This is why I hate liberals

So what are we driving at here? That liberals are dogmatic and consequently refuse to discuss their perspective? Dogma is the core of conservatism.

And all are petering out. It was the older rural people who went for those populist notions and they’re dying by the day while young liberals are turning voting age. All that’s left to do is decide if you want to join the winning side or go down with the ship.

Btw I was looking at my local school class photos on twitter and while the older students are 70/30 white/mexican, the kindergarten photos are nearly 100% mexican. I am unable to extrapolate how life will be in a decade when uneducated rednecks are replaced by educated wetbacks.

What I’m saying is that liberals base fact on consensus, so if the majority of people want to change a law, there is a mechanism to change it. But with conservatives, if someone made a law 200 years ago, there is nothing we can do about it because it’s dogmatically held regardless of what anyone thinks about it since what is right and wrong is not a popularity contest.

Allegiance to the constitution is allegiance to article 5 which states the constitution can be changed with a majority vote, so appeals to the constitution are irrelevant when determining right and wrong. IOW, the constitution cannot underpin gun rights because if the constitution were always assumed true, then article 5 would be false. It’s like a “this statement is false” kinda thing where if the statement is true, then it’s false and if it’s false, then it’s true.

So a democracy is the only way that makes sense because we first need to decide if owning a gun is a right and then decide if the constitution should be amended by popular vote, which is the constitutional thing to do. IOW, there are no rights that cannot be repealed by majority vote and to assume so is antithetical to the constitution.

That’s just how the world works. No one thanks me for the good things I do, but they jump all over me when they disagree. All feedback is negative. I guess it’s presumed that you know you’re superior, so you don’t need congratulations for it, but they think you need to be aware of the bad things.

True, but I’m not sure what family is anymore and if it’s important. Sometimes I think parents are the worst thing that can happen to a child. Family is good if family is functional, but if not, then it’s probably better not to have one.

How does race, religion, sex connect with economics?

I see what you’re saying and maybe they do want it to be the case for egalitarian purposes, but still we must have a reason that whites evolved larger brains and the domesticated animals, grains, fertile soils + cold weather selecting for it makes a nice tidy theory.

You seem to be counter-suggesting that whites became genetically superior, not by environmental luck, but some other mechanism… maybe chance or divine will? Surely the people themselves cannot be credited with guiding their own evolution because how is a stupid thing able to be smart enough to make itself smart? So that leaves chance and divine will, and genetic chance is the same as environmental luck, and divine will is presupposition of a god, which is luck because the god does whatever it wants like nature does.

[i]The Parable of the Sower:

13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”[/i]

So, natural selection gets the credit and not white people.

But they were made smart because of where they were. Then, after becoming smart, they said, “Hey, this looks like a good place to be!” And because they were smarter, they were able to defend it… until they got bored and decided to sail around imposing their wills on those who weren’t as lucky. Then they rounded up some slaves, built monuments, instituted capitalistic feudalism, monotheism, which divided the world into good and bad and deemed most folks bad because “broad is the way that leads to destruction and many there be that find it.”

lol

I remember watching Cheech and Chong which was set in the 70s that showcased a mexican family alerting “Ia migra” to give them a free bus ride to Tijuana for a wedding. I mean, it was just funny and no one ever had a cow about it. youtube.com/watch?v=Ka-lRbddXsA

Now in 2018 we send troops to the border with instructions to shoot anyone who throws rocks?

Lots of whites say “love it or leave it” to other whites, so it wouldn’t be hard to see a white telling a brown to go home over something as simple as a min wage debate.

I think with that you have cemented the brown/illegal association that I was referencing. Being illegal isn’t the problem; it’s being brown that’s the problem.

Right, whites are preferable to browns because of affinity/kinship.

That makes sense.

No but hispanics are associated with deportation in pop culture.

Prevalence of Drinking: According to the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 86.4 percent of people ages 18 or older reported that they drank alcohol at some point in their lifetime; 70.1 percent reported that they drank in the past year; 56.0 percent reported that they drank in the past month. niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-healt … statistics

It’s easier to ban theft than ban drinking.

Why?

If you make it harder on them financially, you’ll get more kids. The response of every organism to stress is reproduction. Heck, we can predict whether women will be attracted to masculine or feminine men by observing the healthcare ranking of their country.

Isn’t it relevant that these Caravan and in general left-beloved migrants “demand” entry into the US?
That “demand” would definitely disqualify them from being expected to ever understand American law, let alone keeping within its confines.

“Heck, we can predict whether women will be attracted to masculine or feminine men by observing the healthcare ranking of their country.”

Interesting notion.
What about the Philippines and Thailand? These seem to me tranny central. I do believe they have above average health care for the region.

Complaints about teargassing terrorists.
We can also use bullets, if thats better?

I see your point, but those who adhere dogmatically to the rule of law are inhuman machines per this talk:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svbhTDVVyQc[/youtube]

A couple points meriting particular attention:

00:00
and I want to suggest you first of all
00:02
that a person who believes in absolute
00:12
laws is liable to be quite dangerous
00:20
because he puts rigid structures in a
00:27
place of higher honor

04:32
so you see a person who takes the laws
04:36
absolutely seriously becomes inflexible
04:39
and therefore mechanical and therefore
04:42
inhuman

I’m not sure what it means to be human, but the meaning cannot be synonymous with machinery because the two are juxtaposed.

So I would think that even though they are desiring and telegraphing intent to break the law, that in itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing especially considering that their intentions aren’t nefarious.

Plus, everyone has broken the law at some point, so let he who is without transgression cast the first stone… or rubber bullet.

How can a person who has broken the law use the argument that a lawbreaker is incapable of keeping the law?

So if a lawbreaker can keep the law within reason, then why can’t members of the caravan?

I recently became familiar with the work of Hernando de Soto in my quest to find a conservative economist en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto_Polar

[i]As the Nobel prizes rolled out this month, I hoped that de Soto, born in 1941, would be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. French economist Jean Tirole, who used game theory to analyze markets, was a worthy choice, and has more academic publications to his name than de Soto does. But de Soto’s efforts in advancing entrepreneurship and raising living standards in developing economies around the world make him a leading contender for the prize.

These days, with terrorists taking back Iraq and entrenching themselves elsewhere in the Middle East, it is helpful to see how economic systems can be used to fight back. We’re not using boots on the ground, so why not use economics? If people have jobs, homes, families and a life where they can progress, they become less willing to rebel.[/i] marketwatch.com/story/this- … 2014-10-15

The takeaway is: people who have a life, won’t raise hell.

So either let them in or go to where they are and fix the situation because if we don’t, we’re just creating a bigger problem down the road.

I don’t know. I’m sure exceptions to the theory apply, but I also don’t know much about those countries to provide any clarity.

I believe the theory says women in countries with poor healthcare will be attracted to masculine men because the testosterone provides resistance to disease, etc which is obviously not a problem when healthcare is adequate. It should also work on a micro scale in that even though women live in excellent countries, she may live in an impoverished pocket.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894896/

We investigated the relationship between women’s preferences for male facial masculinity and a health index derived from World Health Organization statistics for mortality rates, life expectancies and the impact of communicable disease. Across 30 countries, masculinity preference increased as health decreased. This relationship was independent of cross-cultural differences in wealth or women’s mating strategies. These findings show non-arbitrary cross-cultural differences in facial attractiveness judgements and demonstrate the use of trade-off theory for investigating cross-cultural variation in women’s mate preferences.

Here is an article with some commentary livescience.com/10967-natio … faces.html

Projecting into the future, as healthcare improves, we may see more feminized men which should result in a slight drop in IQ, but since women tend to be more educated than men, it’s possible that the population will be smarter even though some members have less brain power.

Interesting notions - I do think that you are leaning to what would lead to anarchism, if you’d give people who think they have rights which they do not too much benefit of doubt.
The rights the migrants invented and claim will come at the cost of the states power to grant its citizens their constitutional rights. If people can just claim whatever they think they deserve from a foreign country, and the state will just obediently nod and let them in, why have a government at all?

“The takeaway is: people who have a life, won’t raise hell.”

I believe this is a misconception. Take for example, Colonialism. People who could build ships to cross the Atlantic and even the Pacific wouldn’t have been poor, they would have “had lives”, and these people arguably raised more hell than anyone else ever did.

In general I think big time criminals like Al Capone definitely have/had lives, and they got to having these lives by raising hell, and they kept raising greater hell to keep up their lifestyle.
Same for the big banks - these are wealth people that can’t find anything better to do with their wealth but create wars in other lands — raise all kinds of hell. Etcetera.

In general I think any nation that has the ambition to protect its citizens should protect is sovereignty and its borders. I don’t think giving in to demands of foreigners at the cost of the needs of ones own population allows for a long future.

Since liberalism has failed, i.e. is causing so many dissidents that even the president of the US is seen as a dissident by the state he governs, there more likely than not will be a giant insurrection.

Best thing we as thinkers can do is prepare for that, come up with the ideas about law that will be required as a new mask of power establishes itself.

Real power will indeed always lie with the people, we see this in the fact that the mightiest nations are democratic nations – not so much lawfully, honestly regulated democracies, as states that successfully uphold to their people the idea of freedom and civil rights. In such states, humans tend to be more resourceful.

As soon as Liberalism began to limit freedom of speech and condemn classes of people, it signalled its impending end. Basically it began begging us to kill it. But we can only overcome it when we know what we will replace it with.

How do rights exist?

I’m drawn to The Declaration of Independence on this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

To me, this seems to suggest that the governed determine how rights are secured by the government which leaves room for a law to be flexible.

It continues with:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Here it suggests that people abolish governments that no longer represent them.

Moreover:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It is the right of the people to determine what rights the people have. Rights are established because lots of people fancy them and it’s not that rights exist a priori.

Just because an opulent cruiseship stops to rescue stranded survivors floating out at sea doesn’t mean the ship no longer has a captain. How is the situation different? Their economy sank and they’re drifting towards our dreamliner. Do they have a reasonable expectation to be let aboard?

I’m sure exceptions apply, but generally do we see more crime in fancy neighborhoods or poor ones?

Anyway, I could be wrong, but I’m under the impression the US used to be a British colony established by the monarch who financed the building of ships and sending the soon-to-be rebels over to secure the land for the crown, but then after some time, the settlers decided the king was asking for more than he could take with such a vast ocean being such a formidable obstacle.

True, but the interesting thing here is that the gangsters usually left the public alone. This is different from terrorism because the terrorist is protesting some situation he is forced to be in that he doesn’t like. Capone liked his situation and wasn’t protesting anything.

If people are happier, they won’t protest. If people are richer, they won’t resort to hustling for money. Some exceptions apply.

Then I suppose there is an optimal amount of prosperity such that one can have either too little or too much money (power).

I know you do, but I’m not sure having destitute people in other countries is best for us. I think it’s best for some of us.

Capitalizing off desperate people is only possible if people are desperate. Capitalism can only bring prosperity sufficient to stave off revolt and not a penny more since that would be “inefficient” which means the system is reliant upon and certainly incentivizes the continued existence of poor people to make the necessary profits. Just like federal power is given through the relative weakness of the states, global power is given through the relative weakness of other countries. What fun is it to be American if there are no dirty wetbacks? The only reason not to help these people is to preserve the existing disparity.

I’m not against classes of people, but having an upper class reliant on the existence of a lower class. Some live like kings because others live like slaves.

The government, which represents the 99% more than the 1%, should give the people a right to a minimum level of prosperity and beyond that, the 1% are free to excel as much as they wish.

“In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By “business” I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.” Franklin Roosevelt’s Statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act, June 16, 1933 docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odnirast.html

I absolutely agree that there is an unacceptable wealth difference. I disagree to all previously proposed resolutions. I do not believe any State has structurally functioned otherwise than to protect bank wealth from people.

Just in the news, global debt hits $184000000000000.

But no one. No One, no one ever asks: to whom is this money owed?

That’s government; pretending that question doesn’t have an answer.

What’s the alternative? If the people do not have a government to represent them, then they are at the callous mercy of whomever happens to have the most money/power in order to make servants of them to preserve the disparity that empowers him. If we have a free-market game, then there will be a winner, whether by merit or not, and that winner will cement his power by freezing everyone’s place on the caste/feudal hierarchy.

That is why in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson said “That to secure these rights, governments are formed among men.” If people do not form governments to secure their rights, then they have no rights.

Having a government isn’t the problem. If a project doesn’t go right, we blame the execution of a bad plan by management and not the existence of the management as if the project could have succeeded completely unguided if we could have only gotten rid of the management in the first place.

I think simply putting a wealth cap on government representatives would end corruption and misrepresentation. If anyone found a way to enrich himself by virtue of government office, he would undermine his own ability to hold that office by becoming rich. Corruption would be self-defeating, as it should be. It would become not a matter of morality or integrity, but expedience: if you want governmental power, then you cannot also have financial power.

In order to represent the people, the rep would need to be in the same socio-economic boat as most of the people.

They say we owe it to our grandkids. They always say a future generation will have to pay for our excessive borrowing. They also appeal to our grandkids concerning climate change. Having our grandkids on the altar of decadence doesn’t elicit the response it used to as no one seems to really care anymore.

All money is loaned into existence and the debt is simply the money supply (see here youtube.com/watch?v=p3_Q1SiRN-A ), so I don’t see how anyone will suffer by simply having too much money. The problem is the interest owed on the money that currently exists which requires new money (debt) to come into existence in order to pay. In order for the system to continue, we need new people to take on new loans and pay more interest (by the same token, we also need new money to transfer as new profits to our feudal elites).

Bill Still says money should simply be issued by the treasury instead of issued by a private bank in exchange for government debt issued by the treasury and Milton Friedman said (in the 70s) that a computer could manage the money supply, which only needs to keep pace with population expansion and some measure of growth (gdp), which makes a lot of sense to me.

I’m not sure why we have a central banking system unless it’s to bridge the gap between private and government ownership of the banks. The fed refunds to the treasury all the interest it collects (minus 6% for operating costs), so essentially it’s an extension of the treasury which makes it a government agency. But then again, the public can’t access its books and the chairman can tell congressmen to go to hell, ignore subpoenas, and basically do whatever it wants which makes it not only private, but more private than any other private enterprise. Where is the good part?

I think anyone with more than a casual interest in economics would relish every second of this 3 hour video which walks through the history of money and exposes the constant ploys of the money changers (who are analogous to a herpes virus that goes into remission for a period only to flare up again by blowing bubbles invariably ending in pain).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIaRE_Hq1h0[/youtube]

The people get what government they deserve. If the government is stupid, it’s because the people are.

The Netherlandic Communists saw it that way, my nazikiller grandpa Marcus Bakker was in parliament but gave his salary to the party. Lived with his wife and five kids on the minumum wage the party alotted to all its employees.

But wherever commies actually form government, they’re as corrupt as any old capitalist. When my grandpa discovered that about the USSR he was very ashamed. He took the blame on himself and never spoke Ill of any comrade.

Regarding money as pure debt; that only is the case without a gold standard. This lack of need for collateral makes for a bottomless pit.

Still the question I meant to ask is the practical one of who have the bulk of IOU’s in their vaults. Like on a national scale, bonds. China owns most of US debt. But there are evidently private parties that own vastly more in both state and private debts.

That’s pretty cool!

I think that’s because it’s still a consolidation of power garnered by free-market mechanisms (or there is no mechanism to stop it).

Noam Chomsky said the collapse of the USSR was a victory for socialism:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ[/youtube]

I am advocating a dispersal of power both in terms of governmental and financial power which precludes communistic dictators on one extreme and plutocratic dictators on the other extreme.

I think it was Chris Hedges who said liberalism was meant to be the political center, though I’ve forgotten the rationale he used and it’s buried in the midst of a 3 hour video. Anyway, the middle way seems to be the proper way.

Power consolidation will happen as long as there is mechanism to allow for it to happen:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifyEPRvj2YI[/youtube]

So the solution is to spread power as thin as possible while still maintaining a country.

The perils of mob rule are mitigated by maintaining a robust educational system.

Communism may do ok if the whole world were communistic, but it cannot compete with a economic system that requires growth in order to survive. People say “Look at the USSR and Venezuela.” I have to wonder how much of a role the US played in keeping those places down in order to make its own system look good. I even heard this is the real reason for the caravan: that the people are pissed and feel the US owes them something.

The gold standard was the cause of the Revolutionary War according to Ben Franklin:

[i]In 1720 every colonial Royal Governor was instructed to curtail the issue of colonial money. This was largely unsuccessful. In
1742 the British Resumption Act required that taxes and other debts be paid in gold. This caused a depression in the colonies

  • property was seized on foreclosure by the rich for one-tenth its value.

Benjamin Franklin was a big supporter of the colonies printing their own money. In 1757, Franklin was sent to London to fight
for colonial paper money. He ended up staying for the next 18 years - nearly until the start of the American Revolution.
During this period, ignoring Parliament, more American colonies began to issue their own money.

Called Colonial Scrip, the endeavor was successful, with notable exceptions. It provided a reliable medium of exchange, and it
also helped to provide a feeling of unity between the colonies. Remember, most Colonial Scrip was just paper money - debt-
free money - printed in the public interest and not really backed by gold or silver coin. In other words, it was a fiat currency.

Officials of the Bank of England asked Franklin how he would account for the new-found prosperity of the colonies. Without
hesitation he replied:

“That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the
demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers… In this manner,
creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

This was just common sense to Franklin, but you can imagine the impact it had at the Bank of England. America had learned
the secret of money, and that genie had to be returned to its bottle as soon as possible.

As a result. Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own
money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. In other words, it forced the colonies on a gold and
silver standard. This initiated the first intense phase of the first “Bank War” in America, which ended in defeat for the Money
Changers beginning with the Declaration of Independence, and concluded by the subsequent peace Treaty of Paris 1783.

For those who believe that a gold standard is the answer for America’s current monetary problems, look what happened to
America after the Currency Act of 1764 was passed. Writing in his autobiography, Franklin said:

“In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that
the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”

Franklin claims that this was even the basic cause for the American Revolution. As Franklin put it in his autobiography:

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the
Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.” [/i] archive.org/stream/TheMoneyMast … s_djvu.txt

The banks own most of public debt and private debt mygovcost.org/2017/05/15/who … al-debt-2/

If the debt goes bad, the fed will simply buy it, so the banks can’t lose. The question is what happens to the dollar relative to other countries when the fed is forced to buy the debt that no one can pay? If all central banks print en masse, then I suppose nothing happens except that the rich are made richer, courtesy of the central banks, and the people are bankrupt.

This is just a scheme to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich just like having cattle is a scheme to transfer nutrition from the ground to the rancher via the toils of the cow. The more cows we can get working for us, the fatter we’ll be. The more people paying interest to us, the fatter we’ll be. Sure, the cows have a better life, but not commensurate with their labor.

Anyway, as long at they can keep people arguing about whether a gold standard is better than debt-based money, they win either way because no one will stop to consider that we could simply issue our own money from the treasury without paying interest to anyone.

In general agreement.

" I have to wonder how much of a role the US played in keeping those places down in order to make its own system look good."

That’s definitely valid. Chile, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are good examples.

“I even heard this is the real reason for the caravan: that the people are pissed and feel the US owes them something.”

That’s a good reason.

I’d value any insight you have on those examples.

I wasn’t aware of that perspective at the beginning of our discussion :blush: It made sense when I heard it though.

Maybe they get a yearly bonus? or at least one would hope. :confusion-shrug:

The few intolerant overshadow the tolerant, so we only see a small part of the picture… which makes the news and headlines of late.

Sensationalism always outshines normality, but that doesn’t mean it’s more abundant.

London is back to being London… albeit in a re-reversion of its former self… as you can’t change history, but you can revert.