09-13-2021, 11:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2021, 11:45 AM by Eric the Green.)
(09-13-2021, 02:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(09-12-2021, 09:09 AM)David Horn Wrote:(09-11-2021, 04:38 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not a Neo Liberal. I'm a Classical Liberal.
Yes, I agreee. You are an economic libertarian and a social conservative. That means that the ones with the gold make the rules, in your view at least. In my opinion you shouldn't cling too tight to that view. It may prove toxic.
I assume that you believe that ones who have no gold or want more gold from others should be the ones who make the rules instead. Or, those who represent them should be the ones who make the rules. So, whose gold are you talking about? Are you talking about the rich peoples gold, my gold, the neighbors gold or all of the gold? It's funny, other peoples gold doesn't matter to us but our gold seems to matter so much to you guys these days. So, what's the problem on the Democratic side? Ain't there enough gold on the Democratic side these days? Are there to many people on the Democratic side who have no gold these days? Are the ones in charge of distribution taking to much for themselves, their family members, friends and political contributors? I suggest that you get your mind out of the LW gutter, it may prove toxic and possibly end your life faster than you'd prefer. We've already seen what the Left can do, wait til you see what all we can do in return when the time comes.
As far as the Democratic side goes, who has the bulk of the gold and who makes the rules on the Democratic side? The same group, it's the upper echelon on the Democratic side right. Do you see that as much with the Republican side? Keep in mind, the Republican side has seventy some million people who own gold. Do you have any idea how much of a loss the Democrats are going to take when America declares its independence and parts ways with Acirema?
The point of the saying is, money (or who has it) should not solely determine policy. Policy (the rules) should be based on what is best for the country. Not to protect someone's gold.
Your side will take more loss, because the blue side pays more in taxes, and the red side gets the most spending and welfare. That is well-known, although the fact contradicts your anti-welfare for the poor philosophy.
If the two Americas, red and blue, split up, with some additional geographic adjustment, it means each side will have more freedom to set its own policies about many things. If we part ways agreeably, there will probably still be trade between the blue states and the red states; why not? The intellectual property from the blue states will still be available to people in red states, and the agricultural products from the red states will still be available to the blue states. There may be tarriffs, or there may be a free trade zone. We even may be military allies. We still share much in American traditions.
We may even re-unite, once you see the errors of your ways. I would predict a sharp decline in GNP and living standards in the red states, which are already lower than in the blue states. Many ethnic minorities will leave the red states, and blue states will benefit from immigration. The brain drain from red states will continue too, and a severe labor shortage too. You guys will come crawling back.
The big corporations, whose leaders now live in blue states, but whose political power comes from red states, will see their bosses have to move away from their residences on the coasts and go live in Alabama and Texas, like Elon Musk did. They will then pay lower taxes, which could benefit them, but their business will receive much less in social capital like education and physical infrastructure that benefits them.
As for global warming, I might assume that while the blue states are now free to make rapid shifts to renewable energy, electric cars, and reforestation, and reform their industries and what they make, the red states will contribute less to global warming too just because of their severe economic decline in all their sectors. They have less industry to begin with.