Fighting The Fourth Reich

[Kinser79]

(08-30-2017, 09:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-30-2017, 08:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-30-2017, 04:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm coming to see wealth inequality as indication of the the country still has a reserve.  If we ever really decide to do anything, a means exists to do it.  I care far more about there being a minimum floor for things like food, shelter and medical care than the few wanting to build uber yachts.    However, with the economy frequently being optimized for Wall Street and Easy Street, you have to hope you can release Main Street when the time comes.

If we assume that by Main Street, what you mean is your average work-a-day American person of the proletariat then the best way to insure that they have a minimum standard of living is to ensure that they have jobs to provide that for them.  Welfare has never lifted anyone out of poverty, it maintains them there.  As such we have to use two different large policy direction.

First is to structure international trade to promote Americans making things and buying things made in America.  Bringing money in and keeping the money here circulating, in other words.

Second to limit the import of new labor.  Importing low wage unskilled labor depresses wages for the lower income/skill groups, blacks in particular.  Importing lower wage skilled labor depresses domestically educated citizens.  As I've said on the old forum before there isn't a shortage of STEM field graduates in this country, rather there is a shortage of them willing to accept 30K/year (cause they have student loans to pay off among other things).

Adopting the second policy position will cause a gradual rise in pay through labor constriction, it also helps developing countries as they won't suffer brain drain as badly.

I can sympathize with much of that.  For example, ideally, unless the recipient is permanently disabled, welfare should be viewed as a last chance to dial in and not a permanent way of life.

I would say that ideally welfare should be completely replaced with family resources and private charity.  I'm not sure how doable that is, but at least for Black Americans welfare has been far more destructive than slavery could ever hope to be.  Over all if welfare is required, and state administration is required to over see it, it should be limited to those suffering from natural disaster, the permanently disabled and I mean the actually disabled, claiming to be an Aspie wouldn't count, you need to be missing like hands and shit, the very young and the very old.

Quote: I agree there are too many colleges, too many degrees, but good luck getting rid of hope.

Being burdened with a ton of student debt that cannot be discharged by bankruptcy and provides no guarantee of future employment is the exact opposite of hope.  That being said there are tons of useless degrees I agree.  For example I've often made the joke that a degree in social justice (some courses of which are REQUIRED PBR so good luck avoiding required courses), and the like are nothing more than degrees in unemployment, and racial or gender anger.  Such degrees are worse than simply being non-productive, they are anti-productive.

Quote: People at least pretend to want to be dealt in.

They can be.  There are plenty of jobs, in fact most of them that do not require a college degree.  In large part the idea that a degree is necessary to do a job is the result of a desasterious governmental policy preventing employers from using IQ tests to determine if one can work for them.  The thinking is that the degree means you went to school and thus have at least enough intellect to pass those courses.  Problem is, when going to collage is not the province of the exceptionally smart and really becomes an additional 4 years of high school all degrees essentially become meaningless.

Degree inflation is a serious problem and one that won't be addressed by "free college".

Quote:But a few good ideas won't change the need for a basic change in balance.  The uneven wealth distribution and who is creating it is obvious.

Universal basic income would be a disaster, and would ultimately be unworkable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMRaGxIOmnk

In the above video Stefan Molyneux explains why.

(08-30-2017, 08:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-30-2017, 04:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: In the same way, much of the alt right just wants to be uncivil to certain minority groups.

There is no evidence that this is the case.

Wearing a swatstica and waving a battle flag doesn't count?  If you look you can find alt-right folk who almost plausibly hide their prejudice, but it's far easier to find prejudiced haters if you care to look.  They want attention.  I suspect you like that side of the alt right as little as I like what's recently become the alt left.  That doesn't mean one should close one's eyes and pretend not to see.[/quote]

I'm not particularly concerned about the small, and unimportant neo-nazi movement which has existed for decades.  Why?  Because they are small and unimportant.

If you take a look at the ideologists of the Identitarian Right, or Alt-Right, like Spencer and Jared Taylor they aren't so much interested in rounding up blacks or jews and gassing them as they are in having an ethnostate that is exclusively white.  Honestly I can see their point.  Before Europe went insane they had just that.  They were called Ireland, Britain, France, etc, etc, etc.

I don't have a use for their ideas as far as the US is concerned because there has never been a separation of the races, not even under slavery or segregation.  Ideally I want to see the politics of identity completely smashed.  As I've quoted before from TR hyphenated Americanism is anti-Americanism.

 

Quote:

(08-30-2017, 08:16 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(08-30-2017, 04:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I personally have no sympathy with that.  There has been since Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr's time a legal concept that negative rights to not protect the ability to harm others.  Thus, you don't have a right to cry 'fire' in a crowded theory, and your right to swing you fist around ends where my nose begins.  Old old principles.  This very simple concept seems to be missed by many on the alt right.  If they are systematically denying members of a certain subculture access, if they thank being cruel is harmless fun protected by the Constitution, they just aren't aware of where negative rights end.

Ultimately it doesn't matter.  If the Left wins there won't be any free speech at all.  I like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. am convinced the only limitations on free speech should be slander, libel and incitement (to riot or to violence or panic).  Apart from that free speech is sacrosanct.  Any attempt to restrict it past those common sense limitations is distinctly anti-American.

I will go further, if there are in fact positive rights in the Bill of Rights as it seems the ACA has opened the door for then I would say that it applies to the First and Second amendments just as much as any dubious right to health care.  As such I demand that YouTube and etc provide me with a channel to spout off my nonsense, and that the federal government buy me an AR-15 (cause you can't have too many).  I think the laundry room is still lacking a gun

I personally don't see hidden positive rights in the old Constitution.  Freedom from Want was a justification to make war.  The UDHR was a UN treaty we signed.  It is binding perhaps, but who is running around enforcing it?  The ACA may strive for similar principles, but it isn't structured as a bill of rights.  If we are to share risks and costs, it will be because the modern people wish to do so.

But as long as there are areas of US culture that are reserved to a specific culture, gender or race, I don't see affirmative action going away.  That counts as harm under law, as much as you dislike it.  And while modern Nazi and Confederates aren't actively lynching and putting folks in gas chambers, the hatred is still there, and a few folk hate as much as they can get away with.  I'll throw a few on the alt left in with the traditional folk.  I see hateful violent behavior as worth getting rid of.

Bob, I don't either.  But if the Supreme Court says there are, then there are--that's how judicial review works and that isn't a very controversial subject or at least it shouldn't be.  

The UDHR is not enforceable, the UN doesn't have an army to enforce it.  The UN is a paper tiger, it only has more teeth than the League it replaced because the US is often willing to act as world policeman.  As for the ACA it isn't so much as a program to share risks and costs but rather a mandate that every citizen who doesn't qualify for Medicare or medicaid buy a certain product.  It is in fact a giant subsidy to the insurance industry.

Where in the US is there space reserved for just one race, or gender?  I won't go into culture because ideally there should only be one culture if we plan on being a functioning state.  If I have the money I can live in a penthouse in NYC.  A millionare if he desires to can live in a slum.  This is a non-argument.

That being said, I would say that identitarian politics are ultimately entirely toxic.  That toxicity manifests whether the direction it comes from is left or right.  In America there is only one identity that should matter, the identity of being an American.

The ability to hate is a natural right.  I'll even go further and say that the 14/88 crowd should even be allowed to openly say that "you know gassing the kikes and hanging niggers is fundamentally a good idea".  I'm not concerned by their hate or their speech.  It is when they start doing things that I grow concerned.  And there already are laws for murder or assault.

The best way to limit violent behavior is to allow those that advocate it to speak.  They will show themselves to be the assholes that they are and they will be ignored.