This is why I hate liberals

[Serendipper]

even if Europeans had more domesticated animals, which I'm not at all sure of,

See? You're challenging the facts. Why is it only you who is contesting this? If anyone could show that domesticated animals existed anywhere else, the theory would be gone, poof!

The only contestable point remaining is whether or not the domesticated animals made any difference. I think they did and I think you think that too, which is why you're still not accepting that domesticated animals didn't exist elsewhere.

again, we had disadvantages others didn't have, like harsher winters than Africa and many parts of the Americas and Asia.

But the cold was an advantage that selected for intelligence because one had to use wits to survive it. Overcoming cold is a surmountable challenge because clothing and shelter and food storage is possible for primitive people to pursue, but the heat is an insurmountable problem that could only be addressed with biological adaptation, such as the ability to sweat.

People in the heat cannot overcome the heat with intelligence, but are selected for the ability to run after prey or otherwise find the food that cannot be domesticated or farmed.

Essentially, all one could do in africa was run after an animal until it became heat-exhausted. None were fit for domestication, probably because migration was essential to follow the water and rains. There is no problem that intelligence could solve for them, so it wasn't selected for.

On the other hand, farming was something people could get better at by being smarter. All the food led to big communities, politics, science, philosophy.

If you want to select for intelligence, provide a problem that can be overcome with the implementation of intelligence and supply the extra nutrition to power it.

And our ancestors were still smart for settling and staying in this land, defending it, fully taking advantage of the resources available, and brining nonindigenous domesticated plants and animals over from other places.

They stumbled upon it, settled, then became stronger and smarter and more able to defend it.

I can't think of an instance where arrogance has been a property of the fit, but usually a property of the soon-to-be defeated. Pride cometh before a fall.

I can't think of an instance where undue guilt and shame has been either.

Me neither.

They pay sales tax, gas tax, property tax (if they own any), and if they filed taxes, they'd get money anyway, so they pay the same taxes as anyone in their income group. The purpose of importing them is to serve the capitalist cause of working for cheap to maximize profits so that we don't need to employ lazy, entitled, and expensive white people.

We're still citizens, we were born and raised here, or we came here legally, meeting all the requirements, illegals did not.

I guess there is merit to regulating who comes in and who doesn't, but if a few slip by, I don't see the big deal. There are always acceptable losses with any scheme.

Anyway, the thing that got this whole debate started was the woman complaining that she's told to go home when she's born in the US. Or Trump saying a judge shouldn't be a judge because he's Mexican when he was born in NJ.

I think this is less about legality and more about a war on brown people without regard to where they were born. And I think a lot of people are suspicious about it like me. I mean, they never complain about illegal Russian immigration or possible Canadians flooding the border. Even if they are illegal, no one would care because they're white.

How will capitalists make all that money with no cheap immigrants or offshoring? They won't be competitive on the global stage and will go out of business.

Good, and the American middle class will expand, invest and become globally competitive.

If we don't take advantage of cheap labor, then some other country will and because they did, they will be ahead of us. Offshoring to china was the best thing for everyone: it provided jobs to impoverished people and supplied americans with products cheaper than they could make for themselves. The problem was the republicans not distributing the profits properly.

Not defending other countries can only hurt us. Keeping the peace is in our interest.

If they can defend themselves, or we have nothing invested in them, they should.

I'd only consider defending a people we had nothing invested in, if 1, they couldn't defend themselves, 2, their neighbors weren't able or willing to, and 3, another people was indisputably attempting to genocide them.

The military industrial complex is far too corrupt and incompetent to police the world, and we have far too many sociopolitical and economic problems of our own to worry about other's problems, or think we can solve them.

I'm just saying that if korea starts beating-up japan, it is not in our best interest to let that happen. But if Russia wants to reclaim Ukraine, why should we care?

No I'm saying tax the machines and distribute to the community. I don't think I mentioned terraforming planets.

You're saying make it harder on the poor to make them go away, but you can only create more poor by doing that.

So long as society ensures wages are decent, people who can work, but refuse to, should have it extremely hard, and if they commit crimes, they should go to jail.

Why should they have it extremely hard? Because seeing them suffer makes you feel good. It's not their welfare you care about since you're making it extremely hard on them. It's not economically viable to specifically make it extremely hard on your customers. All you care about is punishing people and that was my point from the beginning. It's the "baby video" I posted often on here where the kid is more concerned that the other kid gets less, even if it means he/she also gets less. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRvVFW85IcU

Conservatives are willing to hurt themselves so long as it means they can hurt someone else more. I have yet to meet a conservative who didn't.

They even made a meme about it https://pics.esmemes.com/i-vote-republi ... 783265.png

Prohibiting things that many people want to do doesn't work. Many people do not steal, rape, kill, but many people like alcohol, drugs, sex.

Lots of people shoplift, and lots of places hire security, so I guess prohibition works sometimes.

I guess prohibiting some from economically exploiting others won't work either then.

You can ban theft because not many people want to steal.
You can't ban booze because too many people want to drink.

You can prohibit economic exploitation by simply putting the taxes back how they were for 50 years. Problem solved; go play golf. FDR had it figured out a long time ago and most of our problems are simply a result of undoing what he did.

There wouldn't be criminals and drug addicts without the imposed philosophy of suffering.

People who refuse to work impose it on themselves.

Oh hell. $10/hr is no kind of life and you may as well not bother plugging 10 holes when you have enough fingers for two. Essentially we're born into a world where we're presented with two options: go make someone rich or starve. A true independent would never support that. Talk about authoritarianism, you're proposing people participate in your system or face death as alternative. Where the hell is the free choice? You can't compel people to work and claim free-market. Actually, the "free" market is reliant upon the compulsion to work in order to feed it the profits it needs.

A true free market wouldn't have compulsions to make a profit and compulsions to avoid starvation as essential mechanisms, but would be totally voluntary and free from compulsion from any perspective. The only way to make work voluntary is to make it nonessential.

Quite a few rich are also drug addicts, and wealth doesn't stop quite a few rich from committing crimes, particularly white collar crimes.

Yes that's true. I figured you'd point that out.

That's probably because you haven't researched it.

I think it's because you're a bit confused about what creativity is.

The engineer isn't less creative than the artist.

I can see that. The engineer is creative in a different way. Athletes can also be creative. There are 9 forms of intelligence https://blog.adioma.com/9-types-of-inte ... fographic/ I suppose we can be creative with respect to each of them.

And by definition something new cannot be mimicked because there is nothing in existence to mimic since the thing to be mimicked hasn't been created yet.

Okay there Doctor Seuss.

lol

Yes, probably. They wouldn't want to be bogged down with intense focus.

And you need intense focus to compose like Beethoven, or paint like Rembrandt.

Maybe they were naturally gifted. Mozart could play song backwards while carrying on a conversation and from just one hearing of the song. They might not have had to think too hard to create that music

Jazz is gay, because it's whimsical, whereas most classical music is straight, because it's serious and orchestrated.

Maybe. Have you researched it?

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

Democrats constitute the majority of americans, so how can the majority refuse to have a conversation with themselves?

Firstly, I meant democratic politicians, secondly, 50% of Americans can be open and honest with the other 50% or not.

People are increasingly moving away from your position because they disagree with it and your side hasn't provided any compelling reason to change their minds.

Brexit, Donald Trump, Giuseppe Conte, Jair Bolsonaro.

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

They feel they are working for a righteous cause, so they demonize the opposition, but having a righteous cause is antithetical to their own philosophy.

Righteousness; the assertion of good and evil; the belief that some things are incontrovertibly true, independent of evidence, is the dogmatism underpinning republicanism.

Republicanism is not the same as democracy. Republicanism includes guarantees of rights that cannot be repealed by a majority vote.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republica ... ted_States

That's dogma. "This _____________ is true regardless what anyone else thinks about it."

If republicans are absolutely committed to liberty, no matter how impossibly absurd, democrats are absolutely committed to equality, no matter how impossibly absurd (nowadays more so racial, religious and sexual equality than class equality unfortunately), whereas altho I have my preferences (at times and in places), I recognize multiple moral values, from liberty and equality, to equity (fairness) and fraternity (brotherhood, culture, ethnicity, race), making me an ethical pluralist, I'm also an epistemological pluralist.

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

The world (nature) has given the europeans so much that it doesn't get credit for.

Nowadays the world blames Europeans for everything and praises us for nothing.

[Gloominary]

@Serendipper

Because they have nothing to do with the machinery of the economy. In order for the economy to function as a monetary system, there must be redistributive mechanisms in place; hence the focus on class. The economy must function properly for the benefit of society.

everything must function properly for the benefit of society, family, must function properly, eating and drinking, must function properly.

Race, religion and sex have no association with economics, but class does.

Race, religion and sex have implications for, not only economics, but education, healthcare, family, politics, law and so on down the line, and economics, education and so on have implications for race, religion and sex, for there's meaningful differences between the races, religions and sexes.

[Gloominary]

@Seredipper

See? You're challenging the facts. Why is it only you who is contesting this? If anyone could show that domesticated animals existed anywhere else, the theory would be gone, poof!

The only contestable point remaining is whether or not the domesticated animals made any difference. I think they did and I think you think that too, which is why you're still not accepting that domesticated animals didn't exist elsewhere.

When the proofs for x theory over y are as plain as day, scientists, tend to go with x, however, when the proofs for x theory over y are murky, rather than suspending judgment, or attempting to synthesize x and y, scientists tend to go with the more PC and Profitable theory, as well as the simpler, more attractive one.

While I doubt the theory is meritless, it may be (sub)consciously intentionally or mistakenly exaggerated.

And are you sure the theory is uncontested? Maybe it has some detractors that just haven't gotten any book deals.

Sometimes science is cut and dried, but oftentimes it's highly interpretative and contestable, with multiple theories vying for dominance. This's especially true of social science and even more especially of metanarratives.

But the cold was an advantage that selected for intelligence because one had to use wits to survive it. Overcoming cold is a surmountable challenge because clothing and shelter and food storage is possible for primitive people to pursue, but the heat is an insurmountable problem that could only be addressed with biological adaptation, such as the ability to sweat.

People in the heat cannot overcome the heat with intelligence, but are selected for the ability to run after prey or otherwise find the food that cannot be domesticated or farmed.

Essentially, all one could do in africa was run after an animal until it became heat-exhausted. None were fit for domestication, probably because migration was essential to follow the water and rains. There is no problem that intelligence could solve for them, so it wasn't selected for.

On the other hand, farming was something people could get better at by being smarter. All the food led to big communities, politics, science, philosophy.

If you want to select for intelligence, provide a problem that can be overcome with the implementation of intelligence and supply the extra nutrition to power it.

Right, natural selection made Europeans smarter and stronger in many ways, which had something, if not everything to do with our success.

They stumbled upon it, settled, then became stronger and smarter and more able to defend it.

They were smart enough to know a good thing when they saw it, so they stuck around, and fought like hell for it.

I guess there is merit to regulating who comes in and who doesn't, but if a few slip by, I don't see the big deal. There are always acceptable losses with any scheme.

More like a dozen million.

Anyway, the thing that got this whole debate started was the woman complaining that she's told to go home when she's born in the US. Or Trump saying a judge shouldn't be a judge because he's Mexican when he was born in NJ.

I don't think Americans randomly go up to her and tell her to leave.

She probably goes around insulting Americans, telling them their ancestors stole and stumbled into everything they have, and so they need to give it all to non-whites.

I think this is less about legality and more about a war on brown people without regard to where they were born. And I think a lot of people are suspicious about it like me. I mean, they never complain about illegal Russian immigration or possible Canadians flooding the border. Even if they are illegal, no one would care because they're white.

Firstly:

The majority of illegal immigrants are Mexicans (52% in 2014), others come from Asia, Central America, and sub-Saharan Africa. In 2005, according to a Pew Hispanic Center report, there were about 6,840,000 illegal immigrants from Mexico making 56% of immigrants present in the United States illegally. 24% were from other Latin American countries; 9% were from Asia, 6% from Europe and Canada, and the remaining 4% from the rest of the world.

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

Secondly, the average Canadian speaks English, shares many cultural values with Americans, and is more affluent, educated and less crime prone than your average Hispanic, and so less of a threat. While it's necessary to vet both Hispanics, and Canadians before permitting entry, it's more necessary to vet Hispanics. And while the Canadian population is about as crime prone as the American, it's still better for America if only law abiding, productive Canadians are permitted. Unproductive Canadian criminals are not America's responsibility, they're Canada's.

Lastly, it's not just Hispanics being deported:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/russian-diplomats-expelled-the-list-of-countries-punishing-moscow-grows.html

https://www.kcra.com/article/immigration-crackdown-leads-to-deportations-of-europeans/10288871

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/26/europe/full-list-of-russian-diplomats-expelled-over-s-intl/index.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/irish-man-brought-to-us-as-child-to-be-deported-from-boston-1.3365980?mode=amp

You can ban theft because not many people want to steal.

I contest that, a huge minority of people steal.

There are approximately 27 million shoplifters (or 1 in 11 people) in our nation today. More than 10 million people have been caught shoplifting in the last five years.

http://www.shopliftingprevention.org/what-we-do/learning-resource-center/statistics/

You can prohibit economic exploitation by simply putting the taxes back how they were for 50 years. Problem solved; go play golf. FDR had it figured out a long time ago and most of our problems are simply a result of undoing what he did.

Right, if you can prevent worker exploitation, you can prevent welfare exploitation.

Again, it is wrong to give the abled something for nothing, and It is wrong to let people on the dole have kids, so we'll prohibit it, and we'll just get tougher and tougher on them as necessary to prohibit it.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

Democrats constitute the majority of americans, so how can the majority refuse to have a conversation with themselves?

Firstly, I meant democratic politicians, secondly, 50% of Americans can be open and honest with the other 50% or not.

So what are we driving at here? That liberals are dogmatic and consequently refuse to discuss their perspective? Dogma is the core of conservatism.

People are increasingly moving away from your position because they disagree with it and your side hasn't provided any compelling reason to change their minds.

Brexit, Donald Trump, Giuseppe Conte, Jair Bolsonaro.

And all are petering out. It was the older rural people who went for those populist notions and they're dying by the day while young liberals are turning voting age. All that's left to do is decide if you want to join the winning side or go down with the ship.

Btw I was looking at my local school class photos on twitter and while the older students are 70/30 white/mexican, the kindergarten photos are nearly 100% mexican. I am unable to extrapolate how life will be in a decade when uneducated rednecks are replaced by educated wetbacks.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

They feel they are working for a righteous cause, so they demonize the opposition, but having a righteous cause is antithetical to their own philosophy.

Righteousness; the assertion of good and evil; the belief that some things are incontrovertibly true, independent of evidence, is the dogmatism underpinning republicanism.

Republicanism is not the same as democracy. Republicanism includes guarantees of rights that cannot be repealed by a majority vote.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republica ... ted_States

That's dogma. "This _____________ is true regardless what anyone else thinks about it."

If republicans are absolutely committed to liberty, no matter how impossibly absurd, democrats are absolutely committed to equality, no matter how impossibly absurd (nowadays more so racial, religious and sexual equality than class equality unfortunately), whereas altho I have my preferences (at times and in places), I recognize multiple moral values, from liberty and equality, to equity (fairness) and fraternity (brotherhood, culture, ethnicity, race), making me an ethical pluralist, I'm also an epistemological pluralist.

What I'm saying is that liberals base fact on consensus, so if the majority of people want to change a law, there is a mechanism to change it. But with conservatives, if someone made a law 200 years ago, there is nothing we can do about it because it's dogmatically held regardless of what anyone thinks about it since what is right and wrong is not a popularity contest.

Allegiance to the constitution is allegiance to article 5 which states the constitution can be changed with a majority vote, so appeals to the constitution are irrelevant when determining right and wrong. IOW, the constitution cannot underpin gun rights because if the constitution were always assumed true, then article 5 would be false. It's like a "this statement is false" kinda thing where if the statement is true, then it's false and if it's false, then it's true.

So a democracy is the only way that makes sense because we first need to decide if owning a gun is a right and then decide if the constitution should be amended by popular vote, which is the constitutional thing to do. IOW, there are no rights that cannot be repealed by majority vote and to assume so is antithetical to the constitution.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

The world (nature) has given the europeans so much that it doesn't get credit for.

Nowadays the world blames Europeans for everything and praises us for nothing.

That's just how the world works. No one thanks me for the good things I do, but they jump all over me when they disagree. All feedback is negative. I guess it's presumed that you know you're superior, so you don't need congratulations for it, but they think you need to be aware of the bad things.

[Serendipper]

@Serendipper

Because they have nothing to do with the machinery of the economy. In order for the economy to function as a monetary system, there must be redistributive mechanisms in place; hence the focus on class. The economy must function properly for the benefit of society.

everything must function properly for the benefit of society, family, must function properly, eating and drinking, must function properly.

True, but I'm not sure what family is anymore and if it's important. Sometimes I think parents are the worst thing that can happen to a child. Family is good if family is functional, but if not, then it's probably better not to have one.

Race, religion and sex have no association with economics, but class does.

Race, religion and sex have implications for, not only economics, but education, healthcare, family, politics, law and so on down the line, and economics, education and so on have implications for race, religion and sex, for there's meaningful differences between the races, religions and sexes.

How does race, religion, sex connect with economics?

[Serendipper]

@Seredipper

See? You're challenging the facts. Why is it only you who is contesting this? If anyone could show that domesticated animals existed anywhere else, the theory would be gone, poof!

The only contestable point remaining is whether or not the domesticated animals made any difference. I think they did and I think you think that too, which is why you're still not accepting that domesticated animals didn't exist elsewhere.

When the proofs for x theory over y are as plain as day, scientists, tend to go with x, however, when the proofs for x theory over y are murky, rather than suspending judgment, or attempting to synthesize x and y, scientists tend to go with the more PC and Profitable theory, as well as the simpler, more attractive one.

While I doubt the theory is meritless, it may be (sub)consciously intentionally or mistakenly exaggerated.

And are you sure the theory is uncontested? Maybe it has some detractors that just haven't gotten any book deals.

Sometimes science is cut and dried, but oftentimes it's highly interpretative and contestable, with multiple theories vying for dominance. This's especially true of social science and even more especially of metanarratives.

I see what you're saying and maybe they do want it to be the case for egalitarian purposes, but still we must have a reason that whites evolved larger brains and the domesticated animals, grains, fertile soils + cold weather selecting for it makes a nice tidy theory.

You seem to be counter-suggesting that whites became genetically superior, not by environmental luck, but some other mechanism... maybe chance or divine will? Surely the people themselves cannot be credited with guiding their own evolution because how is a stupid thing able to be smart enough to make itself smart? So that leaves chance and divine will, and genetic chance is the same as environmental luck, and divine will is presupposition of a god, which is luck because the god does whatever it wants like nature does.

The Parable of the Sower:

13 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. 2 Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. 3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

Right, natural selection made Europeans smarter and stronger in many ways, which had something, if not everything to do with our success.

So, natural selection gets the credit and not white people.

They stumbled upon it, settled, then became stronger and smarter and more able to defend it.

They were smart enough to know a good thing when they saw it, so they stuck around, and fought like hell for it.

But they were made smart because of where they were. Then, after becoming smart, they said, "Hey, this looks like a good place to be!" And because they were smarter, they were able to defend it... until they got bored and decided to sail around imposing their wills on those who weren't as lucky. Then they rounded up some slaves, built monuments, instituted capitalistic feudalism, monotheism, which divided the world into good and bad and deemed most folks bad because "broad is the way that leads to destruction and many there be that find it."

I guess there is merit to regulating who comes in and who doesn't, but if a few slip by, I don't see the big deal. There are always acceptable losses with any scheme.

More like a dozen million.

lol

I remember watching Cheech and Chong which was set in the 70s that showcased a mexican family alerting "Ia migra" to give them a free bus ride to Tijuana for a wedding. I mean, it was just funny and no one ever had a cow about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka-lRbddXsA

Now in 2018 we send troops to the border with instructions to shoot anyone who throws rocks?

Anyway, the thing that got this whole debate started was the woman complaining that she's told to go home when she's born in the US. Or Trump saying a judge shouldn't be a judge because he's Mexican when he was born in NJ.

I don't think Americans randomly go up to her and tell her to leave.

She probably goes around insulting Americans, telling them their ancestors stole and stumbled into everything they have, and so they need to give it all to non-whites.

Lots of whites say "love it or leave it" to other whites, so it wouldn't be hard to see a white telling a brown to go home over something as simple as a min wage debate.

I think this is less about legality and more about a war on brown people without regard to where they were born. And I think a lot of people are suspicious about it like me. I mean, they never complain about illegal Russian immigration or possible Canadians flooding the border. Even if they are illegal, no one would care because they're white.

Firstly:

The majority of illegal immigrants are Mexicans (52% in 2014), others come from Asia, Central America, and sub-Saharan Africa. In 2005, according to a Pew Hispanic Center report, there were about 6,840,000 illegal immigrants from Mexico making 56% of immigrants present in the United States illegally. 24% were from other Latin American countries; 9% were from Asia, 6% from Europe and Canada, and the remaining 4% from the rest of the world.

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

I think with that you have cemented the brown/illegal association that I was referencing. Being illegal isn't the problem; it's being brown that's the problem.

Secondly, the average Canadian speaks English, shares many cultural values with Americans, and is more affluent, educated and less crime prone than your average Hispanic, and so less of a threat.

Right, whites are preferable to browns because of affinity/kinship.

While it's necessary to vet both Hispanics, and Canadians before permitting entry, it's more necessary to vet Hispanics. And while the Canadian population is about as crime prone as the American, it's still better for America if only law abiding, productive Canadians are permitted. Unproductive Canadian criminals are not America's responsibility, they're Canada's.

That makes sense.

Lastly, it's not just Hispanics being deported:

No but hispanics are associated with deportation in pop culture.

There are approximately 27 million shoplifters (or 1 in 11 people) in our nation today. More than 10 million people have been caught shoplifting in the last five years.

Prevalence of Drinking: According to the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 86.4 percent of people ages 18 or older reported that they drank alcohol at some point in their lifetime; 70.1 percent reported that they drank in the past year; 56.0 percent reported that they drank in the past month. https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-healt ... statistics

It's easier to ban theft than ban drinking.

Again, it is wrong to give the abled something for nothing,

Why?

and It is wrong to let people on the dole have kids, so we'll prohibit it, and we'll just get tougher and tougher on them as necessary to prohibit it.

If you make it harder on them financially, you'll get more kids. The response of every organism to stress is reproduction. Heck, we can predict whether women will be attracted to masculine or feminine men by observing the healthcare ranking of their country.

[Jakob]

Isn't it relevant that these Caravan and in general left-beloved migrants "demand" entry into the US?
That "demand" would definitely disqualify them from being expected to ever understand American law, let alone keeping within its confines.


"Heck, we can predict whether women will be attracted to masculine or feminine men by observing the healthcare ranking of their country."

Interesting notion.
What about the Philippines and Thailand? These seem to me tranny central. I do believe they have above average health care for the region.

[Jakob]

Complaints about teargassing terrorists.
We can also use bullets, if thats better?

[Serendipper]

Isn't it relevant that these Caravan and in general left-beloved migrants "demand" entry into the US?
That "demand" would definitely disqualify them from being expected to ever understand American law, let alone keeping within its confines.

I see your point, but those who adhere dogmatically to the rule of law are inhuman machines per this talk:



A couple points meriting particular attention:

00:00
and I want to suggest you first of all
00:02
that a person who believes in absolute
00:12
laws is liable to be quite dangerous
00:20
because he puts rigid structures in a
00:27
place of higher honor


04:32
so you see a person who takes the laws
04:36
absolutely seriously becomes inflexible
04:39
and therefore mechanical and therefore
04:42
inhuman

I'm not sure what it means to be human, but the meaning cannot be synonymous with machinery because the two are juxtaposed.

So I would think that even though they are desiring and telegraphing intent to break the law, that in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing especially considering that their intentions aren't nefarious.

Plus, everyone has broken the law at some point, so let he who is without transgression cast the first stone... or rubber bullet.

How can a person who has broken the law use the argument that a lawbreaker is incapable of keeping the law?

So if a lawbreaker can keep the law within reason, then why can't members of the caravan?

I recently became familiar with the work of Hernando de Soto in my quest to find a conservative economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto_Polar

As the Nobel prizes rolled out this month, I hoped that de Soto, born in 1941, would be awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. French economist Jean Tirole, who used game theory to analyze markets, was a worthy choice, and has more academic publications to his name than de Soto does. But de Soto’s efforts in advancing entrepreneurship and raising living standards in developing economies around the world make him a leading contender for the prize.

These days, with terrorists taking back Iraq and entrenching themselves elsewhere in the Middle East, it is helpful to see how economic systems can be used to fight back. We’re not using boots on the ground, so why not use economics? If people have jobs, homes, families and a life where they can progress, they become less willing to rebel. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this- ... 2014-10-15

The takeaway is: people who have a life, won't raise hell.

So either let them in or go to where they are and fix the situation because if we don't, we're just creating a bigger problem down the road.

"Heck, we can predict whether women will be attracted to masculine or feminine men by observing the healthcare ranking of their country."

Interesting notion.
What about the Philippines and Thailand? These seem to me tranny central. I do believe they have above average health care for the region.

I don't know. I'm sure exceptions to the theory apply, but I also don't know much about those countries to provide any clarity.

I believe the theory says women in countries with poor healthcare will be attracted to masculine men because the testosterone provides resistance to disease, etc which is obviously not a problem when healthcare is adequate. It should also work on a micro scale in that even though women live in excellent countries, she may live in an impoverished pocket.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894896/

We investigated the relationship between women's preferences for male facial masculinity and a health index derived from World Health Organization statistics for mortality rates, life expectancies and the impact of communicable disease. Across 30 countries, masculinity preference increased as health decreased. This relationship was independent of cross-cultural differences in wealth or women's mating strategies. These findings show non-arbitrary cross-cultural differences in facial attractiveness judgements and demonstrate the use of trade-off theory for investigating cross-cultural variation in women's mate preferences.

Here is an article with some commentary https://www.livescience.com/10967-natio ... faces.html

Projecting into the future, as healthcare improves, we may see more feminized men which should result in a slight drop in IQ, but since women tend to be more educated than men, it's possible that the population will be smarter even though some members have less brain power.

[Jakob]

Interesting notions - I do think that you are leaning to what would lead to anarchism, if you'd give people who think they have rights which they do not too much benefit of doubt.
The rights the migrants invented and claim will come at the cost of the states power to grant its citizens their constitutional rights. If people can just claim whatever they think they deserve from a foreign country, and the state will just obediently nod and let them in, why have a government at all?

"The takeaway is: people who have a life, won't raise hell."

I believe this is a misconception. Take for example, Colonialism. People who could build ships to cross the Atlantic and even the Pacific wouldn't have been poor, they would have "had lives", and these people arguably raised more hell than anyone else ever did.

In general I think big time criminals like Al Capone definitely have/had lives, and they got to having these lives by raising hell, and they kept raising greater hell to keep up their lifestyle.
Same for the big banks - these are wealth people that can't find anything better to do with their wealth but create wars in other lands --- raise all kinds of hell. Etcetera.

In general I think any nation that has the ambition to protect its citizens should protect is sovereignty and its borders. I don't think giving in to demands of foreigners at the cost of the needs of ones own population allows for a long future.

[Jakob]

Since liberalism has failed, i.e. is causing so many dissidents that even the president of the US is seen as a dissident by the state he governs, there more likely than not will be a giant insurrection.

Best thing we as thinkers can do is prepare for that, come up with the ideas about law that will be required as a new mask of power establishes itself.

Real power will indeed always lie with the people, we see this in the fact that the mightiest nations are democratic nations -- not so much lawfully, honestly regulated democracies, as states that successfully uphold to their people the idea of freedom and civil rights. In such states, humans tend to be more resourceful.

As soon as Liberalism began to limit freedom of speech and condemn classes of people, it signalled its impending end. Basically it began begging us to kill it. But we can only overcome it when we know what we will replace it with.

[Serendipper]

Interesting notions - I do think that you are leaning to what would lead to anarchism, if you'd give people who think they have rights which they do not too much benefit of doubt.

How do rights exist?

I'm drawn to The Declaration of Independence on this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

To me, this seems to suggest that the governed determine how rights are secured by the government which leaves room for a law to be flexible.

It continues with:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Here it suggests that people abolish governments that no longer represent them.

Moreover:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It is the right of the people to determine what rights the people have. Rights are established because lots of people fancy them and it's not that rights exist a priori.

The rights the migrants invented and claim will come at the cost of the states power to grant its citizens their constitutional rights. If people can just claim whatever they think they deserve from a foreign country, and the state will just obediently nod and let them in, why have a government at all?

Just because an opulent cruiseship stops to rescue stranded survivors floating out at sea doesn't mean the ship no longer has a captain. How is the situation different? Their economy sank and they're drifting towards our dreamliner. Do they have a reasonable expectation to be let aboard?

"The takeaway is: people who have a life, won't raise hell."

I believe this is a misconception. Take for example, Colonialism. People who could build ships to cross the Atlantic and even the Pacific wouldn't have been poor, they would have "had lives", and these people arguably raised more hell than anyone else ever did.

I'm sure exceptions apply, but generally do we see more crime in fancy neighborhoods or poor ones?

Anyway, I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression the US used to be a British colony established by the monarch who financed the building of ships and sending the soon-to-be rebels over to secure the land for the crown, but then after some time, the settlers decided the king was asking for more than he could take with such a vast ocean being such a formidable obstacle.

In general I think big time criminals like Al Capone definitely have/had lives, and they got to having these lives by raising hell, and they kept raising greater hell to keep up their lifestyle.

True, but the interesting thing here is that the gangsters usually left the public alone. This is different from terrorism because the terrorist is protesting some situation he is forced to be in that he doesn't like. Capone liked his situation and wasn't protesting anything.

If people are happier, they won't protest. If people are richer, they won't resort to hustling for money. Some exceptions apply.

Same for the big banks - these are wealth people that can't find anything better to do with their wealth but create wars in other lands --- raise all kinds of hell. Etcetera.

Then I suppose there is an optimal amount of prosperity such that one can have either too little or too much money (power).

In general I think any nation that has the ambition to protect its citizens should protect is sovereignty and its borders. I don't think giving in to demands of foreigners at the cost of the needs of ones own population allows for a long future.

I know you do, but I'm not sure having destitute people in other countries is best for us. I think it's best for some of us.

Capitalizing off desperate people is only possible if people are desperate. Capitalism can only bring prosperity sufficient to stave off revolt and not a penny more since that would be "inefficient" which means the system is reliant upon and certainly incentivizes the continued existence of poor people to make the necessary profits. Just like federal power is given through the relative weakness of the states, global power is given through the relative weakness of other countries. What fun is it to be American if there are no dirty wetbacks? The only reason not to help these people is to preserve the existing disparity.

[Serendipper]

As soon as Liberalism began to limit freedom of speech and condemn classes of people, it signalled its impending end. Basically it began begging us to kill it. But we can only overcome it when we know what we will replace it with.

I'm not against classes of people, but having an upper class reliant on the existence of a lower class. Some live like kings because others live like slaves.

The government, which represents the 99% more than the 1%, should give the people a right to a minimum level of prosperity and beyond that, the 1% are free to excel as much as they wish.

"In my Inaugural I laid down the simple proposition that nobody is going to starve in this country. It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living." Franklin Roosevelt's Statement on the National Industrial Recovery Act, June 16, 1933 http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odnirast.html

[Jakob]

I absolutely agree that there is an unacceptable wealth difference. I disagree to all previously proposed resolutions. I do not believe any State has structurally functioned otherwise than to protect bank wealth from people.

Just in the news, global debt hits $184000000000000.

But no one. No One, no one ever asks: to whom is this money owed?

That's government; pretending that question doesn't have an answer.

[Serendipper]

I absolutely agree that there is an unacceptable wealth difference. I disagree to all previously proposed resolutions. I do not believe any State has structurally functioned otherwise than to protect bank wealth from people.

What's the alternative? If the people do not have a government to represent them, then they are at the callous mercy of whomever happens to have the most money/power in order to make servants of them to preserve the disparity that empowers him. If we have a free-market game, then there will be a winner, whether by merit or not, and that winner will cement his power by freezing everyone's place on the caste/feudal hierarchy.

That is why in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson said "That to secure these rights, governments are formed among men." If people do not form governments to secure their rights, then they have no rights.

Having a government isn't the problem. If a project doesn't go right, we blame the execution of a bad plan by management and not the existence of the management as if the project could have succeeded completely unguided if we could have only gotten rid of the management in the first place.

I think simply putting a wealth cap on government representatives would end corruption and misrepresentation. If anyone found a way to enrich himself by virtue of government office, he would undermine his own ability to hold that office by becoming rich. Corruption would be self-defeating, as it should be. It would become not a matter of morality or integrity, but expedience: if you want governmental power, then you cannot also have financial power.

In order to represent the people, the rep would need to be in the same socio-economic boat as most of the people.

Just in the news, global debt hits $184000000000000.

But no one. No One, no one ever asks: to whom is this money owed?

They say we owe it to our grandkids. They always say a future generation will have to pay for our excessive borrowing. They also appeal to our grandkids concerning climate change. Having our grandkids on the altar of decadence doesn't elicit the response it used to as no one seems to really care anymore.

All money is loaned into existence and the debt is simply the money supply (see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3_Q1SiRN-A ), so I don't see how anyone will suffer by simply having too much money. The problem is the interest owed on the money that currently exists which requires new money (debt) to come into existence in order to pay. In order for the system to continue, we need new people to take on new loans and pay more interest (by the same token, we also need new money to transfer as new profits to our feudal elites).

Bill Still says money should simply be issued by the treasury instead of issued by a private bank in exchange for government debt issued by the treasury and Milton Friedman said (in the 70s) that a computer could manage the money supply, which only needs to keep pace with population expansion and some measure of growth (gdp), which makes a lot of sense to me.

I'm not sure why we have a central banking system unless it's to bridge the gap between private and government ownership of the banks. The fed refunds to the treasury all the interest it collects (minus 6% for operating costs), so essentially it's an extension of the treasury which makes it a government agency. But then again, the public can't access its books and the chairman can tell congressmen to go to hell, ignore subpoenas, and basically do whatever it wants which makes it not only private, but more private than any other private enterprise. Where is the good part?

I think anyone with more than a casual interest in economics would relish every second of this 3 hour video which walks through the history of money and exposes the constant ploys of the money changers (who are analogous to a herpes virus that goes into remission for a period only to flare up again by blowing bubbles invariably ending in pain).

That's government; pretending that question doesn't have an answer.

The people get what government they deserve. If the government is stupid, it's because the people are.

[Jakob]

The Netherlandic Communists saw it that way, my nazikiller grandpa Marcus Bakker was in parliament but gave his salary to the party. Lived with his wife and five kids on the minumum wage the party alotted to all its employees.

But wherever commies actually form government, they're as corrupt as any old capitalist. When my grandpa discovered that about the USSR he was very ashamed. He took the blame on himself and never spoke Ill of any comrade.

Regarding money as pure debt; that only is the case without a gold standard. This lack of need for collateral makes for a bottomless pit.

Still the question I meant to ask is the practical one of who have the bulk of IOU's in their vaults. Like on a national scale, bonds. China owns most of US debt. But there are evidently private parties that own vastly more in both state and private debts.

[Serendipper]

The Netherlandic Communists saw it that way, my nazikiller grandpa Marcus Bakker was in parliament but gave his salary to the party. Lived with his wife and five kids on the minumum wage the party alotted to all its employees.

That's pretty cool!

But wherever commies actually form government, they're as corrupt as any old capitalist.

I think that's because it's still a consolidation of power garnered by free-market mechanisms (or there is no mechanism to stop it).

Noam Chomsky said the collapse of the USSR was a victory for socialism:



I am advocating a dispersal of power both in terms of governmental and financial power which precludes communistic dictators on one extreme and plutocratic dictators on the other extreme.

I think it was Chris Hedges who said liberalism was meant to be the political center, though I've forgotten the rationale he used and it's buried in the midst of a 3 hour video. Anyway, the middle way seems to be the proper way.

Power consolidation will happen as long as there is mechanism to allow for it to happen:



So the solution is to spread power as thin as possible while still maintaining a country.

The perils of mob rule are mitigated by maintaining a robust educational system.

When my grandpa discovered that about the USSR he was very ashamed. He took the blame on himself and never spoke Ill of any comrade.

Communism may do ok if the whole world were communistic, but it cannot compete with a economic system that requires growth in order to survive. People say "Look at the USSR and Venezuela." I have to wonder how much of a role the US played in keeping those places down in order to make its own system look good. I even heard this is the real reason for the caravan: that the people are pissed and feel the US owes them something.

Regarding money as pure debt; that only is the case without a gold standard. This lack of need for collateral makes for a bottomless pit.

The gold standard was the cause of the Revolutionary War according to Ben Franklin:

In 1720 every colonial Royal Governor was instructed to curtail the issue of colonial money. This was largely unsuccessful. In
1742 the British Resumption Act required that taxes and other debts be paid in gold. This caused a depression in the colonies
- property was seized on foreclosure by the rich for one-tenth its value.

Benjamin Franklin was a big supporter of the colonies printing their own money. In 1757, Franklin was sent to London to fight
for colonial paper money. He ended up staying for the next 18 years - nearly until the start of the American Revolution.
During this period, ignoring Parliament, more American colonies began to issue their own money.

Called Colonial Scrip, the endeavor was successful, with notable exceptions. It provided a reliable medium of exchange, and it
also helped to provide a feeling of unity between the colonies. Remember, most Colonial Scrip was just paper money - debt-
free money - printed in the public interest and not really backed by gold or silver coin. In other words, it was a fiat currency.

Officials of the Bank of England asked Franklin how he would account for the new-found prosperity of the colonies. Without
hesitation he replied:

"That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the
demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers... In this manner,
creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."

This was just common sense to Franklin, but you can imagine the impact it had at the Bank of England. America had learned
the secret of money, and that genie had to be returned to its bottle as soon as possible.

As a result. Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own
money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. In other words, it forced the colonies on a gold and
silver standard. This initiated the first intense phase of the first "Bank War" in America, which ended in defeat for the Money
Changers beginning with the Declaration of Independence, and concluded by the subsequent peace Treaty of Paris 1783.

For those who believe that a gold standard is the answer for America's current monetary problems, look what happened to
America after the Currency Act of 1764 was passed. Writing in his autobiography, Franklin said:

"In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that
the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."

Franklin claims that this was even the basic cause for the American Revolution. As Franklin put it in his autobiography:

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the
Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction." https://archive.org/stream/TheMoneyMast ... s_djvu.txt

Still the question I meant to ask is the practical one of who have the bulk of IOU's in their vaults. Like on a national scale, bonds. China owns most of US debt. But there are evidently private parties that own vastly more in both state and private debts.

The banks own most of public debt and private debt http://www.mygovcost.org/2017/05/15/who ... al-debt-2/

If the debt goes bad, the fed will simply buy it, so the banks can't lose. The question is what happens to the dollar relative to other countries when the fed is forced to buy the debt that no one can pay? If all central banks print en masse, then I suppose nothing happens except that the rich are made richer, courtesy of the central banks, and the people are bankrupt.

This is just a scheme to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich just like having cattle is a scheme to transfer nutrition from the ground to the rancher via the toils of the cow. The more cows we can get working for us, the fatter we'll be. The more people paying interest to us, the fatter we'll be. Sure, the cows have a better life, but not commensurate with their labor.

Anyway, as long at they can keep people arguing about whether a gold standard is better than debt-based money, they win either way because no one will stop to consider that we could simply issue our own money from the treasury without paying interest to anyone.

[Jakob]

In general agreement.

" I have to wonder how much of a role the US played in keeping those places down in order to make its own system look good."

That's definitely valid. Chile, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are good examples.

"I even heard this is the real reason for the caravan: that the people are pissed and feel the US owes them something."

That's a good reason.

[Serendipper]

In general agreement.

" I have to wonder how much of a role the US played in keeping those places down in order to make its own system look good."

That's definitely valid. Chile, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan are good examples.

I'd value any insight you have on those examples.

"I even heard this is the real reason for the caravan: that the people are pissed and feel the US owes them something."

That's a good reason.

I wasn't aware of that perspective at the beginning of our discussion It made sense when I heard it though.

[MagsJ]

From what I understand German wages for manufacturing jobs are relatively low which is why the car industries are always booming. Germans seem to be very content indeed to work as semislaves and this is what reduces worker quality in all the rest of Europe. Like illegals driving down wages in a weak economy Germans drive wages down in a German economy.

Maybe they get a yearly bonus? or at least one would hope.