Donald Trump

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

PiS

= plot induced stupidity, seems about right.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Spoiler

As an American who identifies somewhat conservative (really more libertarian than anything else), I've found the Republican Party very frustrating over the past decade or so. They say they're the fiscally conservative option, but Bill Clinton balances the budget and good ole W trashes it worse than anyone ever has. I mean, the difference between a Republican and a tax-and-spend liberal is only the tax part.

I don't understand libertarian positions about taxes and small government.

I understand the government can cause crowding out and create monopolies/cartels when they do things, yet there are things that are stupid to put in private hands, or deregulate (think police, firemen, healthcare insurance, legislation, justice, militar forces, enviromental impact and many others).

Then there are times like the Great Depression and the Great Recession where government can compensate for the shortcomings of the private system (well, there are three schools of economic thought, and two disagree about that, yet the evidence is out there).

Small is not a proper size for all situations.

About taxes, I've read some libertarians equating taxes to theft. I understand their arguments, but I have to see a functional system without taxation. The only things that justifies taxes is a working system. Taxes alone are not a guarantee of anything, but a functioning system has a price.

Examples of places with low, or no taxes show the whole thing doesn't work (see some red states). Fiscal "responsability" with so little revenue would mean abandoning the vulnerable and destroying social mobility. That being said, optimizing spending is not a bad thing by itself, I wouldn't avoid necessary investments for that, though.

That being said, fuck Republicans. Individually some of them are good people even if they are on the wrong side, but as a group they deserve to dissapear.

Although there are definitely some anarchists among libertarians, I am by no means an anarchist myself, nor would I include anarchism in a definition of libertarianism. I believe government should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force against citizens, for the intent of using that force against those who would use force on others. There isn't a whole lot in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty which I disagree with (although I'm sure I could find a nitpick if I had to).

To me, what marks libertarianism is that we view government's basic function not as a distributor of charitable donations, or as a voice of the people, but as an entity designed to strongarm. We view laws as a warning, promising to use of force on people if they fail to behave a certain way. This is, of course, exactly what happens: people who fail to obey criminal laws are arrested or forced to jump all kinds of hoops in probation programs, those who fail to obey civil laws are ordered to forfeit property to others. What separates a general charity from a state welfare program is: if you do not feel like contributing to said program, the penalty is not "well, you can't collect then if things go bad for you later," the penalty is jail or fines. It is the threat of force which makes it governmental; the actual administration of the welfare program is just following through on the required behavior imposed on its people.

This doesn't necessarily mean all laws are bad (although the anarchist type of libertarian might say so), but it does mean that with any proposed law, no matter how seemingly benign, we recognize that its enforcement on any who disagree with it will mean levying fines which take away people's hard-earned money, and/or arrests which take away people's freedom.

There are lots of things which I believe people should do as a community, on local, regional, and national levels. But with a great many of these things, I would rather government were not involved. Even for causes which I believe are pure and true, it's a rare instance when I would be willing to coerce compliance from a neighbor to have him support the same things I do. It's not so much a case of me wanting to get involved in politics to advance my own agenda, as much as it is a case of wanting to get involved to prevent people from making their agendas part of politics.

That said, should there be taxes? Of course, but the vast majority of tax money is spent on things I consider unethical to spend it on. Should there be police and firefighters and a military? Again, of course, but many of the laws on the books should not be there from my perspective.

Classic example: the US War on Drugs. Complete and utter bullshit. I mean, even heroin, that should be legal to consume, sell, manufacture. Now, do not get me wrong: I really don't like junkies. If I find out someone is into heroin, I lose all respect for them, replaced with contempt at best and hatred at worst. But that's me, and it influences my choices, and it goes as far as how much I was previously willing to help them, and how I interact with them. I have no right to dictate how another person might interact with them, or whether the junkie themselves can continue their behavior, until and unless it interferes with the liberty of someone else.

Are drug abusers more likely to perpetrate violent crime, theft in desperate attempt to raise money, and accidental injury of themselves or others operating vehicles? In an overall macro sense, yes. But all of those things are crimes already; I mean, being poor also makes you more likely to do all of those things, but it would be crazy to make being poor illegal. But I digress: while the police should not be involved in a War on Drugs, they should most definitely be involved in a War Against Violence, and a War Against Theft. That's police in their proper role in government. I feel one of the main reasons why drugs are illegal in my nation (and many others) is this: violence is hard to prosecute, theft is hard to prosecute, possession is easy as hell. Making drugs illegal helps police officers arrest drug abusers more easily, regardless of whether there is another offense or not. It's a lazy, unethical, and to be fair, brutally efficient shortcut.

I understand that an argument can be made that, regardless of whether it is right or not, making certain substances illegal works, it makes the right combinations of numbers pop up when looking at statistics and polls, while not making them illegal doesn't. Personally, I'm not keen on sacrificing the principle in the name of results; I do not believe the ends justify the means. You might say that view isn't practical, but I think it's just a matter of time before someone shows up who has a new, revolutionary idea on how to get those ends we all want, and offers a horrifying means to get there. I don't think it would work; I just think that's how civilizations fall. I believe liberty depends, first and foremost, on our ability to identify and defend the correct principles.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

I'd like to ask an honest question: Do you value your culture? If you do, then 1 million new Muslim immigrants should concern you gravely. Culturally, they will generally not assimilate. Their beliefs are fundamentally counter to Western standards of morality and justice (see Sharia Law). However, they will outbreed German natives. The birth rates for most European countries, excepting these immigrants, are mostly below sustainability, while immigrant populations tend to be expansive, at a rate well in excess of host nations. Even without armed jihad, your country, as you know it, will simply cease to be in a scant few more generations. To allow in more Muslim immigrants will simply hasten the process. ='[.]'=

I'm from Germany but not a German. As far as I can tell there is no sense of culture or patriotism around here, Germans don't have any real identity. And if someone tries to remind people of German values or whatever he's labeled a nazi. What you said is right, Germans in my age group (mid twenties) will be a minority in their own country in only a couple of years, but it doesn't seem to bother them much. Assimilation is not possible because of economic reasons too, there are not enough low skilled jobs here for the immigrants so they become disillusioned and thus radical after a couple of years (see France for example).

"

Xavderion wrote:

Germans in my age group (mid twenties) will be a minority in their own country in only a couple of years, but it doesn't seem to bother them much. Assimilation is not possible because of economic reasons too, there are not enough low skilled jobs here for the immigrants so they become disillusioned and thus radical after a couple of years (see France for example).

Hi,

Every 5th child has a migration background in Germany, most of them turkish, 4th generation or so now, a few millions out of 80 million. We don´t have many problems because of that, not now and not in a few years, I guess. Yes, we have to be careful not to make the same mistakes like France, that´s true and people here are aware of that, if you follow the discussions. I wouldn´t make any predictions, but there is a chance of having a very ugly Europe within a few years, if nationalist movements continue to be successful.

I for myself like my country and culture, that doesn´t mean I can´t tolerate or respect others.
When I studied I lived together with people from Iran, Palestine, Sudan, Ethiopia, Thailand, Kamerun, Sierra Leone( my dormitory floor ) and I myself used to live in Israel for about a year. People are usually not the same as the politics or fundamentalism of their governments.
That´s - only - my personal experience ofc.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

I'd like to ask an honest question: Do you value your culture? If you do, then 1 million new Muslim immigrants should concern you gravely. Culturally, they will generally not assimilate. Their beliefs are fundamentally counter to Western standards of morality and justice (see Sharia Law). However, they will outbreed German natives. The birth rates for most European countries, excepting these immigrants, are mostly below sustainability, while immigrant populations tend to be expansive, at a rate well in excess of host nations. Even without armed jihad, your country, as you know it, will simply cease to be in a scant few more generations. To allow in more Muslim immigrants will simply hasten the process. ='[.]'=

Greece was under the occupation of Ottoman Empire for 400 years. We never lost our language or culture. So know he should not be worried about it. And speaking of Ottoman Empire, did you know that under the Ottomans we had absolute 100% freedom of religion? Did you also know that during Islam's golden age, muslim Arabs were the cradle of civilation, progressing in math and medicine while in Europe we had our dark ages, doing shit far crazier than what Isis is doing today under the banner of christianity? Did you know that in the 70's in Iran girls were freely walking around with mini skirts and there was no issue at all?

It's a social issue, not a religious one. The Bible, and even several christian texts say far crazier shit than Islam. I was reading christian passages in Greek that promoted slavery between other things. When Islam created, it was a progressive religion. It was the first religion in the middle east AND europe to ourtight forbid slavery. It was the first religion that gave women the right to get a divorce, to work and have their own money and to study, and this was in a nation were they used to kill female babies at birth due to disgrace. It was also the first religion to promote paid manual labour, something that was seen as diminishing in Europe. And yeah, several passages of the Quan are controversial, not more than several passages in the bible or other christian texts. But it's the social structures of a society that makes you ignore such passages or interpret them in a different way. And you can see that Muslim societies used to be far more progressive in the past. EVEN centuries ago.

So yeah, we owe a big thanks to your Govement for fucking up the area. resulting in the state of Middle East and Islam in general today.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Although there are definitely some anarchists among libertarians, I am by no means an anarchist myself, nor would I include anarchism in a definition of libertarianism. I believe government should have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force against citizens, for the intent of using that force against those who would use force on others. There isn't a whole lot in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty which I disagree with (although I'm sure I could find a nitpick if I had to).

To me, what marks libertarianism is that we view government's basic function not as a distributor of charitable donations, or as a voice of the people, but as an entity designed to strongarm. We view laws as a warning, promising to use of force on people if they fail to behave a certain way. This is, of course, exactly what happens: people who fail to obey criminal laws are arrested or forced to jump all kinds of hoops in probation programs, those who fail to obey civil laws are ordered to forfeit property to others. What separates a general charity from a state welfare program is: if you do not feel like contributing to said program, the penalty is not "well, you can't collect then if things go bad for you later," the penalty is jail or fines. It is the threat of force which makes it governmental; the actual administration of the welfare program is just following through on the required behavior imposed on its people.

Here is a paradox: charities are (mostly) inefficient and not guaranteeing some degree of welfare to the population makes more likely for government to use violence against citizens, and citizens to be radicalized (think how communists have come to power many times in history). There is a limit to private systems (because they are profit driven and waiting for people's goodwill can backfire). Of course you can have a different view about how well would market work, but the most successful contries out there go beyond a monopoly of force.

In my point of view, yes, it feels unfair to not have a choice for financing programs for other people without having too much of an input on that (well, there is democracy, but we know how it works, and how unrepresentative it can get), but the other option is worse. It means constant violence, bad living conditions for the population and the threat of a revolution when things get worse and worse.

Fun thing is that this choice is not important at all in countries where people have a better sense of community, like some places in Europe. Differences mostly come to make those systems more efficient rather than removing them. Only a place like US with enough selfish people would question that (I've seen people in this forums that would rather see poor people dead, or taxed more than the rich, from US).

If 10% of the people dislike military, it doesn't mean it should be defunded (although the fuckers in US deserve to be audited at least).

So...if 10% of the people would rather see welfare programs defunded, does that mean we should because we are coercing them? Even if the outcome is worse? I don't know how principles help with this. Again, I have to see a working country with your ideology yet Scrotie.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Assimilation is not possible because of economic reasons too, there are not enough low skilled jobs here for the immigrants so they become disillusioned and thus radical after a couple of years (see France for example).

It makes me remember of the 2005 french riots (that should have been a red flag about radicalization in the future). I remember seeing a second generation inmigrant talking about feeling marginalized by the rest of the citizens. While it's true that maybe there are not enough low skill works for everyone, it seems french society mostly ignored the problem (be the solution closing the borders, trying to create the jobs required, helping the countries from where the inmigrants came, etc.).
Those works could exist, but inmigrants would be limited or they would be exploited (so they are permanently put in a few categories of job, without social mobility).

I'd like to see a study about how true is the whole low skill job thing. With automation and big corporations monopolizing jobs, it seems the whole world will lack enough jobs anyway in some decades, so ignoring inmigrant problems will mean ignoring future problems for native citizens. Then there is the xenophobic factor.

It's somewhat like drugs; when it was a problem for the poor and minorities, they were treated like shit. Now that the problem is for the middle class and white people, they are being eaten by the systems they created to ignore those problems.

The west mistreats inmigrants at their own risk, because eventually their own native citizens will have the same problems, and nothing would have been done by then.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

a few millions out of 80 million

Sorry to snip your post like that. I was specifically speaking about my age group, not the whole population. Sure, it's only "a couple of million" out of 80 million, but a lot of these 80 million are really old Germans who will die soon or don't have much influence in terms of whats happening in this country (a quarter of German population is 60 or older). When you specifically look at young people between say 15 and 35 years old, you will realize that Germans in that group will actually become a minority very soon, not only because they're getting outbred but also because only this year over one million refugees came and most of these refugees are in that age group.

Fun fact: 35% of kids below the age of 5 have migration background, while in the 65+ demography only around 10% have migration background.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

It makes me remember of the 2005 french riots (that should have been a red flag about radicalization in the future). I remember seeing a second generation inmigrant talking about feeling marginalized by the rest of the citizens. While it's true that maybe there are not enough low skill works for everyone, it seems french society mostly ignored the problem (be the solution closing the borders, trying to create the jobs required, helping the countries from where the inmigrants came, etc.).
Those works could exist, but inmigrants would be limited or they would be exploited (so they are permanently put in a few categories of job, without social mobility).

Germany has also ignored the problem for a long time, they thought the "Gastarbeiter" will go away and thus they bunched them up in ghettos and let them alone. And now Germans lament how these people (or rather their descendants) don't want to assimilate. And yes, there are already some proposals to suspend minimum wage for refugees which means they get exploited and Germans who don't want to work for close to nothing don't find a job. The industry wins and the people lose.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

I'd like to ask an honest question: Do you value your culture? If you do, then 1 million new Muslim immigrants should concern you gravely. Culturally, they will generally not assimilate. Their beliefs are fundamentally counter to Western standards of morality and justice (see Sharia Law). However, they will outbreed German natives. The birth rates for most European countries, excepting these immigrants, are mostly below sustainability, while immigrant populations tend to be expansive, at a rate well in excess of host nations. Even without armed jihad, your country, as you know it, will simply cease to be in a scant few more generations. To allow in more Muslim immigrants will simply hasten the process. ='[.]'=

The important thing is that we, as human beings, refuse to learn when we find new ideas we find distateful.

Whether it's black holes being considered impolitic until the death of Arthur Eddington, or the insipid pedagogy that survival characteristics are the driving force behind evolution rather than sexual selection and reproductive rates.

Anyone who didn't see this coming see this coming 30 years ago, wasn't paying attention. The immigrants are NOT a problem, they are evolutionarily speaking, a solution to the problem caused by those who put their own needs and comfort first and foremost.

Please note, I am not being sarcastic, and I don't mean that in any sort of cultural-ethnophobic way. Look at the Earth as one giant biodome. Anything that affects one part can potentially affect another. The mechanisms of life have an inherit impetus to try and keep life continuing. The people who are struggling to survive in one part of the world seek another part where their chances of survival are better. There is nothing wrong with that. That is a good thing. The question really is, why are they going where they are going instead of other places?

For those who are easily triggered, don't bother looking for the cause. It may be psychologically disconcerting.

Trump's idea that you can simply turn on/turn off the flow of people is like using silly putty to patch a crumbling dam.


TL/DR Ecological Niche.

"

CliveHowlitzer wrote:

I feel like we are really missing a great opportunity with Trump. You just need to come up with a system to annihilate every person who shows up to vote for Trump. An easy way to remove most of the idiots from the country.

Ammodisestablishegalitarianism?

I hope you aren't applying for this opening:

https://www.aclu.org/careers/ColoradoSprings/CoChair

In any case, for those quivering in their quivers about TheDonaldDuck actually getting elected, I would say it's unlikely. Trump's inverse ratio of bluster to in depth analysis will prohibit him from convincing an electoral college majority.

TL/DR: Trump is too much like this guy to become president: