******Official politics thread ******

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How does government funded healthcare benefit humanity? Aside from attracting those who cannot afford healthcare and subsidizing the existence of lesser efficient conditions, what does it do? How is it morally acceptable to ignore our collective interest while placating one's own conscience with the squandering resources on inefficiencies nature would otherwise cull from mankind?

We can shower it with all the praises we might like to claim as our own, but it is fundamentally immoral. It is a betrayal of self and of mankind. If ever we reach a point wherein we are each so well groomed that not one among us is more competent than another and all share equally in social investment and return, then let us have it, but until that time it is reprehensible :c

Your missing the part where we are constantly wasting human potential because of poverty conditions. If we can minimize those conditions it stands to reason that outcomes would be better in aggregate. Mic just made a post about us basically checking out / smoking weed / watching Netflix too much. Maybe he has a point. Maybe less people would do that if they weren't poor/traumatized by growing up poor.

It's like any competition -- which is what people obsessed with genetics and societal efficiency ultimately turn this into. It's better to have a big competition pool rather than a small one of people proven to be successful. How do we even know those same competitors are good unless we are constantly testing them against new competitors given opportunity enough to challenge them?

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm saying that I think it got a lot worse. Things were more equal after Roosevelt -- even though he allowed a few corrupt billionaires. Things like this are like cancer..they just keep growing and just because the end justified the means in the 1940's -- doesn't mean it will last that way forever.

you may well be right, but I think it is dangerous to argue that more wealthy individuals is more harmful than fewer. Is society more threatened by having a single disadvantages individual with fewer resources than everyone else than it is by having a single individual with vastly more resources than everyone else?

I think the degree of inequality is vastly more important and as I've said before, I do not believe society really benefits from exceptionally wealthy individuals. Society benefits from investment and production. Those things come from business.

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Theoretically socialism only can work in the absence of scarcity, and in general will fail as long as human nature is such that it is. Greed and "want" causes us to work. If given our "needs" with little effort humans (and all animals) will put out less effort to obtain them. Productivity will moves downward to a lower steady state that is below sustainability.

We have sometimes seen socialist economies existing past a predicted failure. An insertion of resources from outside the system can maintain its existence. International borrowing and cash commodities can make up for lack of productivity but these cannot be sustained either. The oil of the North Atlantic states has been sustaining and infusing them with cash, and should for some time yet, but cannot forever, not should it confuse people into thinking they have solved socialism's faults.

Well maybe we aren't going all the way to Marxist utopian socialism. We're talking more about what can actually be called: Democratic-Socialist Capitalism. It is actually still a capitalist system its just that socialist policies are adopted to encourage equality. Alternatively, we could go a more conservative rout and the logic would be that we need big unionization and policies that protect Jobs and the traditional family from the forces of the market. Socialism seems more the future to me.

[Raavak]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

liberals like to cry about the gap but what does the gap even mean, are you seriously upset that there are a few super rich individuals?

A socialist used to amuse us with his rants about billionaire incomes and bonus pay. You could see the greed and jealousy in his anger.

But you were the devil if you pointed out to him that if you take all of a billionaires assets, say Bill Gates, that he acquired over decades of work it would pay only 10% of one single year of the USA military budget.

If you took all of the USA billionaires money you could only pay the bills of the USA for like 4 years.

And in the 5th year there would be nothing left to give.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh yea the gap is a myth.

No one ever lobbied anyone in congress and skewed things to the wealthy

oh god this old red herring again.

your problem in that case isnt with the wealthy, its with the corrupt goverment (that republicans want to shrink) that allow money in politics in the first place.

But no, instead you think increasing governments power will somehow change the fact that the rich run your goverment thanks to policy passed by anti small goverment politicians that allowed them to be lobbied in the first place.

this is is why your side will never win again, you're all victims of a giant hoax.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

and the only reason anyone has money is because they worked hard for it and if they don't have money they are lazy and its a personal moral failing

Did I miss any other stupid idea debunked 10 years ago?

yes the reason you are poor is because you lack the evolutionary traits to not be.

you live in a completely free market where you have the complete freedom to change your entire life, but no.. you dont want to work hard enough for it or you dont want to admit that the choices you've made in the last decade or two have all been mistakes.

There is literally nothing stopping you from becoming a millionaire, literally nothing, except for your own desire to get on this form and post about why you're upset that you simply arnt a millionare right now.

Name me ONE thing that is stopping you from becoming a millionare that is someone else's fault.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Your missing the part where we are constantly wasting human potential because of poverty conditions.

No, we agree on that, we just attribute different causes and solutions. I believe we are what we are, the manifestation of a vast collection of interactions between complex organic machines and their less complex constituents and interactions thereof. There is nothing magical about our being and whether damned by nature in the stuff we are made of or the influence of our environments, we are what we are. I can no more increase my intelligence than I can my height. I can better tune my personality no more than I can my physique and the parameters imposed by my constitution. The remedy therefore is to arrest propagation of those Of unfortunate circumstance.

If we can minimize those conditions it stands to reason that outcomes would be better in aggregate. Mic just made a post about us basically checking out / smoking weed / watching Netflix too much. Maybe he has a point. Maybe less people would do that if they weren't poor/traumatized by growing up poor.

I agree, I just don't see investing in failure as a remedy to it :c

t's like any competition -- which is what people obsessed with genetics and societal efficiency ultimately turn this into. It's better to have a big competition pool rather than a small one of people proven to be successful. How do we even know those same competitors are good unless we are constantly testing them against new competitors given opportunity enough to challenge them?

This is an interesting argument and one that I am going to give more thought. I've given it some thought before, but never too much because we do not last forever, we have more people than we need already and in very short order are going to have many more we won't need and limitless competition of synthetic origin.

[mickmoranis]

juris been thinking for hours now and cant come up with one thing that someone else is doing to stop him from not being a poor, blamer, slug.

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In her new book, Clinton blamed Bernie Sanders for "copying her policies", "making unrealistic promises", and "purposefully disrupting the Democratic party". I'm so happy that fucking cunt isn't president. (But not as happy as I am sad that Trump is)

Expect more of the same in 2020 though.

u want dunks kid then click it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVb1ioV010U

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Most of that started with Bill Clinton. Clinton decided the "new" democrats needed to be corrupt lobbyists on the dole from billionaire donors. Roosevelt did a bit of that and all...but it was 3 guys...who cares if 3 billionaires are making way too much money...now its like god damn 2000+ and the gap is even more massive than it ever ways.

IDK if Clinton realized this fully or not. That it would basically be the undoing of populism if you routinely side with billionaires. I think he and wife honestly thought that this wouldn't get as bad as it is now. But I also think they stopped giving a shit sometime before Bill entered the white house.

xtreme relevance rebomb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVb1ioV010U

rebomb rebomb rebomb