Lord Ratner
-
Posts
2,607 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
147
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by Lord Ratner
-
Not quite correct. If the money from taxes is being given directly to the other, especially if based on their income status ("to each according to his needs") then yes, this is a form of socialism. If the money is being used by government for a program that provides a non-monetary benefit to all Americans (such as the military), then it is not at all socialism.
-
Since we're on the semantics train, and since Seriously is still engaging in this debate in (very) good faith, here's where I see the wording issue getting cloudy. I think you are getting a hung up on the absolutist definition of socialism, where the government has to own the means of production. It's not just the production that makes a system socialist, the "distribution and exchange" are also controlled, or regulated, by the government. I don't think we're going to see a system anytime soon where the government overtly tries to take control of the production, such as nationalizing the industries. But they are very much moving towards controlling the output, and taxation is a part of that. The more of your (and corporate) income that the government taxes, the closer we get to that type of socialism. Another key distinction here is choice. Many of the programs that you point out as not being socialistic hinge on whether or not you end up with a choice. Schools are a perfect example. There are many "liberals" who are very much against the idea of school choice. So if the government is providing a public school system, you are not allowed to pick which school your kids go to, then it doesn't really matter what you want to call it, it's socialism. Same thing goes for medical care. We can move to Canada for an example. They have the government-run system that many progressives desire, and recently a case was brought before their Supreme Court where the government did not want a doctor to open up a practice that was separate from the state-run system. As what schools, if you take Choice out of the equation it's socialism. Taxation is not socialism, but it is an integral and necessary part of it. And when you see taxes approach absurd levels (like 50% of your stuff when you die), it's probably the smoke to socialism's fire, since it costs a lot to run socialist programs. A somewhat reliable litmus test is to look at what the program is doing. If the government is taking your money in order to fund a program that promotes choice, then it's probably not socialism. The interstate highways are a good example of this. They are facilitators of business, travel, choice. Same goes for bridges, and fire stations, and many financial regulators. Because capitalism requires some measure of oversight, once again, because people are flawed.
-
They are not a vocal minority. Their argument makes the most sense, if you have no history to draw on. Capitalism took thousands of years to stumble upon precisely because it's so counter intuitive. But the evidence is crystal clear. As people become less educated about the past, these ideas will take greater hold. If I were a betting man, I'd say we will probably lose the battle. All you can do is have very respectful debates (in person) with sound evidence. Listen carefully, find the parts of their life they take pride in, and explain how socialism would ruin it. For all you upper-middle-class folks with upper-middle-class friends, their kids are usually the best means of pointing out their own ideological hypocrisies. Oh, and teach your own kids about the horrors of socialistic experiments. No one else will
-
Where did clown shoes go? Just when the questions were getting tough he vanished. https://www.politico.com/magazine/amp/story/2018/09/03/what-would-a-socialist-america-look-like-219626 Here's a great look at what our new batch of socialist want. Note that these people are completely unable to articulate the differences between their "plans" and the failed experiments of the past.
-
Which part? Genetics or predictor of success? There's an ocean of research available with a quick Google search. Here's something I found in five seconds https://www.newstatesman.com/2018/04/iq-trap-how-study-genetics-could-transform-education
-
Oh, and if we really want to kick this goat-rope into full on monkey-f#$king-a-door-knob status, we need to talk about genetics (not race) and IQ (the single most reliable predictor of success by an overwhelming margin).
-
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The redistributive policies you call for, the decrying of hoarded wealth... What exactly do YOU think socialism is? Social policy (good): You can't kick me out of your restaurant because I'm black or gay. Regulation (good): Credit card companies must make clear the fees and rates before a customer signs a contract. Socialism: The results of your labor will be seized and given to those with less to create a more equal outcome. You hide behind words like "rights" and "taking care." But healthcare and retirement funds are not rights. Not in the Constitution, the Bible, nor in nature. They are socialist policy. I get what you're saying. The concept is simple, that's why so many people like it. I even agree with it, life should be fair. But it's not, and I'm not willing to flip the table over to force it, when, for the millionth time, every historical example we have shows that what you want leads to chaos. This isn't some artifact of human ambition. This is the natural law of the universe. The Pareto principal is inescapable. Artists, pea pods, galaxies, software bugs, customer sales, sports, fitness... A small proportion (10-20%) will always command a bulk of the resources, and yield a bulk of the production. The most tired of all socialist claims. "All those example you cited about how socialist efforts failed miserably are just examples of people doing it wrong! I know the RIGHT way to do it!" By the way, you haven't addressed your claim about needing to be the child of wealth-hoarding parents in America to strike it rich. Shall we hit that or just repeat your point that you hate socialism too, but here are a bunch of socialist policies I support but they're totally not socialism because socialism is bad guys, I swear?
-
The government's job is to ensure fair free enterprise. That's the difference. If you think there is free enterprise in Mexico then you're even less informed than I thought. Incredible levels of private and government corruption are the enemies of a free capitalist society. Regulation is not socialism. It is a necessary function of government to ensure a fair system. But it must be conservatively applied, and every new regulation scrutinized to ensure it is not picking winners rather than preventing cheaters. But these are details. The bottom line is that your philosophy ignores human nature, and you yourself are proof. People will always take care of themselves first. Always. You saving masses of wealth, contributing to the very problem you cite, is all we need to know about the possible success of your desired system. You have to be literally forced by the government to do something that you claim to believe in, how on Earth will that work for people like me who don't believe in your cause? And when I say no, then what? I suppose we should just be forced harder, maybe imprisoned? Killed? Don't scoff, no one in the USSR thought the grand plan would kill 60 million. But it did. Liberals never look past today. Oh, and it's not even theory. Go ahead, show me all the ways redistributive systems have helped the world. Your plans, so loosely applied in the United States over the past century, have improved the lives of millions in America by the most generous estimates (aside from creating an entire class of dependant humans). Capitalist enterprise has improved the lives of billions across the globe with all the incredible invention you seem to think would just happen no matter what. You say we need the Elon Musks if the world, but don't you think it's odd they never pop up in socialist, redistributive nations? Must be a coincidence. I've said it before. I'm not for capitalism because I have no sympathy for the poor of today. I'm for capitalism because I don't want YOUR grandkids to know what a poor person is.
-
So you're just going to ignore the parts where your view of hoarding is completely out of touch with reality? Let's start with a soft ball. Who's money will the banks loan out in your scenario?
-
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how wealth works. And I've already addressed it. Wealth is not finite. There is not just $20 to spread around. The guy with $17 CREATES hundreds more through the invention of new demand. And one of the hardest truths is that the poor do not create much at all. There's a reason economies are rated based on GDP growth. Growth. It is the creation of wealth that makes a country strong. And our "poor" people are a hell of a lot better off than the poor people in socialist nations. And in more progressive capitalist nations. And guess what? When you create new wealth, it makes you fantastically rich. I believe that you think the things you wrote. I'm not calling you disingenuous or otherwise questioning your character. And I think you believe those things out of a genuine desire for a better world. But you're just wrong. Do you think it's a coincidence that the greatest advancements in the elimination of poverty and improvements in the standard of living worldwide has been entirely driven by capitalist nations? Entirely.
-
"I'll show myself the door" is sulking. And yes, I have. Yes, it's a good idea. Wealth is not hoarded, it is not finite, it is created, it grows. Rich families are not depriving the poor of money, any more than you are depriving your neighbors of food if you raise a garden in your backyard and don't share. The estate tax implies that you don't get to determine where your wealth goes. Obviously this is not a novel concept for progressives. Nor is it surprising that fiscal conservatives would oppose it. The only difference here is the application of death as some way to make the penalty for success more palatable. I am against all progressive taxation, so the estate tax is no different.
-
Also, isn't this tired at this point? Bill Gates Steve Jobs Mark Zuckerberg Steve Wozniak Fred Smith Jeff Bezos Larry Page Sergey Brin Sheldon Adelson George Soros Steve balmer Almost every airline pilot Countless doctors and attorneys The entire silicon valley Exactly where is this nation of aristocrats you speak of?
-
It went exactly where you took it. You talked about the terminology of socialism, and used the example of conservatives calling everything socialist. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about liberals who call themselves socialist. You either don't know what the term means, or your willfully misrepresenting yourself, or you're in favor of the most dangerous political philosophy in the history of mankind. Then I pointed out that the conversations you seem to be interested in having are actually happening on the internet. What exactly is your question, since your estate question seems targeted for Brickhistory?
-
F#$k what Republicans say. There are Democrats who happily use "socialist" to describe themselves. They are the enemy of the Free world. Also, Dude, stay away from cable news and the MSM. The world of podcasts has the discussions you seek.
-
It's not news to me. Manafort was a crook, who's indiscretions had nothing to do with Trump. And obviously Trump ordered the payments to the porn star he cheated on his wife with. That was baked into the equation when he ran for president. Get him to commit perjury, and I'll support the same punishment as Bill Clinton: impeachment with no further action.
-
The 40 hour work week has nothing to do with socialism. Zero. No one here is talking about work hours and child labor when they refer to socialism. Socialism is easily summed up by the old Soviet mantra, from each according his abilities; to each according to his needs. Another simple socialist concept is an equality of outcome (not to be confused with equality of opportunity). They are not fatal due to the evil intent of their promotors. They are fatal due to their irreconcilable conflicts with human nature. Remember, there are no flawed political philosophies, only flawed human characteristics. The success of a political philosophy is measured by how well it mitigates and minimizes the effects of those human flaws. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
-
The problem is that there no accepted definition of "too far" for the left. For the Right it's easy: racial superiority. Hitler, KKK, etc. But the left has no obvious "too far." For the educated, it's quite obvious: socialism. No political philosophy has a body count approaching the horrors unleashed by socialism. But your average voter is not aware of history, and even the educated are unaware thanks to who controls the curriculums of college campuses. I don't care how great a politician seems. If the word socialism falls from their lips, they are a threat. Useful idiots at best, evil megalomaniac at worst, but still a threat. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
-
I've said that since the primary victory. Trump as president was only possible because "the establishment," over the course of decades, dissolved any moral accountability in the underlying system of government. They cheated, they stole, they lied, they enriched themselves and their circles, they abused, and they evaded punishment. Eventually these practices became ubiquitous, and all that was left was the facade of decency and honor. But a facade cannot protect the system from intruders. Enter Trump, who's only distinction is that his words and appearance match his/their actions. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
-
You're right, they probably don't know each other... Also, most people doesn't include the top brass. They keep their clearances indefinitely. Well, until they piss of Trump it seems. I love that Patreus had the balls to sign that letter. Well I don't think any of them are particularly trustworthy, as they have so adequately demonstrated. And it should surprise no one that the urge to provide those hard-hitting soundbites and breaking scoops has caused more than a few honorable men and women to develop loose lips. So yeah, I would disqualify anyone who becomes an analyst for Fox, CNN, CNBC, etc.
-
Ok, so he's defending his friend. That's great. But honestly I can't watch any of these retired honorable men on cable news for more than a minute before I stop venerating their service. I don't care if you're a republican or democrat, if you want to be a pundit, you should lose your clearance. Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
-
Yeah, you missed it. But it's the internet, so no worries. I'm against govt-run healthcare. One reason is because in order to have it, those choices need to be made. People who want govt healthcare never want to talk about those choices. My grandma should not be supported by the govt. They are paying to fight an unwinnable battle at the expense of other programs. If people want to spend their own money to do so, great. All for it. QOL is not QOL. If you can't see the difference between a sick child and a sick old person, I can't help you. Denying the concept of differential worth between humans is one of my least favorite aspects of the progressive movement. Promised? By who? If you promised to make it to my birthday party, but then the power went out in your part of the country for multiple days, and the only way to make it to my party was to leave your wife and child at home alone and unable to fend for themselves, would you still go? We can argue all day about what is and isn't right, and what promises the government should or should not honor. But at the end of the day my political philosophies boil down to two very simple premises. 1) We don't sacrifice our children's future for today. Taking a loan out is okay, but not when you know that you will be worse off at the end of the loan then you were at the beginning. 2) Never ignore human nature. People will always choose their family over a principal. You see this everywhere. Rich liberals who decry school choice, but send their kids to the most expensive private schools. Calls for renewable energy, from the same people who demand no wind turbines be built that obstruct the view from their porch. Old conservatives who talk about the unsustainable levels of handouts from our government, as they drive to their govt funded Medicare appointments. The ultimate goal of the progressive, socialist, liberal, whatever you want to call it, movement is the creation of a global community, and that will never, ever succeed. Even if it wasn't an impossible goal, people will always work harder for their family and their immediate community. Working harder means producing more. Producing more means more overall wealth. More overall wealth means a better world for everyone. Does it seem like a coincidence to anyone that the greatest, fastest improvements in the overall condition of humans on this planet, to include the very poorest amongst us, have occurred during the last century of unbridled capitalism in America? And the parallel socialist experiments have all, every single one, resulted in unspeakable horrors and millions of dead? Free healthcare in Britain isn't helping the starving kids in India. The incredible fruits of the profit-motive are. I'm not against universal healthcare because I don't think it's fair, or because I pity the rich doctors, or because Hillary likes it. I'm against it because a capitalist system is the best chance that my grandchildren won't know what cancer is. If I have to die at 86 instead of 92 from kidney failure to achieve that, so be it.
-
A huge percentage of healthcare costs goes towards keeping old people alive when they should be dead. We cannot have a productive conversation about changing the healthcare system in the US without first addressing this. In the market, it's simple: until you're out of money. But when it's the government's money, the system collapses before the fake money runs out. I love my grandma. I like visiting her whenever I can. But she shouldn't be alive, and the amount of money being spent by Medicare to keep her alive is staggering, and the only thing she's dying from is old age (94 years old). We can easily afford to give every child in America unlimited healthcare. In fact, I think it should be that way. Full coverage until age 20, then lifetime coverage for chronic conditions that manifested during childhood. After that, you better have insurance. But if you think the boomers, or any other generation of senior citizens is ever going to vote for something where other people get free healthcare and they don't, just ask my Sean Hannity-quoting, millennial-bashing, proudly conservative father who loses his mind anytime someone mentions making cuts to his precious Medicare. This doesn't even get into the issues of producing doctors, questionable data on the efficacy of medical coverage, incentives to plan for retirement, etc.
-
This! I guess you just have to live over there to realize just how successful the American project has been. Though I'd argue places like San Francisco and Manhattan are already there.
-
I disagree. Few people on the extremes believe their positions to be extreme. And when a politician is even slightly less ideologically pure, it seems like centrism. Hillary was ten times the centrist that Obama was.
-
Honestly, I'd pay the $21 just for the automatic Google calendar updating. I got my first line next month (hired in March), so I signed up. Lite Sabre is amazing, even on reserve. You should sign up for the free month to see if you agree, but when I end up back on reserve next year, I will keep it. The HIRPB interface is great. When you're a line holder, it's almost silly to not have it.
