[Quintus Flaminius]

While all/most members on this forum are certainly against govt interference in our daily lives, we certainly want to do away with the family court system and Affirmative action.
I think Libertarian has become more of an umbrella term for those opposed to military intervention, while at the same time hold positive views on free markets.
What are your views on other branches of government?
I mean there are forumers that hold collectivist views on economics, while emphasizing on Masculine values.
Here are mine.
Welfare such as Medicare, Medicaid and Dept of education, Food stamps, etc-Voucher system
Social Market economy
If a family is not capable(difference between incapable and unable) to feed the first born, they are offered incentives to abort the kid, and/or get sterilized, I don't want the retards to reproduce.

Environment regulations-Go ahead, I like a better quality of life.
But reign the EPA in.

Defense-Get military spending below $200 Billion, I dislike the police state much more than the welfare state, get civil liberties where they were pre 911.
On the economy
No minimum wage, a negative income tax as proposed by Milton Friedman.

Technical research- A must, we can't deny government's role in the creation of the internet, German government's role in the creation for the Jet engine
Fat shaming- A must, we need an internet army of a million plus trolls, that will receive the best training in chasing away these whales to the Gym.
Your thoughts?

[2Wycked]

I used to be Democratic when I hit 18, was more Republican later on, but then voted for Ron Paul in 2012. I just don't trust the US gov't to make any of the right decisions for America going forward - outside protecting the rich and the political class (which is increasing rapidly in the DC suburbs).

At least here in the US, as a future lawyer, I just don't have much faith in the gov't. It is filled with mindless idealists and power-grabbing asswipes.

I am pretty libertarian outside a few issues that I just don't trust society to deal with.

However, I am a social conservative that does not see government as the entity protect those values. Government is - at the end - a bulwark against the collapse of society. It cannot buttress society against it's own decline.

At this point, the government cannot stop what has already been put into motion socially.

The cards were dealt some time ago; let's see what America will do with them. If Hilary gets elected in '16 - hopefully Slick Willy still has some juice in his tank.

[Kabal]

Rolled out dolo tonight, took an "L" (got stopped at the goal line via cockblocks), am still drunk, so I'll bite.

Government should guarantee property rights, but stay the fuck away beyond that. Maybe intervene in the case of prisoner's dilemmas or fallacies of composition in the case of public goods (highways, parks, etc.), but whether or not cases fall in this category are not always easy to determine demonstratively, so perhaps it's better to eschew government intervention in these situations altogether.

Welfare, in the form of "helping" single, poor mothers with their spawn, needs to be eradicated.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. And single mothers are disproportionately low in IQ, high in time preference, and high in impulsivity (as are their babies' daddies), precisely the sub-population one would least like to pass on their genes to the next generation (the R^2 of the heritability of IQ is >= 50% in western nations).

It's not that difficult to not let a guy bust inside you if you're a woman, and not that difficult to not bust inside a girl, if you're a guy.

So by subsidizing the reproduction of women and men low in IQ, high future time preference, and high in impulsivity, you will only get more people low in IQ, high in future time preference, and high in impulsivity. Probably not what you want happening in your country.

"But... but... think of the children! They don't deserve to be blamed for the bad decisions of their parents," bleeding heart PC liberals might try and argue. Maybe, maybe not... but who's to blame, and to be held accountable for this? Taxpayers, or the kids' parents for blindly and selfishly conceiving such children?

"But... but... think of the foregone human capital," bleeding heart liberals with a sightly greater understanding of economics might try and argue. Okay, I'm thinking of it. However, as we've already established via twin adoptions studies, nature matters slightly more than nurture, at the very least. So we are not foregoing much human capital at all, as these children are disproportionately low in IQ, high in time preference, and high in impulsivity, as a result of inheritance from their parents. Factor in the return on investment aspect of it, and the NPV of investing in the offspring of single, poor mothers is clearly negative.

[Quintus Flaminius]

(04-21-2013 02:36 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

Rolled out dolo tonight, took an "L" (got stopped at the goal line via cockblocks), am still drunk, so I'll bite.

Government should guarantee property rights, but stay the fuck away beyond that. Maybe intervene in the case of prisoner's dilemmas or fallacies of composition in the case of public goods (highways, parks, etc.), but whether or not cases fall in this category are not always easy to determine demonstratively, so perhaps it's better to eschew government intervention in these situations altogether.

Welfare, in the form of "helping" single, poor mothers with their spawn, needs to be eradicated.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it. And single mothers are disproportionately low in IQ, high in time preference, and high in impulsivity (as are their babies' daddies), precisely the sub-population one would least like to pass on their genes to the next generation (the R^2 of the heritability of IQ is >= 50% in western nations).

It's not that difficult to not let a guy bust inside you if you're a woman, and not that difficult to not bust inside a girl, if you're a guy.

So by subsidizing the reproduction of women and men low in IQ, high future time preference, and high in impulsivity, you will only get more people low in IQ, high in future time preference, and high in impulsivity. Probably not what you want happening in your country.

"But... but... think of the children! They don't deserve to be blamed for the bad decisions of their parents," bleeding heart PC liberals might try and argue. Maybe, maybe not... but who's to blame, and to be held accountable for this? Taxpayers, or the kids' parents for blindly and selfishly conceiving such children?

"But... but... think of the foregone human capital," bleeding heart liberals with a sightly greater understanding of economics might try and argue. Okay, I'm thinking of it. However, as we've already established via twin adoptions studies, nature matters at least slightly more than nurture. So we are not foregoing much human capital at all, as these children are disproportionately low in IQ, high in time preference, and high in impulsivity, as a result of inheritance from their parents. Factor in the return on investment aspect of it, and the NPV of investing in the offspring of single mothers is clearly negative.

THE children

Please remind me again, why the manosphere is opposed to abortion?
I mean, come one, kids brought up by parents like these are not likely to serve the best interests of the anti feminist votebank.

[Kabal]

(04-21-2013 02:39 AM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  

Please remind me again, why the manosphere is opposed to abortion?
I mean, come one, kids brought up by parents like these are not likely to serve the best interests of the anti feminist votebank.

False premise. I doubt most of the "manosphere" is opposed to abortion. Wanting a failsafe in the case of accidentally knocking a broad up is reason enough for being pro-abortion.

Though I definitely see the argument against abortion. There is no "bright line test" for murder vs. non-murder, spare for the moment the kid pops out of the mother's vagina. However, it is clear that most people think the line is < 9 months.

[speakeasy]

I'm a politically-incorrect somewhat centrist Democrat, more left-leaning on economic/environmental issues but kind of conservative on social issues...if that makes any sense. As for role of government, I'm definitely not a libertarian and believe in things like universal healthcare, corporate regulation and fighting economic inequality.

[Quintus Flaminius]

(04-21-2013 02:55 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

(04-21-2013 02:39 AM)Quintus Flaminius Wrote:  

Please remind me again, why the manosphere is opposed to abortion?
I mean, come one, kids brought up by parents like these are not likely to serve the best interests of the anti feminist votebank.

False premise. I doubt most of the "manosphere" is opposed to abortion. Wanting a failsafe in the case of accidentally knocking a broad up is reason enough for being pro-abortion.

Though I definitely see the argument against abortion. There is no "bright line test" for murder vs. non-murder, spare for the moment the kid pops out of the mother's vagina. However, it is clear that most people think the line is < 9 months.

Well, most posts that I read over MGTOWfourms, this one, do reflect anti abortion views, but we don't have the statistics, not yet.
I mean, if Christian conservatives consider it to be murder(understandably, I will add ), then they should fund NGOs that offer incentives for funding, why not outbreed the left?
The same goes for opposition to the war on women.
Why not subsidize abortions for these women.
The 9 Ugliest Feminists In America
In order to make more room for these

[WestIndianArchie]

I don't have much faith in government, but I have even less faith in the private sector.

There are simply far too many things that private citizens and private organizations won't do without being forced to do it by the government, aka the guys with guns. There's no way our air would be rid of acid rain were it not for the jack booted thugs that stand behind every piece of legislation and every court judgment.

People aren't basically good.
People aren't basically self-interested nor are they rational.
You can't put too much faith in education or religion.
In general, people are animals.

Our political system is rigged, but it's better than the multi-party system in some european nations (talk about gridlock), and it's far better than the theocracies of the middle east, the kleptocracies of Eastern Europe, the oligarchies of south america, the dictatorships of africa, and the authoritarian system of China, and the "state of nature" that you find throughout micronesia and polynesia. Each of these systems are basically geared to continue to give the elites in the society more at the expense of the many. Fidel and Hugo lived far better than the average citizen, the same way with most heads of state (and judges and legislators). Left and Right all operate to push resources to the already powerful.

Anyone arguing to the contrary about a particular political system clearly hasn't read history or keep up with current events.

In essence, you can not win. At best you can muddle through or become a handmaiden of the powers that be.

Throw in the Feminine imperative that operates in full force in the west...smh

WIA

[DBCooper]

MrXY had an article/thread on this didn't he? I think it's focal point was minimalist government etc. anyone remember what it was called?

[vinman]

Libertarian. The less government the better.

[Tex Pro]

I'm a true libertarian of the Ron Paul strain. I think the proper role of government is to stay the fuck out of our business except for a few very limited roles, like military/police, the courts, and establishing basic laws (like laws against murder and theft, for instance). Nothing more. That is why I hate both the Democrats and the Republicans in this country.

[guerrilla]

We are a police state in all but name. What I think doesn't matter at this point this far along.

[A War You Cannot Win]

Honestly, at this point I view the government as an enemy. Either it's going to drain me of my resources, or i'm going to drain it of it's resources. I believe the only people the government legitimately cares about protecting is the 2% top elite and the political class.

[Major Tom]

Paraphrasing Gerald Ford here: a government large enough to give you everything you want is large enough to take it away. We've seen that over the past decade, especially in the wake of 9/11 and the global "War on Terror": things like the TSA, PATRIOT Act, Dept of Homeland Security, NDAA, SOPA/CISPA/the government's next big scheme to censor the internet and free speech...all under the pretense of "security," "safety," or whatever they're promising. The government exists to protect our own Constitutional rights, not to erode them in order to further its agenda, which is sadly the case nowadays.

[blackglasses]

Greed has ruined the world
Capitalism is dependent on greed
It is dependant on those who have more money consuming more and more resources that they really don't need.
This allows you to be enslaved to a job to constantly increase the level of consumption as you increase your income

I hate all of this shit
People are encouraged to take advantage of people.
Capitalism encourages bad competition in the fact that it encourages one to step on others to get more unnecessary goods

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Classical liberalism aka real liberalism aka libertarianism

Government role is minimal. National defense, roads, funding basic research in some areas, etc

Government should stay out of the economy the same way it stays out of religion. Humans are greedy and all economic systems run on greed. Only capitalism funnels that greed into outcomes that benefit everyone.

[Alpharius]

I'm surprisingly liberal for this forum.

Having lived in a city where everyone walks around coughing all day because the pollution is off the charts, I'm wishing that government would play a greater role in environmental regulation.

I have my conceal and carry but I think anything past a 10 clip is useless. Even carrying for protection is retarded. Govt should at minimum have as much regulation for guns as it does cars - license mandatory and registration required.

I wouldn't have had food to eat as a kid without food stamps, so I'm all in favor of welfare. I think the stereotype of people using their kids for more money on their EBT card gets overplayed far too often. Since it goes against the basic self interest of private businesses, I think the government should keep a preferential option for the poor as a guiding tenet when forming a new policy. I have no qualms with paying higher taxes because of this.

I think more money should be invested in public schools. It should be more difficult to become a teacher. Less focus on busy work in the classroom, and absolutely no religion taught in class - creationism and "intelligent design" can be taught in church. Sex education is something all kids need to taught.

Places of worship need to be taxed.

I'm in favor of a strong military. I think interventions should take place in cases where genocide has been documented.

Western governments should actively encourage immigration to their countries. Shortage of engineers/doctors? Bring them from other countries.

At the very least, govts need to set a standard for human rights in their countries matching or exceeding the UNs declaration of human rights.

[iknowexactly]

(04-22-2013 05:24 AM)Osiris Wrote:  

I'm surprisingly liberal for this forum.

soshul security.... gubmint after my guns....welfare Lamborghinis

I don't need no stupid academic courses on history, pinko commie Frankfurt Theory...Me an my buddies at the bar know just what to do.. just common sense...

Stop with this reasonableness and get with the angry, kick-em-while-they're-down manosphere "libertarianism."

OP, are you going to ask our opinions on brain surgery also? I'm sure plenty of people here will tell you it's a government scam.
==================

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H. L. Mencken

Never try to teach a pig to sing, it's frustrating and annoys the pig.
-Robert Heinlen?

Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.
-Goethe

[Quintus Flaminius]

(04-22-2013 05:54 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 05:24 AM)Osiris Wrote:  

I'm surprisingly liberal for this forum.

soshul security.... gubmint after my guns....welfare Lamborghinis

I don't need no stupid academic courses on history, pinko commie Frankfurt Theory...Me an my buddies at the bar know just what to do.. just common sense...

Stop with this reasonableness and get with the angry, kick-em-while-they're-down manosphere "libertarianism."

OP, are you going to ask our opinions on brain surgery also? I'm sure plenty of people here will tell you it's a government scam.
==================

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H. L. Mencken

Never try to teach a pig to sing, it's frustrating and annoys the pig.
-Robert Heinlen?

Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.
-Goethe

Thank you for enlightening me, I will now fully support gun control, who cares for the lack of evidence that it has NEVER,EVER reduced crime rates where it has been implemented, as long as I get the warm touchy feeling that I've been working so hard for, it doesn't matter.

Quote:

academic courses on history

There is NO reason to ever doubt these guys, of course, these are THE most reliable authority figures, nothing past these guys, let's ask for intervention though we have no reason to doubt what's really going on.

Quote:

Stop with this reasonableness and get with the angry, kick-em-while-they're-down manosphere "libertarianism."

No thanks, let's make sure that stupid people have more money to reproduce, tax the ppl that have been making the right choices in life.
I can see calls to scale down the police state are 'unreasonable'.
Even though our security problems could easily be solved by not interfering in other countries.

[bojangles]

I laugh at the phrase 'Greed has ruined the world'

Civilization is built on greed, it's as though greed started with 'The Wealth of Nations' according to people living in our time.

Fuck no, as a human being it's in your nature to strive to accumulate resources, money, gold, women, children, property, whatever that be.

Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Mongols, Mali, Mayans, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, whoever the fuck has been around in human history has pursued wealth and riches. Each may have defined 'wealth' differently, but it was the goal. Whether that meant more slaves, more captives to sacrifice to the gods, more pyramids or lots of fucking opium, it's always been there. Let's just say it's more regulated these days. Should the government regulate every industry? Should the government be regulated on it's regulation?
In essence don't we the voters regulate the Government, who then regulate everything else? I believe in minimalism for the government but that varies, it varies on what topic you discuss, there's someplace where you want the government to intervene but there's some places where you want them to stay the fuck out, it's why I don't identify with any supposed socialist/liberal/fascist/whatever viewpoint.

[iknowexactly]

The gubmint. Down wit de gubmint.