PM Series: Question 19

[H. Ross Peron]

At least TNF is honest.

Is he? If the US were forced to distribute its wealth to poor countries, TNF would probably be crying himself to sleep at night. Blue states already piss and moan about distributing money to poorer red states, though blue states vote for the arrangement en mass during every election.

TNF is just clueless.

Most of us are if not happy at least see the necessity of fulfilling our national obligations through policies that result in net redistribution of money to the poorer red states. We just deride the hypocrisy of those states' denizens who gladly accept those handouts than proceed to denounce "redistribution".

[TNF]

At least TNF is honest.

Is he? If the US were forced to distribute its wealth to poor countries, TNF would probably be crying himself to sleep at night. Blue states already piss and moan about distributing money to poorer red states, though blue states vote for the arrangement en mass during every election.

TNF is just clueless.

Thank you for doing me the trouble of telling everyone how I feel about a specific issue without bothering to ask or seek out the facts for yourself. As a matter of fact, I think that making sure that humanity as a whole has the opportunity to grow and develop itself is in fact more important that one nation monopolizing wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. Liberals might object to 'giving the red states more than they get back', but I don't, because I'm not a liberal and I think liberalism is a plague that needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. I am a communist and sincerely believe in wiping out the capitalist system and the class which monopolizes power and wealth as a result of owning the means of generating wealth and producing and distributing goods and services.

Before you assume something about someone and the positions they take on a specific issue, you would do well to either ask that person or look through their posting history for a sampling that might give you a better idea. But I understand that might be hard work for you specifically, given that you're not used to engaging with actual ideas or policy proposals or even the worldview of people with whom you disagree, given your posting history and your outright ignorance on how the world actually works as opposed to your assumptions about how it does or how it should that stem from reading the fact free 'science' of libertarian economic theory.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, AggregateDemand. I have always been honest and forthright about my positions and I can back those up if challenged. I'm not so sure you could say the same with any scientific certainty, so I would be very careful throwing the word 'clueless' around, were I you.

[AggregateDemand]

Most of us are if not happy at least see the necessity of fulfilling our national obligations through policies that result in net redistribution of money to the poorer red states. We just deride the hypocrisy of those states' denizens who gladly accept those handouts than proceed to denounce "redistribution".

Democrats have equal difficulty understanding the "hypocrisy" of the perpetually poor, who also rebuke the alms thrown at them. The poor want more economic opportunity, thus, better quality of life--something they can't obtain when libs are poisoning the employment markets with taxation and mandates. Red states generally want less government intrusion, more state determination, and more focus on constitutional spending, like infrastructure or military.

Not saying their arguments are not without fault, but Democratic eyes have been glazing over for at least 50 years.

[TNF]

Most of us are if not happy at least see the necessity of fulfilling our national obligations through policies that result in net redistribution of money to the poorer red states. We just deride the hypocrisy of those states' denizens who gladly accept those handouts than proceed to denounce "redistribution".

Democrats have equal difficulty understanding the "hypocrisy" of the perpetually poor, who also rebuke the alms thrown at them. The poor want more economic opportunity, thus, better quality of life--something they can't obtain when libs are poisoning the employment markets with taxation and mandates. Red states generally want less government intrusion, more state determination, and more focus on constitutional spending, like infrastructure or military.

Not saying their arguments are not without fault, but Democratic eyes have been glazing over for at least 50 years.

Dodging confrontation and having to deal with facts, rather than libertarian fantasies, continues to be your strong suit.

[AggregateDemand]

Thank you for doing me the trouble of telling everyone how I feel about a specific issue without bothering to ask or seek out the facts for yourself. As a matter of fact, I think that making sure that humanity as a whole has the opportunity to grow and develop itself is in fact more important that one nation monopolizing wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. Liberals might object to 'giving the red states more than they get back', but I don't, because I'm not a liberal and I think liberalism is a plague that needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. I am a communist and sincerely believe in wiping out the capitalist system and the class which monopolizes power and wealth as a result of owning the means of generating wealth and producing and distributing goods and services.

Before you assume something about someone and the positions they take on a specific issue, you would do well to either ask that person or look through their posting history for a sampling that might give you a better idea. But I understand that might be hard work for you specifically, given that you're not used to engaging with actual ideas or policy proposals or even the worldview of people with whom you disagree, given your posting history and your outright ignorance on how the world actually works as opposed to your assumptions about how it does or how it should that stem from reading the fact free 'science' of libertarian economic theory.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, AggregateDemand. I have always been honest and forthright about my positions and I can back those up if challenged. I'm not so sure you could say the same with any scientific certainty, so I would be very careful throwing the word 'clueless' around, were I you.

You're going to try to chide people from the moral sanctity of your communist mud hut? How quaint.

No more internet for you. It was developed by capitalist pigs who wanted to spread their advertising plague across the globe in a new unregulated medium. Fight the power and such.

[AggregateDemand]

Dodging confrontation and having to deal with facts, rather than libertarian fantasies, continues to be your strong suit.

What libertarian fantasies would those be? You're the one preaching employment for everyone, aren't you, comrade?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Say what you will about TNF's politics but he has been very consistent, honest, and clear about where he stands;  and from what I know of him, he does a far, far better job of "walking the walk" than most other armchair/wannabe revolutionaries here.

In other words: don't be so arrogant and condescending, AggregateDemand.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

So you guys support giving government assistance to the very wealthy?

No, I support eliminating the very wealthy (and the moderately wealthy, and the modestly wealthy) as a class, as well as eliminating the entire class system and the means by which a small group of parasites steal the value produced by ownership of segments of the earth and by the labor of the working class.

LOL, only on Atlas.

Yes, communism is actually an ideology unique to this very website.

[IceSpear]

So you guys support giving government assistance to the very wealthy?

No, I support eliminating the very wealthy (and the moderately wealthy, and the modestly wealthy) as a class, as well as eliminating the entire class system and the means by which a small group of parasites steal the value produced by ownership of segments of the earth and by the labor of the working class.

LOL, only on Atlas.

Yes, communism is actually an ideology unique to this very website.

Yes, it should probably be amended to: Only in North Korea, Cuba, and on Atlas.

[SWE]

So you guys support giving government assistance to the very wealthy?

No, I support eliminating the very wealthy (and the moderately wealthy, and the modestly wealthy) as a class, as well as eliminating the entire class system and the means by which a small group of parasites steal the value produced by ownership of segments of the earth and by the labor of the working class.

LOL, only on Atlas.

Yes, communism is actually an ideology unique to this very website.

Yes, it should probably be amended to: Only in North Korea, Cuba, and on Atlas.

what about seattle

[IceSpear]

So you guys support giving government assistance to the very wealthy?

No, I support eliminating the very wealthy (and the moderately wealthy, and the modestly wealthy) as a class, as well as eliminating the entire class system and the means by which a small group of parasites steal the value produced by ownership of segments of the earth and by the labor of the working class.

LOL, only on Atlas.

Yes, communism is actually an ideology unique to this very website.

Yes, it should probably be amended to: Only in North Korea, Cuba, and on Atlas.

what about seattle

She's a socialist, right?

[Rockefeller GOP]

So you guys support giving government assistance to the very wealthy?

No, I support eliminating the very wealthy (and the moderately wealthy, and the modestly wealthy) as a class, as well as eliminating the entire class system and the means by which a small group of parasites steal the value produced by ownership of segments of the earth and by the labor of the working class.

LOL, only on Atlas.

Yes, communism is actually an ideology unique to this very website.

Fine, let me go deeper: it's almost comical (not in a mocking or condescending way, just so unbelievable that you start to chuckle) how many RADICAL people there are on this site who then turn around and talk about how out of touch the GOP is and are appalled when a major party candidate wins one of our hypothetical elections, haha.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

To be fair TNF is hardly the embodiment of a "typical" Atlas poster; and I think he recognises his opinions are not in line with the majority of Americans.

This place really offers mostly fairly MOR opinions to be honest. Barring a few oddjobs, the vast majority of people subscribe to fairly mainstream liberal-capitalist-democratic thought.

[TNF]

Thank you for doing me the trouble of telling everyone how I feel about a specific issue without bothering to ask or seek out the facts for yourself. As a matter of fact, I think that making sure that humanity as a whole has the opportunity to grow and develop itself is in fact more important that one nation monopolizing wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. Liberals might object to 'giving the red states more than they get back', but I don't, because I'm not a liberal and I think liberalism is a plague that needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. I am a communist and sincerely believe in wiping out the capitalist system and the class which monopolizes power and wealth as a result of owning the means of generating wealth and producing and distributing goods and services.

Before you assume something about someone and the positions they take on a specific issue, you would do well to either ask that person or look through their posting history for a sampling that might give you a better idea. But I understand that might be hard work for you specifically, given that you're not used to engaging with actual ideas or policy proposals or even the worldview of people with whom you disagree, given your posting history and your outright ignorance on how the world actually works as opposed to your assumptions about how it does or how it should that stem from reading the fact free 'science' of libertarian economic theory.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, AggregateDemand. I have always been honest and forthright about my positions and I can back those up if challenged. I'm not so sure you could say the same with any scientific certainty, so I would be very careful throwing the word 'clueless' around, were I you.

You're going to try to chide people from the moral sanctity of your communist mud hut? How quaint.

No more internet for you. It was developed by capitalist pigs who wanted to spread their advertising plague across the globe in a new unregulated medium. Fight the power and such.

Actually, the Internet was invented by the United States government, but please, don't let the facts get in the way of your diatribe. And get some new material. The whole 'you're a hypocrite for using what the capitalists invented or improved upon' is rather stale, especially given that the easy answer to such an assertion is that no oppressed class or group in history has ever won without making ready use of the weapons forged by their oppressors or enemies. I have no qualms about using the Internet or anything else that might have been produced via capitalist processes to bring down capitalism, because hey, I don't actually get to choose how the past went, I have to start with the present and go from there. (Unlike you, of course, because libertarians don't actually believe in a past that actually existed, just one that they've come up with in their own heads that attributes all human success to free market fairy dust, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary)

Dodging confrontation and having to deal with facts, rather than libertarian fantasies, continues to be your strong suit.

What libertarian fantasies would those be? You're the one preaching employment for everyone, aren't you, comrade?

Yeah, full employment is such a fantasy isn't it? Except that oh yeah, most western nations had the very definition of full employment throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and definitely attained that status during World War II. What's farcical here is the assumption that because we have unemployment now, we must always have unemployment.

So you guys support giving government assistance to the very wealthy?

No, I support eliminating the very wealthy (and the moderately wealthy, and the modestly wealthy) as a class, as well as eliminating the entire class system and the means by which a small group of parasites steal the value produced by ownership of segments of the earth and by the labor of the working class.

LOL, only on Atlas.

Yes, communism is actually an ideology unique to this very website.

Fine, let me go deeper: it's almost comical (not in a mocking or condescending way, just so unbelievable that you start to chuckle) how many RADICAL people there are on this site who then turn around and talk about how out of touch the GOP is and are appalled when a major party candidate wins one of our hypothetical elections, haha.

I assume this is addressed to me, but would you mind pointing out an instance where I have ever personally said that the GOP was out of touch or out of the mainstream? I'm not sure I've ever argued anything to that extent (at least recently) because I understand that I am not in the mainstream of political thought in the United States, nor do I think that everyone is a socialist deep down inside or anything to that extent. In a lot of ways, I admire the Republican Party because it has the balls to do what it thinks is politically necessary or desirable without worrying about how much it upsets those opposed to it doing so. The Republican Party is diametrically opposed to me of course, ideologically speaking, but it is nothing to sneeze at, and I don't think I've ever suggested otherwise.

[AggregateDemand]

Actually, the Internet was invented by the United States government, but please, don't let the facts get in the way of your diatribe.

The internet was built by capitalist swines with a profit motive. You can rationalize your usage however you like. Same goes for all of the other post-industrial capitalist indulgences you like.

[TNF]

Actually, the Internet was invented by the United States government, but please, don't let the facts get in the way of your diatribe.

The internet was built by capitalist swines with a profit motive. You can rationalize your usage however you like. Same goes for all of the other post-industrial capitalist indulgences you like.

Way to completely ignore the rest of my post.

[AggregateDemand]

Way to completely ignore the rest of my post.

The rest of the post was a brief manifesto about being unable to change the past, which is basically an admission that you are ignorant to the realities of economic/social/civic history. The jab about supporting 0% unemployment means that you reject the capitalist notion of frictional unemployment, career change, and freedom of contract. In other words, people don't need to choose/change their careers. The communist government will decide for them, and they will work until the state dismisses them.

I can't acknowledge the existence of things that don't exist unless they are clearly identified as fictitious entertainment.

[muon2]

Actually, the Internet was invented by the United States government, but please, don't let the facts get in the way of your diatribe.

The internet was built by capitalist swines with a profit motive. You can rationalize your usage however you like. Same goes for all of the other post-industrial capitalist indulgences you like.

In a rare twist I must agree with TNF. The internet was initially built by federal funds either directly to agencies or more frequently to grants to research universities and defense contractors. As a college student in the 70's who had a work contract at our computer center I can attest that there was virtually no presence by private business though there were bulletin boards like the Atlas (but without the nice maps ). For most of the first two decades the internet grew out of government largesse.

It was only in the late 1980's that there came to be significant private sector involvement in both the hardware and service providers. That happened after the DoD decided to give up control of the net. Even then there wasn't much money to be made since the connections were poor and the interface quite limited. That only changed after 1992 when the World Wide Web was introduced and supplanted the nascent service provide interfaces (Source, Compuserve, AOL, etc) due to its vastly superior open architecture user interface. But even then the web was not designed for any commercial purpose but instead was a product of US and European national laboratories to facilitate easier high-volume data communication and was wholly funded by the government.

[Deus Naturae]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good to know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all, what definition of full employment are you using? During the 60's and 70's, there were unemployed people who weren't simply transitioning between jobs or just choosing not to work.

Also, WWII was a crappy time to be alive. I'm not talking about the people who were massacred or bombed (though obviously it was terrible for them too), but the average American. Shortages of vital goods due to government rationing and restriction of production meant that living standards were much lower than they could have been otherwise. Sure, you can achieve "full employment" by hiring (or forcibly conscripting) tons of people into the military or whatever other government agency you want to do the arbitrary bidding of megalomaniacal central planners, but wages are only half of the equation. In a market economy, private producers utilize labor (alongside other inputs into the production process) to produce goods that consumers (many of whom are themselves wage-earners whose labor has been used to produce these goods) want, which is signaled to producers via the market price system, which makes it more profitable to produce what consumers want more of, and less profitable to produce what they want less of. If you're just paying people wages to do whatever central planners think is "best" for society, instead of producing things that consumers have signaled their preference for, their wages are practically worthless, because they can't even be used to purchase goods that they demand. That's another reason there were production shortages during WWII when so many people were employed by the government.