I meant his own timeline, lol. Surrept takes pride in trying to make sure nothing he does affects the timeline et al.
The main problem is that nations – in order to be nations – must be at least somewhat liberal to their own citizens. But then really big and rich nations ultimately see huge population increases, and need to continue giving the wealth away just to keep the restless masses sedated. Eventually, there are just too many people and too few resources to go round. It’s the cycle of life. Individuals go through it as do civilizations.
Look up Elliott wave theory.
That is a solution though it is not the only one and nor is it the most effective one either
Now I would be absolutely useless in the wild so putting me down would be the best thing to do
I would no longer be a burden to society and you would have a supply of free food so win win all round
If you are worried about killing me yourself then you could easily find someone else to do it for you instead
This idea is not new so do not think I am just saying it for shock value as that could not be further from the truth
I am rather disappointed in you for I thought you would think nothing of killing a nihilist like me but you live and learn
This sounds like a libertarian as much as a liberal, as far as it goes. Are you ok with condemning them both equally, or is there some difference to you?
democrats stole the term “liberalism” , then the world libertarinism was invented as a result. Democrats are everything but liberal, they are socialists.
so the headline should read as: why socialism/collectivism doesn’t work in the long term
what you call big and rich can be disproved by just looking at the world debt amounting to almost 10 times the global GDP, the rich nations are just much richer in debts.
overpopulation and too few resources can be disproved by investigating the global food waste amounting to 50% of the world food production.
If we can say that there are numbers that do exist, and numbers that don’t, negative numbers (along with imaginary/complex numbers) would be among those that don’t. There is really no such thing as negative value when measured in rationally calculable terms such as entropy. These kinds of numbers only exist to do things like perform balancing acts in accountant’s ledgers.
There are physical states of higher and lower entropy. As a species, the goal is to constantly minimize global entropy. The physical state of the world at large is such that we are in the midst of accelerating increases in global entropy.
The end of this story is human civilization collapse and “dieoffs” of massive portions of human population.
In my opinion, only the truly gifted will be able to get their genes into the 22nd century. The average google engineer (for instance) has a hell of a chance to do just that.
Lady Gaga can go gaga on my dick and then I’ll consider supporting her political campaign, Dennis. What’s in it for me? What do I get .for voting Gaga? Trixie can work her some political magic. So either put up or shut up. Whats in it for me? PM me the address of the motel where I’m supposed to meet her and I’ll make all of her political dreams come true.
The tragedy of the commons means an evolutionary suicide.
The difference between a liberal and a libertarian is that a liberal necessarily actively participates in spreading social degeneracy and economic irresponsibility by virtue of being a liberal, while a libertarian may or may not be socially degenerate and economically irresponsible, but with his passivity he allows other people to be so and so he permits degeneracy and irresponsibility to spread, which will ultimately affect him too.
According to Haidt, liberals value lifestyle liberty while conservatives value economic liberty. Libertarians value both.
In general, libertarians are not very emotional except when it comes to infringing on their liberty in some way or form. I consider them to be on average autistic about that.
Overall libertarians have a bit more in common with liberals - personality wise - than with conservatives.
But since the GOP has sold out their base in all aspects except for the value of ‘economic freedom’, there is a lot of overlap between libertarians and conservatives due to what is deemed politically correct by the mainstream media.
Does Haidt not know the word “liberalist”?
I don’t know whether or not he knows what that is.
In any case, if someone wants liberty then he better be prepared to infringe on the liberties of those people who don’t respect his claims, be they physical properties or morals, ideals.
Socialism/collectivism is only concerned with the economic aspect, liberalism encompasses both the modern social liberalism (degeneracy) and economic liberalism (socialistic leaning, demand handouts).
Given how I criticize both the economic and social aspect of liberalism in my OP, the current title is adequate.
I think the perceptions and understandings of “liberalism” and “socialism” in the USA are different from them in Europe.
Liberalism has been a way (among several along the road) of de-tribalising Europeans, it worked on the European genetic stock of the time.
Doesn’t work on other genetic stocks and this is part of why liberalism is doomed in the US. Since the Democrats and also the GOP-establishment by now is pushing for immigration, they are replacing the genetic stock of people which were governable with techniques of liberalism with genetics which are not responsive to it.
But it’s not just a ‘stupid’ or ‘short-sighted’ decision which was made as a ‘free-choice’. Liberalism has been part of what selected and bred Europeans into this effeminate state where they are essentially destroying themselves and their lineage with this faggotry.
Sure, with a dictatorship the US could be held together but it’s not gonna be the US of old.
I think the Second Amendment exists to guard against dictatorship
I haven’t looked into it myself but from what I’ve heard Hitler’s dictatorship was actually easing up on weapon laws for the German population.
While lefty dictatorships seem to be very much in favour of removing weapons from private citizens.
I see the same pattern in the US repeating, in regards to Weimarica.
Those on the right (not the cuck-right) are banding together, collectively to destroy lefty collectivism. That’s why they are okay with dictatorship as long as the authoritarian dictatorship is supporting their ends. And it’s like watching history in the making and I see now what they mean when they say Fascism is essentially a reaction to Communism. The realisation that to have your so-called ‘freedoms’ you need to live in a country with a certain kind of genetic make-up.
Liberalism means “breaking free from”. And “entropy” means “broken free from”, as does “de-struction” vs “con-struction”. So of course, “in the long run” liberalism means total annihilation.
But on the other hand, due to the lack of proper educating techniques, people must experience the bad in order to strive for the good. And thus they sway back and forth, creating too much of A then of B. Liberalism inspires conservatism, Jews inspire Nazis. No matter which extreme is taken, the other extreme begins to rise … as long as the battle continues. Liberalism is bad in certain regards. Conservatism is bad in other regards. They are both the issuance of limited minds and lustful hearts.
The only way to avoid the extremes is to learn how to “perfectly balance” life. It really isn’t all that hard once seen, but as long as there are strong lusts blinding the mind, nothing is seen clearly. And there are only a very few people who have any influence in any direction, so it is they who must learn how to balance. But who has the influence to teach them?
That’s the question, yes. No one of the real powerful ones is capable of teaching in that way, and no one of those who are capable of teaching in that way is allowed to teach the real powerful ones. It seems to be a dilemma.