loki49152

"Mainstream media" has not only developed a pervasive bias that has, somehow, incidentally developed. It is a direct and inevitable result of what they're taught in Journalism and Media schools - that there is no such thing as "truth", there is only opinion, and conforming to th narrative of one's political affiliation is he essence of doing their jobs. They have been taught to be Marxist propagandists as if that were the only possible thing that could constitute a "serious" media profession.

What's corroding the country at its roots is this despicably evil belief that each should be enslaved to all, living for others first.

Have you heard the phrase, "Du bist nichts, das volk ist alles!" It's the tl;dr version of what you said.

How do the people who support this scheme plan to get around Say's Law? All of the wealth that this "income" can demand still has to be produced by someone. Is this just going to be open theft of wealth with printed money or open theft of wealth to be distributed as money somehow?

By your logic, any slave in the Old South who didn't try to escape the plantation "consented"to whatever was done to them.

why should they be "on equal footing", and what could that possibly mean? They are two sides of an equation who each want different things out of the relationship. The employee wants to sell his services. The employer wants to purchase services.

Unless you subscribe to the Marxist doctrine that every economic interaction is "really" a question of one party having power over the other, which is delusional like the rest of Marxism.

Communism is a very specific ideology with a well-known, well-documented content and intellectual history. It isn't "just a process" for anything.

Communism is evil because its ideology has no relationship with reality and will inevitably be a practical disaster anywhere it's implemented to the degree that it's implemented as a result. There's no escaping it any more than you can escape the laws of physics.

The vast majo its of progressives reject this because progressives only value lockstep groupthink.

"Reactionary propaganda" is code for "true".

Leftism is a direct derivative of fundamentalist Judeo-Christian ideology. There's no irony or contradiction here.

Actually, many people believe that math is "true", and in many cases they believe that math is more real than the physical universe. The position is called Platonism, in its older form, though Kant has his own spin on the idea.

Altruism doesn't mean "cooperation" or "getting along with others". It's a specific moral philosophy invented and named by Auguste Comte. The actual philosophy is horrific and has nothing at all to do with benevolence toward anyone.

The alternative to "deterministic" is not "supernatural". This is a false alternative that leaves out all of the other possibilities, including the option that "deterministic" is not an accurate description of causality in the first place.

It's a Marxist term for "anyone who has sense enough not to be a Marxist".

Warren, shut your hypocrite mouth until you start writing checks to the US Treasury that cover the gap between whatever you're taxed and whatever you think you should be taxed.

Even then, STFU. You have no right to dispose of the lives of others.

Examples of collectivism:

Racism. Sexism. Class warfarism.

Collectivism isn't evil? It's an objectively false idea and actively destructive to human life. How is that not evil?

The term "race" was most likely coined by Immanuel Kant, in German as rassen, to name his view that there were actually different kinds of people. The more common view before Kant was that environment shaped people.

It's not really true that race is a "socially construct". It's a specific belief about the nature of human beings, attributable to a specific person.

As a fun side note, being "racist" means believing that race is a real thing. It has nothing to do with what one thinks of different races, how one feels about them, or whether or not one feels differently about them at all. Just be living that "race" names something true about humans makes a person a racist.

The problem is that campus SJWs declare any view other than their own racist, sexist views to be racist, sexist hate speech. It has always been dishonest but now is reaching the level of delusion that turns into vicious psychosis.

"Should be"? "Ethically"? On what basis and under what code of ethics do you operate? You understand that your view of ethics is only one among many, and you have no right to impose yours on other people by force... Right?

Free-market regulation?

As I recall from my business management classes in college, no studies have ever shown a correlation between worker happiness and productivity. That doesn't mean that happiness has no effect on other metrics - but this subject has been studied in depth for the last century and researches keep getting the same result.

This is the exact line of nonsense that was used to sell the original transition to welfare statism. Literally the exact words - "It will be just enough to survive but not enough for anyone to ever be satisfied with".

History proved them wrong. This isn't "a tired argument", as if it were some speculation based on beliefs. It's a recounting of what actually happened and continues to happen with welfare/handout programs.

it is absolutely unacceptable to you. Should people who believe that anything other than their specific branch of Christianity amounts to Satanism force their view on "the market" as well? What do you mean by "our" cultural aspirations? Are you talking in the royal We, or so you have a mouse in your pocket?

What you're actually saying is that you want some outcome other than what the market, which absolutely is a naturally occurring phenomenon despite your beliefs, has produced. And, like everyone else who wants to force their own outcomes, you propose to do so based on a view of morality that you want imposed on everyone else.

The market is the result of a multitude of people making their own independent judgements and decisions about the value and desirability of goods and services. That's it. Anything that interferes with it to produce specific outcomes isn't "shaping", "influencing", or even "interfering" in the market. It's an attempt to replace the market, and thus the right of other people to act on their own judgement, with something else.

Whatever that something else is, it's not a civilized society.

Is this supposed to make Charles Nutter look bad? It actually makes the poster look unhinged. The poster can't possibly ban Nutter from "any discussion of Rubinius on any public forum". That's a deeply insane thing to believe one can demand.

Using the land for human purposes is the moral high ground.

You have the misguided ideas that there is such a thing as "the social contract", that society's impositions and thefts are "investments", and that, ultimately, those who oppose the infliction of subservience have some obligation to leave rather than stay and fight for their rightful freedom.

By your logic, any slave who didn't run away from a plantation was "accepting a social contract" and had no right to complain about his state.

It's interesting that you faced this issue and came away with the exactly wrong conclusion. Economics is, at root, a physics problem. There's no way to get around that. Every aspect of the field comes down to asking questions about physical resources and their uses.

People can attempt to ignore the fact that economics is a special application of physics, but they can't escape the consequences of ignoring reality forever. The belief that it's all just conventions and cultural agreements is exactly like believing that the Moon is just a bedtime story.

Given the century of economies dominated by Keynesians, Monetarists, Marxists, and other UFO abductees pretending to be economists, why wouldn't they?

Stop. Watching. TV.

Or, at the very least, prune it back to one or two current shows you follow. TV is by far the most significant time sink in most people's lives.