[Deluge]

(04-17-2012 06:20 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

And anyone who thinks left-wing policies are good for you: look at what kind of countries it produces.

Women wise how is the USA (relatively less left-wing and socialistic) any better than Western Europe, Canada or Australia?

[Samseau]

(04-17-2012 06:38 AM)P Dog Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 06:20 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

And anyone who thinks left-wing policies are good for you: look at what kind of countries it produces.

Women wise how is the USA (relatively less left-wing and socialistic) any better than Western Europe, Canada or Australia?

All of these countries have been transformed hardcore by left-wing policies, to the point where it doesn't matter what politician you vote for since they'll all be keeping the same left-wing practices.

The difference is only of degree; which is nothing in the grand scheme of things.


Woman wise all of these countries mostly suck ass.

[Hooligan Harry]

I do not think that it makes a difference. Look at the quality of the women the commies from Russia and EE gave us. Look at the quality of the women in South America, many countries of which were socialist

Its not really a black and white issue. I think the problem is related more to women walking away from conservative values, and a state wealthy enough to provide for them in most cases.

IE:

Australia
New Zealand
Scandanavia
Canada to a lesser degree
Western Europe to a lesser degree

All of them have followed the same pattern of development, and all of them have ended up being anti male in most cases. Wealth, combined with government intervention and welfare that removes the need for men, combined with left leaning policy that tends to demonise and minimise men to level the playing field, seems to create a perfect storm really

Just look at fertility rates

[Bad Hussar]

I'm a (hypocritical) libertarian so I have a problem with many modern liberal ideas, but I dom't think it is fair to blame them for 100% of modern ills.

Take the notion that liberals = feminists = fat/obese women for example. Obviously this is often true, but is liberalism the only factor causing modern women to be fat or obese? To be honest the women most into liberalism are the LEAST likley to be fat. Think Nancy Pelosi as an example. Yes, I understand that it is their policies that do damage to women further down the pecking order, but it still makes you think. Also, uber liberal/progressive Scandinavia has a much lower rate of obesity than the US. If you only considered how liberal/progressive a society was you'd expect the opposite.

[Tuthmosis]

(04-17-2012 07:01 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

I do not think that it makes a difference. Look at the quality of the women the commies from Russia and EE gave us. Look at the quality of the women in South America, many countries of which were socialist

Its not really a black and white issue.

Agree with this part. Looking at this as a simple left/right binary is a gross oversimplification. To blame either "side" (and there are way more than two sides) for society's ills is silly.

Just like you can blame the "left" for feminism and its damage, you could just as easily point to lack of corporate regulation and strict adhere to market principles (a "right-side" principle) for permitting the sale of processed foods laden with high-fructose corn syrup for the obesity epidemic (and tons of research supports the correlation between HFCS and the fatties).

But, again, it's not that simple.

[speakeasy]

(04-17-2012 07:01 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

I do not think that it makes a difference. Look at the quality of the women the commies from Russia and EE gave us. Look at the quality of the women in South America, many countries of which were socialist

Its not really a black and white issue. I think the problem is related more to women walking away from conservative values, and a state wealthy enough to provide for them in most cases.

IE:

Australia
New Zealand
Scandanavia
Canada to a lesser degree
Western Europe to a lesser degree

All of them have followed the same pattern of development, and all of them have ended up being anti male in most cases. Wealth, combined with government intervention and welfare that removes the need for men, combined with left leaning policy that tends to demonise and minimise men to level the playing field, seems to create a perfect storm really

Just look at fertility rates

Umm, the fertility rate of Russia is LOW. 1.54 births per woman. I remember reading that Russia was trying to pay women to have more kids. Fertility rate of Ukraine is even lower at 1.46. These country's populations are literally disappearing due to low childbirths. So are you going to say this is because of left-wing policies and anti-male climate too?

[gringochileno]

I think cultural influences and the association of affluence with obesity and financial independence for women have much more to do with it than left vs. right-wing policies. Politics is really a red herring here.

[Samseau]

By left-wing, I'm talking about economic policies strictly. For the sake of discussion, let's call these ideas what they are - Marxist ideas.


A good example of an anti-Marxist city doing well is Hong Kong.

I wish I could have Hong Kong's laws with a culture I am familiar with.


By the way - birth rates have nothing to do with this - I'm strictly referring to your quality of life.


In the long run, all Marxist countries go bankrupt. There is no good quality of life in a Marxist country, such as (insert European country here) and America.

Both America and Europe have adopted too many destructive Marxist policies, ranging from child support to universal healthcare, that are bankrupting the nation and destroying the countries from within.


Fuck these places, I want out.

[durangotang]

(04-17-2012 10:54 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 07:01 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

I do not think that it makes a difference. Look at the quality of the women the commies from Russia and EE gave us. Look at the quality of the women in South America, many countries of which were socialist

Its not really a black and white issue.

Agree with this part. Looking at this as a simple left/right binary is a gross oversimplification. To blame either "side" (and there are way more than two sides) for society's ills is silly.

Just like you can blame the "left" for feminism and its damage, you could just as easily point to lack of corporate regulation and strict adhere to market principles (a "right-side" principle) for permitting the sale of processed foods laden with high-fructose corn syrup for the obesity epidemic (and tons of research supports the correlation between HFCS and the fatties).

But, again, it's not that simple.

Tuth, you are correct that it's not about "right" vs. "left." I am a classical liberal, like Ron Paul, and from my point of view neo-liberals (the left) and neo-conservatives (the right) are both statist points of view. In other words, they are the two sides of the statist coin and both are in favor of government intervention and power over our lives.

Take your example of what you call "the right" permitting the sale of high-fructose corn syrup and processed foods. Would you really allow a bunch of politicians to legislate what food you and your family can eat? Are you out of your mind? We need less legislation and government. If you are upset that high fructose corn syrup is in everything, then you should understand the reason. Agricultural companies and farmers lobbied the government for subsidies to produce corn at a cheaper cost. Politicians redistributed people's tax dollars to subsidize corn farmers and as a result of the market distortion high fructose corn syrup is cheaper than sugar and thus is used as a substitute. This of course is due to government intervention.

Are you upset that healthy food costs so much? Blame agricultural regulations targeting small farmers lobbied by big-agra, once again government intervention. Blame the Federal Reserve system for causing so much inflation over the last 40 years (a government granted private monopoly of the money supply), and causing booms and busts that hurt small farmers the most.

I could enumerate.

[speakeasy]

(04-17-2012 02:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

In the long run, all Marxist countries go bankrupt. There is no good quality of life in a Marxist country, such as (insert European country here) and America.

Did Samseau really just refer to the U.S. as a Marxist country? Really??

You'd have to be the right of Pinoche to say such a thing.

[DjembaDjemba]

There is no libertarian government out there. There is no system of pure free market, apart from maybe Somalia and Congo, and that's by default.

[gringochileno]

For you right-wingers, if you really believe that egalitarian economic policies are destructive to a nation's economy, then you should think that "right-wing" countries will be more susceptible to feminist influence than left-wing countries. Runaway female hypergamy, the breakdown of gender roles, and the obesity epidemic are made possible by affluence. That's why you see strong feminist movements in first-world countries.

Personally, I don't think whether a country is center-left or center-right has much effect on its long-run GDP growth (thus I don't think politics has much influence on the deteriorating quality of Western women), but if you're one of those people who thinks the welfare state is going to lead to economic collapse, then you should conclude that right-wing economic policies are more conducive to feminism.

[The_CEO]

(04-17-2012 02:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Fuck these places, I want out.

What's stopping you?

[Kitsune]

(04-17-2012 04:05 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 02:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

In the long run, all Marxist countries go bankrupt. There is no good quality of life in a Marxist country, such as (insert European country here) and America.

Did Samseau really just refer to the U.S. as a Marxist country? Really??

You'd have to be the right of Pinoche to say such a thing.

There are certain parts of the Western system that are definitely Marxist in their approach to stuff, and there are clearly influential proponents endeavouring to make that more so.

[durangotang]

(04-17-2012 04:05 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 02:59 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

In the long run, all Marxist countries go bankrupt. There is no good quality of life in a Marxist country, such as (insert European country here) and America.

Did Samseau really just refer to the U.S. as a Marxist country? Really??

You'd have to be the right of Pinoche to say such a thing.

From the Communist Manifesto, Chapter 2 (Proletarians and Communists):

...

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

This is somewhat debatable, however we have heavy property taxes. If you don't pay the state you lose your "privilege" to own the property. Do you then ever actually own property? By definition of the word "own" you do not. Of course this is based in Marxist ideology to redistribute wealth from property owners to the proletariat.

Imagine a $100,000 Note you can never pay off.

Additionally, over 50% of all mortgages in the country are either owned or guaranteed by the federal government via Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Check! Marxists, oops, I mean Democrats love this one. And a graduated income tax it was first advocated by the Socialist Labor Party in 1887.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

We already have an onerous Estate Tax in the United States, and as our entitlement and warfare programs drive us further into insolvency, the average American will engage in class warfare (we are the 99%) as per their marxist or collectivist beliefs. It is almost a certainty in the years to come that the Estate Tax will increase.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We have allowed the largest mass immigration in United States history across the boarder of Mexico and have denied around 15 million immigrants the legal rights to their property - a first in United States history. As for rebels, look no further than the NDAA.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

See the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

You cannot drive without a drivers license. You cannot travel without a passport. You cannot open a bank account without proper identification in order to even pay a phone or internet bill. Furthermore, even our current president gave retroactive immunity for illegal wiretaps. Almost daily our politicians are now trying to take control of the Internet through legislation such as SOPA, ACTA, and CISPA.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

In this aspect we are more fascist, if you define fascism as the merger of state and cooperate powers. See the Agricultural Adjustment Act (command and control economy ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court) and the Soil Conservation and Allotment Act of 1936, in regards to soil. One needs to look no further for evidence of fascism than the revolving door between Monsanto and the FDA.

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

In this aspect we have marxist sentiments, especially in regards to affirmative action and politically correct ideology, where the proletariate are minority groups. We fall short in terms of the results our welfare system. We have high unemployment, stagnant wages, and in the short term this benefits large corporations.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

We have achieved a combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries (Big Agra) at the expense of small farmers. Our system is fascist however (see Monsanto reference above). We are actually focusing on the opposite of equal distribution over the country, reference Agenda 21 for more information. We are moving populations to urban areas and out of rural areas.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production...

Done and done. State controlled education, lower standards, thought control, indoctrination, the pledge of allegiance (just think about that).

In all fundamental and important aspects America is an extremely marxist country, with an equal tendency to fascism. The belief system of the average person is collectivism and statism. Just because you come from a country in a more advanced state of open marxism, or you are an American leftist and wish us to become a more openly marxist country, doesn't mean that the prevailing philosophy in America today isn't marxism. In fact, institutionally America is now a marxist/fascist hybrid.

[kosko]

Canada had not been left wing since Trudeau. We are a "liberal" nation but largely are compared of conservatives. We had two cracks at establishing health care and human rights protections in the 70s but that's largely it.

There are few countries that truly subscribe to either paradigm. The majority of the world is Centre left or right.

[All or Nothing]

(04-17-2012 04:47 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

Quote

Now I'm going to do my best here to not make an impassioned response and simply ask questions based on things that you asserted.

Do you think that we should not have taxes?

Do you think we shouldn't have rules and regulations?

Do you think we shouldn't have public education?

[durangotang]

(04-17-2012 06:54 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 04:47 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

Quote

Now I'm going to do my best here to not make an impassioned response and simply ask questions based on things that you asserted.

Do you think that we should not have taxes?

Do you think we shouldn't have rules and regulations?

Do you think we shouldn't have public education?

We should not have an income tax, no. We should abolish the Federal Reserve system.

Some rules and regulations are good, though generally less is better.

As for public education, there should be no federal funds, nor federal control of content, and if you wish to send your children to a private school you should receive compensation commensurate. I am in favor of locally controlled eduction, preferably private education.

[All or Nothing]

(04-17-2012 08:05 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

We should not have an income tax, no. We should abolish the Federal Reserve system.

Some rules and regulations are good, though generally less is better.

As for public education, there should be no federal funds, nor federal control of content, and if you wish to send your children to a private school you should receive compensation commensurate. I am in favor of locally controlled eduction, preferably private education.

How are government services going to be paid for without income taxes?

Without a central bank, how are we going to maintain a single monetary system? Quick fact, before a centralized bank there were 100's of types of currencies in the U.S.

Is the school system going to be paid for through the state?

[durangotang]

(04-17-2012 09:02 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:05 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

We should not have an income tax, no. We should abolish the Federal Reserve system.

Some rules and regulations are good, though generally less is better.

As for public education, there should be no federal funds, nor federal control of content, and if you wish to send your children to a private school you should receive compensation commensurate. I am in favor of locally controlled eduction, preferably private education.

How are government services going to be paid for without income taxes?

Without a central bank, how are we going to maintain a single monetary system? Quick fact, before a centralized bank there were 100's of types of currencies in the U.S.

Is the school system going to be paid for through the state?

What government services do we need? Roads, schools, a legal system, and jails... these are almost all funded outside the income tax and represent 5-10% of total taxation. Welfare, warfare, and endless wasteful spending would need to be cut.

Without a central bank we could use gold as a monetary system. There would be far more stability, far less deficit spending, and far less inflation (which is a silent tax on the poorest).

States and local municipalities could determine the best way to fund education for themselves and hopefully we would return to having the highest standard of education in the world, as we did before the federal Department of Education was established.

[Hooligan Harry]

(04-17-2012 01:47 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 07:01 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

I do not think that it makes a difference. Look at the quality of the women the commies from Russia and EE gave us. Look at the quality of the women in South America, many countries of which were socialist

Its not really a black and white issue. I think the problem is related more to women walking away from conservative values, and a state wealthy enough to provide for them in most cases.

IE:

Australia
New Zealand
Scandanavia
Canada to a lesser degree
Western Europe to a lesser degree

All of them have followed the same pattern of development, and all of them have ended up being anti male in most cases. Wealth, combined with government intervention and welfare that removes the need for men, combined with left leaning policy that tends to demonise and minimise men to level the playing field, seems to create a perfect storm really

Just look at fertility rates

Umm, the fertility rate of Russia is LOW. 1.54 births per woman. I remember reading that Russia was trying to pay women to have more kids. Fertility rate of Ukraine is even lower at 1.46. These country's populations are literally disappearing due to low childbirths. So are you going to say this is because of left-wing policies and anti-male climate too?

Yep

Men die like flies in those countries, which can be seen just in demographics. Then add the high divorce rates in place, related mostly to substance and physical abuse, and you have a nation of single women who cant get knocked up.

Feminism did not lead to that, but hardcore marxism that forced equal outcomes on everyone lead to that. They are in the state they are because of communism, not nationalism.

Feminism is a cog in the left wing wheel, its not the be and all and end all though.

[speakeasy]

(04-17-2012 10:37 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

What government services do we need? Roads, schools, a legal system, and jails... these are almost all funded outside the income tax and represent 5-10% of total taxation. Welfare, warfare, and endless wasteful spending would need to be cut.

Problem is, ending social services might be tenable when the economy is roaring and everyone is employed. But when the shit hits the fan ala the Great Depression, do you really want millions upon millions of disenfranchised, angry men wandering the streets not knowing where their next meal is going to come from? Is that even smart for the people who are better off? Doesn't anybody see that as a public safety hazard? These are the type of conditions that breed riots and revolts. Have a safety net in effect keeps a lid on things and stops third world conditions from emerging in what is otherwise an affluent society. I don't know why all these damned Libertarians think we'd be better off as a society without such a net.

Yes, let's draw down the wars and the level of troops throughout the world and eliminate wasteful spending to whatever extend possible. Of course the problem there is that people can rarely agree what constitutes "wasteful." Having troops stationed in S. Korea may be seen as wasteful to some and a global security necessity for others.

Quote:

Without a central bank we could use gold as a monetary system. There would be far more stability, far less deficit spending, and far less inflation (which is a silent tax on the poorest).

That ain't happening and never will. Nobody is going back on the gold standard. This is as much a pipe dream as reparations for slavery. Even if it sounds nice in theory.

Quote:

States and local municipalities could determine the best way to fund education for themselves and hopefully we would return to having the highest standard of education in the world, as we did before the federal Department of Education was established.

Dude, the federal government has been involved in education since 1800s. This isn't some recent development by socialists. Even in the cold war era, the federal government started investing more in education so that we could compete with the Soviets.

If everything was done as the local level, we'd have some parts of the country like the rural south with 3rd world level education, while people in major affluent urban centers in the NE have the best. Is that really what we want as a nation?

[blurb]

speakeasy Wrote:

Have a safety net in effect keeps a lid on things and stops third world conditions from emerging in what is otherwise an affluent society. I don't know why all these damned Libertarians think we'd be better off as a society without such a net.

In the past before welfare, the only safety net anyone had was their children. It was more common for grown-up children to take care of their elderly parents when they couldn't work anymore. Now, with feminism, welfare, and government, people have no incentive to children as they did before. This is one of the reasons for such low fertility rates in the West.

Children were your social security.

Children were your medicare.

Children were your medicaid.

Children were your welfare.

And they weren't from just other people's kids; the support would come directly from your own blood--kin. Thus, there would be no stealing. Like a childless feminist spinster receiving aid from conservative red state's children. Those who lived hedonistically receive the fruit of those who produced children.

Today, people live more selfishly. Women want to bang alphas instead of raising children.

On another note, Roosh wrote about seeing tons of youngs kids with their grandparents in Poland. In countries outside the West where the standard of living is lower, I would hazard a guess that this would be seen more frequently.

Just another reason why left-wing policies destroy countries.

[speakeasy]

(04-18-2012 01:27 AM)blurb Wrote:  

speakeasy Wrote:

Have a safety net in effect keeps a lid on things and stops third world conditions from emerging in what is otherwise an affluent society. I don't know why all these damned Libertarians think we'd be better off as a society without such a net.

In the past before welfare, the only safety net anyone had was their children. It was more common for grown-up children to take care of their elderly parents when they couldn't work anymore. Now, with feminism, welfare, and government, people have no incentive to children as they did before. This is one of the reasons for such low fertility rates in the West.

Children were your social security.

Children were your medicare.

Children were your medicaid.

Children were your welfare.

And they weren't from just other people's kids; the support would come directly from your own blood--kin. Thus, there would be no stealing. Like a childless feminist spinster receiving aid from conservative red state's children. Those who lived hedonistically receive the fruit of those who produced children.

Today, people live more selfishly. Women want to bang alphas instead of raising children.

On another note, Roosh wrote about seeing tons of youngs kids with their grandparents in Poland. In countries outside the West where the standard of living is lower, I would hazard a guess that this would be seen more frequently.

Just another reason why left-wing policies destroy countries.

The thing is man, there's many countries in the world where that's exactly the way things are. And these aren't places you'd want to live in. That's pretty much most of Africa you described above.

[Deluge]

Quote:

In all fundamental and important aspects America is an extremely marxist country, with an equal tendency to fascism. The belief system of the average person is collectivism and statism. Just because you come from a country in a more advanced state of open marxism, or you are an American leftist and wish us to become a more openly marxist country, doesn't mean that the prevailing philosophy in America today isn't marxism. In fact, institutionally America is now a marxist/fascist hybrid.

The prevailing ideology in America today is social democracy and even that is contentious considering the battle over say Obamacare. Calling America Marxist is pure absurdism. America has a market economy and does not have co-operative ownership therefore by definition it cannot be Marxist.

Quote:

As for public education, there should be no federal funds, nor federal control of content, and if you wish to send your children to a private school you should receive compensation commensurate. I am in favor of locally controlled eduction, preferably private education.

For the record: I'm in high school right now. It would be impossible to fund education under your model. The gap in funding between different school districts would be astronomical. Even public schools in middle class areas are shit in my opinion and Australia is supposed to have one of the best education systems in the world, so I can only imagine what would happen to an average middle class public school here if we started funding them locally. As for moving towards private education: At least where I go private school teachers make exactly $100k a year after 12 years of teaching and that increases by 5% every year. Six years of high school costs about $100,000 per child and that excludes the Federal and State governments large contributions. There is no country on Earth that would be able to afford all this on a larger scale. You're out of touch with reality. Locally controlled education = the quality becomes even worse. While private education will make the society bankrupt or force a huge chunk of kids to no go to high school in the first place.

Also speaking from someone on the ground right now, the best way to improve the education sector is to improve teacher quality. That means ending the tenureship system you have for teachers in the States. It also means making teaching a prestigious profession that will attract more of the higher achieving graduates like they have in Finland. Yes it's a very socialist country but there education system and test scores are hands down the best in the world simply because the kids who study to become teachers are a lot brighter than the rest of the West. This is also why private schools are so successful: very high salaries = the best teachers in the country compete to get hired by us.