Swordsmyth]

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]

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]

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.



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!

[H_H]

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.

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.

Yes, things could have been different. A different world. A better world. 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.

[r3volution 3.0]

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]

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

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]

I wonder what percentage of Trump supporters make up that 46%.

[Swordsmyth]

I wonder what percentage of Trump supporters make up that 46%.

Little to none.

[Madison320]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[H_H]

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]

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.

[Madison320]

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]

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.