Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
Liberals gone wild
Last post by SpectralThundr
Today 09:29 PM
2,264 Replies, 261,392 Views
New Fallout 76 Features...
Last post by Primus
Today 08:22 PM
4 Replies, 425 Views
Divinity: Original Sin...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:47 PM
0 Replies, 105 Views
Battlefield 5 ...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:40 PM
6 Replies, 433 Views
Gear.Club Unlimited 2...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:38 PM
0 Replies, 95 Views
Orwell Free on Humble...
Last post by AlfredT
Today 07:36 PM
0 Replies, 84 Views
New Hitman 2 Trailer...
Last post by Evil Avatar
Today 07:29 PM
0 Replies, 111 Views
Weekend Headbanger -...
Last post by Kreigmstr
Today 02:36 PM
14 Replies, 1,185 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-10-2018, 03:19 AM   #1901
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
I feel like you are ignoring history on purpose or didn't study well enough.

(EDIT: adding a timeline.)
Original Articles of Confederation: begins draft and debate 1777, ratified 1781. In place until 1789. Up to States to guarantee personal liberties.
United States Constitution: Discussion among luminaries really begins in 1783 but it takes till 1787 to start a Constitutional Convention. The document was ratified in 1789. Supersedes Articles of Confederation; includes national Bill of Rights.
Debate on if and how personal liberties would be represented was actually pretty fierce.
(END EDIT)

The original Articles of Confederation that were our first Constitution sucked because we couldn't pay our bills with it since no one was paying taxes and we owed places like France a fuckton of money. It wouldn't be good to start off on such poor footing as a new nation. Plus the weakness of our central government was really highlighted with events like Shays' Rebellion which threw a bunch of people for a loop, including many elites and what would have otherwise been anti-federalists. So we had to go back to the drawing board. Weakness had been apparent since about 1783 but now it was time to get serious.

The arguments about personal liberties wasn't because people didn't want them or didn't believe in them but rather because many felt it was those personal freedoms were already implicit in the writing of the Constitution itself by putting the limits on the governments. Heck let's let Madison and Hamilton speak for the two sides themselves.

Madison and Hamilton, we later discover were two of the three authors of the Federalist essays (along with John Jay) and were at odds on this issue though not entirely enemies. Madison once wrote to Thomas Jefferson saying:



(yes, the numbering error is in the original)

Madison thought the Bills of Rights being issued by the States were paper tigers with no teeth. Yet he still felt it was important to enumerate them in the United States. Notice how he mentions that the Bill of Rights in Virginia had been violated in every instance where it had been opposed to popular current. Sound familiar? Still, he persisted!

In fact he wrote in another letter to Jefferson:



On the other hand you had his buddy Hamilton penning Federalist essay 84 opposing the Bill of Rights (among other people writing other arguments).

{emphasis mine}


Madison and crew eventually won and we got the Bill of Rights. There were still too many people sore from having their guns confiscated, and having been kicked out of their homes by Redcoats, and having their shit taken by soldiers, or being falsely imprisoned by kangaroo courts to let it go.

Indeed, they have proven to be dangerous. Because the Bill of Rights, by being added as amendments rather than part of the core document opened the door to allowing abridgment and editing. One can argue if these core amendments were ever intended to be... flexible. Based on the writings of the people who implemented them it is easy to argue they were NOT. But that is neither here nor there any more.

However, without having them called out specifically some people (let's face it, a lot of people are not as good or smart as the people who wrote these documents) would never even THINK to question if we had some of these rights.

For more education on the issue feel free to read this. This is Madison's introduction to the Bill of Rights to Congress, specifically this part shows him addressing all the arguments AGAINST them.

EDIT: Added the dates for the debate and authorship of the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation.
Also cleaned up some text and misspellings.
This is interesting and I didn't know about these arguments from the founders. I wonder how that would've gone down if we had tried to go without a bill of rights. I suspect poorly but I'm not sure.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 03:21 AM   #1902
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
And that's not even bringing up literally tampered with temperature readings and the fact that global warming cultists like Eats ignore that the earth has historically had naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles.
Unless you are ready to tell me about Karl Marx fighting Noah on the ark I don't care.

No one is ignoring naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles. They also last millions of years so they probably have no measurable effect over the last 20 years.

Even if a few temperature measurements are wrong it doesn't matter. There is ice core data, there is receding polar ice, there are 2-3 separate global temperature measurement systems. They all agree.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 06:21 AM   #1903
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 7,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
This is interesting and I didn't know about these arguments from the founders. I wonder how that would've gone down if we had tried to go without a bill of rights. I suspect poorly but I'm not sure.
IMO the debates around the Bill of Rights are crucial to understanding the different approaches some judges take to parsing constitutional law. Originalists vs. living document people use this information differently. You can probably tell just by reading a few of the Federalist essays or opinion pieces in newspapers of the day how one side would read it depending on their take on the Constitution.

The odd thing is the States all already had their own Bills of Rights under the Articles of Confederation, but they were all but being ignored and they were all over the place with changes from state to state (though there were some commonalities). I don't know why making them Federal made the difference in enforcement but it did.

Each State also has their own Constitution, which they respect and pay attention to without needing to be reminded - why this wasn't the case with their personal liberties is odd.

However it does point back to something people have said earlier in this thread (which I agree with, for the record) that there are some things the Federal government should be leading the charge besides treaties and national defense. Civil Rights and personal liberties are some of them, IMO. Contrary to others here I think Health Care may be another candidate via a public option/NHS/Medicare for all type thing.
vallor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 07:14 AM   #1904
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralThundr View Post
And that's not even bringing up literally tampered with temperature readings and the fact that global warming cultists like Eats ignore that the earth has historically had naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles.
It's time for an honest question: If climate change is nothing more than a hoax, what would the endgame be for perpetrating such a hoax? What's the point behind this grand scheme? What exactly would these people be looking to achieve?
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 09:11 AM   #1905
Chief Smash
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 3,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
It's time for an honest question: If climate change is nothing more than a hoax, what would the endgame be for perpetrating such a hoax? What's the point behind this grand scheme? What exactly would these people be looking to achieve?
There's not be one aim and end as it depends on the person. For some, it's pure cash. There's a lot of money being made from the business side of climate change. For others, it's power. Climate change gives you the power to legislate almost anything. For example, there are some supposedly smart people who want to enact population control based on climate change but the possibilities go way beyond that. The implications can give you full legislative control over everyone's lives and there are people who drool at that prospect. It makes for an easy path towards furthering globalism, so if that's already your aim then hitch your wagon to climate change. And for others, it really does replace religion. Human beings appear to be wired to believe in something greater than themselves and for many, that something is environmentalism.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 09:29 AM   #1906
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
It's time for an honest question: If climate change is nothing more than a hoax, what would the endgame be for perpetrating such a hoax? What's the point behind this grand scheme? What exactly would these people be looking to achieve?
Already answered this a long time ago. The left looks for any and all reasons to create new tax laws. In this case carbon taxes for simply living. Again look at Eats double down on information that has been proven to be outright bullshit, he doesn't care, he said as such. He claims the icecaps are still melting despite evidence to the contrary of new ice being formed in the arctic, He sticks to his claim that 1000PPM of CO2 would be catastrophic when it isn't. He's simply not an honest debate and is willfully intellectually dishonest in general.
SpectralThundr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 09:32 AM   #1907
RAV
Lord
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 79
Ah, while I was writing this, others have already hit on the problem much shorter, but here it goes anyway:

There are many dangers in the world, and different people have different sensibilities to what kind of danger is more relevant.
Then people will argue what is the biggest danger, to have it even more relevant. And if a danger is just big enough, discussion goes into action.
And actually, what some people will argue is precisely what not to do. What you are not allowed to do, in order to solve the problem.
And if it's not about what you are allowed to do, it's what is demanded you must do to solve the problem.
And as the looming danger is conveyed as growing bigger, so is the list of things you are not allowed to do or you are forced to do, by the government.

At some point people will question, wait a minute, let's reinvestigate the facts of how real this danger actually is, that is used to justify the infringements on our freedom.
Whether it is about the looming danger of attacks from foreign forces on our homeland, or about the problems from climate change.

It really doesn't have to be a great conspiracy. It's a development that keeps going into a certain direction.
Though I do think there is a small number of people that actually know where this is going and facilitate it on purpose.

Or to be more precise, the argument really is what is more dangerous, Climate change or Communism.
Because basically the Left tries to solve this problem with communist principles.

Now you may think this is funny and trivialize the danger of communism, just as the right likes to trivialize environmental problems.
And half-jokingly you may think a variation of the old "Better red than dead" from the cold war era.
(though honestly? communism killed so many millions, I don't think this an apt slogan.)

But I am not so sure what to say. I do actually think that many environmental problems are already actively solved by the free market.
Environmental problems are mostly technical problems, with a clear path of technical development to solve them.
For example a closed loop economy with zero waste / full recycle which we are already working on.
And we are working on this because it's good business. Trash becomes a valuable resource.
Just as many renewable energy technologies actually have a practical application on their own.

So there is a valid question, about how big is the danger really, what can we do about it anyway, and is this problem even solving itself, such that big government intervention is not really needed.

Last edited by RAV; 07-10-2018 at 10:57 AM..
RAV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 11:32 AM   #1908
Chimpbot
Godzillaologist
 
Chimpbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Third Planet of the Black Hole
Posts: 8,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
There's not be one aim and end as it depends on the person. For some, it's pure cash. There's a lot of money being made from the business side of climate change. For others, it's power. Climate change gives you the power to legislate almost anything. For example, there are some supposedly smart people who want to enact population control based on climate change but the possibilities go way beyond that. The implications can give you full legislative control over everyone's lives and there are people who drool at that prospect. It makes for an easy path towards furthering globalism, so if that's already your aim then hitch your wagon to climate change. And for others, it really does replace religion. Human beings appear to be wired to believe in something greater than themselves and for many, that something is environmentalism.
Thank you for actually giving an answer to the question most don't actually think of asking when talking about climate change being a hoax.

Arguably, the opposite is just as true: There is plenty of money to be made without any sort of environmental regulations. A lack of environmental legislation gives people the power to do whatever the hell they want without any fear of repercussions. Whether we're talking about pipelines, offshore drilling, or uncontrolled harvesting of fish, people have plenty to gain from tossing many of the rules and regulations we have aside.

I'm not about to hop on board the conspiracy train with globalist plots to control the population, but I do think allowing things to swing too far in either direction is a bad idea. It's evident that humanity causes plenty of damage to the environment, so having some form of regulation is necessary...because we've seen what happens when people are allowed unrestricted access to natural resources.
__________________
EvAv's Senior Godzillaologist
Member of the Nintendo Offensive Front
Chimpbot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 12:28 PM   #1909
RAV
Lord
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 79
Yeah, and here I must honestly say this:

I know a bunch about what goes into modern productions, for example what kind of chemicals are needed etc.
And boy am I glad there are regulations on how these substances are to be used and savely disposed, by qualified personnel.
No, I do not simply trust the decency of producers, to not just dump this shit into our backyards to save costs.
I very much want that they are worried about legal consequences if they do. Don't even dream about it, pal.

I also know various instances, where bans on certain substances in products were enacted, because it made either customers or workers really sick.
It was things where you really couldn't wait until somehow the market comes up with better ways, you had to act fast and hard.

So yes, I see this as an active discussion what regulation make sense, that keeps going.
And naturally, you will have people make their arguments this way or another. It's ok.

But I want to say this. While I am concerned about that government has grown too big,
and like others here I tend to be very very suspicious about many of the suggested regulations.
I also think we cannot go exactly back to the state of the year 1800 or something.
the bigger size of our government today is not simply because of marxist subversion.
I also think it's not just the liberals that increase government for their goals, it's also conservatives.
And the reason for that is practical: technically we live in a much more complex and dangerous world today.
Much of the industry and chemistry we rely on today did not exist back in the day.
And it does require more regulation, because the potential damages really are that much higher on mistakes.
So as we grow more powerful and complex, we also have to be more careful about the consequences of our actions.
That our government is bigger today than in the past has in part good reasons.
It is also going to grow some more due to this technical progress.

Yet, I really do believe that we have to keep a very critical eye on these developments.
Like I said before, all I really want is to survive. I don't want to be poisoned by free industry nor tortured by big government.
RAV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 03:13 PM   #1910
SpectralThundr
Evil Dead
 
SpectralThundr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bawwston
Posts: 7,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAV View Post
Yeah, and here I must honestly say this:

I know a bunch about what goes into modern productions, for example what kind of chemicals are needed etc.
And boy am I glad there are regulations on how these substances are to be used and savely disposed, by qualified personnel.
No, I do not simply trust the decency of producers, to not just dump this shit into our backyards to save costs.
I very much want that they are worried about legal consequences if they do. Don't even dream about it, pal.

I also know various instances, where bans on certain substances in products were enacted, because it made either customers or workers really sick.
It was things where you really couldn't wait until somehow the market comes up with better ways, you had to act fast and hard.

So yes, I see this as an active discussion what regulation make sense, that keeps going.
And naturally, you will have people make their arguments this way or another. It's ok.

But I want to say this. While I am concerned about that government has grown too big,
and like others here I tend to be very very suspicious about many of the suggested regulations.
I also think we cannot go exactly back to the state of the year 1800 or something.
the bigger size of our government today is not simply because of marxist subversion.
I also think it's not just the liberals that increase government for their goals, it's also conservatives.
And the reason for that is practical: technically we live in a much more complex and dangerous world today.
Much of the industry and chemistry we rely on today did not exist back in the day.
And it does require more regulation, because the potential damages really are that much higher on mistakes.
So as we grow more powerful and complex, we also have to be more careful about the consequences of our actions.
That our government is bigger today than in the past has in part good reasons.
It is also going to grow some more due to this technical progress.

Yet, I really do believe that we have to keep a very critical eye on these developments.
Like I said before, all I really want is to survive. I don't want to be poisoned by free industry nor tortured by big government.
Those conservatives would be neocons, basically they're not conservatives despite pretending to be.
SpectralThundr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 04:38 PM   #1911
RAV
Lord
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 79
Look man, I do think even for the truest of the True Conservatives(tm), there are reasons why in a given situation they would approve the increase of government/bureaucracy/spending/regulation. It's more a question of how well justified this is in their interest.

And the maybe best example of that is 20th century communism itself. If we had not dramatically ramped up our military capabilities, the communists would have gotten us for sure, because they sure as hell were ramping up theirs, that's all they ever do, living their war on life, not helping the poor.

Now we can have a conversation about how neo-cons have ever since unnecessarily rode on it, but back in the day the reason was real, and frankly, I still would be very careful about shrinking it. It's not the cold war today, but the competition out there is real. You wanna keep your upper hand on that. The other players still are not simply nice now.

and what you do about it? cut spending? hope that the hyper-individual neo-hippies on their free market of floating islands with Non-Aggression-Principles come up with a solution to save us all? Well I guess, some privatized military development is actually useful and bound to give us an edge. But it be foolish to think the military doesn't need some form of strong central command.

That's the conundrum we are in. Communist countries are all about the military, and it makes sense, because the strong hierarchy command structure, that's proven effective in combat situations, goes along the authoritarian mindset of these progressives. They just want this principle applied on everything else in society to arrive utopia.

First of all centralization is an agnostic principle, it's a technical concept that has a merit and use case of its own. And conservatives know this, there are trusted institutions and organisations in society, created by conservatives for conservatives. It's just a question of how big exactly and not misusing it, like liberals do, right.

But I suppose the solution of globalist progressives is the ultimate centralization of everything, the One World government that would make all wars between nations unnecessary. Which is very convenient, because then they can concentrate on internal repression without any opposition.

Or was it the world of No-Government at all, where we all float on the seas in our tiny bubbles... until people start to gang up on other folks, as they've always done, and we are back at who sports the biggest numbers, as it's always been.

So you tell me how to navigate this damn shit, brah. On one hand we have to have a government strong enough to compete with other governments around the world, so we don't get hostile take-over, on the other we must keep tabs on it that it doesn't become cancerous. What a freaking egg dance.

Last edited by RAV; 07-10-2018 at 05:46 PM..
RAV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 07:43 PM   #1912
blackzc
Evil Dead
 
blackzc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I am boot, hear me win!
Posts: 6,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimpbot View Post
Considering the Communist Manifesto wasn't written until 1848, Communism as we know it wasn't really a thing when the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution were written.
Marx apparently was a fan of Hagel. Hagel was on the more spiritual side with his philosophy. German Romanticism. Which i dig.

I've heard theories that Marx's end goal was not the government holding the means of production and a planned economy indefinitely, the end goal was for the people overthrow the government entirely and then a libertarian utopia.

This has got me thinking. Communism was a huge fail everywhere it was tried. Why? If the end goal is a libertarian meritocracy why didn't it happen? Was communism ever fully implemented? No modern anarcho commie wants a libertarian order. Have they been misled for generations?


Does German autism literally make the world go around?

At some point im going to have to start reading these philosophy books, im kinda stuck.
__________________
Nintendo: A guiding light in a sea of video game degeneracy

Last edited by blackzc; 07-11-2018 at 02:33 AM..
blackzc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2018, 08:25 PM   #1913
Major Dan
Conductor Dan
 
Major Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Where BNSF pays me the most
Posts: 2,255
Good discussion as of late. Way to go team EA.
__________________
Just call me, "Conductor Dan, formerly Major Dan, aka Major Dan (r)"
Major Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 12:01 AM   #1914
RAV
Lord
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 79
Dude, you know what's real funny? Ready for Laugh out Loud?

In capitalism, the means of production already ARE in the hands of the people. It's just that some people have more of it than others, because they are free to excel whatever way they wish and can.

Does that suddenly not make them people anymore? Not regular citizens of the state? Because they have more? Apparently that's the real problem. Here you see the dehumanization already start, so do not wonder about the vicious brutality.

All kinds of people in society have more than others in some way or another. And whenever there is an attempt to blank the slate, you just wait a short time and they are as unequal as they've ever been again.

So what does that mean? The war on inequality can never end. And what do you need for it? The authority of ultimate power. To forever punish whoever dares to rise above the rest. You can never give up.

There is no War to end all Wars. The marxist revolution can never end. The fires burn until truly nothing but ash remains. Only when all life is snuffed out, nothing can rise above the rest.

And that's exactly how communism looks when it's over. Nothing. but black ash. Death. Decay. The end of everything. ground zero for it all. and peaceful silence. no offense. oh virtue.
RAV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 12:04 AM   #1915
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
IMO the debates around the Bill of Rights are crucial to understanding the different approaches some judges take to parsing constitutional law. Originalists vs. living document people use this information differently. You can probably tell just by reading a few of the Federalist essays or opinion pieces in newspapers of the day how one side would read it depending on their take on the Constitution.

The odd thing is the States all already had their own Bills of Rights under the Articles of Confederation, but they were all but being ignored and they were all over the place with changes from state to state (though there were some commonalities). I don't know why making them Federal made the difference in enforcement but it did.

Each State also has their own Constitution, which they respect and pay attention to without needing to be reminded - why this wasn't the case with their personal liberties is odd.

However it does point back to something people have said earlier in this thread (which I agree with, for the record) that there are some things the Federal government should be leading the charge besides treaties and national defense. Civil Rights and personal liberties are some of them, IMO. Contrary to others here I think Health Care may be another candidate via a public option/NHS/Medicare for all type thing.

I've been thinking about this more and I think not having a bill of rights was a bad idea.

For example look at our right to privacy. Because, it is not an enumerated right the government has just walked all over it, and without an enumerated right essentially all enforcement falls on to the supreme court which doesn't have a clearly written right to use as guidance, only previous supreme court precedent. This has really not worked out great for the people.

Also the idea that essentially all rights are vested in the people is extremely vague, and out of the gate we had slavery and people who couldn't vote. It just wasn't a good plan.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 12:09 AM   #1916
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAV View Post
And whenever there is an attempt to blank the slate, you just wait a short time and they are as unequal as they've ever been again.
I think this has to happen from time to time or else slowly everything trickles to the top. Some of this is based on ability, but a lot of it is based on the inherent advantages a big company has over small businesses. Like at first maybe they are just better skilled, but then the skill advantage stacks on top of the size advantage and it just snowballs.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 12:29 AM   #1917
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 605
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAV View Post
If we had not dramatically ramped up our military capabilities, the communists would have gotten us for sure
Idk, I think the USSR might've imploded either way.

There was never a time period where they had more military might than us, and were basically playing catch up continuously, which probably sped up their implosion. There were many times where we were so far ahead it was worth considering a first strike because we had a good chance of having a full victory.

I mostly just think its super hard/borderline impossible to fully centrally manage a large modern economy, and there is absolutely no way to beat a capitalist one. That is a situation where your monolithic and corrupt organization is now facing off in every production category against essentially millions of better run businesses competing in a competitive landscape.

I mean look at the Great Leap Forward in China for an example of how absolutely terrible centralized management can be.

The only reason China became competitive is because they stopped being so idealistic and allowed a capitalist economy that is only sort of centrally managed, which is how every capitalist country is to some extent. China is going harder on central management, but it is a question of degree, not really ideology.
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 02:19 AM   #1918
RAV
Lord
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 79
When you have seen the pictures of what this blanking the slate actually means in practice... no thanks. I'll make do with the little I have just fine, thank you very much.

And it really does not have to happen. Not the socialist way anyway, because again: it actually already happens all the time in capitalism itself.

Capitalism is the true revolution. It is full of the most legendary revolutionaries of all time. God bless them.
It is the civilized revolution, not the bloody barbaric. It is the creative revolution, not the destructive.

Our market today looks nothing like it has 50 years ago. In fact it looks nothing like it has 20 years ago. Not even anything like 10 years ago.
The history of the market place is full of giant companies that were once incredibly powerful and seemingly undefeatable, and which now are insignificant to inexistent.
Where is Yahoo? Where is AOL? Atari? Who really talks about IBM much anymore? And how did Apple make such a comeback from the fringes of death?
And while these behemoths were dominating the market, how did Google start? In a dirty garage by two students who still lived with their parents.
It is laughable to remember how small Valve was before Steam. The entire gaming market was in the firm grip of brick and mortar publishers -- who cares about them today?
Did Notch have to burn down Activision before he could create Minecraft? Why did the free market then reward him this much? They were inspired, not aggrieved.
And these sort of stories are countless. These people did not succeed because they had to destroy everything first. They succeeded because they were diligently creative.
But what's even more important: You don't have to defeat Goliath, you don't have to kill him, to make any decent living. The market is big enough to live your own life just fine as is.
If you are any productive at all, what does it matter that Goliath is much bigger than you? You do have a real chance for a decent living besides, all kinds of people do it out there.
And you know what only matters for that? Learning a useful skill, and asking what people need done. And leading a modest and thankful life. That is all, my friend.

When Marxists create a blank slate, it stays blank. They don't know how to create. They just destroy.
And once the destruction is done, they have learned nothing more. Because they hated it anyway.

It is not much different with Fascists of course. When Germany was defeated, the land was a pile of smoldering rubble. Cities and industries in ruins.

Thanks America. First liberating us from Fascism, when protecting us from Marxism. The people never were more satisfied.
And all you had to do was giving us a chance away from tyranny, and by god, you really are the least of tyrants. All you offered was friendly competition.
Your economy was overwhelming compared. We had nothing anymore. We had no means of production. No one did, not the state, nor the people.
How did we start again? By creating the first primitive tools and machines by hand. With which we created slightly less primitve machines. etc
But how would we ever possibly compete with you in anything again? How did we create all we have today, if the pre-requisite for success in a free market is that everyone around be no more than you?
All we did was trust in ourselves and learn. From our mistakes. And from your success. It works.

Same story with Japan. For god's sake, you even bombed them nuclear. They were a post-apocalyptic waste land.
Germany and Japan had a choice: either resenting their American victors, or learning and befriending them.
And by god, there is no better friend in the world to have than Americans.
Only a poor fool would think otherwise, which is why they are still poor fools.
And whoever tried their luck in communist friendship, ended as a zombie.

And this is also why the USA had to be so overwhelming in its power, because it was not just protecting itself, but the entire free world, from the ceaseless encroachments of fascism and marxism all over while it lasted.
RAV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 02:55 AM   #1919
blackzc
Evil Dead
 
blackzc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I am boot, hear me win!
Posts: 6,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAV View Post
Dude, you know what's real funny? Ready for Laugh out Loud?

In capitalism, the means of production already ARE in the hands of the people. It's just that some people have more of it than others, because they are free to excel whatever way they wish and can.

Does that suddenly not make them people anymore? Not regular citizens of the state? Because they have more? Apparently that's the real problem. Here you see the dehumanization already start, so do not wonder about the vicious brutality.

All kinds of people in society have more than others in some way or another. And whenever there is an attempt to blank the slate, you just wait a short time and they are as unequal as they've ever been again.

So what does that mean? The war on inequality can never end. And what do you need for it? The authority of ultimate power. To forever punish whoever dares to rise above the rest. You can never give up.

There is no War to end all Wars. The marxist revolution can never end. The fires burn until truly nothing but ash remains. Only when all life is snuffed out, nothing can rise above the rest.

And that's exactly how communism looks when it's over. Nothing. but black ash. Death. Decay. The end of everything. ground zero for it all. and peaceful silence. no offense. oh virtue.
We may have successfully politicized the natural order at this point. There is a vid on youtube call the mouse utopia experiment. Basically some dude took a bunch of mice and gave them everything they needed to survive. Over time the mice became lazy, gay, ate each other, mothers didn't care for their young...eventually most of them died.

What was going on in late 1800s Russia that caused these conditions to be able to take hold. Today it makes perfect sense, food, sex, shelter is all now a commodity.

All i cant think of is that while the average person in 1800s Russia still had plenty to do to survive and have purpose, the elites did not, and drug everyone else down with them during their inevitable crash.

I think the founding fathers understood this. Even before i got deep into this stuff i always had a feeling that our democracies job was to be a balancing act. Its always felt planned to a degree. A box for us to dip our feet in the point of no return with plenty of room to pull them out if things got out of hand.

I like the mixed economy we currently have, but no term limits are enabling politicians to make careers and lots of money out of gaming the capitalist system. Hence the crony capitalism and uniparty as of late.
__________________
Nintendo: A guiding light in a sea of video game degeneracy

Last edited by blackzc; 07-11-2018 at 03:09 AM..
blackzc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2018, 03:03 AM   #1920
blackzc
Evil Dead
 
blackzc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I am boot, hear me win!
Posts: 6,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAV View Post
And this is also why the USA had to be so overwhelming in its power, because it was not just protecting itself, but the entire free world, from the ceaseless encroachments of fascism and marxism all over while it lasted.
Do keep in mind, fascism was a (direct reaction) to encroaching Bolshevism. Its a reactionary movement. It never sprang from the thoughts of a decadent, lazy elite or populous. It sprang from threat of being destroyed.

That is why i don't think i will ever count out fascism as a way to solve a problem. And even though it lost, it still did what it set out to do. I'm just not sure why Hitler invaded France. That country has never once in history been occupied successfully. Show of force? Buffer zone?
__________________
Nintendo: A guiding light in a sea of video game degeneracy
blackzc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:09 PM.