topgfsfurart3dcgdislitrpp2preq

/dis/ - Discussion

Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

 No.6166[Last 50 Posts]

I'm curious if there's any correlation with these extreme fetishes and peoples' political opinions. So what are your views? I'm far left, something of a socialist.

 No.6167

I would classify myself as the communist because I am against private property but for the freedom as I see private property rights as one of restriction of freedom.

 No.6170

I'll give details another day but for now, suffice it to say I'm against torture, animal abuse, and corporeal punishment.

 No.6172

Life isn't sacred; Pain is.

 No.6179

>>6166
First post I reply to as kinda interesting responses above - also leftist but more socialist with controlled free market (so corporations cannot falsely inflate prices or make basic goods scarce but smaller, local businesses are encouraged).

But same as Disgusting Pervert - against any abuse or torture used as a tool of power over someone. Animals definitely count into that as I consider humanity horrid invaders who wrecked Earth.

I do not even approve of current prison systems and would love them to be there to keep society safe while convict reforms; that is with psychological support, education, training, living healthy and having access to basic neccessities.

Otherwise - my basic view is that no one should act in any way that it would harm another person or restrict their freedom. Plus ... all viewpoints from all parties and society should be considered as not one of us knows everything.

 No.6181

I'm an authoritarian scientific technocrat. I don't think democracy produces good outcomes and that most people need to be told what's best for them by someone who knows better. The average person is too easily led about via propaganda. Democracy and capitalism is destroying our planet.

Instead government should be small but decisive, and based around experimentation and the scientific method as a way to determine what produces good outcomes. If people don't like having to make needed sacrifices too bad.

The average person is not qualified to have an opinion on many topics, like climate, religion, etc. Being able to make choices that affect everyone isn't a right, it's a responsibility. The average person has proven time and again they aren't ready for that responsibility so it should be ceded to experts.

It's true that there will always be disagreement about who is an expert, but a constitution of checks and balances could be created to help mitigate that, just as republics use them to mitigate the damage of bad leaders as well. But those checks and balances must be present or you wind up with the Soviet Union: a failed scientific technocracy, failed because corruption and absolute power become more important then truth or merit.

 No.6182

My political position is basically the opposite of >>6181in some respects.

Basically, everyone like that needs to be stopped. I'm in favor of some technocracies and checks and balances, as well as slowing capitalism.

But opposing freedom and forcing on people what you think is best for them is obviously wrong.

 No.6183

Also, I'm in favor ls socialism and capitalism, against general warfare, in favor of reforming systems, especially education, legal, healthcare, political, and others.

The U.S. should apologize for many things. It's still the right country for me, but it's far too right wing and has much growing to do and much to atone for.

I'm against theocrats most of all.

I believe in reparations, but not invariably. I think the times we've paid reparations have been flimsy in contrast to what was done.

Our propaganda machines need to be kept in check. I believe in net neutrality but have no good allies in this. I'm for executing many people who share my stance, but have derived pleasure over instances of mass manipulation that has led to immeasurable suffering and are overtly hypocrites, along with their fanbases.

I believe in scientific pursuits.

 No.6184

>>6181
In one word you are simply fascist.

However, one problem with this position as well as with position of socialism is that idea of the good outcome depends on the judging criteria as the goal which those technocrats have to pursue.

Science is useless for deciding whast will be your goals it can be only useful when you know that goal.

Finally, how are you going to elect experts? How average person who is ignorant in climate change topic will decide if that expert is really worth listening or this is just some corrupted quack who bought his diploma and all his scientific work is only for getting money?

what will prevent some dowsing experts to form their own club and fool the public into believing that which is real science and it works whose everyone who says the opposite is ignorant fool whose opinion doe snot mater?

the average person may not be qualified to express his opinion on many topics but this is the problems of the education system and state ideology which assumes that you are not supposed to be told all that stuff.

 No.6187

Politically I'm a liberaltarian < Liberal Tax views, everyone should be allowed to do/trade what they want but regulated so they can't profit off bullshit, basic laws like no killing or rape or torture, public service, free food from local government farms] but some of the lighter stuff might change based on circumstance, i.e. taxes should suit the climate. A few oligarchs making so money should pay a fitting portion in taxes, and murder is a no brainer (ha) yet killing in self defense or different economies, would change my stance.

 No.6191

I also think the election is systems and corruption in our intelligence agencies is the most pressing concern. Both are simple matters on the surface.

Elections should be publicly funded, each candidate gets a certain amount of t.v. hours and funds to run their ads, not being able to drown his opponents with sheer volume of propaganda. 3rd parties shouldn't be required to have 16 thousand signatures while the 2 parties only require 2 thousand to run a candidate. It's simply some basic policies. The actual process of change is complicated.

The corruption of people who don't respect our rights is even simpler. War. The reality is similarly even more complex.

 No.6201

>>6184

I am a fascist in a sense, depending on your definition of fascism which is a pretty vague/disputed in many cases. I think authoritarian is probably more precise. I know it's not a popular point of view and that's ok, I'm not going around forcing anyone to adopt my views. It's just my opinion that democracy is bad at producing good outcomes and that people are bad at selecting their own leaders.

In my ideal world, being able to vote on a topic would not be a right but a responsibility that is earned by demonstrating proficiency in the topic. It's certainly true that systems like this can be prone to corruption, but lets be honest, so is our current system, so are all systems. It's no coincidence that the most successful companies on earth are run like dictatorships, it historically produces better outcomes to have one person leading the vision forward for a project/company/country, someone who really understands the goals and implications and most importantly can make the *hard* choices that a democracy is simply incapable of making.

Some good modern examples of this are Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Bezos, etc. These companies are little dictatorships, and tend to do much better then the companies where boards and shareholders make all the calls. Rule by collaboration tends to lead to shortsightedness, but a single visionary can have a longer view and more ambitious goals.

There is nothing that fundamentally says that a dictator need be evil or that they even need be corrupt. It is true that that sort of power often corrupts (or more likely, attracts the already corrupted) but there are examples in history of this not being the case. The most compelling example my be ancient Rome, where the word dictator originates from. Dictators in Rome were a special appointment during times of extreme crisis (usually war) where a single person was given absolute power during the duration of the crisis because they understand that consensus is a bad way to deal with crises. These dictators were obligated to stand down and hand back ALL of their power as soon as the crisis was over, and they did that time and time again for hundreds of years.

Anyways, I do believe there is plenty of room for consensus decision making much of the time, but our modern societies have an extreme lack of an adult in the room who can make the hard choices and plan for the future. We, as democratic countries and societies, just behave like a bunch of children with no vision or direction, flailing wildly and always choosing what feels good in the short term even if it fucks over other people, makes everyone's lives worse, and ruins the world for our children. Nobody's rights extend so far that they can destroy our world and our future in the name of liberty.

 No.6202

>>6201

You're actually a textbook definition fascist. In your owb words, you think people should be forced to do what's better for themselves according to others. I'm all for certain regulations and we probavly won't cobvibce each other, but do know that you're fascist and literally your belief is that you should shove your belief down others' throats.

That said, I agree with some of what you say but companies making large profits is irrelevant. Those aren't dictatorships as they have to follow laws and it fucks others over when those people get to decide what the laws are.

 No.6205

I would say I'm a equitarian. I believe that some people overachieve while others underachieve, and the sum total ends up at 100%. I believe the strong should support the weak in order to balance things out. I also believe in less corporate power and strongly in the power of countries and federal governments. I think corporate power is actually very flimsy since they don't control armies. Rather their power comes from currency since countries own resources. And I think currency is no more than a given value to whatever you want to be the "middle man" of your economy. Money is typically worthless. I also believe in spreading out resources. People will always need different things and want different things.

 No.6209

>>6201

fachism got lots of pointless definitions because it turned into the meaningless curse word, but the best definition is private corporatism, as it is the system where few people give goals for everyone else who have to pursue those goals at any cost and nobody has any right to do anything else

Essentially fascism is same as socialism except that under fascism goals are decided by select elite while under socialism those goals are decided by the whole society in democratic voting. no other differences.

your idea to let few self-proclaimed experts decide fates of everyone else is what indicates fachism.

if you compare it with dictatorship this is diffrent thing because dictator was given some task todo along with the power to execute that task.

Fascism is different because under fascism you are not dictator you are the employer of the dictator or plain God.

It is one thing when you hire some specialists to do a certain task you ask them to do and another thing when you let someone decide whast task you will be doing.


Elon Musk is a pretty good bad example, because he is doing nonsense while fooling people with his enthusiasm and stupidity. and it is not even clear if he is fool himself of he is fooling people.
if you examine his projects they are nothing more than gimmicks and toys for rich people without any real value.

we do not need overpriced electric cars, hyperloop travel, mars reality shows on tv or solar roadways, we need the cure for cancer and other diseases, synthetic food, global climate management system, instead of terraforming Mars we should better terraform our own deserts and reshape our own planet into something more friendly for life.
and lots of other things that would make life better for everyone and not just amuse few rich guys.

 No.6210

I'd align closest with a minarchist or a libertarian anarchist. Government limited to the fewest possible interventions in peoples lives.

 No.6211

I align as a left libertarian in practice, though I would love to see a meritocracy (I am absolutely anti-authoritarian though, because I hate the idea of obeying something because an authority is in charge, rather obeying something because it is proven to be a good idea by experts in the field). For example, I am an information security specialist. I should have more say (in the form of voting representation) as an individual than some idiot who doesn't even know what IoT stands for, much less why it needs to be regulated. Likewise, why should I have the same exact representation as a phytopathologist when it comes to legislation involving agriculture when I can't even name a single species that infects plants?

>>6201
It sounds more like you're defining meritocracy than fascism or dictatorship/authoritarian regime. A dictatorship is simply complete control similar to totalitarianism, but not necessarily based on any particular knowledge. You seem to be advocating a system where the people with the most skills in a particular subject are the ones who call the shots, which is fine with me (so long as it is evidence-based and not entirely credential-based). Though I wouldn't call the examples you gave particularly good... Steve Jobs was great at fooling idiots (though some of the original Apple products were good, just not anything when OSX came into being). He's just another Jim Jones, but with a bigger following and a slightly better legal track record. Bezos... well actually I don't know much about him. He's good at making money for himself and for shareholders, but not necessarily a good person. And Elon Musk is 80% insane. His electric cars are great. His decision to not enforce patents is commendable. The hyperloop and Mars bullshit? His conspiratorial believe that we are all living in the matrix (yes, he thinks that)? Not something I would say makes him particularly educated. He's just really, really good at designing high-capacity batteries.

>>6202
The "textbook definition of fascism" requires one follow the fascist manifesto, which is nothing at all like what he described. In fact, his views are opposing of true fascism, which is not evidence-based. Forcing someone to follow rules, whether they are good or bad, is not fascism. Fascism requires a strong right-leaning government in charge of economics and with heavy focus on military might, combined with state-run or state-controlled media, and the outlawing of any criticism of the government in charge. Every time someone thinks fascism simply means a powerful or controlling government, Orwell rolls over in his grave.

>>6209
Your argument breaks down as soon as you put "self-proclaimed experts" into >>6201's mouth.

 No.6229

>>6211

Thanks! I actually think you did a better job of describing my thoughts on the subject than I did. And you are right, most of my examples weren't great, I definitely agree the people I pointed out as being decisive leaders are not without flaw. I merely wanted to make the comparison: that even deeply-flawed leaders with a vision and a mandate often outperform committee or consensus based decisions making structures. I certainly don't intend to suggest that any of these people are "good people" from a moral standpoint, though what morality even consists of is of course up for debate.

Like I said before, I don't think of my views of fascist, but words are just words and if someone wants to think of it that way who am I to judge. I just think it's better to be more verbose and descriptive when talking about difficult subjects like this, and to steer clear from terminology which is highly infected with preexisting conceptions which ends up limiting communication rather than being a mechanism for it. Fascism is one of those terms.

 No.6231

Fine I stand corrected, I should've stuck with calling him "evil and tyrannical" or "lawful evil" .

Mind elaborating the specifications on fascism? Becuase it seems the word means a tyannical government mandating how people act.

 No.6233

>>6211
>>Your argument breaks down as soon as you put "self-proclaimed experts" into >>6201's mouth.


I don't put anything whast was not already there
>>"Being able to make choices that affect everyone isn't a right, it's a responsibility. The average person has proven time and again they aren't ready for that responsibility so it should be ceded to experts."

>>6231
>>Mind elaborating the specifications on fascism? Becuase it seems the word means a tyannical government mandating how people act.


It is not the tyrannical government because you can disagree with the tyrant and still be respectable citizen merely if you do not challenge him. You are not required to agree with tyrant you merely have to obey him because he is stronger than you or for other reasons.

Under fascism and socialism that is not enough, you actually have to believe in state ideology and you will be prosecuted not for disobedience but for being different.

here is an example from Slavoi Zizek lecture:
Your father wants you to visit grandmother:
tyrannical version:
Tomorrow you have to visit your grandmother tomorrow and no excuses. you have to be there at 15:00

faschist/socialist version:

Your grandmother loves you so much and she wants to see you tomorrow, please visit her if you really love her.


Or another example boss and employee

tyrany:
This job has to be done tomorrow. if not you are fired.

faschism:
Our company reputation is at stake if this is not done tomorrow we may go bankrupt.

 No.7030

>>6166
I'm a libertarian monarchist, Yes thats a real thing, it means I think people are too stupid to deserve the right to vote their rights away, and that the state should still be constitutionally limited against having overwhelming power over the citizens day to day activities

 No.7033

>>7030
A constituional monarchy? Better hope the world doesn't have incomprehensile issues evolving out of new technologies and happenstances.

 No.7034

Pretty far right, libertarian. From reading some of the above, I'd say its pretty clear that there isnt much of a correlation between politics and this.

 No.7041

I'm a liberal only so far as it makes sense. I believe in banning or restricting things that are empirically shown to be harmful to society, I believe in staying out of personal lives as much as is practical, and I support prostitution and the legalization of many drugs because it's practical for the free market to have them (taxed). it happens that my 'why? prove it. show me the research' approach comes out being pretty liberal in many cases.

I am not however loyal to any party, and I see no use for them. I would like to abolish all parties, and ban outlets from calling themselves news if they don't meet a suitable standard of accuracy and fairness. I think educational standards should be determined at a national level based solely on facts, and that anyone who cites their faith as a major influence on how they would govern should be ineligible for office.

Basically I want to take emotion and religion out of the law, educate everyone properly, make leaders back their positions at a university level, and see how things shake out from there.

 No.7052

In theory, I am an anarchist.

In reality, I am a libertarian.

I want the Republicans to cut my taxes.

I want the Democrats to spend my taxes on me.

I only believe in monarchy if I get to be King.

I only believe in theocracy if I get to play God.

 No.7054

Politically - the national socialist flavor of fascism sounds pretty good to me. I'd rather live in Hitler's germany than in todays America, where people live their lives full of illusions.
Economically - capitalism is where it's at, which under fascism would be pretty highly regulated, but still better than any alternative imo.

 No.7056

I generally despise people and think they pretty much deserve the shitty world they have created for themselves. So if I had to pick an ism, it would be cynicism.

 No.7058

Conservative lmao

 No.7059

Very economically liberal, bordering on Communistic, but quite socially conservative - the latter in no small part do to this fetish. I want to see as many people as possible helped as effectively as possible, and I value self-control and personal integration highly.

 No.7144

I'm apathetic about most things that don't affect me personally. So my main concerns are economics(I'm in favor of progressive taxation, more regulation of corporations, universal healthcare, social safety nets in general), freedom of speech(for actual humans, not for corporations), freedom from religious bullshit(i.e. I'm pro-abortion, pro-LGBTQIA rights), assisted suicide(for it). I don't really subscribe to overall political philosophies.

As far as correlation between fetishes and politics goes, I'm in favor of the decriminalization and regulation of prostitution, the decriminalization of any form of porn that doesn't involve real children, and by extension the complete removal of all obscenity laws.

Generally if there's a law that polices sex, I'm almost guaranteed to be against it. On a practical level, I recognize that it may prove infeasible to decriminalize certain sorts of extreme BDSM practices and stuff way out there like consensual cannibalism/snuff/necrophilia, so in those areas my position is that I'm in favor of decriminalizing them if it's feasible to do so while still maintaining sufficient legal framework to protect people against coercion.

 No.7150

>>7144
U on point!

 No.7158

I possess whatever political view the person I'm talking to has. Makes shit easier. I'm apathetic and empathetic. I can see all sides of things and I really don't care to pick one on most issues. At the same time, I'm fascinated with the whole spectrum and can get really into some sociopolitical commentary. I'm a fan of Orwell, but then again, dystopias and the fuckery that makes them so are just interesting to me.

Sometimes I'll fight for a cause, but to politicize something in this culture is to polarize it, and people won't ever be able to work through their shit until they stop seeing through red and blue tinted glasses.

 No.7161

I am socialist, I believe in the world where big company should pay lots more taxes than it is now, so government could have more funding for everyone, like the Scandinavian countries, those are my ideal system. But I'm living in a country with military Junta, you can guess where it is. lol I hate them but can't do anything, lots of people are in trouble for saying bad things, even satire commic will get you fined or jailed, this is crazy.

 No.7163

>>7161
It could be half the world for all I know. Maybe stay stealthy tho

 No.7197

www.amerika.org

 No.7198

www.anus.com

 No.7199

My loyalty is first to my ideals and my family that I choose for myself.
Past that, loyalty is to the highest bidder, and the payments I seek most is peace and justice: burn the faggots who rape, and beauracratic con artists who manipulate, and theocrats who praise religious warmongers that drop bombs, and all of their enablers.

My political position is that every evil person who hurts others for selfish kicks is to be pursued and ended, regardless of race, religion, and political position.

 No.7206

>>7199

Then just fucking do it. Everyone hurts others, directly or otherwise, so there's plenty of targets for you to pick from. Talking about it here just makes it more likely you'll get caught if you try.

 No.7209

>>7206
Hace you ever had an infestation? What does squashing some roaches do?

 No.7229

>>7058
You're not the only one. I have been moving from the far left (former communist) towards the right. At the moment I'm more center-right, but I grow more conservative as the liberal values I once held grow too far to the extreme that they become toxic / disfunctional. The slippery slope arguments from conservatives and the right that I had once scoffed at as idiotic have come to pass which made me reflect on where we were headed and do much more digging . . .

Still, I'd rather be a teraformer on some barren rock in space with slim to none chances of survival than deal with the over politicalization of everything I enjoy and the polarization of those political camps. Can't even watch a commercial for some shitty beer without people throwing a fit.

 No.7369

Left and right don't matter. Anything that isn't talking about specific issues is a waste of fucking time. All our attempts to categorize complex subjects into easy to digest buzzwords simply muddy the waters of discourse.

 No.7370

I would say I'm somewhat of a moderate. On some issues, I lean to the right-- for others, I lean to the left. Overall, I like preserving personal freedom without eliminating the rule of law. Neither anarchy nor totalitarianism are acceptable to me.

Also I believe that information should not be censored.

 No.8026

National Socialist / Monarchist

Doesn't really look like there is much of a correlation between this and politics. Maybe a slight correlation with radical positions? Well who knows

>>6211
Your critic on Elon Musk is interesting. While space travel is expensive, I think it is rightfully a fascination to humanity and should be pursued. Therefore I'm glad a private rich guy invests into it, million times better than some luxurous crap.

 No.8027

>>8026
I'd bet not even that. I've known people across the political spectrum into this

 No.8029

>>8026
That's the whole idea, that Elon Musk is not just "investing" his own money.
(you need to make a big stretch on the meaning fo word investment here)

He is fooling other people into giving him money promising them huge profits and also he does various manipulations with his companies to hide losses.
It is all fine and great when someone is doing science or developing technology, but investors must know that they are wasting money not investing it because they will never get paid back.

Also, many of Elon's projects are just plain idiocy and the will never be realized.

 No.8034

National Libertarian. My country should be white, get rid of the djoos too, but treat everyone who belongs here very well.

 No.8035

National Libertarian. My country should be white, get rid of the djoos too, but treat everyone who belongs here very well.

 No.8039

>>8029
Well to be fair, his projects do have the potential to generate wast winnings, it's just a hard process to get there with an unsure outcome. I think "investment" is the appropriate term tough. It's a high risk high reward investment, as well as an investment in out future. Eventually knowledge gathered from these projects will be helpful to humanity, wether they are successful or not.
>>8034
That sounds like a weird patchwork ideology.
libertarianism is for weak government
How would a weak government get rid of subversive elements effectively? I mean isn't whole idea of libertarianism that the government is less involved in domestic affairs?

 No.8041

>>8039
Even his iconic Tesla car makes no profit and other projects are doing even worse than in terms of income
Projects like Hyperloop, an expedition to Mars, using rockets to transport people between continents, are plain stupidity in terms of business perspective.
other less obviously absurd projects can be attributed to the high-risk area, but Elon does to tell that to his investors, they have no clue that all his work on developing new improved batteries solar cells and other stuff is pretty low success probability.

also even if some of those projects will eventually succeed there will be nowhere near that much profit as expenses.

 No.8042

This is the most retarded thread on Gurochan. Take your political bullshit back to Reddit where it belongs, it's so off topic it makes me want to stab you all in the eyes.

Oh and >>8034

Go kill yourself.

 No.8047

>>7197
>>7198
I used to love this edgy neoreactionary crap when I was a teenager but the older I get the more I wish people would just settle down and make compromises with each other. ANUS hasn't updated in years and seriously advocates 95% of people being killed. What's the point of that? It's just retardedly cruel and elitist. I understand wanting to reduce immigration and population growth but when you get to Atomwaffen-Division levels of absurdity you really need to just take your meds and spend some time away from the internet. Brutal authoritarian regimes are not nice places to live in.

 No.8252

When the cops run up on someone shouting, even undercover, you'll have Hell to pay if you attack them in fear for your safety.
But a woman stomps up to one and says "how ya doing?" in a tone he doesn't like? Oh then "of course" it's not police brutality. Oh, and just lie, saying she "charged" at him. Fucking hypocrites bullshit like that then call anyone denying a crime a "dindu."

Or a dude can't be subdued by tasers and batons, people just spam that they should just shoot him. like forget that they may've been the aggressors starting shit, what kind of civil order allows cops to kill any unarmed man for not willfully going to jail?

Just taking the cops word and presuming guilt of any they encounter. Lie and call your victims liars. POS nationalists.

 No.8284

>>7041

This is almost exactly where I'm at. Liberal because that seems to be the label that my country has put on the values of, "Not putting up with bullshit for no reason; for the love of god can we do some shit that makes some sense."

Every single thing a politician ever says should be followed by the phrase, "Citation, please." To the point that you no longer have to ask. We need to base our decisions on reality. Democracy doesn't work because people are just allowed to lie like a bathroom rug.

Also, if you're an objectively shitty person, I think it should work the same way "basing your entire platform on unverifiable bullshit" is handled. Are you a crackhead? Get into a treatment plan and prove you've got your shit together so you're not selling national secrets for $10 and shit. Are you a blackout drunk? Prove that you've got your shit together or you don't get to run. Fuck up while in office? Get fired, because this is already supposed to be a thing; we already have a perfectly serviceable back-up plan for these situations, we just don't act on it.

Likewise, no one gets to be appointed. That concept should be abolished. The electoral college, where people don't have to listen to their constituents and can just do whatever they want? Also abolished. The idea that your vote counts for more based on your geographical location like it does in the house? Abolished. One-citizen, one-vote.

Big separation of state and whatever nonsense makes you believe nonsensical bullshit- be that religion or just dumbassery that makes you think certain crystals cure cancer. Laws should be based on facts, and ever-changing as our understanding evolves. We should have a better processes in place to prevent stagnation- not the current situation based on historical precedence rather than current understanding. I would say that terms should have limits- it's ridiculous that senators can be senators for decades and that the only thing that can remove an appointed judge from office is the icy grip of death.

We should completely redo the tax code- I have a LOT to say on that, but the current one is a clusterfuck- and provide consistency from the top-down with WAY more federal oversight than we currently have. It's not fair that cities have infrastructure while rural areas are falling apart so bad half the roads are named after the devil. If we wanted to be separate countries that would be ok, but we're not, so we have to support each other. A silicon valley CEO has to pay for infrastructure in the Bible Belt or Cali can try and succeed from the union. And we have to do something about tiered taxing brackets, the current one just doesn't make sense- why the hell am I subsidizing huge corporations so Disney can buy fursuits? McDonalds, if you can't afford to pay your employees a living wage, you can't afford to be in business- it's not my job to put food on their tables- it's yours. They sold their time to you, not to me, so you pay them enough that they don't need foodstamps instead of expecting me to foot the bill. And don't charge me a penny more than inflation for fries, yhall don't need another yhat. I spent $50,000 on my education and yhall inherited a bunch of company shares. You're not special because your mom let a rich guy cum inside her. Get over yourself. I could accomplish something like that too, if I had a uterus.

I have so much to say about the tax code... I'm a nerd. I know I'm the only person in the world who reads state budgetary reports for fun, but fuck's sake, you want to get pissed off...

I have a lot more to say, but I guess this is already pretty long.

 No.8285

>>8035

I got a few questions about this.
1: Where you from?
2: What do you define as "white"? Sometimes I gotta break out the bleach and contacts with you people and sometimes I don't. We talking "one drop law" or we talking "he looks white enough and has a redneck accent, he's a good ol' boy".
3: What's a djoo?
4: Can I still get dick in the new world order?

I cede the rest of my time to the female prosecutor.

 No.8286

>>7369

Yeah, I think parties should be abolished. With this bichromatic rainbow I can't go to the shooting range with my husband. Because I can either have my guns or get married. I can't do both.

 No.8550

I would say an authoritarian. A tyrant maybe. I don't really know. I simply think if i was a tyrant, i have the virtues (some of them anyway) that are necessary to lead a nation into a better future. But at the end of the day, leaders always change, and regardless of whether you have a tyranny, dictatorship, democracy or anarchy, things will eventually fall apart because of the nature of people. I think my liking of authoritarian systems is because when i place myself in that position, i would meet the least amount of resistance. Not that i wouldn't like the cunning and manipulation skills that are necessary for a democracy thought.

 No.9829

Left/Social democrat. Many things simply should not be run for profit. My taste in the stuff here doesn't extend to real life at all.

 No.9832

Without constant, vigorous wealth redistribution, capitalism leads to more and more wealth disparity and, as a direct consequence, worsening conditions for working people.

"We must not interfere with gravity!" even as our nebula turns into a solar system with a handful of massive bodies orbiting in an orderly plane, who with their enormous gravity draw any stray matter onto themselves.

So fiscal conservatism is bad. Fiscal conservatism is saying "We must not interfere with gravity!" while the world gets shittier and shittier around you, until people turn to fascism.

1930s, 2010s… 2090s? 2170s? Will we do this every 80 years until someone finally launches a nuke?

Must be why we see no sign of aliens harvesting stars out there (mentioning space twice in one comment). This is how civilization turns out. Evolution selects for pecking orders because pecking orders reduce conflict in the social group, and then when some smarter species starts a civilization, rampant dominance and hierarchy lead to subjugation of the masses, rising discontent, and cycles of political upheaval. Once your tech is powerful enough, each upheaval rolls the extinction dice. Roll those dice enough times and boom.

So yeah fuck fiscal conservatism. And fuck wage slavery, it's undignified. When people don't have dignity you get fascism, and then you get war.

Leave conservatism for blue collar jobsites where the idiot new guy needs to listen to his elders more. Don't try to apply conservative thinking at large scales, it doesn't work.

 No.9833

Should have ended my comment after the first four lines, at "…until someone launches a nuke?" The rest of the comment is distracting.

 No.9840

Why is this here?

 No.9846

game brain and butchering brain and obssesion brain and living brain
and surviving brain

 No.9847

You know what, I agree with >>6181 on this. People have proved they're too goddamn stupid to make their own decisions. About half the people that voted picked an idiot who doesn't know how to run a government, who doesn't believe in global warming, and just wants to kick minorities out of the country. Think of all the problems we have that other countries have already solved. Housing for the poor, raising the minimum wage, environmental policies… these are things that could be fixed if we didn't have a large number of morons voting against doing anything.

 No.9848

In the USA if that wasn't clear. But it looks like countries all over the world are suffering from populaces that elect terrible leaders. Japan, Australia, the UK…

 No.9849

>>9847
You, like many other people, are basing your logic on the wrong premise which is the assumption that it is actually possible to do something about those things.

Voting for thieves and scammers who promise you something that they cant do make you a bigger moron than voting for those who do not even acknowledge this problem.
The people who promise to deal with global warming will not fix it they will just rob and enslave you. They do not care about global warming they just use it as a way to gain power.

 No.9850

>>9847
Orange man bad!!!11!!!1

Keep drinking the kool-aid comrade

 No.9851

>>9850
Buddy, he accidentally leaked state secrets to a foreign power in casual conversation. If you think he's a great president, idk what to tell you.

 No.9852

>>9849
That's why I agree with the other person that we get rid of democracy and replace it with people that will actually do things.

As far as the current system goes, I believe that at least some of the candidates genuinely care about these problems, but I really doubt they'll be able to do anything about them.

 No.9853

>>9852
Jut apply some logic to this idea.

How are you supposed to replace those people? You just refused voting and democracy. So I guess you prefer to use military coo.
Do you really believe that murderers who are totally ok and willing to kill people just to get in power are people who care about global warming and well being of some irrelevant people? Do you think that people who got in power that way even if they care about world problems will have any resources left for anything besides preserving that power and murdering and oppressing everyone who disagrees?

Democracy is OK, what we really need is smarter and more cynical people who understand how the world works and who do not believe in such nonsense. people who will throw rotten eggs to any politician who makes any impossible promise or even displays any slightest optimism.
But it is not gonna happen.

 No.9854

>>9853
Oh I don't think it's realistic, only ideal. I mean, I don't think that such a plan could be brought to fruition. Such people exist. I'd have no qualms about committing those atrocities in the name of the greater good. The actions would save so many in the long run - and not just human lives either - that it's unquestionably morally justified. I highly doubt that I'm not the only one that feels that way. Especially if the people opposing it are supporting the status quo. Anyone opposing climate change reform have the world's blood on their hands and deserve anything that happens to them as a consequence.

 No.9857

>>9854
In the long run, it will not save anything at all. Within 1 billion years the sun will turn into a supernova and obliterate entire earth with everything on it erasing everything from existence.
within the next, 1000-10 000 years or so supervolcano will erupt and cause global climate change that will make global warming child's play.
so if you care about the long run you should worry not about global warming but about that kind of problem.

The real way to fix those problems is not authoritarian leaders, but ending capitalism and changing into socialism.
Socialism is the order where you are required to think not only about your self-interest but also about your environment.
Capitalism and religion is based on the basic belief that you are worth nothing you have no impact on anything while socialists assume that you have to take things into your own hands, not leave them to some god, nature or smart experts who will fix everything for you.

 No.9858

>>9857
"We will all be dead in a hundred years so you really should be worrying about that rather than things like income equality…"
Just because things end eventually doesn't erase the meaning of the present.

Changing into a socialist society overnight wouldn't affect climate change. It would solve a lot of other problems, because it's inherently a more desirable setup than capitalism. It's not a panacea.

 No.9859

>>9858
That's my argument, climate change or any other changes are not going to affect our lives positively unless we will invent immortality. people who will cash out all benefits will be few generations away and they will not even value that sacrifice much assuming it to be normal state of things.
Attempts to deal with climate change today will have devastating impact to all world economy turning lives of billions of people into horrible hell.
Attempt to bring socialism in soviet union ended with millions dead even if it brought lots of benefits for next generations and those generations hated this system like nothing else.

To make some positive changes you need about 20-30 years as minimum and that is practically all your lifetime. after 30 years you will not be able to cash out benefits of your suffering.


Income equality is pretty irrelevant issue because it relies on the assumption of capitalist system and cannot be implemented in theory. if we change into socialism income will lose any meaning entirely because you will not be really paid anything at all. All your needs will be managed by government, government will give you job, food, housing, medicine, education.
socialism has to transform into communism eventually, because under socialism you are forced to work for certain amount of time but that time is constantly getting reduced as technology improves you get more ant more free time while your basic need are still satisfied at some moment you do not need to work at all because productivity is so high that work time becomes negligible.

so we and with communism where you are totally free to do whatever you want but you will never get paid for anything you do you do it only because you fell pleasure from your work itself.

All of that will happen naturally pretty soon. If not, humanity is doomed because capitalism already ended. The choice is only socialism or a war which will throw humanity back to stone age.

Climate change is more like a diversion invented by elites to distract people from more serious problems. It has practically no importance today.

 No.9860

>>9859
It really sounds like you don't understand income equality, socialism, capitalism, climate change, or basic human empathy.

Well, the last one isn't a surprise. I already know from your other posts on the site that you're kind of the worst person imaginable.

Also if something took 30 years before it paid off, I'd enjoy it for longer than I've already been alive, so that's still a win.

 No.9861

>>9860
I am that so-called "worst person imaginable" because I know how things work and do not have delusions about empathy or other nonsense. In all human history empathy never influenced anything. You are free to delude yourself but it will not bring anything good to you or people you care about.

Unless you are a toddler you are probably at least 20 years old or close to that(on average you should be 35 years old) you have only about 30 years of useful life where you can actually enjoy things. after that time you will not be able to enjoy anything much. And even if you will still have some health left it will not last for that long. So even if you are very optimistic, 30 years of suffering is not worth a few years of questionable benefits that you will manage to achieve over that time.
Considering people who are over 30 it is absolutely idiotic to allow any of such changes ta all.
Also if you want to achieve something in 30 years that is not just some suffering that is war level of suffering where you may not even survive it.

 No.9869

>>6167

Against private property,
because it is a restriction to freedom.
;)

Wait until I turn up at your doorstep,
raid your fridge,
eat all your food,
drink all your beer;
and leave you
with the dishes to do…

… saying it was 'muh freedum'
to do so.



pfff…. communists…

 No.9870

>>9869
How dare you to breathe my air and walk on my planet! LOL
Hh maybe you do not acknowledge that air and earth belongs to me?
If so why I have to acknowledge that you own stuff in your fridge or that it is even "your fridge"?

If we all live according to the rules where no private property exists I am totally fine with that, you are free to raid "my fridge" and I will raid yours the next day

 No.9871

>>9861
>>"In all human history empathy never influenced anything."

God damn it Onix, you say one insane wrong thing after another. From women aren't human to empathy doesn't exist. Just because you're a sociopath doesn't mean everyone is.

 No.9873

>>9871
I never said women are not human they are less human because they are closer to nature and that's a big difference.

If you want to claim that empathy had any impact on the history ever find at least one historical even where empathy played any role.

we have history of many thousands years and in that time nobody ever had any problems with mass murder genocide and slavery. empathy did not prevent slave owners from beating their slaves to death it did not prevented exterminating Jews in the death camps. and it did not prevented Jews from doing exact same genocide on neighboring tribes and bragging about that. it does not prevent Jews from murdering Palestinians today.

Empathy only comes up when there is a need for manipulation.

 No.9880

>>9873
Empathy is a large part of many movements, such as that to end slavery and liberate Palestinians.
Also, empathy is one means of manipulation.

 No.9881

>>9880
That's the problem.
Because if you cared to think a bit more you would easily understood that all those movements are controlled by psychopaths and scammers who use empathetic idiots to do their bidding.
Those idiots themselves have zero impact on human history besides being a tool for other people to gain power.

I personally do not have anything against empathy, it is a good thing which actually brings more fun to your life. But that where it ends when things get serious you put it away and use logic instead.

 No.9896

My political opinion is basically "hippity hoppity get the fuck off my property"
*pumps slide action shotgun*

 No.9912

>>9896

Hell YEAH,
Couldn't agree more.
finally,
somebody who is sane.

Live long and prosper,
my friend.

Spread your word,
and of course,
the birdshot.

;)

 No.9913

>>9912
hehe, it woud be excellent idea if you were only one with a shotgun in the world ;)

 No.9919

So, do any of you support the coming American civil war, or th British civil war?

 No.10165

Anarcho Transmortalism
Government is obsolete if we're all fucking gods fucking the universe up in creative mode. But until we can enter creative mode I'm willing to settle with socialism. There's no excuse for people to be cold and hungry and ignorant and sick in a country as rich as ours and if we'd stop wasting so much money on blowing up brown people we'd easily be able to afford the shit we need to establish a basic living standard for everyone.

 No.10168

>>10165
Actually there is an excuse for that.
everyone could afford reasonable living standards even in the Victorian age, hundreds years ago. there was enuogh of resources for everyone But government deliberately made extra effort to make lives miserable by spending extra money on making them miserable. and it was because otherwise nobody would be doing jobs where your life expectancy is less than a year before you get sick and die.
So they did everything to make life bad enuogh to make people think that taking that kind of job is preferable to living on welfare.

Not much changed today, just that modern jobs let you stay alive for a little bit longer.

 No.10243

“Populism is ultimately sustained by the frustrated exasperation of ordinary people, by the cry "I don't know what's going on, but I've just had enough of it! It cannot go on! It must stop!”
― Slavoj Žižek, First as Tragedy, Then as Farce

-
-
-

I fear the day such populism will eventually triumph, but I am confident that at least 200 years remain before such a day is near.

Apocalypticism is a silly excuse to ignore the eternal challenges of daily human existence.

We're all stuck in this together. The system is still screwing the same people it always has, and worshipping those it always has. There is no end in sight.

Accepting this is a prerequisite to discern an appropriate method by which to live, and pursue right.

 No.10244

So only three real questions remain.

1. Who is stepping on me?
2. Who am I stepping on?
3. How can I make my actions today consistent with my understanding of questions 1 and 2?

 No.10245

Unless you have already answered and acted upon the issues of the human condition…do not talk about nature or about animals. You frightened imbeciles.

And do not bother to consider the actions of others either, until you have the answers in your own life. So long as to avoid internal confusion, we judge ourselves alongside others, nothing can be accomplished.

 No.10246

Prison in effect destroys me, attains a total hold over me, precisely when I do not fully consent to the fact that I am in prison but maintain a kind of inner distance towards it, stick to the illusion that ‘real life is elsewhere’ and indulge all the time in daydreaming about life outside, about nice things that are waiting for me after my release or escape. I thereby get caught in the vicious cycle of fantasy, so that when, eventually, I am released, the grotesque discord between fantasy and reality breaks me down.

(More Zizek)

Wake up people!

 No.10247

This delusion we share is the product of the education system. It teaches us that the system is the source of our misery, and thus controls our minds. Misery is its own source. When we pick a side, for or against the system, we abandon the side of true good, and our allegiance to the human race disappears.

 No.10255

>>10243
Why 200 years?

 No.10258

The last period of titanomachy and ideological turmoil similar to present issues in the West was following the French Revolution, roughly two centuries ago. If it took that long to come full circle, it will take at least as long for culture to drift away and break the cycle.

Of course all of this is assuming Eastern culture does not become globally dominant. I consider it unlikely…I suspect for a while yet each great region will continue within the dialectic of its own culture.

 No.10266

>>10258
And also that technology doesn't shift everything drastically

 No.10267

>>10243
So you mentioned that Slavoj Žižek LOL looks like a nice guy but actually he is the worst kind of all. I woud compare him to Hitler.


>When we pick a side, for or against the system, we abandon the side of true good, and our allegiance to the human race disappears.


What exactly is this system of yours?
Because as I notice everybody is talking about anything but not about what matters. Almost everyone is worshiping the source of all evil and even calling it "God" if they are religious or evolution if they are atheists.

But nobody is discussing even a theoretical possibility of destroying our own creator as something desirable. Destruction of the source of all evil is considered the evilest act possible.

 No.10268

Onix. I refer only to the delusion of the system, since there is no such thing.

I cannot deny that Zizek is an awful sophist. Forgive me for repeating his foolish, clever words. This being said, I would hardly compare Zizek to Hitler, considering that he has not committed genocide.

You are right that many people are foolishly obsessed with worshipping power or truth, whether in the form of god, science, or some other idol. They seek to annihilate evil, but refuse to accept the evil nature of existence, and imagine that evil and existence can be separated. Such people would never consider destroying reality itself, although it is the conclusion of their own arguments.

This is because the leisure classes are submissive children. They are afraid to admit that the power to give and take life rests directly in their own hands. They are filled with dull, senseless shame for their own existence.

 No.10269

Onix.
Your delusion is truth.
Truth is a habit of action.

Just like those who worship evolution, you have made truth the idol of your worship. Truth is no better than toilet paper. It is a means to achieve an end.

Do you wake up each morning and kill God? Why does it matter whether you are right or wrong if you are not taking action?

 No.10270

Onix.

In order to take action, you must first accept the limitations of your own power. You must accept your smallness to grow bigger.

 No.10271

Angel.

Yes. Technological singularity may certainly derail the course of human history. However, I suspect it will not be within our lifetimes.

 No.10276

>>10271
And who are you calling Angel today? What name is your equivelent?

 No.10278

>>10267
I absolutely agree with you m8! Socialism is the only cure for our diseased world and empathy is just a tool for manipulation!

 No.10279

>>10269
I do not really understand the way you use word "truth" because truth is only valid in the certain system of definitions and axioms (which in philosophy we call dogmas)
Truth by itself does not exist.


Also, there is no need to dedicate your life to destroying reality or god. Just start from the simple thing and identify that God is actually a source of evil and thus it is not a meaning of life. You do not need to worship reality or assume that it is some kind of ultimate truth and try to preserve it. Reality is nothing else than an evil tyrant with whom we have to deal somehow.


Just like it is said in the bible God created the world and said that it is good, but as humans who ate from the tree of knowledge, we should be able to object that and tell the God "no, your creation is shit" even if we can't do anything about it.

Lots of suffering happens not because of the act causing that suffering but because how humans perceive it simply because there were indoctrinated to think that this is right or wrong. For example act of infidelity or rape is entirely based on subjective perception.
Gurochan is actually an interesting example of such alternate reality but most users are scared to even think which kind of relaity is right and whoch is wrong.

 No.10283

Ah. So you may have a justification after all. Regrettably, I don't yet understand your argument. As such, I'll suspend my prior judgements for the moment.

I strongly agree as to the right of human beings to disavow the act creation as good.

Do you claim that worshipping creation helps to maintain the illusion that everything is as it should be? This I would also agree with, although with certain caveats.

How else might worshipping creation cause suffering, and condemning creation alleviate suffering? I consider these questions to have high cultural significance and would be very interested in your thoughts.

You switch focus in this post from the good or evil of creation to the problems that arise from objective morality. I agree that worshipping God or creation can foster a belief in objective morality, but I do not see any issue with this.

What problems arise from the notion of objective morality that cannot just as well arise from cynicism, sophistry or nihilism?

 No.10285

Perhaps I am inappropriately pre-emptive here, but the question of what is appropriate to believe today should not be conflated with the effects of ideologies on past historical events. Obviously, there are relationships between the two, but such relationships are easily misconstrued.

 No.10286

In answer to your question, it is precisely because theoretical truth does not exist that I am interested in the applications your beliefs. Such applications could reveal my prior judgements of your ideas to be crass and ungrounded.

 No.10289

>>10283
well, morality is always the worship of certain system assuming that this system is some kind of ultimate good.


For example, if we look into bible god created word perfect but humans ruined it by their incompetence, and if only everyone were doing their work properly everything would be great.

capitalists claim the same, that it is the perfect system but pesky humans corrupted it with all that government welfare and corporations.

This system gives you the meaning of life making you part of something greater and also describes to you how you should live your life to serve it properly.

Usually, the system is also our creator because all technology and wealth we have now is the product of capitalism and all of that is built on countless deaths and suffering of billions of people who got absolutely nothing for all their suffering.

If we go even deeper, our existence itself is a result of evolution which is by itself an infinite string of most cruel deaths and suffering which will continue until evolution will not be stopped.

Of course, I do not suggest to freak out and start fighting capitalism or evolution but for the start, we have to admit that we are the product of evil and we should not think on how to perpetuate the evil but rather think about changing it by taking everything in our own hands instead of leaving it to the nature, market god or whatever else.

For example compare it with global warming where the current idea is to stop CO2 emissions to preserve nature, instead of developing climate engineering plans to take control over nature entirely. or trying to preserve endangered species in their natural environment instead of preserving their DNA or creating artificial environments where they could live now controlled by humans and not by nature.

If we agree to stop worshiping our creator we can think about better alternatives.
Cynicism and nihilism are only applicable to the idea of worshiping the system, as cynicism is a simply sarcastic outlook to the reality that "yeah good luck with that nonsense I am not participating." and nihilism is just "Who cares"
But if you are given the ability to participate in the creation of your own system you naturally cannot have that kind of attitude unless you simply say "I don't want to exist" if you want to exist you have to define your own existence somehow.

 No.10331

Thanks for your explanation Onix. It seems we have more in common than I expected.

I guess the most fundamental difference between us is that you would undo creation if possible, whereas I would not.

There is still a deeply circular issue with your argument as I see it.

On the one hand, you say it is important to improve our condition. But on the other hand, you say it is not important to perpetuate our existence through “progress”, merely a distraction from improving our condition.

There is value in considering this possibility. It is certainly true that societies in general have tunnel vision and tend to focus on perpetuation and power rather than using that power for the direct benefit of citizens.

But doesn't furthering our ability to perpetuate drive the improvement of our condition, and vice versa? On a massive timescale, low quality of life translates directly to low survival, which is undesirable.

In the efforts of progress to make the rich richer and centralize power, many overwhelming benefits have arisen. For instance, civilization as opposed to a state of nature, leading to a reduction in violence. Or the invention of antibiotics. Or the recent democratization of information, to which you and I presently owe the benefit of this conversation.

Besides, what gives you the authority to project your viewpoint onto oppressed peoples throughout history? Claiming that they are so miserable that all humanity would be better off dead? (Reminds me of “the repugnant conclusion” as a conservative rejection of utilitarianism.) That’s an insult to the lower classes that could come only from the arrogance of a presumed techno/merito-cratic ruler, or alternately just a self-named prophet.

Not to say I would claim the authority to demand gratitude of all human beings for creation, or even expect them to agree with me on the good of creation. That would be both evil and stupid. Gratitude is my personal truth, a truth of the privileged, and of whoever else desires to claim it.

I only argue with you here, Onix, because in my mind you fall into a class of people similar to myself.

Side notes:

I am very glad to hear your opinion on cynicism and nihilism. Well said.

I also agree with you on CO2 emissions. In the long run, I think humans will need to learn to engineer emerging ecosystems such as fragmented forests in order to prevent their collapse and preserve services such as air and water quality control and social function. Japan is ahead of the curve with urban parks; they have had to be. I think sustainable energy will also become critical in the long run. But climate change itself is just another instance of the rich screwing the poor. Leave nature out of it, imbecilic leisure classes. And don’t imagine climate change can somehow be “stopped.”

 No.10332

Just like you Onix, I would prefer immediate justice to the slow trickle of justice that arises from pig-headed progress.

But the fact that a lot of the time we only get the trickle does not make that trickle intrinsically evil. Ideologies surrounding progress can certainly be evil. But to deny the good of progress itself is childish. Do not forget the origins of our species in nature, and do not romanticize nature/war.

 No.10336

A final note. I assume we are in agreement that the narrative of progress, and the demands of submission to that narrative, are the primary mechanisms through which the worship of God, Man or Science gets translated into suffering.

If this gross assumption is off-base, my counterargument is doubtless somewhat misdirected…

 No.10350

>>10331
>I guess the most fundamental difference between us is that you would undo creation if possible, whereas I would not.

No, you got it wrong. Creation is a product while the creator is a system where that product exists. I don't want to destroy the product I want to destroy the creator who brought all that into existence.

One personal example is that while my parents obviously had children I am not going to bother. Thus I rejected the idea which brought me into existence.

I think to some extent what I say is pretty typical communist ideas because the communist party is all about rebuilding the world in a new way.
If you check soviet or Chinese history you can see how they did a lot of global engineering stuff which was never even considered in any capitalist society.

 No.10351

It seems I was farther off than I could've expected. Well well. Ignore my previous ravings, then. Perhaps I was only arguing with myself all along. Perhaps your notions are simply beyond me; I commend you if so. All this aside, I can't help my curiosity, Onix. Forgive me for prying still further.

Humans are a part of creation. Even if we radically move beyond the status quo and reimagine the world with our own hands…isn't that course of action how we got here, to the status quo, in the first place? And isn't it all ultimately the work of the original creator, who created us? Even if we were created with the capacity to overthrow our creator, doesn't it simply imply that this was the plan from the start? I struggle to rationalize any notion of transcendence in this world. It seems suspiciously like superstition, or the seductive power of a global skeptical scenario, or of apocalypticism.

All this being said, I understand now that your ideas are very much grounded in a school of thought of which I am quite ignorant. What author would you recommend on these subjects? Simply start with Marx, or something entirely different?

 No.10354

>>10351
maybe I am not expressing my thoughts well enuogh too, as I should make more coherent theory before describing it. and you bring up some point that needs extra thinking to get everything right.

But as you noticed I use word creator in the pretty broad way which is just what brought us into existence.

Yes, the idea that our purpose is actually to overthrow our creator is pretty interesting and I even could imagine it in the religious perceptive that God created humans with exactly this purpose as something most logical and pleasing.
In fact, this seems to be a dream of every creator including our parents - to make something greater than yourself.


transcendence does exist.
in fact, we can consider the entire world as a quantum computer running reality simulation algorithm. this computer will be a supernatural object because is sort of outside of our universe we cannot alter algorithms which it is using. You can abstract those algorithms in various ways expressing them in the form of laws of nature.

On top of the laws of nature, we have a society with its own laws and rules. They also simulate a certain kind of reality, describing to you what is right and wrong and how you are supposed to behave what to think etc.
those rules can be changed but they are also transcendent because they will exist indefinitely until some force will change them.

I don't know what author to recommend that Marx is not a philosopher he is an economist

I would not even say that it is some kind of specific philosophy just that we should reject all our culture and traditions and use our own head to decide what is right or wrong and question everything.
in contrast to what that Slavoj Zizek says that we should rather obey some unquestionable dogmas.

 No.10448

File: 1577936262980.png (32.95 KB, 401x303, How boring.png)

>Imageboard that's based around absolute degeneracy
>Majority of the vocal posters are baizuo
>And, they have all the same arguments and understanding of politics as /leftypol/
Why am I not surprised?

 No.10515

>>10448
I understand that whole post as "Fuck you because you're liberal" so if you have any answer for the thread, go right ahead.

 No.10521

I'm a libertarian. The idea of socialism or communism sounds good on paper but doesn't work in reality because of bureaucracy. You're putting more money and power in the hands of fewer people(despite them claiming the opposite) and bloating government to enforce regulation. In a true free market, no matter how large a company gets, they can still fail because of competition. The only job government should have is to prevent a corporation from using their accumulated power to squash competition producing better products.

It's also impossible to motivate people to work hard or be innovative when half their earnings are taken before they get to see it, they don't get to own their own products, and when the people who decide whether or not they get promotions/advancements in their career are state controlled bureaucrats who have never met them face-to-face. It also creates incentives for people to seek government aide rather than working and bloats welfare.

If you want a good look at what true communism/socialism produces then look no further than Mao China or the Soviet Russia. Or just take a look at what's been happening to Venezuela and Cuba over the decades. Even the successful "socialist" countries today are just more heavily regulated capitalism with much higher taxes to pay for their free healthcare. Turns out nothing in life is free.

Say what you want about greedy corporate capitalism but it's responsible for the wealthiest countries on the planet. As long as people aren't allowed to infringe on other peoples' basic human rights I think they should be free to earn their living however they please.

 No.10529

>>10521
>Say what you want about greedy corporate capitalism but it's responsible for the wealthiest countries on the planet. As long as people aren't allowed to infringe on other peoples' basic human rights I think they should be free to earn their living however they please.
This depends on how you measure wealth of the country.

In my opinion if half of the population have zero or negative net worth that is not very wealthy country

also definition of poverty is when all your income is spent on satisfying your basic physiological needs leaving no resources for growth and in the country like US that will be bigger proportion of people than in Cuba where you have all your basic needs guaranteed. In the us you actually even don't get any medical service if you do not make enuogh money.

 No.10539

>>10521

>Say what you want about greedy corporate capitalism but it's responsible for the wealthiest countries on the planet.


No they're not. There's plenty of B.S. with what you say, tho I don't think Communism is good even on paper.

But if I have to pick one thing to call B.S. on at a time, it's giving greedy shit heads the credit for individual nerds electrocuting themselves.

 No.10545

>>6166
Well, I'm not sure if I'm seeing a left-wing slant, or if I just have a strange definition of "left-wing". Put me down for right-wing ultra-libertarianism (yeah, I managed to synthesize Stirner's egoism with explicitly right-wing ideas, so what?)

As for the fascism debate, it's possible that multiple people are right. It's pretty explicit in the doctrines of the people who defined fascism that there is no "fascism". It doesn't exist. It's an oxymoron. "German fascism", "Italian fascism", "American fascism", these are all real ideologies, but unmodified "fascism" is a series of political theories that you use to discern a "national identity", and then mix that with the other theories to create an ideology. This makes it hard to discuss, since the amount of common threads are few and far between. Even the biggest connection in real fascist movements, the public corporatocracy, isn't necessarily baked into the ideology. It's entirely possible (at least in theory) that your national spirit is too collectivist to be driven by personal gain, and thus you remove it.
It's very strange, but that's how it is.

 No.10589

>>10529
>In the us you actually even don't get any medical service if you do not make enuogh money.
1. No, that isn't the way things, you fucking idiot. Any hospital that has an connection to the government (In other words, nearly ALL OF THEM), is required, by law, to help anyone that walks into the emergency room. In fact, BECAUSE of this law, health care prices have skyrocketed because you have leeches that walk in to the emergency rooms and don't pay for their treatments, SO the hospital shifts the "loss" onto those that DO pay for their treatments. And, don't go around saying "Muh, I cannot pay for $1500 operations". You can setup a payment play like you do with the layaway payments you have for youy TV and dog.

2. Talk to an actual Leaf if you think you think "public health care" is such a novel concept. Also, here's a fun fact: https://archive.ph/5Noxb
>The U.S. is the Only Very Highly Developed Country Without Universal HealthCare
>…
>To be very clear, the above doesn’t mean that every one of these 50 systems delivers the quality of care the U.S. does, and that doesn’t mean everyone of these systems is “working perfectly,” it simply means every other very highly developed country on earth except the United States of America has some form of universal coverage (on-paper at least).
So, that implies that countries with "universal health care" deliver a level of quality that is even worse than that of the U.S., that "universal health care" doesn't actually work, and/or that countries have an "official policy" for "universal health care" but don't actually follow it at all.

 No.10590

File: 1579151153689.png (30.57 KB, 192x208, Richfuck Commies.png)

>>10529
>>10589
Also, as an added bonus, I actually did work in the health care industry over the past several months last year.

IT WAS A GODFORSAKEN NIGHTMARE. Forget the fact that Obamacare was NEVER designed to actually work. The problem I had to deal with was folks complaining about "MUH, WHY ISN'T MY HEALTH INSURANCE FREE?!?" Let do some basic economics:
>First, here is the actual system in place
With the way Obamacare works (At least, for my state), you sign up through the public health care website, input some basic information, and and then you're given a list of "qualified health plans" (Which basically means they cover the absolute minimum amount of coverage to meet all of the Obamacare guidelines, but doesn't actually mean shit in practice; had to lay this out several time to those who thought they were buying legit vision and dental coverage and explained that FULL coverage is completely separate). NOW HERE IS WHERE ALL THE FUN KICKS IN. If you want you're healthcare payments REDUCED, you enter in all your financial information. THIS WAS COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT. It wasn't because of the way the system works, IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE FUCKING NORMALFAGS THAT WERE CALLING UP AND WANTING SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.

On the one hand, you had those who were trying to "cheat" the system by claiming less than they were really making in order to pay less than they could afford or to be eligible for Medicaid (Which is free). However, to counteract this, the government can demand that you provide financial documentation (Which could be anything as simple as a napkin jotting down your month's profit and loss statement, which some people find to be a near IMPOSSIBLE task, something that every search engine of the internet cannot help them accomplish), with those of us working on the system then updating the financial information to give you the CORRECT coverage that you're suppose to be receiving. Now, some of you may find this objectionable, but even the most Liberal leaning coworkers in the office kept saying how Obamacare was suppose to make "health coverage" affordable, NOT free. And, this is on top of the fact that Medicaid goes on a month by month basis with no deadline for signing up, which means you can actually cheat by making an OBSCENE amount of money in one month of the year, making nothing the remaining 11, and be considered qualified (Try telling me THAT'S fair).

Then, that is also leaving out the nightmare of having people that think they're "too good to get Medicaid for free", and try to cheat things IN THE OTHER DIRECTION, so that they're "paying" (Or not paying at all) for the standard healthcare when they're actually eligible for Medicaid. And, when you explain to these people that their ONLY other option is to pay full price for regular coverage, they have an absolute fit. And, then there was this one guy who made an insane amount from some crazy inheritence and tried to argue with me about how "The standad health coverage doesn't apply to him". But enough of that. Hopefully that gives you SOME idea of what's going on. And, THANK GOD Trump somewhat "fixed" the law by removing the tax penalization for having NO coverage. I came on during the LEAST active year for open enrollement, and I still fantasized about wanting to go postal on some of these idiots.

>Second, who's paying for it?

The health coverage plans under Obamacare ARE legit health coverage plans. However the government pays a potion of the coverage (Or all of it in the case of Medicaid and Medicare). WELL, where does the government get the money? They can't "print it" as payment because that would crash the value of the American dollar; even though Nixon, in all his brilliance, was the one that made the American dollar fiat money in the first place: https://infogalactic.com/info/Fiat_money
So, that leaves two options. OPTION #1: they take that money form other programs like Social Security (Like they do with everything else that needs funding), except SS is DEAD BROKE. So, that leaves OPTION #2: tax the people. But, of course, you "cannot tax the poor" for reasons that escape me (Especially when the "homeless" guy at the corner McDonalds was making more in five hours of the day than I was at a full-time job in a week). So, you "tax the rich" without actually understanding how any of this shit works.

The "rich" tend to be those that own the companies that "produce everything". Well, when you shift the tax onto them, OF COURSE, they're going to weasel out of it beacause FUCK anyone that's going to seperate them from their wealth. So, they shift the tax onto the person buying the product. In other words, when everything boils down, the same people who want to weasel out of paying for health coverage, END UP BEING THE PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR HEALTH COVERAGE (Except, now you spread out the problem to encompass everyone, YOU SELFISH FUCK!).
>But muh tax breaks
Yes, you do bring up a good point. Because of tax breaks the "rich" don't have to pay "as much" as everyone else. Here's a good video that actually boils it all down and explains why: https://invidio.us/watch?v=FeaGNYLFht0
EXCEPT, the rich ARE paying majority of the taxes anyway. YOU HEARD RIGHT, despite paying almost nill percentage-wise, the rich are the ones who are actually funding everything in the country: https://archive.md/z3yKY
SO YOU ALREADY HAVE THE SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT YOU WANT. Congratualtions! How great is this "dream system" that you've been complaining about that "If only X, Y, and Z happened…", when it's already taking place, but you're still bitching about it like my cat when she's hungry and there's no one else in the house.

FUCK OFF with thinking that you can "fix things" when you're no better than any other degenerate on this site. How about you actually LEARN your country's fucking economic system, and succeed in it, BEFORE you get the bright idea thinking that something about it should be changed.

 No.10602

>>10589
You get it wrong:
i am not discussing who pays for what or how much it costs.

My only claim is that in Cuba everyone gets very good and guaranteed medical service pretty much comparable to what only wealthy people get in the US

Thus in that aspect people in Cuba are more wealthy than in the US.

Yes you may not be able to buy new iPhone or luxury car in Cuba, but we should start with satisfaction of the basic needs first.

Another example is that in the soviet union absolutely everyone had a decent house or apartment to live and plenty of income to pay for all their basic needs and even put some of that for entertainment or savings
There were NOBODY living in poverty.

On the other hand US had plenty of homeless people and people living in poverty who cannot even satisfy their physiological requirements.


so we chose first decide how we measure wealth on the country, as if you rob everyone and give their money to one guy making everyone into his slave then show him to all world and brag that our shithole is super wealthy because we have this one billionaire who use dollar bills as toilet paper.
Or alternatively you measure mean wealth your country ending with some decent average result between that billionaire and zero wealth majority which is also pretty meaningless.

situation is exactly that in the US
if you take a total average you get that everyone has about 200 000-500 000 savings
but if you remove 1% of the wealthiest people you reduce that to 20 000-50 000 on average which is not even remotely enuogh for retirement or paying all those medical bills in case of disaster

16.6 Million U.S. Households Have a Negative Net Worth, so in essence those americans are less wealthy than those naked people in Africa.


So I would rather suggest to rely not on the total wealth accumulated by oligarchs but on the poverty level in that specific country when measuring wealth.

also we have to make sure that everyone's basic needs are satisfied, or else it is unfair to measure your wealth if you own a mansion but you have no medical insurance which maybe costs just as much as all that your mansion.
or if you make 50 000 and then spend 40 000 on the work related expenses you only make 10 000

 No.10603

>>10590
>They can't "print it" as payment because that would crash the value of the American dollar;

actually speaking about that it is not really important because average savings of 99% households is 50 000 so even in case of hyperinflation the majority of people will lose next to nothing only wealthy people will suffer.

Also, 16 million people have negative net worth so they greatly benefit from inflation because it will erase their debts.
Pretty much everyone who has any kind of debt will fell significant benefit.
and even those who have small savings will benefit because of their income will grow faster than loss of their savings.

Rich people cannot escape anywhere or weasel out, because all their wealth is by definition registered and managed by the state.
as you see currently typical interest rates are negative what means rich people are losing money not gaining it.

>Also, as an added bonus, I actually did work in the health care industry over the past several months last year.

well the main question, in that case, is not about insurance cost but about why US health insurance cost is in a few orders of magnitude higher than other states

my medical insurance price is about 50$ a month and I get all the same services or more as you get in US with typical insurance including even free drugs and medical supplies. No extra paying for anything unlike in us even with the insurance you pay huge sums of money to visit a doctor
the health care industry is somehow capable to maintain itself at a reasonable level even with that kind of income.
My sister had to get medical service without insurance and she paid 30$ for medical consultation and prescription which in us would cost like 300 to 3000$ even with medical insurance.

Just do not start complaining about service quality, it is not any worse than in the US and sometimes it can be even better

 No.10607

>>10603
>[…]only wealthy people will suffer.

I don't think so.

The wealth of these ppl isn't only backed by
Dollar-notes in a bank,
which are fiat,
which is essentially worthless,
if you really think about it what 'fiat'
actually means, since it isn't backed by gold any more.

Wealthy ppl,
Even if their individual expertise might be limited,
have 'access' to the smartest, most educated
'minions' around the world.

In fact,
Most of these ppl do not horde their money,
but spend it.
There are 'rich' people that are
technically 'broke' at the end of every month,
because they managed to spend all their money in
assets.
Assets that in turn generate even more money as income
every month.
(very simplified representation)

This holds the benefit,
that if you're technically 'broke' you do not need
to pay taxes.
Furthermore, the low interest rates today make it possible
for the rich to get money 'for free' that they can invest
in even more assets per period of time,
so they can be 'in debt' which means they can
generate even more income within the same period of time.
The 'cheap money' just acts as a lever,
furthermore, yielding the positive side-effect of
being a 'debt' … -> no income generated… -> no taxes.
You get the point.

In the case of a hyper inflation,
there are four players on the field to consider:

1. Rich ppl, with assets and debt, a bit of money 'at rest'
2. Average ppl, without assets, but money in the bank
3. Average ppl, without assets, with dept
4. Poor ppl, without assets, without dept.

The first group, rich ppl with assets, dept and a little
bit of money will only loose their 'money at rest',
but will keep their assets.

The Poor ppl, will loose potentially nothing.

But the big loosers in this game will be groups
two and three.
The second group, ppl without assets but with money in
the bank will loose their money, leaving them with nothing.
Wether they loose their money due to governmental
takeover (think some crazy crash-politics, freezing
accounts and the sheer devaluation)
or due to the fact that they need to aquire assets,
during that time, which will be disproportionate more
expensive than the inflation would dictate.
(guess who is owning and selling these assets during
this time period ;) )

The third group of ppl, those with assets but dept,
will loose their assets, because their dept in case
of financial crisis will become over-due pretty quickly,
or interests might increase drastically,
which means they need to sell their assets as quick as
possible, otherwise their asses gonna be busted.
(guess who's waiting for them to sell their assets?)

The 'rich' will pay off all dept as quick as possible,
because they can afford it, if their dept-management
was wisely planned, so increase in interest wont hit them.
As soon as this is done, they will go after all these
lost souls that have to sell their assets,
becouse their dept would otherwise drastically increase.
This has to be done quickly, so that the buyers of the
second group have to buy from the first, and NOT from the
third group directly.

IN THE END,
If this hyper-inflation is over,
there will be the rich being richer than ever before,
and possibly all the average earners will be 'pushed down'
to the fourth group (no assets, no money).
Effectively the middle class will be gone.

From that point on,
there are only very few rich and masses of poor.
Et Voila!
Socialism made by capitalism.

 No.10608

>>10607
You are analyzing this from microeconomics (bottom->up) perspective, but you should to is top down way.

and in that case people holding assets will be at loss as well.


and here is why:

lets say we have a situation where you own some set of assets that have some price and I can print as much money as I want.

so no matter how you turn it I am printing money and buying your assets with that money.
even if lets say I am generous, and we make a deal so that I print some money and give half of it to you and half of it for myself or it can be just 1% which I leave for myself and give all remaining to you.

I will be still taking away your assets even if overall price of your assets will be growing and you will be under impression that you are gaining something.

The only way for you to avoid the loss is not to make any transactions with me at all.

In fact we can reduce this situation to even simpler. where
there are certain number of people and each of us is allowed to print a certain amount of money
no matter what amount we are allowed to print those who own money or assets will be losing them and those who have debts or no assets will be gaining something.

so no matter what you will do you will always lose wealth(if you have it) under inflation.
there is no escape from that. unless you actually manage to earn more that you lose but this is another situation which is not really applicable to modern times because asset price inflation is greater than PE ratio what means you are at a loss most of the time.

another issue is that wealth is be redistributed and some of the rich people will gain wealth of other rich people becoming richer that way, but in the overall picture total wealth of entire existing pool will be lost.
After this crisis we will have fewer rich people than we had before.

 No.10610

>>10608
>so no matter how you turn it I am printing money and buying your assets with that money.
>even if lets say I am generous, and we make a deal so that I print some money and give half of it to you and half of it for myself or it can be just 1% which I leave for myself and give all remaining to you.
>I will be still taking away your assets even if overall price of your assets will be growing and you will be under impression that you are gaining something.
You do realize that your entire example is rendered mute the moment you introduce global economics; where, when you give me the money (And before the global economy has a chance to correct itself), I then proceed to transfer the money into a more stable currency, thereby gaining an even larger amount of money than I did before. OR, alternatively, using the money to buy OTHER assets and possessions that increase my worth.
>After this crisis we will have fewer rich people than we had before.
That isn't how it works. If you pooled together ALL the money in the world, and divided it equally between all 8 billion people; within five years, EVERYTHING would be back to the way it was in the first place. Post-Soviet Russia is living proof of this: http://archive.ph/MCwNU
Also, WEALTH IS MORE THAN JUST HOW MANY ZEROS ARE IN YOUR CHECKING ACCOUNT. In fact, majority of so-called "billionaires" don't have even a fraction of their wealth on hand because majority of it is tired up in assets and possessions: https://kupdf.net/download/j-paul-getty-how-to-be-rich_5907ff23dc0d605a33959eb4_pdf
That's also leaving out that your "portfolio income" (As in, your "worth" as an individual) is also based in your experience in the world.

So, while you're worried about controlling one specific TOOL (Which is all that money is), those people thinking bigger are searching for alternative ways that are not as limited and more universally used and organically given value.

 No.10611

>>10610
I am not sure if I even disagree with you because you are talking about a different issue which is wealth redistribution. In general wealth will be still lost by most of the rich people.

there is no such thing as economic recovery it is just denomination of money if you have hyperinflation and then you cross out a few zeroes from your bills

what you call recovery is simply the destruction of old debt so that economy can grow again. debt/loan is nothing else than a form of asset and those who own it during that economic recovery will be the biggest losers.


so the way how you make gains in that "recovery is if you strategically change bad asset into a good asset and this way preserve part of your wealth or maybe even gain something
but this idea relies on the belief that other people will be too stupid to do the same.

if for example, you will decide to preserve your wealth by exchanging your government bonds into gold you will simply hijack gold price to the level where it will will not return after the recovery. so you will still lose money.

let's say you own 10000$ bonds and buy 1 ounce of gold which supposedly costs 10 000$ at that time because everyone is rushing to buy it to save whatever they still can. hyperinflation happens the value of bonds go to 10$ after hyperinflation when 3 zeroes are crossed out, but gold now only costs 1000$ in new money which largely represents old money in terms of buying power.
Because now when the economy is growing again it is a waste to invest in gold which gives you no capital growth and stocks are giving you huge dividends.
so you will still lose most of what you had and the winner will be the government which printed all that money.

sure it can play out in a different way if only a few people will buy gold and most will stay with stocks and bonds those who had bonds will lose them in the crash and those who had gold will enjoy great gains this way redistributing wealth from bondholders to gold holders.


>If you pooled together ALL the money in the world, and divided it equally between all 8 billion people; within five years, EVERYTHING would be back to the way it was in the first place.



Well, actually I even did my own calculations by dividing all stock market capitalization by the number of people and PE ratio on that and according to that,
If you distribute all stock assets to all people on earth equally you only get about 100$ a month of dividends for each.
So it is really not that much unless you live in some Nigerian slums or deep Chinese village.
Distributing it in raw price value is meaningless because those prices are arbitrary and they cannot be sold in the real market.

Rich people do not really get that much as one could believe, because on this day when the ratio is about 30 and growing if you own 1000 000 of assets, you are making 30 000 a year and this is close to minimal income in the US. So to have 5 figure income you need at least 3 million worth of pretty risky assets.

your calculation that everything will be back in 5 years is also wrong because this is only valid at the PE ratio of 5
since today it is 30 or more it will take at least 30 years to revert back to the current situation (or more likely over 100 years)

 No.10612

>>10611
P.s.
Also to avoid misunderstandings my definition of rich people ate those who own considerable amount of money generating assets and earn most of their income from those assets not whose who have well paying jobs or earn money from their work.
People who earn a lot but do not own any significant assets are not rich.
some of them are actually extremely poor even if they live in the insane luxury.

 No.10613

>>10611
>let's say you own 10000$ bonds and buy 1 ounce of gold which supposedly costs 10 000$ at that time because everyone is rushing to buy it to save whatever they still can. hyperinflation happens the value of bonds go to 10$ after hyperinflation when 3 zeroes are crossed out, but gold now only costs 1000$ in new money which largely represents old money in terms of buying power.
You do realize that YOU'RE STILL THINKING IN SMALL TERMS. There's a global economy out there where what's valuable in one country (E.G. water in Africa) is a commodity in the next. When one country's economy crashes, another can profit from it. And, the idea that you're going to make things more "fair" is not going to stop people from fucking off to other countries where they don't have to put up with your bullshit. Then there's also the fact that you have other countries who WANT these newfound refugees that you made, such as how Australia offered instant Visas to the farmers that South Africa kicked out: http://archive.ph/w6JTh
>If you distribute all stock assets to all people on earth equally you only get about 100$ a month of dividends for each.
>So it is really not that much unless you live in some Nigerian slums or deep Chinese village.
So, you're entire argument is based around YOU not being creative enough to know how to earn money in a way that you can double, triple quadruple, etc. the amount that you currently have.
>your calculation that everything will be back in 5 years is also wrong because this is only valid at the PE ratio of 5
Your stupid "PE ratio" doesn't exist in the scenario of "Dividing up all the world's wealth and giving equally to everyone" because everything is restarting from ZERO. Let's break it down. THERE IS $36,800,000,000,000 OF "PHYSICAL MONEY" IN THE ENTIRE WORLD: http://archive.ph/rRFmI
Now you're dividing that up between an estimated 7.735 billion people on the planet: https://populationstat.com/
Now, when you divide that all up, you give everyone around $4757.50. Now, this is the value of EVERYTHING divided up equally. So, where do things go now? Well, some people may have something that you want or need that you do not have (Whether it be a physical item or a service). So you agree to trade something of near equal "value" (Because you and the other person both agree that item you're "selling" is worth the same as the item that you are "buying"). And, the study goes that when five years have gone buy, this form of trading results in a society that is near exact to the one we currently exist in (With the only "differences" being so minimal that it is less than a fraction of a fraction of a percentage).

Also, that's EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN RUSSIA WHEN THE NEW GOVERNMENT REPLACED THE USSR AFTER IT'S COLLAPSE.

 No.10614

>>10613
yes economy is global so it does not matter where you own your assets. there is no difference in their safety buying US stocks will not be any different from buying stocks or land in Australia or Nigeria.

When economy will crash it will crash globally. there will be no place which will be unaffected where you could preserve your wealth. and nobody will benefit from anyone's crash. because as you said "economy is global"


>So, you're entire argument is based around YOU not being creative enough to know how to earn money in a way that you can double, triple quadruple, etc. the amount that you currently have.


Not at all, Your argument is that I am supposed top outsmart all those other people by choosing the right investments at the right time so that I gain and everyone else loses. I am not that kind of guy who will expect to win Olympic race while being amateur LOL

what I mean is that total wealth will be generally lost while of course very few lucky people may benefit in that casino. but the longer the depression will continue the less of such people there will be if any will be left at all.
I suspect that in the end most of the super-rich people will loose big very chunks of their wealth up to 90%, while moderately rich amateurs will lose pretty much everything.

>Your stupid "PE ratio" doesn't exist in the scenario of "Dividing up all the world's wealth and giving equally to everyone" because everything is restarting from ZERO.


No that not wahst I do. I do not care about physical money it is totally meaningless term. I can't even understand why did you come up with that idea in the world which practically has no physical money.

I do this:
total world market capitalization is 68 trillion
divide that by wolds population and divide it by average PE ratio which indicates how much income this capital is generating each year or just rechecked everything and now it will be 26$ a month for every person (although is you divide all US market capitalization by US population you will get a bit more)

If we divide all wealth to everyone on the earth you will likely end with less than 1$ or even severely negative income because lots of assets will be actually liabilities. If for example I give you a Bill Gates mansion that will cost you over am million a year of maintenance costs, and you will have no use from owning it neither you will even be able to rent it.


Nobody is arguing that certain people will earn more and some will earn less. but what you earn is again not wealth it is your assets or at least your savings. If you own a huge mansion that you cannot sell that is not wealth that is a liability.

 No.10618

>>10608

The example you give in this post
describes almost exactly, what will
happen to the group of average
earners with (small amounts of) assets,
without dept.

The averages are in no position
to influence the printing of money.

The government is.
One could say, that a very small group
of elitist/lobbyists are effectively
controlling the government.

But this is not the point.

I do not believe,
that the 'big crash' will come in
such an obvious fashion, as ONE
big event that shocks everyone.

Instead,
I think, we are already entering
a phase/longer period of time,
where prices on goods and some assets
which the general public NEEDS to pay
for (rent,gas,food,water, etc..)
will increase.

Pay close attention to the difference
between goods and assets.

Some of this already happened.
And it happens right now.
——————————————
As you might have noticed,
the entire crash-scenario I described
previously, had one major goal:
>> DISOWNING THE AVERAGES.
For the gain of the elites.

Not by laws, which would be communist
style and would spawn major turmoil;
but by economic change, which would be
capitalist style.
——————————————
But this is not the point here.
The very fact that we here discuss
about left and right in terms of political
position displays the major trick that
is being played out.

The REAL conflict axis is:
Elite VS the Rest.
1% VS 99%

Well, the odds would be against the
elites at this axis, especially
if you remember some russian revolutions
in the past, killing off their elites
(fun times…)

Unless…
the elite group of ppl create(multiple) conflict
axis that occupy the public instead,
so they do not realize what is being played,
and who the real enemy is:
(eg. feminism, Islam, Left<>Right, LGBTQ, Black<>White,
whatever)

Dividing the populus into many different
opposing fractions which all fight
amongst each other DRASTICALLY reduces the
chance of ONE UNITED stand against the elites.

In Simple terms:
While some White nationalist beats the shit
out of some empowered nigger,
a rich kid named Warren is quietly eating all the Buffet.

cheers.

 No.10619

>>10608

The example you give in this post
describes almost exactly, what will
happen to the group of average
earners with (small amounts of) assets,
without dept.

The averages are in no position
to influence the printing of money.

The government is.
One could say, that a very small group
of elitist/lobbyists are effectively
controlling the government.

But this is not the point.

I do not believe,
that the 'big crash' will come in
such an obvious fashion, as ONE
big event that shocks everyone.

Instead,
I think, we are already entering
a phase/longer period of time,
where prices on goods and some assets
which the general public NEEDS to pay
for (rent,gas,food,water, etc..)
will increase.

Pay close attention to the difference
between goods and assets.

Some of this already happened.
And it happens right now.
——————————————
As you might have noticed,
the entire crash-scenario I described
previously, had one major goal:
>> DISOWNING THE AVERAGES.
For the gain of the elites.

Not by laws, which would be communist
style and would spawn major turmoil;
but by economic change, which would be
capitalist style.
——————————————
But this is not the point here.
The very fact that we here discuss
about left and right in terms of political
position displays the major trick that
is being played out.

The REAL conflict axis is:
Elite VS the Rest.
1% VS 99%

Well, the odds would be against the
elites at this axis, especially
if you remember some russian revolutions
in the past, killing off their elites
(fun times…)

Unless…
the elite group of ppl create(multiple) conflict
axis that occupy the public instead,
so they do not realize what is being played,
and who the real enemy is:
(eg. feminism, Islam, Left<>Right, LGBTQ, Black<>White,
whatever)

Dividing the populus into many different
opposing fractions which all fight
amongst each other DRASTICALLY reduces the
chance of ONE UNITED stand against the elites.

In Simple terms:
While some White nationalist beats the shit
out of some empowered nigger,
a rich kid named Warren is quietly eating all the Buffet.

cheers.

 No.10626

You are focusing more on psychology and conspiracy here.

but I would not give too much importance to those issues, because there is more important stuff. and even if rich people may be assholes but they value their lives and don't want to die. also if they will crash everything with their own greed it will not end well for them either,

I in this situation I expect rich people eventually to cooperate and think about common good too when they will notice their butts burning on fire.
just like under Nixon when rich people voluntarily agreed to raise taxes on themselves to 96%.


I expect that the communist-style economy is almost inevitable;
it will be simply the transformation of welfare system:
since more and more people will be losing jobs and income government will be forced to tax more those who still work and pay welfare benefits to those who have no money what will make things even worse.

since this is a pretty ridiculous situation when some work and get pretty much the same as those who do not work government will just start giving their own jobs in exchange for welfare and tax capitalist business to death until all of it will be dead and only government jobs will be left.
Pretty much the same as communists did in the soviet union and some cities are already doing it locally.


As for all those wars between groups that are not really something important.
I just treat it as some fun game at best if it is limited to internet trolling but also it can be considered preparation of new scapegoat because those SJW'w feminists and other minorities can be facing genocide pretty soon, because they pissed a lot of people to the level when they are burning in hate and dreaming how they will rip out guts of gays feminists etc and make the eat it.


And yes there will be a very serious crash. Quality of life may drop in half without any perspectives of recovery.
I would even say that all those prophecies about the end of the world were surprisingly very accurate because we are currently experiencing the end of the world which really started at 2012.
We will be people who had a chance to observe the end of capitalism.



[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
topgfsfurart3dcgdislitrpp2preq