Boycott Google

Anyway you slice it, the rest of society will have to, not only pay more tax, but work harder.
I want to make things fairer, not differently unfair.
We shouldn’t tax employees to pay for the voluntarily unemployed, and if employers are paying employees a fair wage, than they shouldn’t be taxed either.
Some shouldn’t have to worker harder to feed, clothe and take care of society because others won’t pull their weight.
I don’t just want a more equal distribution of money, I want a more equal distribution of work.

Yes, how diabolical of me.

Altho genes play a major role in determining us, I’m not a genetic reductionist, our genes are dynamic and help determine our (sub)conscious behavior, and our (sub)conscious behavior, including sexual, is dynamic and helps determine our genes.
Our culture and environment shapes us, but we in turn shape our culture and environment, it’s a two way street.

even liberal whites supposedly have white privilege and are racist, I’m not making this stuff up, believe me I really wish I was, I couldn’t even if I tried:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWoC90bbsdo[/youtube]

Servitude can’t be eliminated, either it can be equal, fair, unequal or unfair.

The job of the machine is to reduce drudgery as much as possible, but in 2019 and the foreseeable future, drudgery is still necessary.

Okay, let’s say we improve working conditions and increase wages to make them fair, whatever we as a society decide fair is, which’s what we should do.

Let’s say 25% of people provide superfluous goods (and services) for everyone, and 25% of people provide necessary goods for everyone.

Now if 12.5% of the people that provide superfluous goods for everyone, and 12.5% of the people that provide necessary goods for everyone, quit, and live off UBI or go on welfare, what does that entail?

That entails either the 12.5% of people that still provide necessary goods for everyone will have to work twice as hard, or the 12.5% of people that still provide superfluous goods for everyone has to quit their current job, so they can replace the 12.5 of people that no longer provide necessary goods for everyone, which means there’ll be no superfluous goods for everyone to consume.

It also means employers, who’re no longer exploiting blue collar workers thanks to the minimum wage increase reducing, but not entirely eliminating disparity, will now be overtaxed to pay for UBI or welfare, de-incentivizing them in the process.

Agreed.

Okay.

So if wages fall less than prices, it’ll be a good thing for workers and consumers, and if wages and prices fall equally, it’ll be a neutral thing.
So it could be a neutral or even a good thing, so why’re you worried?

They can’t really, because we’ve increased the minimum wage, and we’ll continually adjust for inflation.

Or they might not lower wages in the first place, because they know it’ll just mean people won’t be able to buy their goods.

I just want to increase the minimum, not set every wage, altho perhaps we should lower the minimum wage small businesses have to pay.

Prices are secondary, wages are primary, if it gets too complicated, we don’t have to set prices.
And I only wanted to set them for food and housing.
And I wanted to set them higher for big food and housing than small.
We could also nationalize or unionize big food and housing, and run them more in the interests of workers, consumers and residents.
Just an idea, but the main thing is wages.

One more thing about prices, I wanted to have maximum prices for foods and housing, so businesses could charge whatever they want so long as they don’t exceed them.

I don’t see why my plan has to entail that.

Every dictator who wanted to eliminate Christianity always wanted to plug something else into the hole.

It’s no trouble to distort christianity as people do it daily and have been for centuries. I can make the bible say anything you want. Remember Jonestown? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown

He said those latter things near his death. Most of his life, like me, was spent as a christian. How come he never stopped paying the church tax? Why didn’t he stop going to confession? I’ve only been out of Christianity maybe a year or two. Maybe historians will argue whether or not I was a Christian. If they do, then they’re both right.

He wrote a book before he rose to power, without knowing that he would rise to power, and in that book he said he was a Christian. I wrote a post in the past saying I was a Christian and at the time I was. Same with Hitler.

I’m aspiring to a solid 100% negative :wink:

Yes, true, we must be on guard about that.

What’s the difference?

Reminds me of the question: Do you have more faith in god or science. I thought the question should be: Do you have more faith in faith or science? Faith has two meanings. I have more confidence in science than faith.

No, authoritarianism is controlling the population based on the opinion of the elites. P is controlled by E.
Democracy elects representatives to control the population based on the opinions of the population. P is controlled by P.

E is the authoritarian. Authoritarianism is top-down. Democracy is bottom-up.

I bitched to dad that hillbilly republicans want to tax tv now. He said NY democrats tax soda. I said there’s a difference: the dems tax unhealthy things to discourage their use and fund education; the right taxes innocent things to be fair to corporations. One is noble (though misguided) and the other is malicious. He hasn’t responded yet and is probably has his head in a hole.

The right is authoritarian. The left is not. P cannot be authoritarian to itself. Only E can be authoritarian: the church, fascists, communist dictators, corporations, etc.

“Helpful” here having the meaning of assisting the slave system. If you’re a good little minion, we’ll let you live. If you protest servitude, you’re a disease to be eradicated. You’re definitely WAY on the right next to Hitler and Stalin.

Any jew who didn’t believe he was their king (god) and still clung to the Law of Moses. Hmm… that sounds familiar.

No it was carefully worded to achieve the goal they wanted.

No, he was more like you who hates the poor and: neutered them, enslaved them, and killed them. The only difference in you two is that he actually did it and you wish you could.

They may care marginally more, but are far less equipped to raise a child.

If we’re concerned about an endangered species, the last thing we’d do is leave the species in the hands of the mother, but take total control of the situation with all of academia’s knowledge brought to bear.

Leaving kids in the hands of well-intentioned idiots only breeds more idiots (myself the fortunate exception). How many people are able to escape their childhood indoctrinations such that they can truly “choose this day whom ye shall serve”? I probably align closer with Hitler on this who recognized that parents have no clue how to raise a kid. Spreading legs in the back of a camaro does not qualify one to be a mother.

Nope. I’ve been through the numbers on this. Raise taxes on the top, cut taxes on the middle, institute negative tax on the bottom. Most people are better off than before.

But the point I really want to highlight here is that even though my plan involves a taxcut for any class you could ever aspire to inhabit, and raise your wages, and increase the health and education of society, you STILL wouldn’t go along with it because the principle has been completely overlooked, which is to make the poor suffer; that’s all you care about and that’s all the Right cares about. Just like the baby video showed that the kid was willing to take less tokens for himself if it meant the other kid gets even less.

You will make your own life harder just to make the poor suffer.

Your definition of fair is who licks the most boots gets the rewards. Ones who refuse to lick boots gets no reward.

“Fair wage” here has the meaning of a wage determined by the most desperate worker underbidding all others.
“Fair wage” here does NOT mean a fair division of the value of the final product. Nor does “fair” mean that the employee agreed to any such divisions, but the terms are “fairly” shoved down his throat.

Yes, get to work licking those boots you feckless maggots! :orcs-whip:

Oh goodie… a corner for everyone to stand on.

Indeed.

Sure, but who shaped the environment to specifically favor white people? Who said, “We need to rally together to shape our environment to favor the white humanoids. This must be teleological because if left to chance, blacks might become smarter and we can’t have that!” Like I said, no one gets any credit.

I can’t imagine that’s prolific.

What has people pissed is the arrogant old white men who think they can, for example, tax tv in order to be fair to corporations. Old white men are being replaced by brown women all across the country because what they lack in brains they more than make up for in having heart and consideration. That’s a trade I’d make any day. It’s a standing offer: I’ll trade 1 redneck for 10 mexicans. All day, every day. Good riddance!

Now, you can shove your head in a hole in refusal to see my point or continue thinking it’s irrational white guilt like the video you posted. It really makes no difference to me since I’m just doing you the favor of cluing you in.

I don’t feel guilty for slavery, but I can’t stand those arrogant codgers thinking everything is common sense. Zero to do with guilt.

What evidence do you have to support the assertion that servitude cannot be eliminated? What? Because machines are making so much more work to do? That by the year 3000 we will be working 24 hrs a day because of such scarcity? Pft.

Friedman visited one of those statist countries back in the 70s and said “Why not replace all those shoveling workers with a machine?” The reply was, “Well, we’re not really trying to accomplish anything but to provide jobs.” Friedman replied, “In that case, why not give them spoons to shovel with?”

The point of jobs is not to provide jobs, but to do a job. Once the job is done, it’s done. Everyone can go home now. We don’t have to work just because you say so because we need some justification for our handouts. 90% of the jobs done are just digging holes and filling them in so that people can suffer for money. That’s what it’s all about.

But each year, less than before. Tick tock the countdown to a scarcity of scarcity. How will you make people suffer when machines have taken every job? There is no job that a machine can’t do. Machines can even do artistic work like writing music, painting.

How are you going to do that? “Let’s say”? That’s dictation. You cannot dictate wages higher. The only way to raise wages is to increase welfare. Give people more options so the corps have to compel them to work.

I’ve asked oodles of people if they would quit their job if the gov sent $10k per year whether they work or not. Only one woman said yes because that’s more than she gets now and would rather stay home with her kids. Everyone else would work and get the UBI.

I know a woman who has to work with the flu (food service no less, spreading it to the customers) because if she doesn’t, she’ll lose her job. But with the UBI, she could tell her employer to suck it since if she loses her job, she doesn’t starve. And since every other employee can also say that, then the employer would have to be more considerate of people. UBI adds to the power of people.

Prices can only fall because people do not have enough money to spend. Well, competition and automation also lowers prices, but this wouldn’t happen in response to elimination of welfare. In response to no welfare, demand would fall off a cliff and prices would follow. Wages would then follow prices down the abyss and who can tell which would be lower.

Then everyone will get the minimum and no raises. Or they’ll move to another country.

Companies usually fire people when sales start to drop. Then their stock shoots up because of the elimination of employees. The insiders sell out before sales drop more and the company files bankruptcy.

I agree.

It seems much easier to regulate the amount of welfare and the minimum wage. Everything else will be in response to that in a free market.

I don’t think price caps work either. I haven’t researched it, but just took it for granted.

I think you’ll be pushed into micromanaging since every meddling will require more fixing.

@Serendipper

I think you’re exaggerating how productive we’ve become.
A modern farmer feeds 100-150 people, whereas a medieval farmer fed himself, his family and maybe several others, but the medieval farmer and his wife made their own ceramics, clothes, built their own house and so on, they took care of almost all of their own needs, whereas the modern farmer is totally reliant on others.
While I agree modern technology has made us more productive, It’s not so much as we’re that much more productive, as we’re that much more interdependent.

When machines have made us so productive, a man can not only use them to feed, clothe and shelter himself without relying on other men, but feed, clothe and shelter 100s or 1000s of others, well, at that point we won’t even need society anymore, it’ll be optional, because we can use machines to take care of all our needs just by pulling a lever and pressing a few buttons, but we’re lightyears away from that.

Many scientists are predicting an ecological collapse before the end of this century, because we’ve become too reliant on globalization and technology.
Many are telling us it’s not enough to make our technologies greener, because making them more efficient just means we’ll produce even more with them.
They’re telling us we have to localize our economies, that we don’t need to get fruits and vegetables from China and India, it’s absurd, and that if we don’t, we’ll collapse back into the dark ages, where we’ll have to work 12-16 hours a day.

But you know what, again I think our productivity has been greatly exaggerated.
Many native American tribes were able to take care of their needs just by laboring 4-5 hours a day, the early European migrants regarded them as lazy by their standards, so maybe getting rid of globalization and technology will make our lives more leisurely after all.

I agree some jobs are meaningless, but it’s nowhere near as many as you’re suggesting, it’s probably more like a 3rd of jobs are meaningless, a 3rd make stuff that makes people happier, but isn’t needed, and a 3rd makes stuff that’s needed.

In Canada, we’re increasing the federal min wage from about 10 dollars to 15.
Well, I say just increase it from 15 to 20, or 30, and adjust for inflation annually, so the working class can either support their families themselves, without relying on government, or save some money, or work part time and live a more leisurely life.
Or go to college or university without having to borrow money or work full time.
Or entrepreneur.

UBI has never before been tried on a large scale, it’s something radical and experimental, whereas just increasing minimum wage is something we already do, just increase it more.

Inaction speaks louder than words.
I know several people who’re on disability for depression, and while these people are depressed at times, they admitted to me that they could work full time if they had to, they’d just rather not.
Part of their depression probably stems from low self-esteem, from feeling useless, lack of exercise, poor diet, drug abuse, these people all have terrible life styles.
They need to get their shit together and go out there and contribute.
I suspect 10s of millions of Americans will abuse UBI if it should ever become option, to the point where the economy may collapse.

As for single moms, while I have empathy for widows and women fleeing deadbeats and physical and mental abuse (as I have empathy for men fleeing such conditions), most single moms are selfish, spoiled rotten and just want to raise their children their way (i.e. 0 discipline/respect), while relying on the state, alimony and child support from the father, meanwhile they gold dig, stay home, stuff their faces and watch reruns of Orpah and other daytime talk shows (i.e. misandrist propaganda).
And the stepdads almost invariably treat the kids like shit, but they’ll put up with it to multiply the number of men they can leach off of.
The vast majority of single moms are a plague, a scourge on society.
Unnecessary single motherhood is child abuse.
We need to get rid of no fault divorce to encourage families to stay together.

So it could be good, could be bad, could be neither, so you don’t have a point.

Sales may not drop, in fact they may increase, if prices fall lower than wages.

No, the working poor will be lifted out of poverty, but the middle and upper class will still earn more than them.

And middle class won’t get raises because of UBI, for none of them will be tempted to quit and go on UBI.

And UBI only raises the wages of the working class if they sometimes make good on their threat to quit their job, but if too many of them do, the economy may collapse as a result.

@Serendipper

My plan does all that, without having to take care of 10s of 1000000s of lazy people.

I don’t want to make my life harder by taking care of lazy people.

By and large, smart, strong people, many of whom happened to be European, but some of whom happened to be Asian, native American and African, shaped their environment to improve the lives of people, especially smart, strong people irrespective of race.

What progressives are doing is propping up the dumber, weaker members of the African race at the expense of the smarter, stronger members of the European race, which’ll just help lead to the de-evolution of both races.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxXS3_aesTQ[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_g9uIHCAZs[/youtube]

This would’ve been unthinkable in 1989, or 1999.
This is just the beginning, anti-white sentiment is growing at an accelerating pace.

If you accept the premise that an individual can be held responsible for what some of the ancestors of his race did, or for what some (more like a few) members of his race do now, if you accept the premise that through some combination of ecological advantages and malevolence, white people have done far more harm to the world than good, and that we have an ancestral debt to pay because of it, it becomes clearer how we got to where we are now, as well as where we’re headed.

They say until our collective debt to other races is paid, some of our rights should be revoked, the only question is, how many, and for how long?
Where do progressives draw the line?
When will we have made amends for enslaving and supposedly genociding millions of blacks, Jews, natives and others?
every year they draw it farther and farther ahead.
The answer has become clear, as far as they think they can get away with drawing it.

The only way to truly counteract this growing anti-white sentiment is to totally reject all of their premises, not merely argue over minor details.

@Serendipper

Christianity, whose founder extolled the virtues of charity, forgiveness and pacifism, has also inspired a lot of good in the world.
It’s easier to use figures like Darwin, Nietzsche, Odin and Thor to commit atrocities than to use Jesus, or the Buddha or Lao Tzu for that matter.

No he said them on and off all throughout his reign.

Religious expediency, opportunism.

But if we discovered in your PMs with close confidants, you were telling them you’re still a Christian and only feigning atheism, expediently exploiting it for a Christian cause, and furthermore we could see evidence of this opportunistic exploitation in your deeds, we would know your atheism is a ruse.

exactly, there is no practical difference, they’re both equally deluded in different ways.

For me, while democratic authoritarianism is preferabe to dictatorial or plutocratic, it’s still authoritarianism, it’s still coercive (tho I also believe coercion can occasionally be justified).

Firstly, those aren’t real American conservatives, they’re corporatists, conservatives in America are free market.

Secondly, hippie democrats want you to pay for other peoples drug addiction, sex change and laziness.

Thirdly, they want to impose carbon taxes, and while more carbon may be unhealthy for the planet (most climatologists say it is), most people are just trying to get from point A to point B, from home to work, school and the grocery store.
Why punish them?
Carbon taxes are something only the elite like Al Gore, who fly all around the world should pay.

The majority can exercise authority over minorities and individuals, or its present self over its future self.

Also, the deep state can dupe the majority into tyrannizing itself.

For what? :laughing:
For not wanting UBI?
For not wanting to support the lazy?
When it comes to the economy, I’m mixed, I’m socialist on some things (education, healthcare, minimum wage), free market on some things, and corporatist on none.
When it comes to social issues, I’m libertarian.
And I’m in favor of more direct democracy, not less.

Jesus was a pacifist who believed it was God’s right alone to distribute spiritual justice, not man’s, not even Christian men’s (tho man could still distribute secular justice, hence the partial separation of church and state in late antiquity and the middle ages, and the full separation in modernity).

‘My kingdom is not of this world, or my children would fight’.

And Jesus chastised all people who believed they could earn salvation (he even warned of fake Christians), not just Jews who wouldn’t convert.

I am poor, and I want to increase our wages and what welfare pays for people who genuinely need it, as well as reduce the workweek.

No parents care far more about their own children, and are far more equipped to raise them as they share their genes.
Sounds like you have no respect for ordinary men and women and their capabilities.
In that case, why have democracy at all, if people can’t even look after their own kids?

So you want to abduct peoples kids and institutionalize them, and yet you have the gall to accuse me of being on the far right with Hitler and Stalin? :laughing:
You’re the elitist, not me.

Technological progression doesn’t justify having to do exponentially more work as time goes on. And probably the only reason a farmer today can only feed 150 people is capitalism. If humanity eliminated money completely and simply focused on production of resources, then 1 farmer could feed the planet.

Nah it could be done now, but we need the people who say it can’t to die off. They are the only ones holding humanity back and they can’t be reasoned with, so funeral by funeral we progress. A good flu pandemic would do wonders for humanity as it would probably kill disproportionately more old dogmatists while leaving the young green shoots to thrive.

What scientists? They don’t seem too bright to me.

Well, they didn’t have much to do and they had a lot of people to do it. Now we’ve made all sorts of chores to do, like updating google perpetually, as if that were imperative. 1000s of jobs could be eliminated by simply making the tax code less complex. Most of the work done in the world is just digging a hole and refilling it… and it’s because people exist who demand other people suffer for money.

I’d prefer the gov seize google, fire everyone, and preserve its current form and function forever and ever. Maybe retain one guy who can fix what breaks. All of silicon valley can go on permanent vacation. All the bankers can be fired as well. We could do this right now, today, with no robots. Millions would be jobless and nothing would change, except that millions would be jobless and would require handouts.

I bet it’s closer to 70-90% of jobs that are irrelevant. Fire all insurance agents. If you want insurance, go online and apply; it’s automated. All bankers can be fired. If you want a loan, go online and apply; it’s automated. Cut the police force in half; we don’t need cops handing out seatbelt tickets and cameras can issue speeding violations in the mail. I bet I could whittle the workforce down to 10% of what it is now and not change anything, except that those people would need handouts. A few smart guys putting their heads together + robots + about 1 year and we’d have the workforce down to 1% of what it was.

If you handout money for free, then you won’t need to bother with min wage laws because corps will have to pay ungodly wages just to get people to work. You could control everything by the amount of the UBI. A computer could do it. Hell, Friedman said that in the 70s: a computer could control the money supply and run the whole show.

People are depressed due to the capitalist system (and being so far north doesn’t help their vitamin D status). A guy who used to work for me got SSI while he was working, but I had to get him out of bed and wait for him to shit before we could go to work. He’s just mentally incapable of supporting himself and if left to himself, he peddles drugs and his wife works 2 jobs in addition to the SSI. Some people just can’t do it and they’re a victim of the system. We can’t fix those people, but we can fix the system to prevent more of those types from forming.

I mean, he’d rather drop a bowling ball on his toe so he could be prescribed more opiates to sell than to get a job. A job is too much work, requires too much discipline, doesn’t pay enough, and the reward is too slow. Much easier to spill hot grease on his arm. His daughter and his whole family are pillheads because they have no hope of anything and are slowly committing suicide to escape this fucked up system. $10/hr isn’t enough. $15 isn’t enough. $30? Ok maybe they would stop the pills and have hope of some type of life worth living. I’d rather suck a tailpipe than prostitute myself for $10/hr.

Deserve has nothing to do with it. We cannot allow kids to be raised in squalor. Period. If we do, then we’re just making more problems that can’t be fixed.

It could be that you have reading difficulty. Wages and prices WILL certainly, without a doubt, be in the abyss. But, I cannot tell which will be FARTHER in the abyss.

If you jumped into a cauldron of molten steel, I can’t tell if your left or right leg would be hotter. Since I can’t tell that, you decide jumping into the magma might be a good idea.

The reason prices are falling is because nobody has money, so how could that ever be construed as a good thing?

What we want to see is prices rising and why it’s the mandate of the fed to keep prices rising at 2% forever. We never ever want to see prices fall because it can only mean people do not have any money. (Unless of course the falling prices are coming by way of competition and automation).

It’s mechanically impossible for the economy to collapse if the poor have money. There is absolutely no way for it to happen. Economic collapse is the state in which the poor are broke.

The only way to achieve lower taxes for yourself + higher wages + healthy and smart society is to take from the rich to give to the poor. If your plan doesn’t do that, then your plan cannot achieve that; the mechanics simply are not there (ie it’s mechanically impossible like a square circle).

“lazy people” here has the meaning of people who do not want to be slaves of the rich.

So you said “I don’t want to make my life harder by freeing slaves.”

But that still is not correct because freeing slaves would make your life easier.

So, you want to make your life harder by enslaving people.

If there is such a thing as evil, that is it.

I disagree, but I’m tired of arguing with a recording.

Still not prolific. I don’t know why they can’t understand inclusiveness doesn’t mean segregation.

Well, it’s the fault of the whites for being arrogant in the first place. As I said, I’m happy to see them go. Not sure what I’m getting into, but seeing the decline is recompense. If whites were humble, I’d take their side, but I can’t sympathize with the arrogant.

It has nothing to do with slavery, but being boneheaded. All boneheads need to go extinct, regardless of color.

That’s a red herring. It’s not about prior slavery; it’s about being a jerk right now.

There is no way to counteract it because arrogant narcissists cannot change. Extinction is the only way forward, funeral by funeral.

The vikings died of their own arrogance leaving the Inuit to thrive in their wake. Whites have the propensity to beat their chests as they march to oblivion.

Whites (ie conservatives who are exclusively white) could prevent their fate by immediately taking care of the poor through min wage and ubi, ending the war on drugs, ending cash bail, and essentially taking up the liberal line, but they won’t… not a chance, because they relish the suffering of the poor… it’s dear to their hearts and gives meaning to their lives, so extinction is their future and I’m cheering their demise as a noble act.

I think it’s easier to use christianity than anyone you listed. The church didn’t denounce antisemitism until 1964. Racists are overwhelmingly christian. The darwinists have too many jews to be allied to any racial purity goal. There is no way to rally a bunch of atheists to commit atrocities.

The evidence I saw indicated he ridiculed religion only near his death. What did you see that I missed?

So religion is a tool? That was my point.

Where are Hitler’s PMs contradicting what he said in his book? Those PMs didn’t happen until 20 years after he wrote his book.

Well, no, faith in science is faith in reason and faith in god is just blind hope.

Can’t coerce the willing. Can’t have authoritarianism without coercion. Democracy cannot be authoritative. Republicanism can be authoritative because it coerces the many to the will of the few.

Corps are simply taking advantage of a free market. What are you complaining about?

No they don’t, they want Bezos to pay for them. Hippie dems want to lower your taxes along with other goodies that you don’t want because what’s important is being sure that nobody else gets freebies.

All taxes on the poor and all flat taxes are conservative ideals; it doesn’t matter what label they wear.

Right, majority rules because less people are inconvenienced.

Only if the people are uneducated.

Again, “lazy” means “people who do not want to be slaves.” Why can you not understand that?

You are forcing people into the workforce, against their will, specifically for the purpose of making the rich richer. There is no other reason.

No, you are as conservative as rush limpbone. Making the poor suffer is first priority.

Democracy includes letting racially inferior people vote.

You want to force people to work against their will which will drive wages down.

How does possession of genes confer intellect of how to raise a child?

If you don’t share that disrespect then you haven’t left the nest yet. The average person is stupid and half the population is dumber than that.

The public may agree that parents could benefit by some compulsory education on parenting.

Vegan parents charged after starving their baby by switching from formula foxnews.com/us/vegan-parent … ic-formula

Parents force their dumbassery on innocent kids. Raise kids objectively and let them decide whether to be vegans or religious nuts.

Since I was born into christianity, I never had the opportunity to “choose this day whom ye shall serve” until now, and only because I was able to get out into a neutral position.

Yep, the evil government abducted those kids the parents had locked in dog cages with shit all over them. Bad gov! cnn.com/2019/02/13/us/texas … index.html

Parents doing stupid shit lose their kids. I want to expand what we consider stupid shit. The public is on my side, so it’s not authoritative.

@Serendipper

Firstly, how do you know, since no country has ever had a majority atheist population?

Secondly, China comes closest to having a majority atheist population, nearly half are atheists and the other half are Buddhists/Daoists, and many or most Buddhists/Daoists are nontheistic, yet that didn’t stop, nor slow the Chinese down from committing some of, if not The biggest atrocities in world history, massacring tens of millions under chairman Mao, nor does it stop them from acquiescing to authoritarianism now, not the oppression of hundreds of millions of Han Chinese, nor the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities such as millions of Tibetans, Muslims and Falun Gong.

Fundamentally human nature remains the same, in spite of its institutions.

Thirdly, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and other communist dictators and their regimes were atheists, yet that didn’t stop them from committing atrocities, because they were sociopaths, or had strong sociopathic tendencies.
Many or most soldiers are sociopaths or have strong sociopathic tendencies too, so I don’t see why atheism wouldn’t stop communist dictators and their regimes from committing atrocities, but would stop their soldiers, and as for most civilian populations, they would just frightfully and passively submit to tyranny like they nearly always do.

Finally, rural people, which tend to be more religious, tend to be less violent than urban people, and it takes a violent person to commit atrocities.

If Hitler pretended to be a Christian during the last several years of his life, which’s when he committed his atrocities, why do you suppose he wasn’t pretending to be a Christian all along?

No either he didn’t believe in God at all, or he believed in some sort of spiritual force, but it wasn’t Christian, it was Germanic, pagan, he just used Christianity while trying to purge it of everything contrary to his war God, his true spiritual belief.

Hitler was mired in the occult, secular philosophy and science from a very young age.

Yes, a tool, for good or ill, just as secular ideology and politics are.

Actually faith in reason isn’t reasonable.
We shouldn’t overestimate our ability to reason, nor other’s, and we shouldn’t overly rely on reason.
We need a certain amount of intuition and instinct, as well as cultural deference.
Additionally, it’s not so much progressive’s faith in reason, as progressive’s faith in the goodness of man and his works, and from what I and many others have witnessed, progressives have way too much of it, they’re far too humanistic and optimistic.

No, mega-corps coercively fix prices, regulations and wages in ways that benefit them at the expense of their competition.
They assassinate whistle blowers, rely on bailouts/corporate welfare, bust unions, hire illegals, ship jobs to places where they can practice slave labor, bribe courts and politicians and exploit tax loopholes, all sorts of shady, sketchy dealings.

In practice, dems care very little for the working class, and they want to wipe out the middle class by overtaxing them, whereas republicans care very little for the middle class, and they want to wipe out the working class by cutting necessary social services.

In theory, conservatives (or at least libertarian conservatives) are for fewer and flatter taxes (capitalism), progressives for more and progressive taxes (socialism), but in practice both republicans and democrats are in favor of more and flatter taxes (corporatism), they only differ in the details of how their plutocratic agenda is implemented, on the big picture they converge.

Conservatives aren’t in favor of environmental taxes, progressives are.
You say it’s a conservative idea because it’s a flat tax, I could just as easily say it’s a progressive idea because it’s an environmental tax.
In reality it’s a hybrid tax, with conservative and progressive components, tailored to hurt both the middle and working class.
Again, in practice both dems and republicans are corporatists.

Inconvenienced is one way of putting it, oppression is another, it depending on the circumstances.

Which is much or most of the time, relative to how educated they need or ought to be.

If society provides able people with goods and services, they should provide goods and services in exchange, otherwise they can go to hell for all I care, along with their idiotic apologists.
Whatever capitalists would’ve been taxed to pay to them in the form of UBI or welfare, they can instead give directly to workers in the form of higher wages, and/or lower prices (if feasible *shrugs) and/or improved education, healthcare and working conditions.

My plan doesn’t help the rich get richer, on the contrary, doubling or tripling the minimum wage, improving education, healthcare and working conditions hurts the rich.
Furthermore, workers will now be able to save money and invest in the economy and become owners themselves, so they’ll no longer be able to be exploited.

You see I want to help people help themselves, whereas you want them to remain dependent, if not on corporations than on the state, and the state isn’t that much more trustworthy than corporations, what it gives it can just as easily takeaway and then some when it goes rogue, and sooner or later it will, it’s only a matter of time.

It won’t matter for the poorest jobs, which’s what most people on welfare will be taking once they’re kicked off, because corporations can’t pay less than minimum wage, which’ll be doubled or tripled under my plan.
Again, we can either reduce the workweek, or we can gradually cut people who’re abusing welfare off, giving businesses sufficient time to find something for them to do, or, we can just leave welfare as it is, but we shouldn’t improve it so long as many or most people are abusing it. And forget about UBI.

People understand their own biological children and what’s best for them better than they understand other people’s children, because they’re very similar to themselves.

People just need higher wages, for the most part otherwise they’re perfectly capable of looking after themselves and their children.

The state should only intervene in black/white cases where the damage is severe and undeniable, like starvation, physical or sexual abuse, or extreme mental and emotional abuse, and I wouldn’t classify most religion as that.

The bottom line: I trust people to look after themselves, I think they just need a little help here and there, whereas what I think you’re ultimately gunning for, is dictatorship.
I can see you have nothing but contempt, and outright hatred for most people.
Why have a democracy at all, in that case?
I’m sure our financial, intellectual and moral superiors will take much better care of us than we ourselves.
But if that doesn’t work out, they can just liquify us/turn us into biofuel, two birds…

Because blacks, Hispanics and Muslims love liberal democracy, that’s why Africa, southcentral America and the middle east are shining beacons of liberal democracy.

Keep dreaming.

According to google, 2% of the total population, or 4% of the employed population, since only 50% of the population is employed, is involved in agricultural production, and while the average American could stand to lose 10 pounds and eat at home more, that doesn’t even include food distribution and prep.
So close to 5% produce, distribute and prep our food, that’s 1 out of 20 working people.
Do you really think the remaining 19 are digging ditches with spoons?
Sure, many of them are, but certainly not all of them.
Many of them are manufacturing and distributing our clothes, houses, computers, phones, furniture, appliances, vehicles and so on, educating, medicating and protecting us, electricians, mechanics and plumbers, and while we could certainly cut back on some of these things and most of the banking, bureaucracy and service industries, it’s not as if the vast majority of jobs are meaningless, luxuries or stuff no one benefits from.
I think we produce and consume way too much, but it’s absurd to think only 0.1, or 1% of the population has to work.
And as long as there’s some work to be done, it should be divvied up in some way.

What does it matter if the average wage pays 1 10th of 1 penny an hour, if the average meal costs 1 10th of 1 penny?
Just introduce new units when needed e.g. a jenny is worth 1 10th of a penny.
A kenny is worth 1 100th, a lenny 1 1000th…

Stalin and Mao managed. Pol Pot. If you want to say that many fo those the rallied were not atheists, the rallying and the ralliers did not use any appeal related to God. And the elites would not hesitate to cull for secular reasons.

It’s an argument from ignorance: because I can’t think of a way to rally atheists together to commit atrocities. All conditions for atrocities are antipodal to atheist attributes. It’s also an argument from ignorance that elephants can’t fly. Perhaps they can, but characteristics conducive for flying are antipodal to elephant attributes.

Yes but Dear Leader is god in those asian places.

Why would you obey an order to go torture and kill some poor peasants if the guy in charge didn’t have the powers of god and you were acting righteously? All those dictators were to be considered gods and all we’re narcissists having statues unto themselves, banning speech against themselves, and generally punishing those who don’t praise them, just like yahweh does. Authoritarianism is an old model.

Well apparently 10s of millions were following him, so they were the problem and not mao. If I walk off a bridge and you follow me, is it my fault or yours? If I tell you to kill 10 million people, are you going to obey me? Why not think for yourself? Mao was one guy. Everyone could have laughed at him and told him to get bent, but they didn’t because he was their savior.

The first thing religion does is attack other religions. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

And human nature is to create gods.

The religion of the dictator is irrelevant. What’s relevant is the religion of the people. It would be a cinch to get the conservative robots of the religious right to all band together and obey orders, but you couldn’t orchestrate liberals to do anything except show up late and blow off responsibility, among 100 other attributes that interfere with committing atrocities.

You may get mugged in a city, but that’s not an atrocity. The election of Trump was an atrocity to poor wrought by the hands of the religious rurals. City folks would never do that. City folks ended slavery by kicking the inbred southern bumpkins’ asses.

Because he said he was in his own book, hello! And in scores of speeches. It wasn’t until 15-20 years later that he had anything bad to say of religion.

It’s much more likely that he started out christian and lost the faith like I did. It’s less likely that he wrote a book in 1925 with the prescience needed to know that he’d better lie and pretend to be the christian in order to become the fuhrer one day and then continue the facade until 1941 when he finally let the cat out of the bag. He truly believed god saved him in ww1 for a purpose.

Where is the evidence of that?

Then it’s not reasonable for you to have faith in your own statement.

Faith isn’t overestimation, but simply confidence.

That seems reasonable.

I’m not nice to jerks because I have faith in the goodness of man, but because it’s the only way to break the cycle.

FIFY

All is fair in love, war, and laissez faire markets. I still don’t see your complaint. If I were a corp, I wouldn’t want ANY laws impeding my progress of taking 100% of the money on earth. Having ALL the money is winning the game, right?

Dems don’t want to raise taxes on the middle class. That’s republicans who insist that if the rich are taxed, then it’s only fair that everyone else be taxed. Dems compromise with republicans.

If taxes were zero, money would instantly flow to the top and the economy would crash. So, just to maintain equilibrium there needs to be progressive taxation; therefore progressive taxation is actually neutral taxation. And therefore taxation less than neutral is regressive. The republican’s job is easy: just make the progressive taxation less than neutral and money is transferred quietly and surreptitiously to the top with no one being the wiser. Only a handful of people on the planet seem smart enough to see that, and most are nobel laureates.

Macron is a conservative wearing a socialist label (like Hitler was super-ultra-hardcore conservative under the socialist banner).

[i]Macron… later became an investment banker at Rothschild & Cie Banque.

where he pushed through business-friendly reforms.

The budget replaced the wealth tax with one targeting real estate, fulfilling Macron’s campaign pledge to scrap the wealth tax.[/i] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_ … mic_policy

So, he cut taxes on the rich and raised taxes on the poor. That’s a conservative.

Maybe, but republicans are vastly more so.

Merely being educated in something trains people to exercise their brains which should also help them make better political decisions and decisions in general.

Are you for some reason neurologically unable to understand that employment is slavery??? I mean, what’s the impediment? I don’t understand why this is so hard for you to get your head around (once you pull it from the sand).

Here, watch Chomsky make a fool of this guy (read the comments; they get it.)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6QAqU2KpaY[/youtube]

Your argument for wage-slavery was an actual argument proposed by George Fitzhugh in order to defend chattel-slavery. Talk about ironic! The system we have now was considered so terrible that it was an actual argument for the continuation of slavery.

Whether or not wage-slavery is better or worse than chattel-slavery is beside the point of you forcing people into slavery and patting yourself on the back in celebration of your righteousness for the noble deed of helping corps enslave your fellow man for their own profit. Such theistic loyalty and divine devotion you have to your masters that you’d take a whip to the backs of the poor no differently than if you were serving Mao or Stalin. “Get to work you lazy bums!” :teasing-whipyellow:

You see how conservatives and religion go hand in hand?

If you are not distributing money from the rich to the poor, then you are helping the rich to get richer.

Then who will they exploit? If everyone is a boss, who are the workers? Just like trading stocks, not everyone can make money because money flows from one person to another.

You want to make slaves of them by forcing them into positions where slavery is their only choice. I want to free them to pursue whatever they want.

Just make conservativism unconstitutional and that will end it forever. Forbid the rich from serving in government and end campaign contributions.

If you end welfare, there will be millions of extra people competing for jobs. Employers will simply pay under the table, $5/hr and the people will be happy to find any job. Or they will move overseas. Or they will fold their tents and forget it because there is no way you can expect companies to pay $30/hr for $15/hr in productivity. Not only is there no profit, but it’s a huge loss.

Better to hand out welfare with no min wage and then everyone will sit at home until wages rise to the point that they are compelled by money to voluntarily work. Easy peasy. Everyone is happy, sales are robust, profits are high, wages are high, prices are high, interest rates are high (just like from 1930-1980). The only one unhappy is you because you won’t be able to stand it that someone is getting something for nothing.

UBI is coming and you’ll probably live to see it.

So, a retarded girl has a baby and because she’s genetically similar, she knows more than the combined knowledge of everyone on earth about how to raise her child? Most people don’t know much of anything, let alone how to raise a kid.

Yeah just park the kid in front of a video game and go to work for those high wages. Yeah, raising kids is easy as growing weeds; there’s nothing to know.

Yes a dictatorship where the dictator consults the popular opinion of the people. “Hey people, do you think we need a law mandating parents attend compulsory parenting education? Yes or no?” If the people say yes, then I start dictating. Problem?

We force kids to go to school, so why not parents?

I think the US had a lot to do with that. Anytime anyone starts to get a little prosperity, we smack them back down again in order to retain global control.

The only thing america is a model of is the virtues of having two vast oceans on either side.

Condense it to one farm and increase efficiency. Gardening can only be for fun because there is no way to compete on a small scale with the big industrial farmers.

Yep

Those aren’t anything that have to be eliminated, but eliminate what we can and then send people $10k per year. If you can live on that, great, but if you’d prefer a better life, then perhaps become an electrician. We could do this right now, today.

There is no job a robot can’t take. None, zip, nada.

Check it out: willrobotstakemyjob.com/

Offered to volunteers who want to work for extra money.

It doesn’t matter. Price should be in terms of hours-worked. 100 years ago a person had to work 10 hours for 100lbs of sugar. Today it’s only 1 hour. Another 100 years it will be 6 min (assuming linearity).

But how price is determined is not the issue, but the fact that people will be out of work and that is the reason prices will fall: because no one has money to buy anything.

Why does the Federal Reserve aim for 2 percent inflation over time? federalreserve.gov/faqs/economy_14400.htm

The simple answer is if prices are not rising, it means people are broke.

Price is determined by supply and demand. If prices fall, then it either means supply is too high or demand is too low or both. Why would demand be low? People are broke.

Ok, let’s say Pol Pot is the god ruler and you find yourself in a rice patty torturing and killing peasants. Why do you suppose you’d be doing that?

@Serendipper

Really?
I can think of several.

Atheists don’t necessarily have common attributes, they necessarily have a common attribute, they believe God doesn’t exist.
Other than that they’re not necessarily different than theists.
It’s like you’re trying to turn atheists into a different species (homo-atheist).

Belief in a supreme being doesn’t necessitate belief in the superiority of some men over others, in fact, next to a supreme being, all mortals may appear equally insignificant.

I’ve never met this group of lions before, perhaps they won’t bite me, I shan’t be prejudice.

Or a mere mortal who happens to be (one of) the strongest, wisest man (or men) in the country, not necessarily supernaturally so, and in a position of power and authority.

Sometimes atheist Asian peasants rebel against atheist Asian dictators.
They wouldn’t do so if they believed they were anything more than men, unless they believed they were devils, which’s the other side of the theist coin.
If God exists, than so too does the devil, and if God isn’t on the kings side, than the devil is, which means he must be overthrown, whereas atheists may be more lukewarm about such things, as there exists neither supreme good, nor evil for them.

Firstly, do soldiers in the mafia follow the caporegime because they think he’s righteous or doing God’s work?
Do the peasants they’re extorting?

Secondly, the self-righteous atheist army may follow the self-righteous atheist dictator into battle because they believe he’s, well, righteous, and he has sufficiently dehumanized whatever group they mean to vanquish (death to archaic, homo-hillbillius!).

See what I mean about progressive’s faith in man?
They blame the environment, guns or religion instead of man collectively and individually.
Conservatives may be irrational for believing in the divines, but at least they have fewer illusions about man.

Yes, 100s of millions of atheists and apatheistic Buddhists/Daoists.
Some of them believed he was their savior, but others were just terrified of him and his regime, or believed they could gain power over others by submitting to him.

Before atheistic communism: Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism and CFR (Chinese folk religion) lived together in peace and harmony.
I wouldn’t impose my occidental, or modern for that matter conception of religion on the east, or antiquity if I were you.
All religions were welcome in Rome, save Christians, Manicheans and a few others for they were exclusivist.

And as I said earlier, the ancient Greeks and Romans were steeped in religion, yet they practically invented (representative) democracy.
For 5 centuries Romans had a constitution of sorts, elections, liberty, property, welfare and even something like democrats and republicans (known as populares and optimates).
Blood would run in the streets should one or both of Rome’s two consuls (Rome’s equivalent of president and prime minister) declared themselves to be a God.
After the collapse of the republic it took generations of orientalization for Roman emperors to dawn the purple toga (the color of Roman priests), never mind declare themselves to be a God, Julius Caesar didn’t dare!

Yes, it’s human nature to create, and destroy Gods, and humans.

Not American conservatives, they believe in their God given constitution, in life, liberty and property (as they conceive them), it’d be difficult for any would be dictator to get them to forsake their values.

Unless they continue down this path of radicalization and dehumanizing the right that they’re on.

Trump hasn’t committed any atrocities, he’s just another jester in a long line of both republican, and democratic jesters.
Not good, but not especially evil like Hitler or Stalin.

When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, he wasn’t some apolitical philosopher like Schopenhauer or Nietzsche who had the luxury to say whatever he pleased, he was the leader of the Nazi party and in prison for unsuccessfully staging a coup.
He knew he had to hold his tongue, and pen when speaking and writing publicly about certain sensitive topics like his thoughts about Christianity if he wanted to be Fuhrer one day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

https://www.historyonthenet.com/hitlers-religion

The swastika itself was an occult pagan symbol.

Look into it, occult paganism and the third Reich.

It’s never, intrinsically reasonable to have faith in anything, faith and reason are antonyms, altho I suppose it can be extrinsically reasonable.
I don’t have faith in my statement, I know it to be the case.

I’m not sure if progressives are more reasonable than conservatives, they’re less superstitious, but more naïve in other ways.
Libertarians are the most reasonable of the three in at least one regard: they’re more apprehensive about resorting to authoritarianism, intimidation and violence to get their point across.
Progressive’s don’t seem to be as aware of the fallibility and corruptibility of government, human nature, psychology, sociology and science.
They always seem to believe technocratic utopia is right around the corner.

Flat and regressive taxes and some laws help big business at the expense of small business and workers.
Real capitalists want to remove such taxes and laws, altho I will concede merely removing them is woefully inadequate, but still no or low flat taxes are better than high flat or regressive taxes.

Spin it any way you like, anything to keep dems from having to take responsibility, we know many or most of them shirk away from it as much as they can.
Meanwhile I’m holding them both accountable.

As I said near the beginning of this thread, the working and middle class shouldn’t be taxed at all, whereas the upperclass should be progressively taxed, the lower upperclass should be taxed 10-50%, and the upper, upper class 50-90%.

There’s different schools of conservative economic thought, ranging from capitalism (no or low flat taxation) to corporatism (high flat or regressive taxation), to a mixed economy with capitalist, corporatist and socialist components (progressive taxation).

If you want real socialism, you’ll have to think and vote outside the republicrat box.

The right kind of education will help.

Insofar as it’s an unnecessary evil, big business should be nationalized and/or syndicated, but insofar as it’s a necessary evil, we should all partake in it, some shouldn’t work a lot more, so others don’t work at all.

Are you neurologically incapable of understanding that money all by itself doesn’t produce a thing and is worthless, that it should be thrown in the furnace to keep warm???
If millions of people quit their job and live off UBI, millions of people will have to be incentivized to work much harder to take care of them, and it’ll be harder to incentivize them because there will be less luxuries for them to consume, to the point where more and more of them may quit, resulting in a chain-reaction/domino-effect culminating in economic collapse and mass starvation, but even if the economy doesn’t collapse, it’s unfair for those who choose to work to be burdened by those who choose not to.

Furthermore, it’s not as if all jobs are wage slavery, there’s also the self-employed and small businesses, and small businesses aren’t really exploitative for they’re normally not making a hell of a lot more than their employees, and they’re heavily involved in working themselves or managing, whereas big business owners are obscenely wealthy and typically far removed from production and management.

There’s more than one way to redistribute money, UBI is not the only one.

For example, I just came up with what I’m calling CBI (conditional basic income).
Government could tax the rich and give an additional 20 grand to every employed and involuntarily unemployed person, but 0 to the voluntarily unemployed.
Or government could double your income, so for e.g. if you make 20 grand a year, government will give you an additional 20 grand, or if you’re making 80 grand a year, government will give you an additional 80 grand.

The market will correct itself.
As people make and invest more, they’ll have to work less, as they work less, stocks will fall, compelling many of them back to work.
It’s best if we all have some stake in the economy, so we all have to work a little, than if some of us have a ton and don’t have to work at all, and some of us have none and have to work a ton.

No you want to trade one group of parasites for another, I want to do away with parasites altogether.

Agreed.

Well I guess we need a license to buy groceries, drink beer, have sex, marry or do just about anything in your world for that matter.
Going to need an awful lot of laws, resources, taxes and micromanagement for all that.
No I just want to improve wages and working conditions, that’s it, and maybe have optional government backed courses for some things if the people want them, but not obligatory.

The vast majority of girls aren’t retarded, and know how to take care of their kids better than the state.
If someone is legally retarded, below 70 iQ and dependent on government, than sure, it will be necessary for the state to intervene, but even then it should be minimal.

No most parents value their kids more than anything.
Moms and even dads will stay home if they can.
It’s low wages that force both of them to work full time and leave their kids with their grandparents or shitty daycare.

If people are that dumb, than we can’t even trust them to know how dumb they are, or elect the right person to educate them, they will just elect a tyrant who will use the pretense of education to enslave them.

Besides wages stagnating while prices soar, people are alright.
Seriously what’s wrong with people?
They just need help fighting mega-banks and corporations, other than that they’re fine, far from perfect, but not in dire straights.
I’m much more apprehensive about the so called experts.
I say let the free market decide how important the experts are to people.
They will have plenty of money to consult them if need be under my plan.

And I’d like to do away with compulsory education.
Parents can teach kids to read, write and arithmetic, and kids can teach themselves about anything else they want to learn via the internet.
education should be free, or dirt cheap, but voluntary.