Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by brilliantidiot, Jan 4, 2019.
If you actually believe that bullshit, then you’re living in a different dimension.
I probably could have listed all of your talking points one by one... I know what you are told about 1967, I know about the "Three Noes," and so on. I'm not here to argue about your view of history, you previously said such would be in vain, and you might be right. But, that's only because you are looking through Zionist-tinted glasses. The point TODAY is that colonizing and brutalizing your territorial neighbors is wrong. Israel is doing it right now. Should I guess what excuse you'll give me for that, or would you agree colonizing and murdering children is WRONG? Or will I get more sarcasm?
Murdering children, and committing genocide against anyone, is repulsive.
I understand you are invested in Zionism. Your debate points and your dismissal of solving problems in the here and now exactly demonstrates why Zionism is toxic and malignant. Is a pursuit of a "Jewish nation" worth the lives of dead children? Starving children? Tortured children? You seem to understand Zionism perfectly well: you should know exactly what the answer is.
Not even an argument.
There’s nothing to argue about. You’re simply and hopelessly wrong. What lunatic would prefer a monopoly to a competitive market?
I'm not reconciling the two. I started off politically as a Bush supporting republican (yay foreign wars!), then got into libertarianism, and then drifted away from that because its a morally bankrupt system and cant solve conflicts with the use of individual property. The part of propertarianism that is especially attractive is its emphasis on removing parasitic behavior. That said, the more I learn about it, I'm not sure it is the answer because it seems to neglect the soul of the people. Plus, it necessitates an massive government to settle disputes. Ironic, because government is itself parasitic.
More law / government = less freedom = less progress. The key is establishing a society that essentially already agrees on the same ideals, thus removing the need for endless laws. I think of it this way: if I had a roommate from Nigeria, how many laws would the "household" need to have to ensure our peaceful cohabitation? Being culturally and racially different, our norms will also be different. What's offensive to me would not be to the Nigerian. "No killing chickens in the bathroom" would probably have to be a rule. Compare that to living with my best friend who has the same religious, ethnic, and general societal background as I do. We also have similar levels of intelligence. The number of rules necessary would probably be less than 10. As such, our efforts would be spent in productive ways vs simply trying to establish a livable household.
My ideal government would be market capitalism constrained by "socialism," in that, everything is permitted unless it undermines the nation / society. As a country founded by Europeans for Europeans, what is "good for society" is classified as what is good for that group. We used to be this way. Obscenity laws prevented pornography. Immigration laws stopped outsiders coming in and complaining about our ways (Pre 1965 ~90% White). Importing millions of idiots is bad for society -- an average IQ of about 100 is needed to maintain Western civilization.
America was built by White men who valued justice, morality, and hated freeloaders. The NSDAP seems to be the closest system that embodied those same ideas.
If we have a Keynsian economic system, and the supply curve approaches infinity (or effectively infinity) and the demand curve stays the same, would you be ok with those goods and services being given away for free or near free?
The millions of people who prefer to shop at Walmart rather than Mom and Pop shops?
I believe that the ideal system would be one where we effectively brought the supply side of economics to as close to infinity as possible, and kept level or lowered the demand, thus making an extreme abundance of items within reason for everyone.
I would then start whittling away at the total work volume required to maintain society, and slowly increase unemployment, and decrease the work week. My goal would be full automation with minimal human oversight. I realise that humans by nature want to work and be employed, so I would focus on specialisation, and education of the populous. I would make education up to the PHD level be standard, with the option to opt out.
Walmart isn’t a monopoly dude. Even though I’m sure they wish they were.
It’s comments like this that give NoFap a bad reputation.
Clears things up for me, we just have opposing views on how how people act.
You have a problem with reality? A bunch of White supremacist, misogynistic assholes got together and built the world's most successful country. I happen to agree with those assholes about most things.
Well, congratulations on being a white supremacist, misogynistic asshole. You obviously have way bigger issues than porn.
What a ridiculous statement. Someone has to work these jobs. In fact I would gladly work in the government if I could because there’s hardly any jobs where I live, unless you count fast food.
You've gotta realize that just because the founding fathers were racists doesn't mean they were wrong about everything else. Racism is awful, but a racist can still be right in another field.
I never said they couldn’t be right in other areas but the guy I’m arguing with seems to be praising white supremacy outright.
I did not claim they were a sole monopoly. I was asking if the millions of people who shop there would prefer if Walmart could sell everything that they buy in all areas. Do you think most would prefer not to buy everything from Walmart? Does that possibility exist in an alternative dimension as well?
In that cornucopia society, who is deciding which individuals and groups receive which surplus resources?
Also, you say a focus would be on specialization and education. In which fields, considering automation is also a goal? Besides manual labor, you mean? What if a majority of the population refuses to surrender fields like automation, and express a desire to regulate or ban certain automation?
Oh ok. I went back and read it again. My mistake.
As far as distribution goes it would be an at will consumption based on the desires of each individual. You want 30 apples a day for some reason, cool we have another 30 billion. There would still be certain items that would remain scarce so you couldn't say demand 30 pounds of gold boulion.
As for specialisation, I would say that medicine, STEM fields, art, music, etc. Fields to enhance society and give people something to do.
As for people refusing automation, of course they will. People are stupid scared animals, and some powerful people would stand to lose a great deal of power in this system. Certain people love the power that being in Minority Privilege confers.