Has becoming primal/paleo ruined your life? page 15

[ulnauy]

The welfare state is funded on borrowing, not production, so a looming financial crisis is a property of Socialism. Socialism inefficiently allocates production, therefore there is more scarcity and borrowing is necessary.

Also, fuck welfare- why do people act like it's progress for man that more and more are dependent on hand-outs? Isn't the opposite progress? The whole line of thinking is just for losers.

Welfare for a retiree and for a healthy 20 year old are completely separate issues. It annoys when they are lumped together. If you're 65 and you want government to pay for your cable TV and cell phone, that's fine by me. Unemployed twenty-somethings having 3, 4, 5 kids and expecting taxpayers to take care of them — there's something not right about that.

[Him]

... a new phenomenon -- libertarianism. Before WWII libertarianism didn't exist.

Hahaha. No.

From a US perspective the following is fairly accurate:

Pre- WWII you had liberals, progressives, and conservatives. Liberals were the "roll with the changes, let people do their thing, equality and fair play" group, progressives were the "create changes, make people do our thing, efficiency and right action" group. Conservatives were the "fear changes, let me do my thing, maintain the status quo" group. Those were (and still are) the dominant forces in American politics.

The progressives had an image problem due to their tendency towards eugenics and the like. A bunch of bad press was building up. They decided to change names. Fortunately there was a good name right there and they started using it: Liberal.

The real liberals then took the name Libertarian (a term which previously denoted people who thought humans possessed free will, vs. determinism where our fates are fixed) to differentiate themselves from the erstwhile progressives. The new liberals spent the next 50 or 60 years tarnishing the term Liberal the way they had previously tarnished Progressive. About 10 years ago they decided that the old sins done under the Progressive banner were forgotten and they switched back to calling themselves Progressives.

I don't suppose the Libertarians will go back to calling themselves Liberals any time soon. A few of us do, with modifiers like 'classical' prepended, but only when we are trying to make a point.

[Rojo]

That is a flat out lie.

You have purposely lied and mixed your facts together to misrepresent the truth.

The stability didn't come from the government spending. The government's vietnam war erased all stability.

No. Government spending on Vietnam kept the economy afloat. It's called "guns and butter". Another name: military Keynesianism. No President since FDR has dared to deviate from it.

[Rojo]

The welfare state is funded on borrowing, not production, so a looming financial crisis is a property of Socialism. Socialism inefficiently allocates production, therefore there is more scarcity and borrowing is necessary.

How efficiently does capitalism allocate resources? Let's put aside the airy/fairy social needs for the moment. I'm sure most rock-ribbed right-wingers don't think much of those anyhow.

But how does a laissez-faire system build its infrastructure, educate its workforce or protect its property? It doesn't. It allocates "efficiently" only if you put the aforementined "off-book" (along with the social cost of pollution.)

Also, fuck welfare- why do people act like it's progress for man that more and more are dependent on hand-outs? Isn't the opposite progress? The whole line of thinking is just for losers.

Yes. The welfare state is largely a comprimise. It's not what I want.

[Rojo]

Welfare for a retiree and for a healthy 20 year old are completely separate issues. It annoys when they are lumped together. If you're 65 and you want government to pay for your cable TV and cell phone, that's fine by me. Unemployed twenty-somethings having 3, 4, 5 kids and expecting taxpayers to take care of them — there's something not right about that.

That's a fair point. But the ratio of the retiree to the young sponge is probably 10 to 1. Under the pretense of punishing the sponge, right-wingers are seeking to cut off people who worked and paid.

[kenn]

No. Government spending on Vietnam kept the economy afloat. It's called "guns and butter". Another name: military Keynesianism. No President since FDR has dared to deviate from it.

No, it didn't. Govt spending on the war caused the economic crises of the 70s. Deviating from horrible economic theories is a good thing.

[Mr.Perfidy]

How efficiently does capitalism allocate resources? Let's put aside the airy/fairy social needs for the moment. I'm sure most rock-ribbed right-wingers don't think much of those anyhow.

I am not really a capitalist either; I think that individual land ownership is not rational or defensible morally or logically. But fairy-tale electronic talking-heads men with rituals of subordination and imaginary powers I know to be the worst way to organize anything. At least the capitalists are busy solving real problems with real commodities in real places. (haha exception to the financier class, whose extermination and forcible reparation wealth re-appropriation would only convince me the good guys are winning)

But how does a laissez-faire system build its infrastructure, educate its workforce or protect its property? It doesn't. It allocates "efficiently" only if you put the aforementined "off-book" (along with the social cost of pollution.)

I think that me and 40 like-minded men in a given territory would make things like pollution too expensive an issue; unless they are willing to invest in mercenary death squads routing through a territory incurring losses pursuing partisan demolitions spiteful militias, the cheaper thing to do is make clean-running industry near us, or, go to the desert or somewhere without men who will fuck your shit up.

You really can't have this conversation with me though because I stroke my dick at things like education and roads and other such neophyte duckspeak orthodox homo-economicus horseshit in general. No planning and schools and shit ever did anyone any good anywhere ever ultimately. My priorities are entirely self-centered on my senses and my biological demands and expressions, and it just puzzles and confunds and frustrates me daily that this is evidently a near-extinct perspective.

[magicmerl]

Why is this necessary?

It's because he has the one right way and anyone who disagrees with him is by definition incorrect.

I think that me and 40 like-minded men in a given territory would make things like pollution too expensive an issue; unless they are willing to invest in mercenary death squads routing through a territory incurring losses pursuing partisan demolitions spiteful militias, the cheaper thing to do is make clean-running industry near us, or, go to the desert or somewhere without men who will fuck your shit up.

I think you would quickly turn into predators that would be rounded up and put on a reservation or exterminated. You greatly overestimate your own abilities, and also your abilities to operate outside of our current civilization.

Good luck posting on here if you actually succeed at doing that without a computer, or even electricity.....

[Mr.Perfidy]

Primal isn't helping to dam the tide

[whitebear]

Lemmy is God!