Size of Government: Your Thoughts (Or Lack Thereof...)

[I'm Watermark]

you are speaking about true communism as opposed to tyrannical pseudo comunism

I generally don't use the term "pseudo communism". It has the tendency of making people associate these regimes with communism itself.

 

[I'm Watermark]

But while you have government, you aren't affraid to use it on people.

For the liberation of the proletariat? Of course. And who do you mean by "you"?

 

[Don Quixote]

Tyrannical pseudo communism is not communism unless you believe American propaganda.
Oh the evil of the commie soviets, the red Chinese, the terrible Viet Cong. They might still be lurking beneath your beds y'know.

?

where did i say that i believe that tyrannical pseudo communism is the same as true communism

allegedly, jesus and his disciples practiced true communism - a truism that many 'christians' ignore today

 

[Lowaicue]

?

where did i say that i believe that tyrannical pseudo communism is the same as true communism

allegedly, jesus and his disciples practiced true communism - a truism that many 'christians' ignore today

You did not equate the two and I certainly had no intention of suggesting otherwise. And I totally agree that many christians ignore the fact that jesus practiced true communism. I would go further and say that, with the exception of one person, and that ironically was a catholic priest, I have never met a single christian who lived according to the popuarly accepted teachings of Jesus.
Indeed most christians I have met would have been denied access to any society that was based upon christianity or communism.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

 

[Airstrip One]

For the liberation murder of the proletariat? Of course. And who do you mean by "you"?

I suppose it would be anyone who is feeling particularly apologetic for communism at the moment...

 

[The Dude]

Will you be entitled to the guns to kill us or will you have to earn them? Cause if your generation will have to earn them I'm not losing any sleep! LOL

He meant kill us in video games!

 

[I'm Watermark]

I suppose it would be anyone who is feeling particularly apologetic for communism at the moment...

If we're talking about Marxism, communists seek a state controlled wholly by the working class. How that equates to murder, I don't know.

McCarthyites will be as they are, I suppose. It's hard to argue against what communists actually believe, hunh?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Sure it does. Is gay marriage mainly a liberal or conservative idea? Is removing religious teachings and "creationism" from public schools a liberal or conservative agenda?

As far as the safety net for our society, there are ways to provide that safety net and still be fiscally conservative. Include mandatory career training in any welfare system. Put a time limit on it.

Define fiscal conservatism as you see it?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

If we're talking about Marxism, communists seek a state controlled wholly by the working class. How that equates to murder, I don't know.

McCarthyites will be as they are, I suppose. It's hard to argue against what communists actually believe, hunh?

One need only look at history in every society where Marxism was imposed. Hundreds of millions murdered to bring about utopian societies and to equalize outcomes. All for the poor.

History is your guide.

The reason it happens is simple. One that type if ideology runs counter to basic human nature. If human nature won't relent it will be removed forcibly do that all comply. All for "the greater good" the Statists claim in a feat of cognitive dissonance so great it allows for herding of fellow human beings into gas chambers to be exterminated

 

[I'm Watermark]

One need only look at history in every society where Marxism was imposed. Hundreds of millions murdered to bring about utopian societies and to equalize outcomes. All for the poor.

History is your guide.

The reason it happens is simple. One that type if ideology runs counter to basic human nature. If human nature won't relent it will be removed forcibly do that all comply. All for "the greater good" the Statists claim in a feat of cognitive dissonance so great it allows for herding of fellow human beings into gas chambers to be exterminated

I don't study history, but I can tell you what happened in Russia: The government was never meant to be Marxist by many of it's top leaders. Simply, they said the country needed to be lead to socialism by way of a dictatorship.

The problem with these uses is that Marxism is not meant to be put in place, it's meant to be an end result of capitalism.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I don't study history, but I can tell you what happened in Russia: The government was never meant to be Marxist by many of it's top leaders. Simply, they said the country needed to be lead to socialism by way of a dictatorship.

The problem with these uses is that Marxism is not meant to be put in place, it's meant to be an end result of capitalism.

You are missing my point. The point is that you will never get to some utopian ideal because of human nature.

Every rule, guideline or policy the gobblement sets forth to reorder society has an unintended consequence that always makes things worse.

I will give you two examples.

1) in 1993 they passed a yacht tax in millionaires because they could "afford" it. Sounded reasonable to the proles who thought "I don't own a yacht, so fuck em". The unintended consequence was that there was a reduction in yacht production which put yacht builders out work. Awesome right?

2) in 1993 the federal gobblement thought that it wasn't right that CEOs had such high salaries. So they had to "fix it". They knew they just couldnt pass a wage control law. So they passed a law stating that a company could only expense up to $1 million of executive salary. That will fix it. How could those companies possibly get around that right? Ahhh, buy they did. Instead of offering high salaries, companies began offering compensation in the form of stock options which were not expensed the same way as traditional compensation. The unintended consequence was that executive pay exploded and now executives focused more on te stock price than running a solid business. You see up until that time, stock options were a relatively small component of executive compensation. I would argue that fucking around with the compensation by Congress and Clinton had a part in the financial scandals of the late 90s.

I could go on, but my point is that no gobblement program designed by pseudo intellectuals will ever be as efficient or have its intended purpose. History shows me to be correct. You are free to ignore it and remain a low information voter if you choose. But that won't change the facts and you do so at your own peril.

 

[I'm Watermark]

You are missing my point. The point is that you will never get to some utopian ideal because of human nature.

Every rule, guideline or policy the gobblement sets forth to reorder society has an unintended consequence that always makes things worse.

I will give you two examples.

1) in 1993 they passed a yacht tax in millionaires because they could "afford" it. Sounded reasonable to the proles who thought "I don't own a yacht, so fuck em". The unintended consequence was that there was a reduction in yacht production which put yacht builders out work. Awesome right?

2) in 1993 the federal gobblement thought that it wasn't right that CEOs had such high salaries. So they had to "fix it". They knew they just couldnt pass a wage control law. So they passed a law stating that a company could only expense up to $1 million of executive salary. That will fix it. How could those companies possibly get around that right? Ahhh, buy they did. Instead of offering high salaries, companies began offering compensation in the form of stock options which were not expensed the same way as traditional compensation. The unintended consequence was that executive pay exploded and now executives focused more on te stock price than running a solid business. You see up until that time, stock options were a relatively small component of executive compensation. I would argue that fucking around with the compensation by Congress and Clinton had a part in the financial scandals of the late 90s.

I could go on, but my point is that no gobblement program designed by pseudo intellectuals will ever be as efficient or have its intended purpose. History shows me to be correct. You are free to ignore it and remain a low information voter if you choose. But that won't change the facts and you do so at your own peril.

You see fit to assail the idea of reform, but ignore the faults of what we're trying to change.

Wealth inequality
Systemic poverty
Class stagnancy
Class poverty
Healthcare, education, income, being a privilege.
Corporations that view crime as an acceptable risk, murder with no consequences, and exploit workers.
People who spend their whole lives working with no opportunity for advancement.
Workers having no control over their livelihoods and being subject to the will of employers.
The destruction of one person one vote.
Brutal foreign policy as a measure of controlling markets.

Yes, change can produce some unintended results, but there's a valid reason for wanting to change the existing structures.

 

[Don Quixote]

You see fit to assail the idea of reform, but ignore the faults of what we're trying to change.

Wealth inequality
Systemic poverty
Class stagnancy
Class poverty
Healthcare, education, income, being a privilege.
Corporations that view crime as an acceptable risk, murder with no consequences, and exploit workers.
People who spend their whole lives working with no opportunity for advancement.
Workers having no control over their livelihoods and being subject to the will of employers.
The destruction of one person one vote.
Brutal foreign policy as a measure of controlling markets.

Yes, change can produce some unintended results, but there's a valid reason for wanting to change the existing structures.

i wonder what his explanation for the shrinking middle class and the explosive growth of ceo compensation is and what could be done about it...if anything

when the wealthy spend huge amounts on tax attorneys and accounts to find loopholes or bribe congress critters to 'make mistakes' when they write laws, how can the average citizen compete

where is the room for upward social mobility?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

You see fit to assail the idea of reform, but ignore the faults of what we're trying to change.

Wealth inequality
Systemic poverty
Class stagnancy
Class poverty
Healthcare, education, income, being a privilege.
Corporations that view crime as an acceptable risk, murder with no consequences, and exploit workers.
People who spend their whole lives working with no opportunity for advancement.
Workers having no control over their livelihoods and being subject to the will of employers.
The destruction of one person one vote.
Brutal foreign policy as a measure of controlling markets.

Yes, change can produce some unintended results, but there's a valid reason for wanting to change the existing structures.

Again. Poverty will always be with us. We have transferred over $6 trillion in welfare since LBJs war on poverty began and the poverty rate has not changed. It is time to recognize that your ideology is an abject failure. But you won't.

 

[Rationalist]

Too bad you support the side responsible for explosive government growth.

I do?

 

[I'm Watermark]

Again. Poverty will always be with us. We have transferred over $6 trillion in welfare since LBJs war on poverty began and the poverty rate has not changed. It is time to recognize that your ideology is an abject failure. But you won't.

"My ideology" is not Keynesianism, as you seem to believe. You have to be illiterate to believe that my primary solution to poverty is welfare.

 

[Rune]

I do?

Yes, your side ramps up deficit spending. Seriously. Prove me wrong please.

 

[Airstrip One]

"My ideology" is not Keynesianism, as you seem to believe. You have to be illiterate to believe that my primary solution to poverty is welfare.

Technically, Keynesianism doesn't automatically lead to welfare. It all depends on what the government spends it's budget on (like infrastructure and public works). Neokeynesianism, which is more of a religion than anything (and loosely based upon the man it is named after) might lead everyone to believe that the primary objective is welfare spending, of course...

 

[Airstrip One]

If we're talking about Marxism, communists seek a state controlled wholly by the working class. How that equates to murder, I don't know.

McCarthyites will be as they are, I suppose. It's hard to argue against what communists actually believe, hunh?

Really, and how are these proles going to go about taking control of what doesn't belong to them? One giant class-action lawsuit?