Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by V. Kemp
That so many people similarly resign themselves to the world going to shit is why it does. I'm not blaming Obama or Democrats more than anybody else. I'm commenting truthfully on specific things he said.
I'm going to vote Libertarian this fall. No, the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson does not insult our intelligence, let alone this horrendously.
It's just pathetic that he overgeneralizes and ignorant douche bags buy into it. The vast majority of small businesses succeed DESPITE government, not remotely because of it. Most businesses don't have corrupt deals providing services to government. Most businesses don't have permanent underclass (welfare designed to keep down, not help) customers with a constant government income to spend on their products/services.
Sure, Solyndra employees would fit what he's saying well. But the vast majority of individuals and businesses in America are nothing like Solyndra: They work and actually produce wealth that people are glad to bring into their lives.
Fire-fighting references are cute, but the fact is that most jobs in life are absolutely nothing like fire-fighting.
The simple and indisputable fact is that most businesses--and most individuals--DO succeed on their own. That is, on their own in the context Obama is speaking of it. They thrive through hard work and extremely long hours, and, if they're lucky, family and even community support. Government is nothing but a hindrance, a collection of taxing costs which we have to work harder to pay down and still succeed.
We're paying (much of it in the form of debt and impending inflation) much, much more for government than we're getting out of it. It's wasteful, corrupt, fraudulent, incompetent, and inefficient. The notion that we all succeed with its help is laughably (and sadly) absolutely retarded.
There are lists literally too long to post here w/o spamming of government waste and inefficiency which cost us all. Obama's essentially mocking us, pretending government's a good deal economically and helps us more than it hurts us. That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. And it's completely antithetical to the ideals of America's founding.
Only a complete idiot would believe it. And yet, he said it. And lots of people aren't offended.
Obviously. He's SO insulting to EVERYBODY's intelligence. He's insulting to smart people. He's insulting to hard working people. He's insulting to educated people. He just shits all over everybody, and the dumb deserve the insult--they're too dumb to notice.
It predicts all of that? Sounds like a Westinghouse Barometer I sold a few years back...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPey1z0pvGA
When he doesn't like an idea like democratic government, he claims it doesn't exist. Nevermind how broken it may or may not be, there's no need for discussion when you just outright deny its very obvious existence.
Don't feed trolls.
What a piece of shit.
What a really stupid idea.
I heard that the captain from one of those two shows was a pansy too. Good. Only 1-3 shows to watch. 3 down. 900 more episodes to go.
Great. Everybody loves DS9 the most. Now if they're any good I won't be done until at least DS9. I hope voyager/enterprise sucked. 
Meanwhile, proponents of man-caused global warming just ignore that dictators of third-world statist nations across the globe (especially at the UN, with support from leaders of first-world nations like the USA) abuse their theory for political ends. You'd think they'd be quick to distance themselves from these murderous hacks who shit all over human dignity... strangely, such condemnation is absent.
They want to pretend there's a consensus so bad that they'll gladly accept the support of open liars advocating the supposedly environmental theory purely for redistributive purposes.
Exceptions? Did any proponents of man-caused global warming here condemn the political hacks and murderous autocrats who abuse their supposed science? If me and Stalin were arguing similar points, I'd sure be clear to condemn him. Why doesn't that happen here?
My friend, you are getting bogged down in "facts." What you need to do is accept the superior intellectual _idea_ that everything can be better managed with community operation of everything by the "middle class." Freedom is overrated. Only community ownership of everything and shared profits can benefit society! Facts be damned, I'm the smartest guy in the room and I know my idea is the best.
"am I not allowed to because someone decided to pool all of the resources into ONE plan to travel to the stars?"
Yes. Under communism, your productivity will be directed as your overlords see fit. Screw your convenience, we need to spend 2 trillion on space exploration this year.
"So what then? Does that person not use a car? Does he have to walk everywhere?"
Sacrifices must be made. The greatest good for the greatest number. When your goal is the stars, no sacrifice is too great!
"No, he invests what he has earned in a free market (which you do advocate, and also advocate the middle class having more of the wealth too) to spend how he sees fit."
He advocates free markets in name only. In other text he constantly advocates high taxes on any extra wealth which could be "invested." To xeno, if you have enough to invest in anything, you have too much and it should be taxed at a very high rate until you don't have it any more.
Don't feed trolls.
"Are people still allowed to have their freedom to make themselves happy...."
No. He's been very clear on this.
"or are we going to move to an authoritarian government to realise a stupid dream of space travel (really, see my previous thread on space travel)?"
No dream is too stupid for xeno.
Which is spam, because it's trolling.
He's already discussed his belief that we have technology from aliens. If this thread isn't focused on how he proposes we secure that technology from our elites, it's just trolling.
If this thread is serious, that was trolling. If this thread isn't serious, it's trolling.
I'm currently downloading all of TOS and TNG. Am I going to be disappointed? Or do I need more?
Your meaningless equivocation of what you call your behemoth government is not my problem. I'm just calling it what it is. Plenty of communists claim to be anarchists, because they describe "the people" just magically doing things when those organizations of "the people" are de-facto government, with all of the authority and oppression that comes with it.
I'm an adult. I'm not into word games. I don't redefine words and try to verbally dance on a forum like an idiot. If you're upset that I'm not a good partner, that's your problem: I don't want to dance with you.
"I have repeatedly described the type of society I am calling for...."
And every time I point out all of the many ways in which that society is 100% communist, you shut up and move it to a new thread. Not once have you ever corrected me on a single thing I've said paralleling your views directly with communism. Not once have you ever responded to a single one of my legitimate questions regarding more specifically how what you propose would work in place of free market mechanics.
No, claiming that owners should make 0 profit on their rental properties is not free market mechanics. Massive wealth redistribution is not free market mechanics. Repeatedly crying and saying you support free markets does not change the fact that you constantly argue against them.
It was ridiculously ignorant of Marx to pretend that economic progress was an overly-simplistic cycle. This is one of the really stupid and naive things Marx wrote about which leave me with no respect for him as a thinker. He just wasn't that bright.
His ideas aren't brilliant for mankind. At best, they're a brilliant way for the elite to cement their control. In capitalistic (free) systems, ideas can compete, as can groups of people pooling their resources to market those ideas. If the USA wisely leaned far more Libertarian next year, Obama, Romney, and the rest of the corrupt crooks in DC would be out of power and out of the business of robbing us. If the peoples of the Soviet Union or China wisely leaned far more Libertarian one year, there'd have been no threat to those in power except that they'd have to order more executions that year.
Regarding his claims of cycles, which I've called naive, ignorant, and stupid: Next to nothing we make is eternal. Homes, cars, food, heating equipment, everything only lasts so long. The notion that capitalism creates wealth and then a civilization is "ready" for communism is just ridiculous. There's a reason most Cubans don't have cars and many that they do have are from the '50s. Capitalism didn't get them "ready" for communism, communism just resulted in them having less stuff and a lower standard of living. They could have had 500x more cars before they went commie, but they'd still have crap today.
"You forget that wealth is always redistributed:"
By the free market, and only in a manner of speaking. Not by an authoritarian government. Is this huge distinction lost on you?
"This is typical in civilization's history, where wealth redistribution always tended to flow from the poor to the rich: feudalism, military dictatorships, virtually all exploitative centralized systems of government (not all centralized systems of governance are exploitative, mind you. I'm adding this so you don't imply anything by it) have ALWAYS extracted wealth as such and redistributed to an elite few in control of centralized systems of governance."
Blah blah blah blah blah. Always greed-focused thinking with you, without regard for the standard of living of the poor. Free markets raise the standard of living of the poor--and everyone else--dramatically, regardless of the relative increase in income of the wealthy. You're completely ignoring what helps the poor and focusing only on how much it helps the poor relative to the wealthy--a completely meaningless measure motivated by greed, not what's best for the poor.
I've raised this point before but you've never addressed it. Give me a break. I'm all for limited government and free markets without corruption favoring the wealthy, but that's not what you're arguing against here. You're arguing that small, limited, transparent government limited by law isn't enough. You're arguing that massive government redistribution is the solution to the problem of.... massive government redistribution.
Government with that much power would just be more corrupt, not less. I saw some moron post something about the 99% really having the 1% scared! It was so laughably (sand sadly) stupid. The 1% would LOVE for government to have redistributive power. If they control your wage and your healthcare, they own you. They all have the money and tax attorneys to avoid taxes here, and even if loopholes were closed, they'd just move it overseas.
If you have a problem with government corruption at the hands of wealthy people and an ignorant populace that doesn't give a shit, maybe you should be more focused on that problem. Because proposing MORE government power and MORE government redistribution as a solution is not an obvious solution to the problem. It's obviously a way to make the problem worse.
"For the vast majority of human history, however, it was in a more HUMANE extent: while humans lived as hunter gatherers, wealth was redistributed more egalitarian; that is wealth was redistributed more horizontally among members of the tribe rather than vertically to the elite."
Nice appeal to prehistory. Because you can really back this up. Oh wait, even bodies found from 10,000 years ago were buried with jewelry and huge distinctions in wealth.
"Some was redistributed vertically, but not so much so that the majority suffered malnourishment, starvation, or such frustration of the fulfillment of basic human needs that we have seen in civilizations past and current."
Is it lost on you that the poor in Amerika today are far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far better off than the poor of any era of any area of the globe, ever?
"And when it gets to the point where we need to vacate this planet because we've used up all the resources, the poor as well as the rich, should have the opportunity to leave."
Okay I'm not joining you in mental-patient land. It's been fun.
"This thread is about the theory that the reason why the universe is empty is because sentient species, although they do tend to evolve, can't expand to the cosmos. "
It's called physics. I hear there's lots of books and articles on it.
It's not even necessarily theoretically possible. Never-mind your laughable presumption that we only have 200 years to do it.
I'd suggest you find a more worth-while use of your time, but the impoverished people in Africa I would suggest you volunteer to help could probably teach you a hell of a lot more than you could teach them.
Those nations in Africa aren't capitalist; they're statist authoritarian states, [TI] Primo. Capitalist nations like Taiwan and South Korea have sky-rocketed their standards of living in the past half century from near the bottom to near the top.
Examples like Russia show the dangers of the authoritarian state communism requires. You can't restrict the crap out of people's freedom like that and leave them a way to walk it back. They inevitably will when they see the poverty and lost freedoms communism brings. You can't allow sheep to vote.
Other than this commentary on the exchange here, I have nothing to feed the troll. Anyone too stupid and uneducated to understand that freedom and a higher standard of living are good--and that capitalism inherently provides/allows for these whereas communism hinders them--is not my problem.
Every nation in the history of earth bears this out. Every academic study ever done confirms this. Common sense doesn't have any trouble understanding it, either. People don't want to be slaves. People like being free. It means a lot to us. If you disagree, you're probably not a person; you're a sheep.
Communism does not call for "perfect equality of economic outcome either." But it does call for massive taxes on corporations, high incomes, and wealth. Which you call for as well. What a coincidence.
Your overly-broad definition of egalitarianism fits free markets well: It fits freedom and not the massive taxation and demotivation you advocate.
Egalitarianism in regard to law is what is embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Your calls for wealth redistribution (which is what taxing wealth is) are not this egalitarianism, and the writers of the Declaration of Independence would scoff at your implication.
Other than under the law, people aren't and shouldn't be equal. They're not equally smart. They're not equally hard working. They're not equally moral. And they don't deserve equal reward for their unequal labor/production. The myth of egalitarianism--beyond under the law--has been used to justify slavery and horrible standards of living for the past century.
Tax wealth! So that a permanent underclass never strives to achieve or produce anything. You worked hard and bought a house? Work harder, you're now a slave to the state. You need to pay for the privilege of keeping what you own every year. That's not only a recipe for poverty and less productive people, it's called communism btw.
Not to encourage you, but I don't think pointing out ignorance and idiocy is likely to be encouraging:
"Well, think about it: Fred, instead of sitting on his ASS all day collecting interest from his money in the bank, has to INVEST his income in a business (if he wants to continue sitting on his ASS all day), or, oh, I don't know, ACTUALLY GO OUT AND GET A BLOODY JOB LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. Otherwise, his wealth will get taxed down to NOTHING. He's got to actually WORK to KEEP his wealth."
Banks invest his money--that's where the interest comes from. The bank just serves as a money-manager so that everyone doesn't have to do research and become an investor. It also allows pooled risk so everyone gets some return and nobody loses (if the bank isn't run by morons--free markets provide many choices).
"Jason, on the other hand, gets ahead, because he DOESN'T have to pay taxes until he actually garners WEALTH: when his house is paid-off; when his basic needs are fulfilled, THAT is when he starts getting taxed."
At what, a 100% rate? Because that tiny tax-base can't possible pay the bills. Have you ever observed how hard people work for nothing? It's not very hard.
"Seriously, who would support such an inequitable system of taxation? Maybe those who like sitting on their ass all day garnering interest from their hoarded wealth? Maybe guys like Fred?
The VAST majority of people are like Jason; why do our systems support people like Fred?"
Our system doesn't support people like Fred; people like Fred support people like Fred. The vast majority of Jasons won't work very hard when they're promised massive taxation as soon as they provide for their basic needs.
"Progressive stance? My stance is not to be affiliated with any political ideology other than liberal democratic, for it does not fall into the realm of communism or fascism; it is in total favor of the functioning of free market capitalism in a liberal democratic political system."
Except to tax the crap out of individuals with any assets and corporations. In your version of communism, the government doesn't own anything, it just has absolute control over everything: de-facto ownership. Wages? Regulated and taxed heavily. Wealth? Regulated and taxed heavily.
"Let me tell you what has destroyed the fortunes in the Western World: Fred (above) has no incentive to be productive because he can garner enough in low-risk investments held in banks. "
Nobody with wealth invests through banks. Get an education. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Furthermore, investments mean low-cost loans to businesses and have an integral role in wealth creation. It's 2012. How can you know nothing about capitalism? Taxing investments heavily means less availability of loans and higher costs of loans: Damaging business, productivity, and prices. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
"He does not have to invest in the economy, nor does he have to work,"
Yes, he necessarily has to invest in the economy. That's how he earns interest. He has absolutely no way to make money without investing in the economy. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
"Meanwhile, Jason (above) cannot garner any wealth. He can't save for retirement; can't put his kids through uni, can't then buy much in terms of consumer goods, BECAUSE HE HAS TO PAY TAXES."
The solution is more freedom, less government, and lower taxes. I have no problem with the poor paying a very low tax rate. But you're not arguing for that. You're arguing for communistic wealth-stealing of everybody who's productive and successful beyond what you, wannabe communist overlord, decide they deserve. That's a huge restriction of freedom. That's communism.
"What has happened is the Freds in the world don't invest, don't wokr, don't produce ANYTHING"
That's freedom. When Fred or Fred's dad worked really hard for a really long time, they're rewarded for their productivity. That reward is why they're so productive. Without this reward, Fred wouldn't have worked so hard and made life better for everyone by competing in a free market to provide goods/services to millions of people who wanted what Fred did/produced. Your comments suggest that you have absolutely no understanding of capitalism. How can you hold such strong views in favor of massive restrictions on freedom when you do not understand how capitalism functions?
"I am calling for the values of progressiveness, egalitarianism, cooperation - those values which were rewarded in hunter-gatherer societies,"
Mankind has thrived by individuals serving their self-interests. The most successful societies reward productivity (aka capitalistic), resulting in more self-interested individuals producing more in order to attain more rewards. People are productive to the benefit of us all because it benefits them to be, not because of some intellectual ideals of progressiveness, egalitarianism, or cooperation. That's absolutely ridiculous.
The majority of mankind can't tell you what "progressiveness" or "egalitarianism" are. They're certainly not motivated by these supposed ideals.
"What do you think "It" is, exactly that I am suggesting. Do you have any clue? What are you assuming "It" is? We are not on the same page, here."
Communism: High taxes through which incomes and wealth are stolen from people and supposedly used for the collective good by [communist] government. You ARE proposing massive restrictions of freedom. You ARE proposing massive taxes on what people have earned. You ARE proposing communism.
"that I, personally, have very little hope that we can, over the next 200 years or EVER, successfully launch our civilization to the stars."
So you think it's society that will prevent us from significant space-travel. It's not things like massive distances and absolutely no technology remotely capable of even beginning the feat. It's not things like light-speed travel perhaps not even being possible. It's society. Thanks for input. I didn't realize you were a physicist.
"Today, if we had the capability to send every single human - every single one of us - to another planet, do we currently have the resources to do so? Or have we already spent too much on ridiculously frivolous endeavors: wars, new cars and mobile phones every few years, etc.?"
We don't have the technology, nor would we want to go to another planet. We're too busy fighting for our freedom from communists like you to be concerned with travelling in space. We're too busy fighting for the freedom to enjoy our lives and give better lives to our children to be concerned with travelling in space. We're too aware that the technology doesn't exist, and we have more important things to waste 90 trillion dollars on, to be concerned with travelling in space.
You don't even understand how basic economic transactions happen. You don't even understand basic human motivations: ie, free men are more productive than slaves. Your presumption that you understand even the most basic concepts involved in space travel is hilarious.
I'm not harassing you, I'm merely critiquing the content of your posts. Such discussion is the purpose of this forum. It sounds like you have irrational expectations.
I would similarly critique the posts of anyone advocating communism or ranting about self-replicating robot technology capable of doing 100% of work for mankind (given to man by aliens). It's not harassment. And it's certainly not a hate crime. *lol*
Imperial Forum → Posts by V. Kemp
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.