If you need success and money to not care what people think about you, well, whatever works.
136 karma · joined July 18, 2020
We know from Venona the names of dozens of spies for Stalin in government during this time period. What percentage went to jail due to the efforts of, "persons serving in the FBI or in executive departments' security arms"?
> I think that one should distinguish between persons who once joined the CPUSA, then later thought better of it, and persons actually engaged in espionage
This is true, there is a difference between treason on the one hand, and joining an organization that advocates treason on the other. One carries a death sentence, the other is protected under the US Constitution.
I can't give you any advice until I know why you don't want to be poor. What would be different in the world where the poor person in question (you?) wasn't poor?
That the executive branch in the late '40s and 1950s was "full of treasonous pro-Soviet intellectuals", in Arthur Miller's phrase, was very much doubted. He, of course, was the author of "The Crucible" which is a depiction of the Salem witch trials and was an explicit allegory of McCarthyism as a witch hunt. At least that's what I was taught growing up.
The distinguishing attribute of a witch hunt is that the thing being hunted does not exist. It's like a snipe hunt. The message of The Crucible, at least the way I was taught it, wasn't that the wrong people were accused of the witchery going down. It was that the entire hunt was fraudulent and paranoid, because witches aren't real. Or in the common vernacular, "there's a red under my bed and there's a little yellow man in my head". The "Red Scare". Again, suggestive of paranoia.
So, I was raised doubting exactly the things you suggest cannot be doubted, and I don't think those doubts were uncommon at all. Venona makes those doubts look ridiculous. Although people are still calling it a witch hunt, and people are still making excuses for the Rosenbergs.
McCarthy was famously ineffective and incompetent in doing anything about the very much non-witch Communists in government who committed treason to further the cause of a communist dictatorship in the US. Who did a better job than he did in hunting them down while they could still be punished for their crimes?
Exactly, that's the whole argument here. When you are talking about destroying people's lives, harming society, harming innocent people, I think sense should be needed.
I get your argument, I used to be more libertarian than I am now, things have changed.
As for your argument that, "We may as well as make it impossible for any business to fire people for any reason, then", I don't see how that follows from what I am proposing. Firing people for reasons that relate to their work makes sense, firing someone for making an OK sign to someone on the highway does not. Someone says "Studies show that violent protests decrease support for the protestors' cause" at work, feel free to walk them out the door for their hate speech. If they say it on Reddit, maybe that's not the hill to die on.
I don't think whether a job is a right or not is the question we should be asking. People have obligations, both to their families, and to society. Someone can't get a job because of something they said on the internet and now they contribute nothing to society even though they are perfectly capable of being productive. That doesn't make sense. I pay more taxes now because they aren't working?
You're going to tell some kid, "Your mom doesn't get child support anymore because your dad said something mean on the web"? How does that even make sense?
I had this big list of all the things I wanted to do when I stopped working, and in six months, I didn't even start doing one of them. My girlfriend said, "You're still on the computer all day, you might as well get paid for it".
I hate it when my girlfriend is right.
If you personally buy a house using a federally backed mortgage, does that mean the government can show up and take your house and give it to someone else without compensating you? You would be OK with that if it was your house? That doesn't make sense.
This seems like a pretty blatant violation of the takings clause and is likely unconstitutional.
AMENDMENT XXVIII
The protections of rights in Amendment I apply to employees for any conduct not directly related to their employment.
https://images.kerrangcdn.com/KurtDiaryPage.jpg?auto=compres... for the rest of the list.
If 50% of working age people died, both wages and automation would increase.
California is 47th.
Moving from Utah to California is moving from one of the worst states for equality to the best. There is no trade-off needed regarding inequality, and I doubt there is one needed for safety nets either, Utah is unsurprisingly progressive in that area.