Yep, I’m an asshole. At least I’m an honest asshole that isn’t trying to paint the sky pink with “democratic socialist” countries as if that’s the best thing that ever existed.
Though I’m not an asshole for no reason. I want EVERYONE to be powerful like me. I want everyone to determine their own fate. I want everyone to serve their community and be strong with clear goals and not need an 8 Euro/hour job. And that’s where you’re wrong. Europe is doomed because of that, not because “everyone is doomed”.
If everyone understands the consequences of the pink sky picture you’re painting, which is the awful politics, health care, standard of life due to inflation and being a pawn, etc, despite living in one of the most industrial countries in the world, then people will know that something is wrong and will be able to squeeze politicians more to get more, or they can leave and hurt them by lowering their economic output. Though if everyone served coffee in Starbucks, and got UBI from the government, they’ll never have a chance to have a better life, and that’s exactly what I’m fighting for, and besides all the facts against communism and socialism that gets people to argue online, this is why it’s bad. Because normally the government serves the people, but if people get paid by the government, then people serve the government, and voting becomes nothing but a game where whoever bribes the people more with their own money gets more votes, and that’s where we’re headed.
Solution? Stop saying that there’s no point in making power, wealth and money, and do it! That’s why I’m here telling people to try.
In a way, but not exactly. I’m saying that the goal of every individual should be to become as strong, independent and powerful to have the choice to leave if the government messes up. This whole idea that “it’s great the government is giving free stuff” is the problem, which extends to the idea of this post. People should be pissed when the government gives free stuff. It only means that society has failed because, normally people should be strong and self-sufficient. But politicians benefit, as explained earlier, and love it when the people become dependent on them. It just makes them more powerful. And it’s not like the government is creating anything. It’s just a bunch of parasitic elites who become more powerful the weaker people become.
Am I saying we shouldn’t have a government? No. This isn’t what I’m saying.
I’m saying that there should be a balance of power, where people understand that the government is there to serve them, and the first step there is to reject all notions of socialism and encourage self-sufficiency in a strong economy, where individuals and their communities don’t need the government, but the government needs them. But we’re headed in the opposite direction, where people are propagandizing how great it would be if they get free money from the government, while they sit home and be lazy because “there’s no point in trying”. A person that receives their allowance from the government has zero say or freedom in anything, because once they open their mouth, the handouts can stop and they don’t know how to get out and make money, as opposed to someone who doesn’t need anyone (except their local community in emergencies) to survive.
So basically more segregation in which a confederation of cities declare certain things unified. What is to be unified? What is the point of the government then? Military?
It seems like you’re problem is more with the implementation of government then it is with it’s function.
Also, how would you say we should treat the cripple? The ignorent? The recovering in hospitals?
I have to say I’m having trouble understanding your first sentence. The English is a little broken. And btw, it’s “your problem”, not “you’re problem”.
But from what I understand, you seem to be taking the opposite extreme and creating a false dichotomy. It’s not “all or nothing” for governments. Having a small government (i.e., a government that doesn’t spend a big fraction of the GDP) doesn’t mean we don’t have a military, but it just means that the government serves the people, which seems to be fading away now when people depend on the government’s paycheck.
The cripple, the ignorant, etc, should be taken care of by their own communities and families. This is how it always has been, like 100 years ago. This is the best way to deal with this because not everyone deserves free help, since it’s close-to-impossible to know whether someone is being willfully lazy or really needs help. When the government mandates theft from working citizens (whether with money printing or taxes) and giving it to the lazy, you’re basically providing an inventive to be lazy, which is why the welfare recipient numbers just go up, and it never goes down. While on the other hand, in a closed community, people know the behavior of each other and each individual, and when someone needs help they receive it (and I have always helped my community when problems happen), and if they’re being willfully lazy, they can be punished to adjust their behavior by the community members that know whether they deserve the help. This should be the goal: To incentivize productivity and support of your local communities… not to throw money at people. Money alone has always only made things worse, by increasing dependence and entitlement and even inflation.
The golden question here is: How do we get back people to the workforce after having created this huge dependence on free government money and reducing their freedoms as a price. I think society will have to collapse first, which is what’s happening slowly by a reduction in the standard of living. The day will come, sooner or later, when collapse will create many angry people, and those will eat each other. We don’t need Thanos for that. People will destroy themselves with their stupidity.
Yes, I made some mistakes. Writing on the phone during lunch.
I’m using extremes to accentuate a point where your system fails.
If your country is constantly providing welfare to people consistently, it is not functioning correctly.
That is, unless they’re crippled or ignorent. In which case you said “If I’m not rich enough, I rather watch my daughter die to leukemia then to have a lazy son”. I know, extreme, but that’s the length of which your philosophy stands -
You prioritize productivity (catching the willfully lazy), over helping a needy person (which the willfully lazy are good at faking).
I’m also equating it to your children in order to drive home the full extent of the law, since all are equals to it.
Instead of reworking legislation you just wanna burn everything down.
Claiming that something has always worked well as an argument falls flat on it’s face with one name - Galileo Galilei. You could argue Newton as well.
Punished by the community? Isn’t that already happening by having local and national judiciary?
Unless you’re talking mob justice… then I’m sorry I don’t believe we should go back to living in caves.
An impartial court that relies on facts adheres more to the scientific method then my neighbor or even myself if I am involved in a crime.
Sure, you can move the social aspect to the cities instead of the government, but you’d make small cities less appealing to live in, intensifying over population, and at the same time lower the quality of actual services delivered as they are smaller in effect then possible then a national scale.
Your golden question comes up whenever any society heads towards survival terms, not the species.
I do think that nature will bring us worse problems than we can create, though. And soon. But that’s a different topic.
For some reason you think that the society can be efficient as much as communities are. This isn’t true. Judgment from your community is much more accurate from a judiciary that doesn’t know anything about you. I think this is your only problem in your thought process. Once you realize that people should be helped only by those who care about them, and helping people you don’t know by giving them money wrecks them 99.99% of the time, you’ll know where I’m coming from. Reworking legislation doesn’t help, because humans have always been better at loopholing laws than following them. Politicians manipulate them to reach their goals (maximize dependence of the population), and people loophole them to maximize their benefit. This will never work. You will never, ever, find the set of rules that will make a perfect society, but you can find the set of rule that makes a perfect small community where people care for each other.
You don’t need to move to villages to make this work, btw. You can just keep the government out of it, and make help come from local communities. People will help each other (and have always done that).
A person that doesn’t know you will judge you by the law and the situation at hand, and will also take into account your past - should it be relevant.
If he doesn’t, then he/she is failing their role as a judge.
A person that knows you will be biased, either to hate or love you, or anything else in between.
They cannot remove the bias, as bias always exists and a judiciary needs to minimize it for a fair trail to take place.
By the same way you claim the government will always be wrong and corruptable, I argue that your community will always be an easy target for manipulation, nepotism and corruption.
Stop using that argument as justification for anything other than human tendencies, you are repeating a moot point.
Communities are weaker than governments. Supporting 150 people due to a closing factory is hard on a city of 10,000 until they get back up. It is nothing for a nation.
You could delegate more authority to the local administration, but that’ll move the seat of corruption from A to B.
As a brainwashed pawn, I will respond with the following:
What you say exists everywhere, so you’re doomed to be a nomad, surfing the tides of capitalist succeess, constanty.
Your political philosophy is akin to anarchy, and is just extreme. “Why bother? Everyone is shit, and everything will collapse in the end.”
Should we stop trying to find what works, then?
Yep, I’m an asshole. At least I’m an honest asshole that isn’t trying to paint the sky pink with “democratic socialist” countries as if that’s the best thing that ever existed.
Though I’m not an asshole for no reason. I want EVERYONE to be powerful like me. I want everyone to determine their own fate. I want everyone to serve their community and be strong with clear goals and not need an 8 Euro/hour job. And that’s where you’re wrong. Europe is doomed because of that, not because “everyone is doomed”.
If everyone understands the consequences of the pink sky picture you’re painting, which is the awful politics, health care, standard of life due to inflation and being a pawn, etc, despite living in one of the most industrial countries in the world, then people will know that something is wrong and will be able to squeeze politicians more to get more, or they can leave and hurt them by lowering their economic output. Though if everyone served coffee in Starbucks, and got UBI from the government, they’ll never have a chance to have a better life, and that’s exactly what I’m fighting for, and besides all the facts against communism and socialism that gets people to argue online, this is why it’s bad. Because normally the government serves the people, but if people get paid by the government, then people serve the government, and voting becomes nothing but a game where whoever bribes the people more with their own money gets more votes, and that’s where we’re headed.
Solution? Stop saying that there’s no point in making power, wealth and money, and do it! That’s why I’m here telling people to try.
So what you’re saying is that we should revolt against our governments by hurting them financially? By becoming as rich as we can and leaving?
Please explain.
In a way, but not exactly. I’m saying that the goal of every individual should be to become as strong, independent and powerful to have the choice to leave if the government messes up. This whole idea that “it’s great the government is giving free stuff” is the problem, which extends to the idea of this post. People should be pissed when the government gives free stuff. It only means that society has failed because, normally people should be strong and self-sufficient. But politicians benefit, as explained earlier, and love it when the people become dependent on them. It just makes them more powerful. And it’s not like the government is creating anything. It’s just a bunch of parasitic elites who become more powerful the weaker people become.
Am I saying we shouldn’t have a government? No. This isn’t what I’m saying.
I’m saying that there should be a balance of power, where people understand that the government is there to serve them, and the first step there is to reject all notions of socialism and encourage self-sufficiency in a strong economy, where individuals and their communities don’t need the government, but the government needs them. But we’re headed in the opposite direction, where people are propagandizing how great it would be if they get free money from the government, while they sit home and be lazy because “there’s no point in trying”. A person that receives their allowance from the government has zero say or freedom in anything, because once they open their mouth, the handouts can stop and they don’t know how to get out and make money, as opposed to someone who doesn’t need anyone (except their local community in emergencies) to survive.
So basically more segregation in which a confederation of cities declare certain things unified. What is to be unified? What is the point of the government then? Military?
It seems like you’re problem is more with the implementation of government then it is with it’s function.
Also, how would you say we should treat the cripple? The ignorent? The recovering in hospitals?
I have to say I’m having trouble understanding your first sentence. The English is a little broken. And btw, it’s “your problem”, not “you’re problem”.
But from what I understand, you seem to be taking the opposite extreme and creating a false dichotomy. It’s not “all or nothing” for governments. Having a small government (i.e., a government that doesn’t spend a big fraction of the GDP) doesn’t mean we don’t have a military, but it just means that the government serves the people, which seems to be fading away now when people depend on the government’s paycheck.
The cripple, the ignorant, etc, should be taken care of by their own communities and families. This is how it always has been, like 100 years ago. This is the best way to deal with this because not everyone deserves free help, since it’s close-to-impossible to know whether someone is being willfully lazy or really needs help. When the government mandates theft from working citizens (whether with money printing or taxes) and giving it to the lazy, you’re basically providing an inventive to be lazy, which is why the welfare recipient numbers just go up, and it never goes down. While on the other hand, in a closed community, people know the behavior of each other and each individual, and when someone needs help they receive it (and I have always helped my community when problems happen), and if they’re being willfully lazy, they can be punished to adjust their behavior by the community members that know whether they deserve the help. This should be the goal: To incentivize productivity and support of your local communities… not to throw money at people. Money alone has always only made things worse, by increasing dependence and entitlement and even inflation.
The golden question here is: How do we get back people to the workforce after having created this huge dependence on free government money and reducing their freedoms as a price. I think society will have to collapse first, which is what’s happening slowly by a reduction in the standard of living. The day will come, sooner or later, when collapse will create many angry people, and those will eat each other. We don’t need Thanos for that. People will destroy themselves with their stupidity.
Yes, I made some mistakes. Writing on the phone during lunch.
I’m using extremes to accentuate a point where your system fails.
If your country is constantly providing welfare to people consistently, it is not functioning correctly.
That is, unless they’re crippled or ignorent. In which case you said “If I’m not rich enough, I rather watch my daughter die to leukemia then to have a lazy son”. I know, extreme, but that’s the length of which your philosophy stands -
You prioritize productivity (catching the willfully lazy), over helping a needy person (which the willfully lazy are good at faking). I’m also equating it to your children in order to drive home the full extent of the law, since all are equals to it.
Instead of reworking legislation you just wanna burn everything down.
Claiming that something has always worked well as an argument falls flat on it’s face with one name - Galileo Galilei. You could argue Newton as well.
Punished by the community? Isn’t that already happening by having local and national judiciary?
Unless you’re talking mob justice… then I’m sorry I don’t believe we should go back to living in caves. An impartial court that relies on facts adheres more to the scientific method then my neighbor or even myself if I am involved in a crime.
Sure, you can move the social aspect to the cities instead of the government, but you’d make small cities less appealing to live in, intensifying over population, and at the same time lower the quality of actual services delivered as they are smaller in effect then possible then a national scale.
Your golden question comes up whenever any society heads towards survival terms, not the species.
I do think that nature will bring us worse problems than we can create, though. And soon. But that’s a different topic.
For some reason you think that the society can be efficient as much as communities are. This isn’t true. Judgment from your community is much more accurate from a judiciary that doesn’t know anything about you. I think this is your only problem in your thought process. Once you realize that people should be helped only by those who care about them, and helping people you don’t know by giving them money wrecks them 99.99% of the time, you’ll know where I’m coming from. Reworking legislation doesn’t help, because humans have always been better at loopholing laws than following them. Politicians manipulate them to reach their goals (maximize dependence of the population), and people loophole them to maximize their benefit. This will never work. You will never, ever, find the set of rules that will make a perfect society, but you can find the set of rule that makes a perfect small community where people care for each other.
You don’t need to move to villages to make this work, btw. You can just keep the government out of it, and make help come from local communities. People will help each other (and have always done that).
A person that doesn’t know you will judge you by the law and the situation at hand, and will also take into account your past - should it be relevant. If he doesn’t, then he/she is failing their role as a judge.
A person that knows you will be biased, either to hate or love you, or anything else in between. They cannot remove the bias, as bias always exists and a judiciary needs to minimize it for a fair trail to take place.
By the same way you claim the government will always be wrong and corruptable, I argue that your community will always be an easy target for manipulation, nepotism and corruption. Stop using that argument as justification for anything other than human tendencies, you are repeating a moot point.
Communities are weaker than governments. Supporting 150 people due to a closing factory is hard on a city of 10,000 until they get back up. It is nothing for a nation.
You could delegate more authority to the local administration, but that’ll move the seat of corruption from A to B.