Strangely, the elections were actually a blow to those faggots. Trumpian conservatives are gaining ground quick, Trudidiots lost a lot of seats. The sad thing about the Quebec wing of this awakening is that they are turning out to be even douchier than the commies about the English language ban. But it is forgiven. At least they are dropping half-measures which tension makes things a lot more poisonous. Clear decisions, committed choices. The world thirsts for them, and Trump country is delivering.
We Canadian right-wingers are happy with how it turned out. Alberta is damn near ready to secede.
Just in case you didn’t catch it, Quebec is now ruled by a Trumpian party born about 5 years ago. In one of those sweet twists of destiny, pot was finally legalized a few days before they came into power. Sometimes things work out just right.
Not, listen, I was always agianst pot legalization because I am pretty convinced it will Borgize the underworld, which is so precious. But all in all, better not so many people go to jail for selling and smoking reefers.
Still, there is only so much you can do in Commieda. I am slightly annoyed they have not yet reduced taxes. It’s robbery, 30% is usury under any sane law.
Not only does this premise commit the personal incredulity fallacy, it also explicitly ties the immaterial quality of creativity to material ownership.
The latter needs justification, which may well be attainable, but just because you or any reader has never heard of a socialist factory or socialist-anything-creative - doesn’t mean they haven’t ever existed or could exist.
If there were some reason for creativity to necessarily only arise through personal ownership of the means to realise one’s creativity, then the incredulity fallacy could be averted since it would objectively be the case and not just be down to personal experience. Not physically creating something is not a reliable indicator of the potential to create given the means to do so.
Is it possible to have a realistic idea and lack the means to realise it?
Is it possible to realise a creative idea using property claimed by others?
In both cases the answer should clearly be “yes”.
It’s also perfectly possible to own property and to never personally have a creative impulse whatsoever about its usage.
This means that creativity is completely independent of economic structure and ownership ideology.
Ergo, socialist or capitalist creativity is no more valid an association than apple creativity or speeding creativity.
40 hours a week to come up with a product or 168 can be as true as you claim, yet it’s a question of motivation and possibility. Who wants to be creative and who can? Can someone who doesn’t own their means of production create and will someone who does own their means of production necessarily create? Will one create more than another?
You need to address creativity in itself long before you address the psychology of motivation, and this long before you think about generalised economic necessities for fostering said motivations.
Perhaps you already have, but you completely neglected to go through a thorough and comprehensive methodology for arriving at such a conclusion anywhere ever on this board.
Ambition and fairness - sure, discuss.
Your willingness to jump to conclusions assuming all the groundwork, at least without reference to every single logical step along the way, presents more yourself as religious - delivering “revealed truth” - long before any accusations of religiosity in others could ever hit home.
Overcome the hypocrite in yourself before you accuse it in others. Pain be damned.
The socialist Chinese communists apparently bought off a majority of what use to be American capitalist factories and manufacturing centers.
It’s interesting in the United States right now, we condemn communists yet at the same time want them to keep buying our agricultural equipment, livestock, or crops because without that our so called capitalist economy would tank.
… adding to what sil explained above, here’s a much faster refutation of that nonsense about ‘socialist creative nothing’ or whatever it was.
nothing ever thought of or invented materialized as an idea in someone’s head because they thought first ‘if i come up with a good idea i could make money off it.’ that consideration comes later, and has nothing to do as a stimulus for a particular idea.
think about the senselessness of this statement: i just conceived of a combustible engine because there was something which wasn’t yet conceived that, if produced, would bring me a lot of money. therefore i wouldn’t have thought of the combustible engine unless i would have been able to make money from it.
I’m an economic socialist within national socialism where I don’t have a problem with that line of thinking at all.
I’m a big critic of crony capitalism and the equivalent of today’s dumb mentally challenged libertarian capitalists.
For me western civilization needs a socialist economic model to bring us away from crony capitalism that is destroying our societies.
Where I disagree with today’s modern socialists is Marxism, race, culture, sex, and democracy because while I’m an economic socialist I’m also a cultural conservative. I’m also an autocrat meaning in my ideal society there is no democracy, voting, or popular assembly other than the workings of the inner party.
To understand my position or line of thinking is to understand economic socialism, totalitarianism, autocracy, racial identity, cultural conservatism, and nationalism.
The best way to understand my current ideological disposition it would be like combining Adolf Hitler’s nationalism ideals within Stalin’s economic model adding in Mussolini’s state controlled corporatism guided by Augustus Caesar’s autocratic platform. Throw in some Oswald Mosley, Oswald Spengler, and Otto Strasser for a philosophical social political foundation.
You’re right.
Fallacy of reverse causation right there, I missed it.
Another one to add to the pile, thanks.
Joker, now you’re just opening up the “No True Scotsman” fallacy for him: “the socialist Chinese communists are capitalists don’t you know!?”
“Cherry picking” their capitalist associations can be attributed to all their successes and their communist associations with their failures.
Nobody here is a “progressive” in the lame “let’s all pretend we’re all equal” way.
Nobody is the same, we all know it: let there be variation.
As for autocracy that’s pretty open/shut. One person has no means to be kept in check by virtue of them being the one person in charge.
We need decentralisation, which the market “tries to provide”. Only a truly democratic state, consisting of the public, that’s actually beholden to itself: “the public” avoids monopoly or oligopoly like all our systems so far, and all capitalist, “socialist” or “commiunist” regimes have been so far.
If you want to be elitist, I recommend scientists. But elitism inherently leads to the exclusion of the majority who do not meet the elite standards so as to understand whether science (or otherwise) is being conducted properly. Corruption may occur.
Yet at the same time, important things, which are just as open to the qualified as the unqualified, would converge to arbitrary mob rule.
The aim is a self-regulating mechanism like the “market” attempts to be, but we need something less dumb.
It wouldn’t be entirely elitist, like a constitutional monarchy I just transform it into a charter or constitutional dictatorship. The people would be well taken care of with economic socialism where social programs and a nice public welfare would exist. The people would be well taken care of in their needs that they won’t even care or notice that they’re living under a dictatorship.
The only dictatorships that fail are the ones where a majority of people are not happy, to have an effective dictatorship is to have a society where a majority of people’s happiness is of great importance.
Actually I was trying to illustrate the hypocrisy and irony of a nation that is supposedly capitalist having to rely on a socialist or communist nation for international trade. It’s pretty hilarious and mind blowing.
I say Stalin’s economic model because with international and global organized oligarchic Jewry that are the controllers or enablers of crony capitalism you need a way to liquidate their financial assets into a distributive economic model socially for the rest of society by breaking up their corporate monopolies.
As horrific as Stalin was his economic liquidation and breaking up of private monopolies was effective. I just adopt that stratagem against global Jewry instead. You refurbish an economic weapon to suite your own political social ideals against an enemy.
If you haven’t noticed already there’s no check and balances in a limited government either.
With a limited government you have military contractors, corporate lobbyists, industrialists, bankers, corporate heads, senators, and individual congress members undermining the structural integrity of the nation. I would just rather have one individual commanding them to simplify things that way if a problem or crisis develops you have one individual you only need to confront instead of thousands.
How does anybody or anything reform a nation when you literally have thousands of different people in positions disrupting it? Hardly any of them get punished or confronted where there’s just too many of them.
Eventually you just need one powerful individual and their followers coming together in dropping the axe on the whole lot of them. It takes a dictator to clean up house.
A could be dictator like Dwight Eisenhower warned of the danger of the military industrial complex back almost 60 years ago. Who took notice when Cambridge Analytics was busted last year, and was able to connect it with foreign election interference, via Facebook and infowars?
That Nowedays the cliche that the rich can get away with murder, does not raise eyebrows when Trump can tell the world that if he were to shoot somebody on a New York street in daylight ?
There’s a corporate global oligarchy that practically rules the west now, the only way to remove them is to viciously eviscerate them as voting and legislation achieves nothing as they practically own both.
Fear, death, violence, and retribution is the only way to get rid of them, pacifism is for the weak and it can be damned. The only way to fix the current world of its problems is to get one’s hands bloody.
A few thousand public executions will make them change their tune very quickly overnight, I make no apologies for this line of thinking.
