I think it all simmers down to the fact young millennials, around my age group (unfortunately), don't understand what freedom means. Don't get me wrong, I've seen a lot of misinformed and rather stupid old people as well, but this newer generation exceeds all expectations. And there's a good reason for this, the Marxists have taken control of the educational system. Yuri Bezmenov addressed the nation with some chilling facts way back in the 1980s after he defected from the KGB. It takes 20 years to noticeably change the direction of nation, because that's how long it takes to educate a new generation of people. Once a generation has been ideologically subverted by Marxism and the welfare state, they are lost, completely. There's no turning around that group of people either, short of sending them to a communist labor camp and forcing them to work till death there's nothing that will change their minds. So you might as well write off the millennials, they're done. They'll never make important contributions to the future of mankind. Gen Z maybe, maybe. Still too early to tell. Over half my peers back when I was in high school were leftists, and completely ignorant as well. And to be quite honest, the only thing that probably saved me was a friend to my family, they introduced me to the writings of Herbert Spencer. Which was practically a gateway drug for me into more notable people like Mises and Rothbard. The manifestation of true freedom is the ultimate form of inequality. We can be free, or we can all be equal, but the two will never coexist. @Waremu
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
New Zealand To Greatly Tighten Gun Laws After Christchurch Massacre
- Thread starter sunraiser
- Start date
QFT.
Cirion
Member
Progressive don't need to say it you see it everywhere - give more money to government (prog/liberals are ALWAYS looking to add more taxes) and they'll give you better schools, free healthcare, free college, add more laws to fix all our problems (in this example, fixing violence), add more laws to win the "war on drugs", etc etc. We are constantly being told we need yet another program to fix yet another problem.
Also republicans =/= conservatives. I actually dislike most of republicans.
This is worth re-quoting. Very good message.
No, that is what they believe. ALL of their answers come from solutions that are essentially state mandated. Every single progressive since the early 20th century has either expanded government dramatically, and their solutions were usually government sanctioned/influenced solutions in one way or another. The great society is one such example of this, or many of the things FDR proposed. Like socialists, they operate from the same moral framework and so many other solutions will be similar (government solutions). But these 'solutions' come at the cost of other peoples social and economic freedoms, usually.
There is little difference between todays conservatives and democrats, with few exceptions. But the overtone window has shifted so far to the left that todays establishment conservatives are more like social-conservative progressives and democrats are more like open socialists and communists. The true fiscal conservatives like Goldwater, Ron Paul, are mostly gone. Reagan was more fiscal conservative, but did cave in too much to the big government neo-con closet conservatives (neo-cons were often defected/ex-democrats, originally speaking). That said, it is not true that conservatives usually favor military spending than progressives/democrats. Under Obama and Clinton, some of the most unjust and brutal war-spending of occurred.
And herein lies the hypocrisy of your false morality, in your moral framework. You decry the violence of the state when they start wars, but not when they destroy the purchasing power of the currency, take private property, and take money from the productive to give to the non-productive, which is theft.
Supply Side Economics does not have the same out come in all economic systems, hence the reason for what I said. In a Keynesian-type centrally managed economy, Keynesian-type Supply Side Economics does not work as well as in a more free market system because the tax incentives/benefits go towards mainly the holders of overinflated assets, driving an artificial and not organic form of wealth gap, stifling economic mobility. Now, if such assets were not overly inflated to begin with, the economic mobility would be there for lower income brackets to take part in prosperity that is created by lower taxes, etc. But if you're creating massive inflation to prop up assets, that in of itself is like a tax to the lower income people who do not hold such assets, so they lose purchasing power, whereas the very wealthy protect their purchasing power more by holding such assets. However, while Keynesian SSE has it's flaws, the Demand Side Economics would result in more of a loss of purchasing power because increased money velocity and credit creation which would directly go into circulation rather than assets. If the bailouts in 2008 had of gone to people on the street, the inflation in assets since would have been seen more immediately with a more dramatic loss of purchasing power in a shorter period of time, as economic history and law constantly shows.
The Keynesian micro-managing of the economy during and after the 20008 crisis has many such similarities to what FDR did during the Great Depression, which ended up just prolonging it, contrary to what the echo-chamber of Keynesian academics say. So while there are some differences, like taxing the wealthy at this or that rate, both Keynesian SSE and the more demand side-economics FDR proposed were largely heavily centrally planned solutions and not free market solutions. FDR favored more of what socialists push, like keeping wages artificially high, whereas Keynesian SSE want's to keep asset prices high more so. Both solutions eventually results in less economic mobility, and loss of purchasing power. Why do you think they want wage increases today for even low wage jobs? Because the root-cause issue is that wages have not kept up with 1)Loss of purchasing power and 2) Asset prices (homes, stocks, etc.).
FDR's ideas are nothing new, and are just less radical versions of what have been tried by failed economic socialist systems, and the same applies to Keynseian style SSE, which is free money and free bailouts for those who hold such inflated assets. But the wealth holders are usually more concentrated under the FDR and socialist type systems in the end.
The idea of SSE with regards to tax benefits, is to stimulate economic growth by less taxes on the wealthy who are also the job creators. FDR's system was to just give more money to the unproductive did not really create much value per capita of GDP. But in a perverted crony-capitalist Keynesian system, the tax cuts do not go to job and value creators insomuch as they go towards the holders of those inflated assets, and the two are not the same thing necessarily. Just look at the Federal Governments source or tax revenue today as opposed to a few decades ago. It is stimulating paper markets for tax revenue and ‘growth’ more than the productive real economy as classic SSE would do.
Actual supply side economics focuses on real wealth, unlike the Keysenian ‘supply side’ which goes more to inflated asset bubbles. Real supply side capital goes to consumer goods and services, and the capital goods that are used to produce those goods and services. It is productive capital. The more capital goods that we have, like machines and tools, the more goods workers can produce with less labor. A farmer driving a tractor can plow much more than a plow horse and thus feed more people. The real benefit of tax cuts is in increasing investment, resulting in job creation and the production of more consumer goods, which results in the need for less government spending and budget deficits, ideally, in a free system. People are not going to be as productive as companies because more capital is spent on consumption more so than put to productive use/investment. This is one reason why so many of FDR's policies were a failure and prolonged the Great Depression. He didn't stimulate productive capital investment but focused on consumption regulation, prices and wages, etc. These are all downstream from production and growth. Focusing on people wages doesn't do much when they're all working part-time because there are not enough jobs, or if the wages are low because it is relative to the value being created by the low quality jobs being created by government, which is being down with other peoples money and resources, which means government does not typically use limited resources as efficiently as the market. Demand-side can stimulate growth in the short run, but it doesn’t result in better products (SSE stimulates growth because to a degree supply creates its own demand and better products), and eventually results in resource issues as it is a downstream effect.
Last edited:
You sound like you have childhood issues with low carb people.
But what you propose doesn't work in reality, doesn't work with human nature, and is just utopian fantasy. I am simply stating what is and always has been the case --- and that is, inequality is natural (which it is) and it is a good thing in a natural system.
Equality of outcome cannot be maintained in any natural system, as all work for their own self-interest, and all are not created equal (we are all different), and therefore, the outcomes in our lives will be highly dependent on many different variables.
You can call it social Darwinism or whatever you want, but that is how natural selection works and has worked and that is why we are here today. Your life does not have value just because you exist, and I do not owe you anything just because you exist. And you are responsible for your bad choices you make. And guess what. If you were stupid enough to go to college and get into debt to get a cake major degree that has no economic value in the real world, I shouldn't be mandated to bail you out for that stupid choice. If you eat fast food your whole life, I don't want to pay for your healthcare. This is not how any system can run successfully in the long run, by enabling the dumb and unfit to take resources and create no value.
The only best thing you can have is equal opportunity because that is appropriately balanced with freedoms. Once you use force to apply equal outcome, you create marketplace distortions, create violence, waste resources/not use them as efficiently, and you infringe on peoples freedom.
You cannot have freedom and equality of outcome at the same time. Freedom must be balanced with responsability, which is risk, and in a unfree or collective system, you are someone's slave because risk and labor is socialized. You take on responsability for someone else's poor choices and their labor is yours because the fruit of their labor is socialized. It goes back to slave master morality. Take free healthcare. If you think it is a right to have a doctor take care of you then you are the slave master because you are essentially saying the doctor owes you his time and service and labor. So you own him. Your so-called 'right' comes at the cost of his rights. This isn't a right. This is you holding a gun to his head and demanding he treats you. You are demanding his labor. You are the totalitarian, not him. And you cannot call it a freedom or right when it comes at the expense of another persons freedom or right.
Ahh. There it is. At heart you do not want to compete because you are lazy or unable to for other reasons. And so, you envy those who do better. This is where socialism comes from at the core. It's just the gospel of envy of those who cannot compete in a free and open system.
As long as there is economic mobility, there is no excuse for why you didn't make better choices, but instead of taking responsability for your bad choices (maybe you college degree that has no value and are still paying off the debt), or instead of admitting you are too lazy to compete, whatever the reason for not competing, you want to use the violence of the state to enact revenge and take resources from those who can compete and create value to give to you. This is why socialism is fascism. Same thing when you peal away all the word salad.
Well, it seems you are ignorant of how economics work. So let me share with you that competition is one of the things that creates value in a free system. For price discovery you need competition. And competition allows for the best to earn their way on merit. This benefits society as a whole and the consumer. Without competition, you do not have proper price discovery. Government destroys price discovery. This is what makes capitalism the best system. It only helps ensure that those who compete are rewarded and those who do not compete are not rewarded. Those who compete take on risk to be rewarded, whereas those who do not compete do not take on their own risk. So the free market rewards you for the risk you take on if you can compete and do well. The risk is not socialized, as with socialism, etc.
Those wealthy people you complain about started companies by taking on risk themselves. You didn't take on the risk. They put their saved and hard earned money into starting a business with the risk of losing it all and then some. So the fact that they succeeded and become successful means they were compensated for the risk they took on. You didn't put money at risk, they did. This is why CEO’s get paid more too. They represent the corporation because they take on more risk by being more responsible for how the company is run and what they do affects the success of the economy, whereas the toilet cleaner getting paid 10$ an hour does not. The market efficiently pays you for what you are worth, which is in part due to the risk you take on and how much value you create. That CEO also creates more value by running the company efficiently unlike the toilet cleaner which can easily be replaced because most people can do their job. But the CEO is not as easily replaceable.
This is also why equality of outcome does not work in economic systems. All jobs do not pay the same because all jobs are not the same and do not create the same value for the market and company. This is an unequal outcome and this is good -- otherwise you are paying someone for a job that does not pay them for the risk they take on, etc.
It's his parents money/property. They can do as they please with their money they worked hard for and accumulated. If parents want to pass down wealth to their kids, it is theirs. Someone can choose to transfer the value of their energy spent via labor to someone else because it is their property.
You see, you are the totalitarian here because no matter how much you try to justify it, YOU are the one who thinks it is just to come between this private contract or business of two groups of related people who decide to do what they want with their own money, and use force to take it either via the state or yourself.
No matter what way you want to swing it, you were the first one who acted out with aggression on this party. You are the violent actor here.
Morality is subjective. So all you can is judge on outcome, objectively. This is why the non-aggression principle is the only system that works in reality, in a free system. There was no violence until you thought it was moral (your morality is subjective) to use violent force to take from them. This is also why Ray Peat is dead wrong on this subject. Ray Peat said someone suffers and is forced to act with violence for something like food, but necessity and what is just are not two equal things. Someone doesn’t owe something to the hungry person because they are sovereign indivuals. They are not each other’s property. So if someone is starving and using violence against someone with food which is their property, which they earned money by laboring for, then that still doesn’t make it just. The starving person was still the violent actor here!
And if you are concerned the kid is getting an ‘unearned leg up’, then those who use the state to take his money to give to them are also, by your own definition, getting an 'unearned leg up.' They are now hypocrites and totalitarians.
Furthermore, you are essentially saying you deserve the money of the kids because you can use it better. Well, says who? The kid may start a productive business with his wealth that employs 3000 people, or give to charity. So not only do you lose the moral argument, in any practical sense, you’re likely cutting out possible productive growth out of the economy that would negativy affect others, since there is no true way to know who would use the money in a more productive way.
So you see, because there are so many holes in your moral framework, it cannot even remain consistent when applied broadly. It is rife with contradictions and holes.
See, it all goes back to your own version of morality. You think people owe you something for simply existing. This is slave master morality in essence. By your same morality, slavery can then exist. Why not just bring back slavery while you're at it?
Since you think it is moral to take private property because you are entitled to it by virtue of existing, then you can’t say I am immoral for taking what I want from you because I think I am entitled to it.
And most who advocate for such things are hyooocrties because they rarely I’d ever practice what they preach. You see it with the same collectivist socialist politicians who go on about the rich but then they go to office and leave office millionaires or with millions in assets. Their moral framework goes against human nature and humans will always act in self-interest first and foremost rather than collective interest. This is why we can only have a system that incentivizes self-interest in a way that benefits the insivual first and doing this it works for the collective who want to earn their way on merit.
But either you are sovereign individual or you are not.
Either you come into this world standing on your own two feet and responsible for the choices you make, or you do not and someone owns you.
The reoccurring theme I see among most who hold the same views that you hold is that they have made a lifetime of bad decisions. And they now want others to pay for their bad decisions.
It’s like sick obese people who want free healthcare for preventable diseases they themselves could have prevented by lifestyle choices, to a large degree at least. Well, those people are not freeing up those limited resources for those who need healthcare to no fault or their own and so the net result eventually will be resource scaecity in medicine which manifests itself in higher prices (supply and demand equation). And if government tries to put price caps on it like FDR probably would have done, hospital quality falls and they go bankrupt because they cannot keep up with higher costs due to resource scarcity. And we are by the way seeing this slowly okay out in Europe.
Europeans wanted free healthcare and it worked for a while until resources run out and we are beginning to see that come back and bite them as the debt the EU companies took for such programs collapse their economies. We will likely see the EU come to and end and the useful idiots will say “but that wasn’t real socialism” again. The UK at one time had plenty of it's own cheap oil, but after it peaked it had to run large trade imbalances, and rely on credit expansion and asset inflation so that their government gets it's tax revenue from the paper market growth to make up for real economic growth. This increased asset inflation and wealth gaps and lowered economic mobility so that it is now harder for younger generations to afford homes in many areas where there are jobs, and keep up with cost of living. Government needs enough net revenue from net tax payers to fund it so that it can service it's debt and it's debt isn't downgraded. When you give out programs and call them rights, you use up resources faster, coupled with rising cost of living, results in less net tax revenue relative to GDP/debt. So there comes a point when the net tax base cannot grow large enough to keep up with the increasing debt which is growing exponentially. So less tax revenue to service increasing debt results in worsening debt to GDP ratio. This ultimately collapses the currency. We are seeing this slow-burn process throughout the EU and it all goes back to the social programs the boomers pushed, which caused future production of resources to be pulled from that future time forward to the 'now', resulting in less resources for the young. And now it's a bigger problem because all the USD EU banks borrowed in currency swaps and other avenues is crushing them because the USD is going to get stronger as flight capital leaves the EU and moves to the USD. So the debt they borrowed in USD will essentially be more due to a stronger USD. And all because they had to keep borrowing to fund all of these programs and government bloat.
Money is not endless because all money is a way to measure value and value comes from resources and their availability. Resources are limited and this is why you cannot create money out of thin air while preserving its value. This is why socialism and communism economic systems always result in either the destruction of buying power or resource scarcity, in which they end up killing off the ‘surplus population.’
When you allocate money to those who are not productive, you are using up resources faster and there is less net-goods and resources flowing to the economy to stimulate productivity.
The ideas you propose are nothing new, and sound nice to the ignorant, but they are flawed and, on an objective basis relative to outcome, immoral. If you think someone owes you something despite it being theirs, then you are admitting that we are not sovereign indivual and someone owns us, because when you owe something to someone, you are essentially their property. If you do not keep the fruits of your labor, and you instead can take the fruit of someone else's labor, then their labor is essentially owed to you and vice versa.
Last edited:
sladerunner69
Member
I study graduate econometrics so please allow me to point out some often overlooked facts:
Yes there have been no mass shootings involving greater than 5 victims recorded. However that could easily be explained as a coincidence. Remember that historically, both of these countries have very low frequency of mass shootings. In fact,there has never been a significant relationship established between gun laws and gun crime in any nation state.
On the contrary, since the gun buy-backs program Australia has not benefitted from the decrease in violent crime activity that has been widely observed in other western countries like America. Therefore, we can conclude that Australia's gun confiscation has resulted in a relative increase in violent crimes.
Now, this is no surprise to those of us who study statistics. Numerous studies have established a strong inverse relationship between gun rights and crime. In short, the more firearms in the hands of the populace, and the more freely they are allowed to carry and bear arms, the less others are willing to risk committing any sort of crime. It is estimated that America's gun laws prevent millions of crimes annually- including rape and murder.
This is not discussed much in media, but in England( particularly after the large scale influx of second & third world immigrants) every major city experienced a large spike in violent crime, so much so that England is now having the debate as to whether or not knives should be allowed to be sold "sharpened". I kid you not, there is now a push for legislation that would required every person in England to bring their knives to the police station to have the edges "dulled". The reason is of course that London's violent crime rate is 30-50% higher than comparable American cities (depending on the paper you find). The home burglary rate in England is particularly unnerving, where one is 5x as likely to experience a "hot" burglary, wherein the crook breaks in while the home's occupants are inside. This is of course due to the fact that the burglars in England are not concerned about the occupants being armed.
It is worth noting further, that America's crime problem is predominately connected to gang and drug culture, and by extension illegal immigration. Gangs are the product of social welfare programs and archaic drug laws, both of which are heavily fueled on high octane through an nearly open border.
An influx unskilled labour=> more competitive job market=>lower wages=>increased unemployment=>expansion of welfare programs=>higher gang affiliation rate.
These are all relationships that have been empirically established through statistical regressions. Yet we continue to see a political push for a losing on immigration policies or "open borders" and expansion of welfare policies to include a basic income for those not just "unable", but "unwilling" to work. This is clearly going to increase the violent crime rate, but most will continue to willfully ignore the empirical literature.
Now, back to mass shootings. Why have they become more frequent in recent years? "An increase in gun ownership" or some similar phrase, is often brought up by the talking heads of corporate media. Well let us ignore the fact that mass shootings consist of <0.1% of murders in the US. Let us look instead at a time when mass shootings where so uncommon that they were often unheard of: the 1940's and 1950's. During the post-war era, gun ownership rates were considerably higher, between 65-70%. This has decreased steadily since the "Atomic Age" to the point that now they are hovering right above 40%. Keep in mind that states with the lower ownership rates, such as California and Illinois, have remarkably higher murder rates, and more mass shootings to boot. So by these metrics, gun ownership does not increase mass shootings either, and probably prevents them.
Instead, I propose the reason mass shootings are increasing is largely a mental health issue. Many young men. are now misdiagnosed as hyper or bipolar, and prescribed serotonin agonists. These drugs, (including ssri's the most commonly prescribed anti-depressant) have proven in animal studied to increase violent, irrational behavior and tendencies of psychosis. In the 1950's the mental health of young men and women was much sturdier, and when a doctor did reluctantly prescribed something it was for a temporary period, and included valium and behavioral therapy. People self medicated with alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, and aspirin. Instead, today we live in a drugs-for-profit culture that is not concerned with providing people magic cure-all pills backed by "peer-reviewed" articles. Ultimately, the drug industry would rather have more people diagnosed with an illness then fewer. Couple the declining mental health with an economy being strained by an influx of unskilled third world workers, and increasingly being controlled by socialists and modern "feminism"(which despises both men and women and seeks to undermine the natural structure) and it is not hard to predict young men lashing out in order to draw notoriety and receive the infamy that the media-circus will guarantee them.
People will always have black-market access to guns and other weapons, Mass -shootings will only disappear when we begin to address the fundamentals. I believe these most profound causes are in declining mental health, increasingly amoral culture, and the media's glorification of the perpetrators.
Yes, I agree. We are either equal or free. Equality under the law is different and is akin to free, but that isn’t what most leftists mean when they say “equality.” When they say equality, they mean “you owe me something because your outcome is not equal to mine/is better.”
The academic institutions today are sadly a joke, with few exceptions. The recent scandals is just one example. And of course the academics who sent the nonsensical papers in for review and most were accepted over a year ago.
Colleges today have become echo-chambers and in many ways, have become like monopolies where educational standards are lowered so that more people who shouldn’t be in college in the first place can go so it can keep the career academics secure in their cushy bloated jobs, as they financially rape the minds and bank accounts of students. College used to be an elite thing in the good sense that only those who were of greater than average intelligence could get in. It was more merit based. But now that the IQ average in many parts of the country is declining, colleges need to keep lowering standards as they compete with each other, to get more people in and make more money. There are not as many intelligent people in relation to not-so intelligent people like there was maybe a century ago. The amount of people graduating Highschool who cannot even do 10th grade level math is quite sad. And the schools change the rules and standards to make it look like on paper that they are still progressivist in academic excellence. (LOL) And many of the college academics at the top know that college has become a scam in this sense. So they monopolize by allowing more pseudo-social-science- grievance-based studies and other nonsense which has no real intellectual value or economic value in the economy, so that it gives people who are below average on intelligence something to go to college and study so the academics can keep their jobs. And then they graduate college with 60-100k or more in debt and wonder why they can’t find a job that will pay anything meaningful so that they can pay back the loan and live a comfortable life.
And most professors are either Marxist or far left so there is no diversity of opinion there anymore. Many of them regurgitate old failed ideas too. My economics professor repeatedly used false statistics in his classes to fit his narrative, so much so that I corrected him on three different occasions that his numbers were wrong. Didn't go over very well. It’s just an indoctrination camp for the youth so the ideologues-activist- academics keep their jobs (which in any real free market wouldn’t exist) and so that their ideologues can have more useful idiot career activists for the future, to ensure they keep their (often state funded) monopolies (in the collective sense) in power. College, with few exceptions, has become an ideological-money making sham; an embarrassment.
But, with the resource depletion issues that we face, many of them will be out of business in the years to come and they’ll have to find real jobs and actually use their brains.
Last edited:
I get the idea of protecting the right of people to own a firearm. Why is it a problem though when you want to place a limit on what type of firearm an “individual” can own or bear?
When the Constitutional laws were written there was probably only a pistol or rifle that an individual could obtain. Now you can get a military assault weapon capable of killing dozens in a very short period of time. So even if you have an everyday carry on you, are you really going to pit yourself against someone with an AR15 or a multi round shotgun?
How big an arsenal would you like to own or carry with you in order to protect yourself from others who may be carrying military style weapons?
When the Constitutional laws were written there was probably only a pistol or rifle that an individual could obtain. Now you can get a military assault weapon capable of killing dozens in a very short period of time. So even if you have an everyday carry on you, are you really going to pit yourself against someone with an AR15 or a multi round shotgun?
How big an arsenal would you like to own or carry with you in order to protect yourself from others who may be carrying military style weapons?
This is just partisan political hyperbole. Unless you can provide examples. You're average progressive has no problem with capitalism and the idea of private business. It's how they justify voting.
Government has only grown under conservative governments. Just not in the areas that actually help feed, clothe and house the people who fund it ('defence').
In order to prove something is natural you have to do more than just say it is. You are simply advancing corporate propaganda cooked up by the companies and their useful idiots that seek to justify the inequality they create. There is no science to any of what you are talking about, which is why you didn't reference any.
I find it odd that a person on a health forum would make such a claim. Presumably you are here because you have some kind of problem and presumably you have some kind of understanding of Peat's ideas. And if you do then you understand that our health problems are not caused by bad luck or anything natural (or supernatural) but by industrial society, for the most part.
Should a toxic chemical spill that renders an entire community of people disabled and deformed and thus impoverished and 'unproductive' be deemed a natural event?
Weather people get healthcare or not is decided by humans, not nature. Same goes with access to any resource. The system of debt is a human construction.
If an unequal system was simply 'natural' it would not take so much violence and propaganda to maintain. As it happens it does. Control of public opinion is well documented.
That's not how natural selection works and neither is it how we got here. Without a certain degree of mutual understanding and cooperation none of us would be here.
Arguing for a system where people have to earn their right to exist is quite literally an advocacy of slavery.
Whatever your reading has certainly led you down a path.
This is an oversimplification used to distract attention from debt slavery in upper education and culturally imposed ignorance and poisoning of the food supply.
Most college graduates are in debt. Few have useless degrees in feminist dance theory.
You can only make good choices about health when you have good information. That only comes from the fringe and generally takes years of bad health to find. Some people never do.
I don't know why you keep going on about this. I haven't really seen it going on. I think you've had your head bent by the Peterson crowd.
As far your example of the doctor goes, yeah it's his 'right' not to treat me but why would you want a society where doctors have started neglecting sick people?
You didn't answer the question. Why should people compete? And for what?
Claiming people are simply 'jealous' when they point out the flaws in a certain system only demonstrates your limited capacity to defend it.
For what it's worth though, after reading what obviously motivates you most in life (competition and seemingly little else) I can assure you I am not envious of you or people who think like you. If I do something it is because it brings me pleasure to do so, not because of some juvenile race I must win so I can rid myself of feeling inferior to someone who has more things or more money that I do.
Do you think you would have read anything by Peat if he had the kind of attitude that sees the weak get left for dead by the powerful?
This is all boilerplate stuff that's been addressed in a million books and a million articles. You can look at them for yourself if you're ever willing to have your ideas challenged.
I'm thinking your Dad must be a coal baron or something to warrant such a spirited attack against scrutiny of how the rich make their millions.
I don't believe in private property by virtue of it being taken by force to the detriment of everyone else.
Who is anybody to decide a country's mineral wealth should belong to one family?
I can say your immoral if you take my personal property
I think you need to get out more and let your idea of human nature be informed by more than just politicians
Yes, they are called employers. They decide what you wear, how you can speak, how much you can sleep, how much time you can spend with your family, when you can eat and what kind of living standard you'll have.
As far your example of the doctor goes, yeah it's his 'right' not to treat me but why would you want a society where doctors have started neglecting sick people?
You didn't answer the question. Why should people compete? And for what?
Claiming people are simply 'jealous' when they point out the flaws in a certain system only demonstrates your limited capacity to defend it.
For what it's worth though, after reading what obviously motivates you most in life (competition and seemingly little else) I can assure you I am not envious of you or people who think like you. If I do something it is because it brings me pleasure to do so, not because of some juvenile race I must win so I can rid myself of feeling inferior to someone who has more things or more money that I do.
Do you think you would have read anything by Peat if he had the kind of attitude that sees the weak get left for dead by the powerful?
This is all boilerplate stuff that's been addressed in a million books and a million articles. You can look at them for yourself if you're ever willing to have your ideas challenged.
I'm thinking your Dad must be a coal baron or something to warrant such a spirited attack against scrutiny of how the rich make their millions.
I don't believe in private property by virtue of it being taken by force to the detriment of everyone else.
Who is anybody to decide a country's mineral wealth should belong to one family?
I can say your immoral if you take my personal property
I think you need to get out more and let your idea of human nature be informed by more than just politicians
Yes, they are called employers. They decide what you wear, how you can speak, how much you can sleep, how much time you can spend with your family, when you can eat and what kind of living standard you'll have.
And the reoccurring theme I see among people who hold your positions is poorly read, deficient in empathy, a drive for material wealth and power to compensate for a lacking life, black and white thinking, contempt for people who just aren't like they are, confused political positions that they've never challenged, advocacy of hierarchy and selfishness above all else.
It's basically the ingredients for a dysfunctional member of society.
You must be living in a country where the food supply isn't poisoned, endocrinologists aren't incompetent and dietitians don't dispense ridiculous advice.
As somebody who doesn't believe in having any sort of economy it would make no sense for me to address any of this, suffice to say it's little more than fact free American-centric talking points which neglect the ridiculous debt, constant printing of money, insane health care costs relative to other countries and general economic decay that leaves America lower on the list of living standards compared to the EU that you hate
lol
how do you go on a mass shooting without a gun?
@Waremu You make some good points, and it all seems to be from the viewpoint of a highly individualist attitude or approach. How does anything to do with community, or problems that stem from companies only being concerned with self interest, get solved when you operate in this paradigm?
For example it’s in a companies interest to minimize the amount of money they spend on pollution, in order to maximize their profit, but what incentives can you offer to get them to not pollute, which in turn benefits the whole community.
Also you say you need to be a sovereign individual and stand on your own two feet. Why do we need a justice system if this is the case, and your survival of the fittest rule applies. We see the results of that in many African countries where power is the ultimate arbiter in who gets ahead. We could do away with alljudges and police and just give everyone a weapon. If you had a dispute or injustice, you could just duel it out and to the victor goes the spoils.
I guess my point is this Ultra individualist rhetoric never seems to acknowledge the need for government, taxes, regulation, and law. It seems to treat it as all bad, and yet if you really want to return to the law of evolution and survival of the fittest, then that would be a very different looking society than the one you currently live in, in America. I think it resemble more some of the African nations.
I think your thinking also completely ignores any of the ideas of Christianity, and it’s teachings about people and how to live. So I am interested in your perspective on that, given that the West is underpinned by Christian values.
Doublecapricorn
Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2017
- Messages
- 118
The shooting was a false flag to take away guns.
sladerunner69
Member
Irrelevant, there will always be black market access to firearms. Mass shootings still occur in every nation with a gun ban.
Rafael Lao Wai
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,790
When I see something like this, it seems very plausible that the person who did the shooting was actually either paid or convinced to do it by the governemnt so that said goverment now can disarm the population while looking like they are care about people( bascially they are using a humanitarian reason to hide what they are really doing).
That’s not true for Australia at least. Granted we are an island and the importation of military assault weapons may be harder than in countries that have large land borders but I doubt it.
We have had shootings since the assault weapon ban was in place, but they have had nothing like the casualty rate that the incident that caused the gun crackdown did.
Cirion
Member
I bet the average gun grabber who uses the phrase "assault weapon ban" does not even know what the definition of "assault weapon" is. Hint - there isn't one. It's a blanket statement used to justify more gun laws. All guns and just about every household object can be an "assault weapon". A lot of people might think an AR rifle stands for assault rifle but this is incorrect. AR stands for Armalite Rifle. This once again exposes my pet peeve against the ignorance amongst the gun grabbers. At least have the decency to use real terms like bolt-action, semi-auto, full-auto. ETC. But if the left went straight out and said they plan to ban semi-autos (which is indeed the goal) then they would have less support.
Luann
Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,615
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
I'm not even the first RP-er to quote this.
Cirion
Member
A great quote and 100% applicable here in this discussion.
You don’t know the slightest thing about what is scientific because you cling to silly ideas which in of themselves are not scientifically validated, like your equality of outcome dogma. Everyone isn’t equal. We evolved that way. That is in of itself a scientific statement of truth. Everyone has different talents, skills, interests, and, yes, abilities, which includes intellectual abilities.
And inequality is the result of these differences. You want to defy the natural order of things and how value works, because perhaps you made bad choices and want others to pay for your bad choices. The only way to advance humankind is for those who cannot get by on merit and intellect to not be rewarded because that doesn’t benefit scientific or civilizational progress in the long run.
Value is created by a few factors, all of which depend upon the availability of resources and this (along with people being different, which is more downstream) is the reason why inequality exists, because resources themselves are not in unlimited supply and so people have to compete for those resources. You don’t understand the very basic fundamentals when it comes to supply and demand and economics, because you do not even understand how value is derived and what role competition plays in this. We cannot print trillions of dollars and create value and solve all of nature’s natural inequalities. The only way we would ever come close to that is if we developed replicators like in Star Trek, which is science fiction and won't likely ever happen. Unless something like that could happen, all the paper or digital currency in the world won't do a thing to create actual wealth for everyone.
I am here because I agree with most of Peats views on nutrition. Just because Peat may be right on that subject does not make him a professional or someone who understands everything else. Few people here agree with Peat 100% on every subject. But our problems are not all caused just by industrial society. Without today’s industrial society, your average human lifespan would be lower and many diseases which once were common would still be just as common. So you make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bath water. There are trade offs in everything in life and while we have health related issues which are in part caused industrialization, we also do not have health concerns due to the progress that came as the result of or with industrialization.
So your argument for that reason is too simplistic and ignorant of the many complexities of the world and how things work.
Secondly, today’s health problems are not caused by just one thing. It’s a number of things within the environment (and genetic) which are or act as stressors to the organism which then are manifest in the form of disease. Many different stressors can trigger the same inflammatory biochemical pathways within the human body, for example.
(Peat has actually agreed with this as well in one of his email comments/articles about disease/cancer.)
Our health issues are environmental and genetic. It’s not just one or the other. And of those environmental causes, some of them are self-inflicted. In fact, by the mere the fact that you seem to blame all our diseases in industrialization, you are also admitting that our problems are often self-inflicted. So a rather contradictory statement you make if you actually think before you say things. But that said, yes, peoples health issues are often self-inflicted. The person who ate fast food every day or every other day and ends up with heart disease in some way played a part in causing their own heart disease. Some people are likely genetically less predisposed to such diseases and therefore may have a better tolerance for the amount of stress they can handle before they get such diseases and can therefore eat junk food and not get as sick.
You seem to want to put the blame all on “those people over there” instead of take responsibility for the things you can control in your own life. Many people in power with money have done a lot of bad things, but many of them have also done a lot of good things and I am willing to bet that most people like you who go on all day about the rich and inequality, if you actually knew how the world works, and that the standard of living you enjoy comes from many bad things people in power do, and industrialization, and you were given the chance to trade that in and live at a very reduced standard of living like most of the world, you likely would be a hypocrite and say no. And if you say that isn't the case, I wouldn't believe you.
No. I never said it should. But the number of people dying from chemical spills in comparison to the number of deaths from largely self-inflicted things such as suicide and murder and war and cancer are just that are lower. Much if not most of humanities issues are self-inflicted and the result of bad people who want others to pay for their problems or to offload their problems off on to other people so they can benefit from it. (Yes, bad people exist and not everyone is intrinsically ‘good’, and giving people money doesn't automatically turn them into good persons either)
Even in some cases that chemical spill is a self-inflicted problem because in some cases it was some regulator was probably paid off to look the other way or a regulation was changed by a lobbyist to allow the problem that causes the spill. Much like the way regulators look the other way when manipulation happens in financial markets.
Wrong. You are wrong. Once again, your ignorance on how economics works shows here.
Do humans become doctors or are they trained to become doctors? What resources and how much money is involved in that process? Do doctors use technology to successfully treat their patients? What resources and how much money/investment had to go into that technology which, in many cases, is essential to treat patients?
Healthcare is decided by humans who are depended on resources and money for that standard of healthcare because they and their medical industrial complex needs such resources and money and has made it available.
So, in essence, it is not humans who are the main determiners or how healthcare is handled and formed. They only determine what healthcare they have to a degree once those resources and the infrastructure is there to allow it. Thats like saying humans determine where across the world they want to go. That is mostly dependent on energy/technology which allows them to do so and without it, they would get there much slower or not at all. So, is the availability of resources and capital that ultimately determines the type of healthcare humans can have and only if it is available at a certain price then humans can use it. Humans create things with resources but without resources they are extremely limited in what they can do and that includes free healthcare. The availability of cheap resources is what determines the threshold of what standard of healthcare they can have and who can have it and only after that is established, human intelligence/ingenuity can raise that threshold. But typically, more complexities result in more resources being used as well, since technology is not a source of energy but rather uses energy. There simply are not enough resources for people to create endless supplies of goods and services for an ever-increasing population at a price everyone can afford. This is a mathematical fact. This is ultimately why value cannot be created out of thin air.
And it is this fact that determines that, in the sum of all things, humans are very limited in the standard of living and healthcare they want to have. This is also what limits the ability of governments to give out free money in the form of various social programs, since money (a measurement of value) is dependent on the availability of resources and energy. They can only do so for a time so long as the net tax base of people and resources are there to do it, but that eventually runs out. If this fact was not the case governments would have had universal basic income decades ago.
There is no such thing as an ‘equal system.' Only in the sense of law can we achieve equality. And no, that’s post WW-2 boomer era conspiracy nonsense. That’s not how the world works.
Yes, violence and propaganda is used to maintain control of public opinion largely, but because of corrupt politicians (many who have the brains of a rock and do not look far into the future to plan their countries course and what is best for their country because the political system is set up to be encourage short-term planning and waste of resources) who want power. This is independent on what allows a system to work in the long run, however. Corruption and violence to maintain power in a broad sense of the context relies on the availability of resources as well. This is why many politicians usually don’t end wars unless they are driven out and forced to lose/or end those wars because the resources being used are more than the resources they would get, particularly when time value is taken into account in the equation.
As resources become scarce and the value of money diminishes, politicians and the system of complexities which rely heavily on resource exploitation become more desperate to grab power because wealth income gaps widen relative to GDP and population growth due to resource depletion, and this effect trickles through the whole economy into many if not all of the job markets (most jobs are tied to the energy sector in some way), and so people become more desperate to take desperate measures to get by, so they take on more debt/borrow, and when thay doesn't work, they eventually overthrow their leaders or government due to rising poverty and diminishing value of money and fewer quality jobs, which all go back to availability of resources. We have an infrastructure that is entirely dependent on such select resources which until are not replicable because they are finite in nature. (And there are of course biophysical and mathematical reasons why resource depletion occurs earlier than even economists can predict)
Nonsense. That is in essence how natural selection essentially works. It was mostly mutual self-interest that brought us together, and whether our animalistic desires brought us together or not didn’t in of itself necessarily determine whether we were strong or fit to reproduce or stay alive long enough to reproduce either. Retarded one-legged squirrels can reproduce. We are here because reproduction brings people together, even enemies. We were not reproducing in the best interest of our fellow man either. I can assure you of that. Even until not that long ago, many people were born out of rape and incest. In fact, immoral acts such as rape and incest is a large reason why we are here today. By your argument rape and incest were us ‘coming together’ for the common good of the collective. Utter nonsense. Our evolutionary past is a long one of violence and it just happened to work out as each organism, for the most part, sought it's own interest and that is the environment in which we evolved and benefited from in that sense. Civilizations were people were more concerned about the collective interest of man were not first formed until thousands of years ago. It was a constant struggle, back and forth, between those who had more leverage over the other one.
Well, at least I read. Unlike you who makes arguments that are rife with contradictions and cannot understand basic economics and how the world works on a very basic level. You think goods and services and resources come from the air and grow on trees.
Saying something is an ‘oversimplification’ isn’t an argument and does not refute what I said. Please try again. I’ll give you another chance. I promise.
No one held a gun to the students who went to school. Most students that are in school are there majoring in a degree that has very little to no value in the real world. And often they didn’t do the proper research before going to school to see that the degree they obtained would land them a decent enough job to pay back their student debt. Many of them had parents who have failed them in that regard as well. College isn’t supposed to be high school. It’s supposed to be a place where people who have the intellectual ability to obtain a degree in something that not only requires such a level of intellect, but also has economic value, can attend. The majority of college degree programs have very little economic value and requires very little intellect. It’s a supply and demand thing and the market is oversupplied with too many useless college degrees and too many stupid people who shouldn’t be in college. Things have become so distorted that in many cases, people who learned a trade/went to trade school earn far more than the average college graduate. If it were not the students fault, then people learning trades wouldn't be making more in many cases.
Lastly, the poisoning of our food supply is a separate issue to students who stupidly go into debt to get worthless degrees.
Companies that poison our food should be held accountable because, according to the nonaggression principle, they used force first because they sold people food that has disease-causing chemicals, etc. That in no way would be considered allowable or moral in my moral framework, so that isn’t an argument.
Nonsense. It isn’t just the gender theory or feminist degrees that are useless. The market place decides that and many other degrees are next to useless that are not within the SJW category as well. For example, liberal arts degrees and psychology degrees are largely worthless because there is an oversupply of those. Even MBA's are not as valuable as they once were, with few exceptions. Even history degrees with few exceptions have little real world value. STEM related degrees typically have more value and those are a small percentage of total degrees in many schools.
With very limited and few exceptions, if you got a degree in psychology thinking you’ll land a 80k or more per year, then you were the greater fool for going to school, not those ‘evil bankers.’ The market place doesn’t want a useless degrees. So then what happens is many of these kids are getting shift management jobs in fast food and retail and this hurts the lower income people who cannot afford and go to college because now they are pushed out of those higher paying mediocre jobs because there is such an oversupply or these college graduates that to get into that type of job now that pays very mediocre wages, you have to have a mediocre degree. So standards go up for low paying jobs and it distorts the entire marketplace.
Yes, but most people still don’t make good choices about health even when they have decent information. Most people know the information is out there and do not even attempt to look into their own health. Your inaction and willful ignorance is still your responsibility, not anyone else’s.
But I don’t care what you have seen going on.
Hmm. Assuming I follow Peterson? Now you really seem like a progressive lunatic who has some weird vendetta. Perhaps Peterson offends you too much because you are like many who criticize him — you have very bad arguments that are mostly based of envy and emotion.
That’s not an argument. The argument is what is right. The fact is, it doesn’t matter what you want society to be or not be. Every progressive nut job has their own version of the ideal utopian society. And usually when attempted, it ends in stacks of dead bodies. The fact is, your right to have the so-called free healthcare comes at the cost of his rights, of whether he has to treat you or not. Therefore, it is not a right because you are demanding he treats you. His body is not your right.
I don’t want a society of sick people, but I sure don’t want a society where slavery exists and someone can mandate my labor with force and call it THEIR right. At least in a society of sick people, individuals can do something about that, but not about being forced to do things at gun point. Your system is therefore unjust and you are therefore the totalitarian no matter which way you want to cut it. And in such a totalitarian system, that will spill over into other aspects of people’s lives as well. Like these progressive nut jobs who think they are entitled to be called by whatever gender pronoun they pull out of their butt, even under the threat of possible legal trouble or jail time.
I did. You clearly cannot comprehend the complexity of the answer can you? Let me dumb it down for you even further:
People compete because we live in a world where people have to compete because resources are not unlimited and value is determined partly by availability of resources and because they are limited, and there is a surplus of people, they compete for those resources. It is also through that process that we continue to progress.
Resources are limited and so the resources that are used must be used to produce the most efficient and best products. And you won’t get efficiency out of a communist dystopian quota system, as economic history has shown.
And those who get to use the most resources are those who are most efficient and/or create more value, because resources are limited. This is why those wealthy business owners who you despise typically use more resources, because more are consumed to create more value in the marketplace and this is a net benefit to those who consume. But giving those same resources to equally to people to just consume does not create the same productive growth and so the economy shrinks and investment dries up (you need growth to invest in businesses to produce).
Now government distorts value, but that is a different subject.
Making the best doctors compete with limited resources will make those resources be used more efficiently, because those who can compete typically create more value, otherwise they wouldn’t have competed and rose to the top. But mandating doctors to treat people when there is little competition causes value and efficiency to plummet because they typically won’t get paid what they (the market) values for the work and so they will clock in and fulfill the basic quotas and do the least, just like they did in prior communist type of economic systems. And so there are more sick people who cannot be treated because there is a shortage of doctor care despite having enough doctors. If you push price and wage controls similar things happen as well.
- You haven’t pointed out any flaw. You just contradicted yourself and used emotionally charged arguments.
- You haven’t been able to adequately defend your position because there is no consistency with your moral framework.
And no, I claim it is jealously because you hate competition and you hate people having more than you. That’s where it comes from. And it also comes from the inability to take responsibility from your bad choices. Good athletes and successful people don’t cry about competition because they can compete or at least try to and don't blame others for their failures. If you could compete on merit then competition wouldn’t be an offense to you. Many who share your same ideas also cry about having to work. “Why should we have to work and why can’t we just have a universal basic income.”
It would be comical if it werent so sad.
Where did I say competition motives me the most in life? Are you seriously this simple-minded in your way of thinking?
People do not work because it brings them pleasure. Not for most people. Most people work because they have to feed themselves and/or their families.
If you feel inferior then it’s likely because you have a rather juvenile view of how the word works, as with your view in competition. Market competition is not the same thing as juveniles competing in a penis measuring contest. People in the economy compete when they enter the workforce and create value against competing job forces whether it is for their own business or a company they work under. They’re doing so out of necessity and necessity creates value and invention. They’re not competing in the sense that kids do, for the same reasons.
You have no concept of economic competition whatsoever.
I read all kinds of things from people I agree and do not agree with to get perspective, so yes. I have nothing against weak or poor people. It’s the weak or poor people who want me to pick up for them and take on their burdens that I despise. It’s called tyranny of the weak. I grew up poor and lived around such people. The more such people that die off the better. They offer zero value to humanity just like career politicians and all they do is suck from the productive who work hard to create value. A weak or poor person who doesn’t expect me to carry them I have no issues with.
You’re not smart because you say there are a million books and articles out there. You just sound dumb.
I didn’t attack the scrutiny. I attacked the inconsistencies within your morality and exposed it for its weaknesses and you’re just bitter that you can’t defend it because it is rife with inconsistencies.
The fact is, you can’t have the moral argument or authority to go on about income inequality when your moral system requires totalitarianism to work.
That’s highly subjective. But so you then don’t believe people are sovereign and if you don’t then people own other people. Slave master morality.
Well it depends on how they got it. If it is a monopoly with government like it often is then it wasn’t just. If a country doesn’t want to give all of its mineral wealth to a private business, it has the right not to because it is the property of that government as it would be their land, so there wouldn’t be anything wrong with a government rejecting that because natural resources can be a national security matter.
First of all, it is “you’re”, not “your.”
Secondly, where did I advocate taking your personal property? I never advocated that.
You are the one advocating that because when you demand someone’s service at gun point, you are taking or using property that isn’t yours.
You advocate for a utopian system that goes against human nature and trusts in the ‘goodness’ of government politicians. You don’t understand human nature.
Employers do not own you. You work for them in a social contract to mutual benefit. That job was not owed to you and it comes with rules. Having to obey rules at a job doesn’t mean they own you either. Welcome to adulthood.
No one is entitled to my empathy. I simply use logic. I got to where I am today by using logic/reason and working for it. No one gave it to me and I didn’t get it by being nice and empathetic to others. In fact, many who go on about and overemphasize empathy generally turn out to be narcissists who preach “love” and “understanding” but always cause drama and lack understanding and lack genuine empathy to anyone who doesn’t hold the same views as them. Much like those who go on about ‘tolerance’ but often are the least tolerant. I can empathize, but it doesn’t control my decision-making. And hierarchy exists because everyone isn’t equal. Not my problem you don’t like how reality works.
Totalitarians are always the ones who think they know who are and are not fit for their dystopian view of society. You sound like one.
That’s almost every country today. Please tell me what utopian society that I can go to which doesn’t have this, Dr. Strange love.
Great. Who needs the economy! Who needs money! Let’s all go back to building mud homes with our feces and living in caves! So progressive!
Why would you be against printing money? If services and resources can all just be given out for free like you seem to think, why not money?
For you the EU’s standards of living may be higher, but for me they are not very high given the fact that they’re now sending Police out to peoples homes for offensive Tweets, as knife and acid attacks increase. It's comical. Having less freedom is not a very good quality of life for me. But many of their own numbers are cooked. I mean, even in the US they have changed how they’ve calculated inflation and unemployment many times so no serious economist buys those numbers anyway, unless theyre on the governments payrole. The EU borrowed a lot and had a lot of wealth from its baby boom period so it was able to have decent healthcare, but all that is going downhill as the EU goes bankrupt and they won’t be able to fund future obligations. It only lasts for a time. So not really an argument there. But the US is heading for the same problem so I don’t think the US is going to be what it used to as well. It enjoyed prosperity for some time from the post war baby boom and cheap oil which it already peaked in, with a shrinking net tax base relative to population growth and debt, and not-so-good demographics relative the growth that is needed to for tax revenue needed to service debt and pensions, the US will have its own problems too and already is beginning to. Both the EU and US made many of the same serious mistakes which will likely lead to some very bad outcomes within the next 10 years or so.
Last edited:
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Similar threads
- Locked
