New Zealand To Greatly Tighten Gun Laws After Christchurch Massacre

[Sativa]

I've seen this interesting still frame of a vid

Spoiler

 

[TeaRex14]

Hard to say if that's the bare feet or not, could just be the color of the shoes on the bottom. If those are his soles then he has some really red feet. @Sativa

 

[sunraiser]

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.

1. You haven’t pointed out any flaw. You just contradicted yourself and used emotionally charged arguments.
2. 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.

You keep talking about resources being too limited. Resources over and over again.

That's the whole point. An enormity and majority of wealth is aggregated in a few hands. That wealth is actively being used to oppress and control. You can't literally believe a person sitting back and earning millions from passive investments is working harder than hundreds of millions working 40 hour weeks in soul destroying jobs just to scrape by.

Aside from any political and social opinions and differences between us all (Cirion and I discussed empathy earlier), your comments in this post are quite literally psychopathic.

I understand this seems inflammatory but I mean it in actual physiological terms.

Psychopathy - Wikipedia

All I can say is the majority of the world don't have the same neurochemistry as you, so it's going to be hard to align with their views.

“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood… It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless"

- Abraham Lincoln

 

[Cirion]

You keep talking about resources being too limited. Resources over and over again.

That's the whole point. An enormity and majority of wealth is aggregated in a few hands. That wealth is actively being used to oppress and control. You can't literally believe a person sitting back and earning millions from passive investments is working harder than hundreds of millions working 40 hour weeks in soul destroying jobs.

I don't agree with his tone entirely, as he does name call a bit and seem a bit aggressive, but his overall points are pretty valid.

In a world that is resource driven, simple supply and demand and value all define what someone is worth. It sounds inhumane, but that's how it is. Once you pay everyone the same, competition is removed, there is no drive to succeed, the economy stagnated. Why work hard to succeed if you'll get the same income? Sure some might do it because they enjoy the job, but let's be honest here, income is a large drive for working your way up the ladder so to speak. This type of utopian society only exists in fantasy land, and will never exist in reality.

Most rich people did not get there by just doing nothing. Sure once they achieve being rich they can just sit back and live off interest but most of the time both intelligent AND hard work AND risk was put to get there. Most average people are neither smart enough (not being rude, just a fact) OR willing to put in enough risk to get rich. I consider myself smart enough but I'm not rich because I'm not willing to put in the risk or ridiculous hours for etc. No one is going to make you CEO if you just decide to double the hours you are being a janitor for. You have to show initiative to work your way up, making connections with people, applying to jobs, putting your best foot forward in interviews, going outside of your comfort zone, etc.. I am honest with myself. Building a business is super risky but has huge payoffs sometimes if you "win" at it. If the payoff is no longer good, people won't want to risk it. And then the economy stops growing. Most businesses aren't even that rich. Sure there are some companies like amazon, ebay, google, but your average company is often run by a handful, sometimes only one person. Elon musk is an excellent example of a man who got rich by a combination of intelligence, hard work, AND risk taking. It takes all 3. No, hard work is not enough. Intelligence and risk taking must also be present. It was a HUGE risk to form his now famous company spaceX. On at least on occasion he literally gambled the future of his entire company on one single rocket launch. Lucky for him it did not fail. Are you saying that this level of risk (that virtually no one is willing to take) does not merit an appropriate reward upon success? and BTW he works upwards of 100 hrs a week. Another thing I am not willing to do. More power to him but I value my sleep. Lol. Elon musk is an example of a rich man that does NOT just sit on his butt and live off interest (though he could if he wanted to). BTW trump failed at many businesses before he finally got it too. His money was not handed to him. Most people are simply not willing to risk trying and failing big like that. But that's also why most people are not rich.

I just got done talking to a financial adviser last week who told me he knew of someone who turned his $300,000 retirement account into 1 million in just a year. He gambled all his money in company stock, based upon trends he was seeing that the stock was going up, and won. The stock tripled in value in a year. He took a risk. He lucked out. This is a lot of what capitalism is about. Taking risks. Losing a lot, winning a lot. Most people simply aren't wiling to take big risks like the entire sum of their retirement account. This is simply reality. The few people who are willing to take big risks could lose everything - but they could also be like this guy and get rich. Am I jealous of this guy? Sure. But he took a risk I'm not willing to take, so I can't really be that jealous. He could just have easily lost most of it. I still put most of my money in stocks, but I diversify so I'm essentially guaranteed returns as long as the overall market is good.

 

[sunraiser]

I don't agree with his tone entirely, as he does name call a bit and seem a bit aggressive, but his overall points are pretty valid.

In a world that is resource driven, simple supply and demand and value all define what someone is worth. It sounds inhumane, but that's how it is. Once you pay everyone the same, competition is removed, there is no drive to succeed, the economy stagnated. Why work hard to succeed if you'll get the same income? Sure some might do it because they enjoy the job, but let's be honest here, income is a large drive for working your way up the ladder so to speak. This type of utopian society only exists in fantasy land, and will never exist in reality.

Most rich people did not get there by just doing nothing. Sure once they achieve being rich they can just sit back and live off interest but most of the time both intelligent AND hard work AND risk was put to get there. Most average people are neither smart enough (not being rude, just a fact) OR willing to put in enough risk to get rich. I consider myself smart enough but I'm not rich because I'm not willing to put in the risk or ridiculous hours for etc. No one is going to make you CEO if you just decide to double the hours you are being a janitor for. You have to show initiative to work your way up, making connections with people, applying to jobs, putting your best foot forward in interviews, going outside of your comfort zone, etc.. I am honest with myself. Building a business is super risky but has huge payoffs sometimes if you "win" at it. If the payoff is no longer good, people won't want to risk it. And then the economy stops growing. Most businesses aren't even that rich. Sure there are some companies like amazon, ebay, google, but your average company is often run by a handful, sometimes only one person. Elon musk is an excellent example of a man who got rich by a combination of intelligence, hard work, AND risk taking. It takes all 3. No, hard work is not enough. Intelligence and risk taking must also be present. It was a HUGE risk to form his now famous company spaceX. On at least on occasion he literally gambled the future of his entire company on one single rocket launch. Lucky for him it did not fail. Are you saying that this level of risk (that virtually no one is willing to take) does not merit an appropriate reward upon success? and BTW he works upwards of 100 hrs a week. Another thing I am not willing to do. More power to him but I value my sleep. Lol. Elon musk is an example of a rich man that does NOT just sit on his butt and live off interest (though he could if he wanted to). BTW trump failed at many businesses before he finally got it too. His money was not handed to him. Most people are simply not willing to risk trying and failing big like that. But that's also why most people are not rich.

Noone is saying everyone should earn the same. Merely that institutionalised and intentional wealth aggregation by societal misdirection and profiting disproportionately from your workforce cannot happen.

Of course some people take risks - I'm with you there. But being in a position to even have the time and space to conceive an idea and the capital to start it takes a degree of privilege and luck that can't be taken for granted.

I'm not saying there aren't entrepreneurs that start with nothing and amass a fortune. I'm saying they're the unimaginably slim exception, not the rule.

There's direct and quantifiable correlation between parental wealth and schooling and opportunity to the wealth of their progeny.

It's largely luck (nobody works for where they're born). But people that live it often don't conceptualise it because they haven't lived the hardships of a different situation so are unlikely to develop empathy without a perspective giving set of experiences or studying philosophy or religious philosophy deeply.

Social mobility must be abundant to have a productive and thriving society, is all. You cannot be overtly and excessively rewarded by the actions of your ancestors, to the detriment of others, just as you shouldn't be punished for their crimes.

 

[sunraiser]

Also, sorry cirion but trump is a complete and utter product of wealth.

(The following quote refers to Fred Trump, his father).

Trump appeared on the initial Forbes 400 list of richest Americans in 1982 with an estimated $200 million fortune shared with his son Donald.[36] In 1976, Trump had set up trust funds of $1 million for each of his five children and three grandchildren ($4.4 million in 2018 dollars), that paid out yearly dividends.[37] By 1993, the siblings' anticipated shares of Trump's estate amounted to $35 million each.[38][37] Upon Trump's death in 1999, his will divided $20 million after taxes among his surviving children.[37][39][40]

 

[michael94]

Muslims getting killed in “christ church”

:thinking:

 

[lampofred]

I don't agree with his tone entirely, as he does name call a bit and seem a bit aggressive, but his overall points are pretty valid.

In a world that is resource driven, simple supply and demand and value all define what someone is worth. It sounds inhumane, but that's how it is. Once you pay everyone the same, competition is removed, there is no drive to succeed, the economy stagnated. Why work hard to succeed if you'll get the same income? Sure some might do it because they enjoy the job, but let's be honest here, income is a large drive for working your way up the ladder so to speak. This type of utopian society only exists in fantasy land, and will never exist in reality.

Most rich people did not get there by just doing nothing. Sure once they achieve being rich they can just sit back and live off interest but most of the time both intelligent AND hard work AND risk was put to get there. Most average people are neither smart enough (not being rude, just a fact) OR willing to put in enough risk to get rich. I consider myself smart enough but I'm not rich because I'm not willing to put in the risk or ridiculous hours for etc. No one is going to make you CEO if you just decide to double the hours you are being a janitor for. You have to show initiative to work your way up, making connections with people, applying to jobs, putting your best foot forward in interviews, going outside of your comfort zone, etc.. I am honest with myself. Building a business is super risky but has huge payoffs sometimes if you "win" at it. If the payoff is no longer good, people won't want to risk it. And then the economy stops growing. Most businesses aren't even that rich. Sure there are some companies like amazon, ebay, google, but your average company is often run by a handful, sometimes only one person. Elon musk is an excellent example of a man who got rich by a combination of intelligence, hard work, AND risk taking. It takes all 3. No, hard work is not enough. Intelligence and risk taking must also be present. It was a HUGE risk to form his now famous company spaceX. On at least on occasion he literally gambled the future of his entire company on one single rocket launch. Lucky for him it did not fail. Are you saying that this level of risk (that virtually no one is willing to take) does not merit an appropriate reward upon success? and BTW he works upwards of 100 hrs a week. Another thing I am not willing to do. More power to him but I value my sleep. Lol. Elon musk is an example of a rich man that does NOT just sit on his butt and live off interest (though he could if he wanted to). BTW trump failed at many businesses before he finally got it too. His money was not handed to him. Most people are simply not willing to risk trying and failing big like that. But that's also why most people are not rich.

I just got done talking to a financial adviser last week who told me he knew of someone who turned his $300,000 retirement account into 1 million in just a year. He gambled all his money in company stock, based upon trends he was seeing that the stock was going up, and won. The stock tripled in value in a year. He took a risk. He lucked out. This is a lot of what capitalism is about. Taking risks. Losing a lot, winning a lot. Most people simply aren't wiling to take big risks like the entire sum of their retirement account. This is simply reality. The few people who are willing to take big risks could lose everything - but they could also be like this guy and get rich. Am I jealous of this guy? Sure. But he took a risk I'm not willing to take, so I can't really be that jealous. He could just have easily lost most of it. I still put most of my money in stocks, but I diversify so I'm essentially guaranteed returns as long as the overall market is good.

Nothing wrong with smart and hard-working people becoming billionaires, but there definitely is something wrong when these billionaires are all teaming up to enslave the population to work for them at the cost of basic health and happiness. Estrogen is a slave hormone. It makes you rigid and work like you're on speed and then burns out your body. Could it really be an accident that everything in American society is so synergistic when it comes to increasing estrogen? I'm not a communist, but I think hardcore capitalists that defend capitalism as it currently exists in the United States are supporting their own slavery.

 

[burtlancast]

Hopefully they'll follow suit with Australia and Scotland who both responded to similar massacres with tightened laws and have both not had a mass shooting since.

Worked out quite nicely for the 90 victims of the Bataclan.

In fact, when one analyses theses 2 mass shootings, it becomes clear that armed citizens would have greatly curtailed the number of casualties.

The opposite of what the advertised solution claims.

 

[DaveFoster]

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 true fiscal conservatives like Goldwater, Ron Paul, are mostly gone.

There's nothing as conservative as classical liberalism.

 

[Cirion]

Noone is saying everyone should earn the same. Merely that institutionalised and intentional wealth aggregation by societal misdirection and profiting disproportionately from your workforce cannot happen.

Of course some people take risks - I'm with you there. But being in a position to even have the time and space to conceive an idea and the capital to start it takes a degree of privilege and luck that can't be taken for granted.

I'm not saying there aren't entrepreneurs that start with nothing and amass a fortune. I'm saying they're the unimaginably slim exception, not the rule.

There's direct and quantifiable correlation between parental wealth and schooling and opportunity to the wealth of their progeny.

It's largely luck (nobody works for where they're born). But people that live it often don't conceptualise it because they haven't lived the hardships of a different situation so are unlikely to develop empathy without a perspective giving set of experiences or studying philosophy or religious philosophy deeply.

Social mobility must be abundant to have a productive and thriving society, is all. You cannot be overtly and excessively rewarded by the actions of your ancestors, to the detriment of others, just as you shouldn't be punished for their crimes.

I will again say this much - adding more taxes and regulations makes it worse and even harder for average joe to make a successful business. If small business tax rate was virtually zero and there were nearly no regulations, there would be far more successful businesses out there which means richer average joes. But no, small businesses are taxed out of existence in the name of "punishing the rich" and this phenomenon merely gets worse over time not better. It is businesses that drive capital, both large AND small. That said, I am pretty sure the corporate tax rate is the lowest it has been in ages in the US, which means it's actually easier to enter into the SMALL business market than ever before. I emphasize small because people keep parading tax cuts for the rich but nothing could be further from the truth.

Then there's the problem of most governments simply do not have the money to help anyone, even if it is moral to do so therefore the whole discussion is moot. No matter how moral you are if you're broke then you're screwed. In the context of being poor, this is a perfect analogy. Most governments are not only broke but in INSANE debt. What is the answer? Tax more? No. The answer is spend less. However, governments 99% of the time do not know how to spend less, so what's their answer? Tax, tax, tax... and then even with the increased taxes that they asked for, 99% of the time they STILL can't balance the budget, and then... you guessed it... ask for more taxes. Let me put it this way - the debt is $20 trillion+ in the US which means the average american is effectively shouldering $20,000+ in debt... on top of their debt they may already own. Would you put yourself $20,000 in debt on purpose to help your neighbor? If your answer is no, then now you understand my position. Most people would not even go $20,000 in debt to help someone they DO know. I can't even honestly say I would. And if you say you WOULD do this... then sorry but I don't believe it...

You wanna know why the chasm is getting worse? IT is precisely BECAUSE we don't have proper capitalism. With all the extreme regulations and taxes in the past only the "strong" have muscled through and remained while being unchallenged from any newcomers who go bankrupt trying due to all the taxes and regulations.

Anyway, get the budget balanced and debt to $0 and THEN we'll talk. The last time we had a budgetary surplus in the US was under clinton in the 90's and only then because newt gingrich pressured clinton to do so. The moral debate is nice and all, but all is irrelevant - because none of our governments have the freakin money to help anyone.

Again, myself and waremu, we don't want the freakin government to force people to help others. IT puts too much faith in the government. Inherently this is where we disagree. I want smaller government because I don't trust it, because I hate taxes and think we can have a functional country with minimal taxes (we did not even have income taxes until the 1900's, and somehow we lived without it before). It has absolutely NOTHING to do with moral duty or anything, and simply the fact that taxes put a burden on the economy, especially excess taxes which most civilized countries have nowadays because governments are way too bloated.

If we could slash taxes across the board by 50-75%, and bring the debt to 0, why shouldn't we pursue it? This sounds impossible but I don't think it is. Give me control over the US budget and I could make it happen. Maybe I sound confident because I am. It's not that hard. Spend less. Done. What a novel concept.

Nothing wrong with smart and hard-working people becoming billionaires, but there definitely is something wrong when these billionaires are all teaming up to enslave the population to work for them at the cost of basic health and happiness. Estrogen is a slave hormone. It makes you rigid and work like you're on speed and then burns out your body. Could it really be an accident that everything in American society is so synergistic when it comes to increasing estrogen? I'm not a communist, but I think hardcore capitalists that defend capitalism as it currently exists in the United States are supporting their own slavery.

I don't think all rich people are like this. Sure there are some, and no one has ever said capitalism is a perfect system but it sure beats communism. And I do think one of the richest men alive, george soros, is one of the most evil men to walk this planet. His favorite hobby is destroying countries. I am convinced he helped obama get into office and probably worked hard to fund hillary to get her into office as well but joke was on him because despite everything she still lost.

The fact is you can't put a limiter on who gets rich or how rich they can get without also screwing over average joe either directly or in indirectly. What are you proposing? Saying someone now can't earn more than $1M a year? Where are you drawing the line? All I hear are vagaries with no specifics. When you put limiters on people you also put limiters on the success of an economy. Or are you promoting 90% tax? Guess what that accomplishes? Rich people leaving your country to find cheaper taxes! And when the rich people leave guess what - you lost 80% of your tax base, and now who's going to pay all the government programs? Ooops, no one, that's who.

The US does not have capitalism. We have what's called crony capitalism. Many government "health" groups like the FDA are in collusion with the medical industry which I think both you and I agree on. That's not capitalism. One specific great example is when GM got bailed out by the government because they were "too big to fail". Proper capitalism would say - let GM fail and someone else take their place.

 

[Whichway?]

Worked out quite nicely for the 90 victims of the Bataclan.

In fact, when one analyses theses 2 mass shootings, it becomes clear that armed citizens would have greatly curtailed the number of casualties.

The opposite of what the advertised solution claims.

So you would carry a pistol when you go to the theatre? You’d pit yourself against people with automatic weapons?

I will again say this much - adding more taxes and regulations makes it worse and even harder for average joe to make a successful business. If small business tax rate was virtually zero and there were nearly no regulations, there would be far more successful businesses out there which means richer average joes. But no, small businesses are taxed out of existence in the name of "punishing the rich" and this phenomenon merely gets worse over time not better. It is businesses that drive capital, both large AND small. That said, I am pretty sure the corporate tax rate is the lowest it has been in ages in the US, which means it's actually easier to enter into the SMALL business market than ever before. I emphasize small because people keep parading tax cuts for the rich but nothing could be further from the truth.

Then there's the problem of most governments simply do not have the money to help anyone, even if it is moral to do so therefore the whole discussion is moot. No matter how moral you are if you're broke then you're screwed. In the context of being poor, this is a perfect analogy. Most governments are not only broke but in INSANE debt. What is the answer? Tax more? No. The answer is spend less. However, governments 99% of the time do not know how to spend less, so what's their answer? Tax, tax, tax... and then even with the increased taxes that they asked for, 99% of the time they STILL can't balance the budget, and then... you guessed it... ask for more taxes. Let me put it this way - the debt is $20 trillion+ in the US which means the average american is effectively shouldering $20,000+ in debt... on top of their debt they may already own. Would you put yourself $20,000 in debt on purpose to help your neighbor? If your answer is no, then now you understand my position. Most people would not even go $20,000 in debt to help someone they DO know. I can't even honestly say I would. And if you say you WOULD do this... then sorry but I don't believe it...

You wanna know why the chasm is getting worse? IT is precisely BECAUSE we don't have proper capitalism. With all the extreme regulations and taxes in the past only the "strong" have muscled through and remained while being unchallenged from any newcomers who go bankrupt trying due to all the taxes and regulations.

Anyway, get the budget balanced and debt to $0 and THEN we'll talk. The last time we had a budgetary surplus in the US was under clinton in the 90's and only then because newt gingrich pressured clinton to do so. The moral debate is nice and all, but all is irrelevant - because none of our governments have the freakin money to help anyone.

Again, myself and waremu, we don't want the freakin government to force people to help others. IT puts too much faith in the government. Inherently this is where we disagree. I want smaller government because I don't trust it, because I hate taxes and think we can have a functional country with minimal taxes (we did not even have income taxes until the 1900's, and somehow we lived without it before). It has absolutely NOTHING to do with moral duty or anything, and simply the fact that taxes put a burden on the economy, especially excess taxes which most civilized countries have nowadays because governments are way too bloated.

If we could slash taxes across the board by 50-75%, and bring the debt to 0, why shouldn't we pursue it? This sounds impossible but I don't think it is. Give me control over the US budget and I could make it happen. Maybe I sound confident because I am. It's not that hard. Spend less. Done. What a novel concept.



I don't think all rich people are like this. Sure there are some, and no one has ever said capitalism is a perfect system but it sure beats communism. And I do think one of the richest men alive, george soros, is one of the most evil men to walk this planet. His favorite hobby is destroying countries. I am convinced he helped obama get into office and probably worked hard to fund hillary to get her into office as well but joke was on him because despite everything she still lost.

The fact is you can't put a limiter on who gets rich or how rich they can get without also screwing over average joe either directly or in indirectly. What are you proposing? Saying someone now can't earn more than $1M a year? Where are you drawing the line? All I hear are vagaries with no specifics. When you put limiters on people you also put limiters on the success of an economy. Or are you promoting 90% tax? Guess what that accomplishes? Rich people leaving your country to find cheaper taxes! And when the rich people leave guess what - you lost 80% of your tax base, and now who's going to pay all the government programs? Ooops, no one, that's who.

The US does not have capitalism. We have what's called crony capitalism. Many government "health" groups like the FDA are in collusion with the medical industry which I think both you and I agree on. That's not capitalism. One specific great example is when GM got bailed out by the government because they were "too big to fail". Proper capitalism would say - let GM fail and someone else take their place.

What’s all this taxed out of existence victimhood come from? The US has reduced its tax rates to be more in line with other OECD countries, and sole proprietors (many small business) pay around 14%. In addition many business don’t end up paying the listed rate due to concessions and write offs.

You guys take the individualistic ideal to the extreme and seem to dream about a world where everything is simple and easy. Sorry but it just ain’t like that. I’m sure all businesses would like to pay not tax and have no regulation on them, and never have to fill out a form. Without taxes how are communities going to pay for roads and schools, and other infrastructure which is common to the community and essential for business, and what’s going to happen when all the companies that make you consumer gear produce sub standard and defective goods because they no longer have to produce anything to a regulated standard and can simply f**k you over in the name of profits? Case in point automobile makers. No one in that industry decided to implement safety improvements in vehicles without being forced to by regulators.

 

[thomas00]

Irrelevant, there will always be black market access to firearms. Mass shootings still occur in every nation with a gun ban.

Not true. And black market guns cost a fortune in Australia.

 

[Sativa]

Hard to say if that's the bare feet or not, could just be the color of the shoes on the bottom. If those are his soles then he has some really red feet. @Sativa

Doubts aside, when you are familiar with the staging strategies, agendas and mindsets at play, such a staging becomes obvious. But, the point is to make it as authentic as possible, as it always is with any such staged event. (there are many examples to choose from, but it depends how gullable you are and ignorant of the agendas at play. Most people believe any narrative they are told...)

 

[michael94]

Doubts aside, when you are familiar with the staging strategies, agendas and mindsets at play, such a staging becomes obvious. But, the point is to make it as authentic as possible, as it always is with any such staged event. (there are many examples to choose from, but it depends how gullable you are and ignorant of the agendas at play. Most people believe any narrative they are told...)

I remember during the Las Vegas shooting at the concert there was a clip released of a trauma center treating victims, it seemed close to 100% fake to me because of something I noticed. A few weeks later my Aunt told me about some boy she knew who’s parents died there.

After that I stopped assuming everything was 100% hoax. Even with all the obviously fake crisis actor interviews and videos released with inconsistencies. So, I think they could be real tragedies, with completely in your face elements of fakery that might serve as bait for critical minds to appear nuts, or even evil for calling a tragedy not real.

 

[sunraiser]

I will again say this much - adding more taxes and regulations makes it worse and even harder for average joe to make a successful business. If small business tax rate was virtually zero and there were nearly no regulations, there would be far more successful businesses out there which means richer average joes. But no, small businesses are taxed out of existence in the name of "punishing the rich" and this phenomenon merely gets worse over time not better. It is businesses that drive capital, both large AND small. That said, I am pretty sure the corporate tax rate is the lowest it has been in ages in the US, which means it's actually easier to enter into the SMALL business market than ever before. I emphasize small because people keep parading tax cuts for the rich but nothing could be further from the truth.

Then there's the problem of most governments simply do not have the money to help anyone, even if it is moral to do so therefore the whole discussion is moot. No matter how moral you are if you're broke then you're screwed. In the context of being poor, this is a perfect analogy. Most governments are not only broke but in INSANE debt. What is the answer? Tax more? No. The answer is spend less. However, governments 99% of the time do not know how to spend less, so what's their answer? Tax, tax, tax... and then even with the increased taxes that they asked for, 99% of the time they STILL can't balance the budget, and then... you guessed it... ask for more taxes. Let me put it this way - the debt is $20 trillion+ in the US which means the average american is effectively shouldering $20,000+ in debt... on top of their debt they may already own. Would you put yourself $20,000 in debt on purpose to help your neighbor? If your answer is no, then now you understand my position. Most people would not even go $20,000 in debt to help someone they DO know. I can't even honestly say I would. And if you say you WOULD do this... then sorry but I don't believe it...

You wanna know why the chasm is getting worse? IT is precisely BECAUSE we don't have proper capitalism. With all the extreme regulations and taxes in the past only the "strong" have muscled through and remained while being unchallenged from any newcomers who go bankrupt trying due to all the taxes and regulations.

Anyway, get the budget balanced and debt to $0 and THEN we'll talk. The last time we had a budgetary surplus in the US was under clinton in the 90's and only then because newt gingrich pressured clinton to do so. The moral debate is nice and all, but all is irrelevant - because none of our governments have the freakin money to help anyone.

Again, myself and waremu, we don't want the freakin government to force people to help others. IT puts too much faith in the government. Inherently this is where we disagree. I want smaller government because I don't trust it, because I hate taxes and think we can have a functional country with minimal taxes (we did not even have income taxes until the 1900's, and somehow we lived without it before). It has absolutely NOTHING to do with moral duty or anything, and simply the fact that taxes put a burden on the economy, especially excess taxes which most civilized countries have nowadays because governments are way too bloated.

If we could slash taxes across the board by 50-75%, and bring the debt to 0, why shouldn't we pursue it? This sounds impossible but I don't think it is. Give me control over the US budget and I could make it happen. Maybe I sound confident because I am. It's not that hard. Spend less. Done. What a novel concept.



I don't think all rich people are like this. Sure there are some, and no one has ever said capitalism is a perfect system but it sure beats communism. And I do think one of the richest men alive, george soros, is one of the most evil men to walk this planet. His favorite hobby is destroying countries. I am convinced he helped obama get into office and probably worked hard to fund hillary to get her into office as well but joke was on him because despite everything she still lost.

The fact is you can't put a limiter on who gets rich or how rich they can get without also screwing over average joe either directly or in indirectly. What are you proposing? Saying someone now can't earn more than $1M a year? Where are you drawing the line? All I hear are vagaries with no specifics. When you put limiters on people you also put limiters on the success of an economy. Or are you promoting 90% tax? Guess what that accomplishes? Rich people leaving your country to find cheaper taxes! And when the rich people leave guess what - you lost 80% of your tax base, and now who's going to pay all the government programs? Ooops, no one, that's who.

The US does not have capitalism. We have what's called crony capitalism. Many government "health" groups like the FDA are in collusion with the medical industry which I think both you and I agree on. That's not capitalism. One specific great example is when GM got bailed out by the government because they were "too big to fail". Proper capitalism would say - let GM fail and someone else take their place.

You're fighting against right wing media rhetoric, not against the points presented in the thread. You keep talking about communism and pricing out small business but noone is suggesting those things in any way. Of course you wouldn't tax small business the same as a large corporate entity. It's nuanced and progressive - that's the point!

In the USA your entire lives you're fed this by the media - regulation, social investment; big bad enemies to freedom! All these simple rhetoric based fear mongering phrases are put across and you're trying to argue against those with a passion. It sounds a dramatic word to use, but when there are specific issues discussed in the thread over and over and you keep reverting back to fighting against things the media are purporting but noone here is suggesting, I don't know how to view it as anything else other than evidence of something akin to brain washing. I GET that you are educated and intelligent, I can see it and perceive it, but that doesn't make you immune to a slowly ebbing life long idea put to you in various ways.

There is nothing wrong with a country floating some debt. The large debts for both the UK and USA are products of wars and, yes, partly bail outs. The economic crash was a direct result of deregulation in the financial sector. Yes, it was partially sub-prime mortgages, but the issues came from credit default swaps. The free market allows for capital and debt assets to be used in this way. A depression/recession has real terms drastic impacts on people's lives, and while the bail outs are obviously not in line with the free market, recessions ABSOLUTELY are. The actions that caused the financial crash used to be regulated against.

If you want specific examples of practical policy then you can look at pre 1980s UK, or current Scandanavian nations, Germany, Netherlands for some easy examples. These systems have given 80 odd years of what's effectively the greatest levels of collective quality of life and wellbeing in human history. Whether they're going up or down at current is something one could argue, but why on earth would you be so against something that has quite clearly had this outcome for nearly a century!?

Anyway - ONTO THE MOST FUNDEMENTAL POINT:

We have talked about and agreed upon media subterfuge and corporate meddling, so I think now it's more important THAN EVER for people to clearly demonstrate their beliefs and OWN what they're voting for. This might take some deeper self reflection, but in having these conversations (and for society in general) self honesty is so important.

It must be clear that A TRULY "FREE" MARKET CAN NEVER EXIST. At the top end there won't be such a limiting factor, but at the bottom end HUMAN BASIC NEEDS get in the way of the market being free. It cannot be self regulating because of these things.

As humans we need water, food, shelter, clothing and companionship. These things can ALWAYS be monopolised (you could argue companionship, I grant) and we can't simply forgo them without choosing death. If you expect the bottom end of the market to be regulated by humans simply choosing starvation or death then you're forgetting the human imperative to survive. We instinctively survive at all costs.

As for the labour market, the choice is more explicit. Because of the above human needs what you're asking people to do is to choose between working under poor conditions or death. If people at the bottom that aren't born into wealth don't like the labour conditions or wages, they then must choose to regulate the market by dying (going without meeting their basic needs). THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING OF PEOPLE.

WITHOUT A SOCIAL SAFETY NET OF SOME KIND, WITHOUT REGULATION, WITHOUT ANY WELFARE, THIS IS WHAT YOU ASK OF THEM.

If you advocate an entirely free market instead of a mixed economy you ARE advocating slavery. If a person has to choose between immediate death or slightly slower death via unsustainable working conditions then they'll have to go with poor working conditions. THEREFORE THE MARKET IS NOT FREE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A CHOICE! This is why regulation exists. This is how civilised society has come to be.

This really is the crux of the matter. When you strip away all the rhetoric, when you strip away the subterfuge and get down to pure ideology and the stark consequences then YOU HAVE TO OWN THIS FACT.

You have a right to this opinion, your experiences are your own and they've shaped who you are, but let's be absolutely clear of what you're fighting for. Let's be absolutely clear of what you're in favour of.

I support you in your freedom of choice to strive for what you believe is best, if that's where you truly find yourself after lots of self reflection. I do expect people to hold honesty in the highest regard and to be straight with eachother. To speak their minds exactly as they are without deceit. I imagine you feel the same.

I don't have a problem with your freedom of choice, HOWEVER like Donald Trump in the US, and like Theresa May in the UK, you cannot in good faith call yourself a Christian while holding these beliefs. They are fundementally against the teachings of Christianity, against the teachings of Islam and all other modern religion. I understand this is an abrasive thing to say but it's abhorent to me that these leaders are taking such actions in the name of religions that, while deceptively used in the name of selfish and cruel acts in the past, have been the basis of wider human morality and goodness in the community throughout history.

I get that the above is an abrasive thing to say but I think it's a horrible shame that groups that were based on fundemental human values have been undermined and used to represent such OPPOSITE ideals to what they preach.

Your actions define you - not labels, not words, actions.

I really really don't think you've had proper experience or study of what mixed market social democracies do or what they stand for. The whole idea is that you give THE MOST POSSIBLE PEOPLE an opportunity to be educated and find their way in society. This creates a HIGHLY SKILLED WORKFORCE with higher consumer spending that helps EVERYONE thrive. A business owner has access to skilled workers. A given human has access to a wealth of ideas and people around them that can help enlighten them and help them grow as a person. There's less crime because people at the bottom aren't desperate. You enable and subsidise small business while making sure businesses can only operate within a SUSTAINABLE framework. A business can only exist with a social directive so it's not a net LOSS to society. It must pay its workers and consider their needs in a way that allows them to have healthy and happiness, ELSE it can't grow. Sensible regulation.

There's social cohesion to tackle global problems such as climate change as people aren't trapped in nothing but a monotonous grind with no other opportunity every day.

The "free" market creates a low education, low wage and low median consumer spending workforce. This can only ever benefit those born into a wealth and power base (for the most part).

I'm learning about representations of freedom and how people in the USA perceive it in this thread, and I CAN understand how gun ownership represents something to people that goes beyond simply wanting a gun. I get that, and it has helped me understand people better. If gun ownership is the thing in the way of many people voting for some kind of mixed market social governance then I would agree to it IMMEDIATELY. After all if you're addressing the root cause social issues (like we discussed) then people are far less likely to need or want to hurt eachother.

For people to understand exactly what they're representing is imperative in this day and age. I do not believe large swathes of poor voters would have voted for someone like Trump if they understood the above fundemental point, and THAT's why conservatives have to use media subterfuge and brain washing to get votes. And REMEMBER the democratic party do not represent what I'm talking about. Bernie Sanders does, though.

My post is very passionate and blunt, and I've used caps that might seem like I'm shouting ideas in your face, but it's purely from passion. We are being divided as people, and people like you and I SHOULD BE ON THE SAME SIDE. From your other posts I cannot believe you'd advocate certain tenets as listed. That's all. It's passion and belief and desperately trying to avoid the obfuscation that's rife in the world today.

 

[thomas00]

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.

lol

I never said anything about équality of outcome'. That seems to be your hobby horse.

You've read Jordie Peterson (and obviously little else) and you've decided anybody who isn't like you must fall into the other category of people he describes. I guess it makes for a simple life.

Well, feel free to post some science saying how we aren't áll equal'(whatever that means). So far you've just gotten by with foot stamping.

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.

A few messages ago you were getting uppity because I raised the issue of a 3 year old getting hundreds of thousands a year. Now you want to talk about rewards based on merit and intellect.

The kind of society you are describing is the antithesis of civilizational progress. The only way to advance anything is for people to have the opportunities to reach their full potential. Filtering them out on the basis of whether or not they can win the approval of the priests of science and technology (who is going to decide what constitutes a benefit?) is pretty much the worst system imaginable and no different to what we have now.

It's clear that you are motivated by reward (and like every other authoritarian mind, insist others should be too) which is the hallmark of a slave mentality. You either crave approval or want to be in a position where people are on their knees begging for it from you.

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.

Most of it is actually. You don't seem at all well versed on nutrition or epidemiology of pre industrial societies.We are not dealing with infectious disease and malnutrition that plagued those groups. We are dealing with chemical poisoning, socio-economic stress and a degraded food supply.

You can't accept it because it doesn't fit with your belief that its part of nature and we should just accept the degradation around us and the suffering it causes. Talk about justification for learned helplessness.

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.
(Peat has actually agreed with this as well in one of his email comments/articles about disease/cancer.)

Genetic explanations are the refuge of scientists who like to write promissory notes. You're in the wrong place and reading the wrong things if you want to trot out those explanations and not be dismissed. Honestly it doesn't sound like you've read anything Peat has read, apart from the political stuff which got you upset.

You say these problems are self inflicted but won't consider the context that it's happening in. You would happily hold a child responsible for the world they are born into and expect them to take all the blame for drinking tainted baby formula, eating bad food, receiving reckless medical treatment and totalitarian schooling and then you behave like you have something to teach everybody else about personal responsibility.

That's some chutzpah. Peat's ideas are at total odds with what you are suggesting.

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.

Some good people in power doing good things (lol, who?) does not cancel out the bad, nor does it provide any kind of coherent justification for anybody to have large amounts of power.

That you can be so easily impressed by a few good acts to allow domination of every resource on the planet by a parasitic few says a lot.

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

I'd love to see you say that to a thalidomide victim.

You obviously have no idea and I am wasting my time. PUFA in the food supply? Fluoride in the water supply? SSRI handed out en masse? All the people on the receiving ends fault it seems.

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.

So you'd blame the victim in an act of collective punishment because the person responsible was corrupt?

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?

It still stands that weather or not a doctor will treat someone or not is a matter of discretion, and a healthcare system which values life above else makes a judgement call.

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.

people who make this argument never apply it to constant decreases in the corporate tax rate. Curiously that can always be afforded without detriment.

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.

Equal in regards to what? These are just generalized terms being thrown around for fun.

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.

This is just the arch conservative view of evolution that can't bring itself to accept the evidence of cooperation in evolution, largely because the former is rooted in a strong religious disgust of human nature. Nevertheless, the evidence of cooperation is there weather they choose to read it or go on hating themselves and other people.

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.

They do actually all grow on trees, come from the air and in the ground.

No one held a gun to the students who went to school.

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.

Universities are businesses that want to attract as many fee paying students as possible, regardless of the outcome. I think you don't know much about how they function and what impressions they give to people. If a degree won't produce gainful employment then they have responsibility to tell people that. Guess how much that happens in a for-profit system?

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.

The market place is driven by consumption.

A degree and career path might have value based on that. But a system that arranges itself around consumption values little else.

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.

If you think good information is so widespread then why are you here? By definition you wouldn't be if good advice was so popular and by logic you must think popular health advice is of good quality.

Most people do not know any such thing. They rely on the authority figures who tell them they have the best advice (who make things worse) or see naturopaths. A few end up here after years of searching.

you have very bad arguments that are mostly based of envy and emotion.

with the USSR any criticism was obvious mental illness (because it was a perfect system)

with capitalism any criticism is envy (because it's a perfect system)

Same pathology.

Every progressive nut job has their own version of the ideal utopian society. And usually when attempted, it ends in stacks of dead bodies.

Paranoia of the most subtle of changes is always rooted in this neuroses. No wonder conservatives feel the needs to hold onto things, even when it's something inherently harmful to them.

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.

You place a lot of emphasis on protecting somebody's ability to turn a blind eye to the suffering they trained to treat.

If only you put it as much energy into reading about healthcare systems around the world where doctors get paid, aren't forced to do anything and patients get treated regardless of their financial situation, you might not be so bogged down in quasi-philosophical arguments that ensure overpaid doctors don't get hurt feelings.

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.

You're already there. Of course you can choose not to submit to labor and live on the streets. It's good to have options I guess.

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.

Firstly, what is the argument you are advancing as to why people should continue to compete for resources rather than share them?

And secondly, mass concentration of wealth is no sign of progress.

No one is entitled to my empathy.

said every psycho ever

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.

More theory.

In reality the countries which have access to the most resources use them to make sex toys for pets and other really efficient and useful products.

1. 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.”

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.

lol what are these 'bad choices' you keep referring to? Have we met before?

You whine about not wanting to be a slave but you cannot handle the idea of anybody wanting to even question the drudgery of modern work and corporate serfdom. You want to get out but you've been programmed in such a way that any criticism of the status quo is by definition a character flaw: 'envy', like those nasty commies and liberals. So you're kept wedded to the beliefs which keep you little more than a rat in rat race and now the only option is try and climb the dungheap in the hope that you can be the owner instead of the owned.

It would be comical if it werent so sad.

Indeed

 

[TeaRex14]

There's nothing as conservative as classical liberalism.

Classical Liberalism is a horse of a slightly different color. Guys like Ludwig von Mises, Henry George, and even some anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and Walter Block would not be accepted in modern conservative parties. They would be ripped for their beliefs of unrestricted immigration, they would be labeled isolationists for their non-interventionalist policies, and virtually none of them would support NAFTA (which isn't free trade, it's a joke). What would really exclud them the most is their distaste for Keynesian economics. Which real conservatives seem to love. Most of them would support the abolishment of the federal firearms act, which is more pro gun then any conservative I know.

I'm definitely a supporter of liberalism, free markets, and capitalism. If that makes me a "conservative" in the eyes of the radically left mainstream media then so be it. But I disagree with right wingers on many issues, everything ranging from common core education, trade, immigration, civil liberties, economics, etc. I'm not necessarily pro Trump either, just anti Hillary and absolutely anti Bernie. Lets not forget there's such a thing as conservative "democrats" as well, like David Duke and Richard Spencer. Who the media brand as alt-right, but if you ever listen to their ideology, it's clear they support the welfare state and many other things the democrats support. Only difference is they want it exclusively for whit people instead of racial minorities. They are, quite possibly, a libertarian's arch enemy. You know how many times I've been labeled an Israeli shill by some of these nut cases? Too many to count to be honest.

 

[Cirion]

Allright these posts are getting so long I think it is difficult to keep up with one topic so I'll just pick at one piece at a time.

Yes, it was partially sub-prime mortgages, but the issues came from credit default swaps. The free market allows for capital and debt assets to be used in this way. A depression/recession has real terms drastic impacts on people's lives, and while the bail outs are obviously not in line with the free market, recessions ABSOLUTELY are

Recessions rarely "just happen". The economy ALWAYS does worse under a liberal - aka more government control and spending and mandates. Part of what caused the mortgage collapse was faulty governmental policies actually.

Also you made a point that governments carry debt and that some is OK, yeah sure, but IMO no more than around one year of debt... to put a number to it let's say no more than $3T. Anymore than that and you're getting raped by interest alone. I hate to think the interest on $20 Trillion dollars of loans. Let's say interest is 10% and that's being generous probably. That's $2 trillion a year on INTEREST. Our budget these days I don't think even hits $2T anymore. So we're getting stuck in a death spiral where we're screwed.

By the way my math was wrong before, $20T of debt, assuming roughly 200 million adults in the US (I don't know the real number), that's $100,000 of debt carried by every adult in the US. You can't tell me that's a "small amount of debt". That's everybody owing the government a freakin HOUSE.

 

[DaveFoster]

Classical Liberalism is a horse of a slightly different color. Guys like Ludwig von Mises, Henry George, and even some anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and Walter Block would not be accepted in modern conservative parties. They would be ripped for their beliefs of unrestricted immigration, they would be labeled isolationists for their non-interventionalist policies, and virtually none of them would support NAFTA (which isn't free trade, it's a joke). What would really exclud them the most is their distaste for Keynesian economics. Which real conservatives seem to love. Most of them would support the abolishment of the federal firearms act, which is more pro gun then any conservative I know.

I'm definitely a supporter of liberalism, free markets, and capitalism. If that makes me a "conservative" in the eyes of the radically left mainstream media then so be it. But I disagree with right wingers on many issues, everything ranging from common core education, trade, immigration, civil liberties, economics, etc. I'm not necessarily pro Trump either, just anti Hillary and absolutely anti Bernie. Lets not forget there's such a thing as conservative "democrats" as well, like David Duke and Richard Spencer. Who the media brand as alt-right, but if you ever listen to their ideology, it's clear they support the welfare state and many other things the democrats support. Only difference is they want it exclusively for whit people instead of racial minorities. They are, quite possibly, a libertarian's arch enemy. You know how many times I've been labeled an Israeli shill by some of these nut cases? Too many to count to be honest.

I said that comment with tongue-in-cheek. Rothbard admonished the reality of power consolidation and corporate tyranny. Hoppe took libertarianism to its logical end: monarchy. Power continues to centralize until you have an absolute sovereign. At that point, regardless of obedience to the non-aggression primciple, the absolute ruler. the imperator becomes the dominus or tyrannos (tyrant) and functionally stands above the law and can therefore implement force based on his right as dominium directum et utile, or literally the absolute ownership and right to direct property without restriction.

In other words, the emperor creates the law and thereby dictates the recognition of property. He forms the law based around his right as sovereign, and he then enforces his legal authority through the use of force. Once the state expropriates property, the autocratic figure gains this property and others must pledge fealty to him to gain access to land, which legitimizes his right as sovereign; as it's social construct, property only has meaning if acknowledged by others. Since the sovereign owns everything, others must use violence to acquire property. You can argue the Lockean labor theory of property, which states that if you mix your labor with natural resources, then you retain property rights, but fundamentally, the sovereign has already laid claim to the land through his control of the legislative and judicial systems. All ownership of property bases itself on violence, as might makes right.

The creation of a welfare state would be completely up to the discretion of the sovereign, and democracy itself can only exist in power vacuum. It's one stage in the cyclical progression of governments, which ends with the monarchy, itself governed by those with hearts of gold, as outlined by Plato.

David Duke criticizes Zionism and Communism most of the time, as well as military interventions. I've never heard him say anything substantive about domestic policy. Richard Spencer's a national socialist, or a follower of Alexander Dugan's philosophy, but no one really knows what that means: something post-fascist and maybe populist, the direction in which we're currently heading.