... people that can produce more wealth end up with less wealth ...

You're onto something there. The workers who's sweat and knowledge builds and maintains the United States are getting less and less of the wealth that they create.

and people that produce less wealth than they receive from the government should be expected to continue producing a deficit.

... people that produce less wealth than they receive ...

Such as children and the elderly?

Actually it's because he's a Jew.

Actually he is a Christian.

Thanks, though, for reminding us of your prejudices.

Families can provide for their children and elderly.

People that collect welfare are usually inherently reluctant or unable to produce wealth, and since they have no need to produce wealth because the welfare state will provide for them, they certainly cannot be expected to produce wealth in a welfare state.

The welfare state has a two-fold destructive effect on the economy:

the "haves" have an incentive to produce less, since more will be taken from them, and the "have nots" will also have an incentive to produce less, since they will receive money anyway.

Edited 10/29/2017 04:52:51

Families can provide for their children...

There are 3144 counties in the United States of America. In the store where I work, which is located in one of the 20 richest counties of the country, formula for infants is kept in a locked cabinet.

This is the only class of food so treated.

I'm with Cata. Centrism FTW

Speaking of popular ideologies, Dr. Jonathan Swift has a proposal for people who have difficulties feeding their children. His proposal is looked upon with approval by free market libertarians, and parents rights advocates the world over.

Notwithstanding the fact that his essay was written 288 years ago, its ideas are so sound that it is incredible that they have not yet been put into practice.

Dr. Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal: http://www.secret-satire-society.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Jonathan-Swift-A-Modest-Proposal.pdf

Edited 10/29/2017 06:05:21

WTF HPW DID TAGGY POST THAT AT 7:26 THAT'S 46 MINUTES IN THE FUTURE

Explain

Evidence?

No. I just forgot to change the WL settings sine BST ended this morning

Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society

Democracy and socialism lead to rising social and institutional time-preferences; people that can produce more wealth end up with less wealth (because the state collects it). The result is a shrinking ability for those with the skills to build capital to invest long-term, and a decline in overall capital for everyone, since the capitalist can pay less workers, and the state has progressively less and less to collect from taxes. Technological progress slows, poverty increases, and IQ drops. Eventually civilization ends and humans revert to barbarism.

In capitalism, those who produce more wealth (i.e. the workers) end up with less wealth because the capitalists collect it (surplus value). Thus a capitalist can earn thousands or millions of times as much as a hard-working person.

In socialism, there's no such thing as capitalists. Instead companies are collectively owned and their produced wealth may be spent on the population as a whole (e.g. in the form of universal education, welfare...) or higher wages for the local workers, employing more, expanding the industry, ... The fact is, however, since there is no longer this parasitic class of capitalists taking big parts of the wealth, there's more wealth to give back in reward to the workers. Thus those who produce more wealth end up with more wealth in socialism.

Syndicalism is the only non-retarded ideology the left has ever produced, sorry commie but you're an autist.

I agree with the turk for once.

Centrism doesn't mean anything.

Take Person A who is anti-gun, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-immigration, anti-free market, and anti-environmentalism. Person A holds the same number of left-wing policies as right-wing policies and therefore is a centrist.

Now take Person B who is pro-gun, pro-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-immigration, pro-free market, and pro-environmentalism. Person B holds the same number of left-wing policies as right-wing policies and therefore is a centrist.

Both people are centrists and yet they couldn't be farther apart from what they want their government to look like. Centrism isn't a coherent way to govern. Most Centrists disagree with each other. People who call themselves "Centrists" just want to avoid the shitstorm between right and left regardless of how inconsistent their own views are.

Edited 10/29/2017 22:23:11

Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.

In Robert Heinlein's novel Friday, the hero of the story is given an assignment by her employer. She is asked to identify the symptoms of decaying/dying society. She names many symptoms but the most important is the following:

A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than a riot. The symptom is especially serious in that an individual displaying it never thinks of it as a sign of ill health or poor breeding, but as proof of his / her strength.

I am persuaded that Heinlein was correct about this.

Centrism doesn't mean anything.

Take Person A who is anti-gun, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-immigration, anti-free market, and anti-environmentalism. Person A holds the same number of left-wing policies as right-wing policies and therefore is a centrist.

Now take Person B who is pro-gun, pro-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-immigration, pro-free market, and pro-environmentalism. Person B holds the same number of left-wing policies as right-wing policies and therefore is a centrist.

Both people are centrists and yet they couldn't be farther apart from what they want their government to look like. Centrism isn't a coherent way to govern. Most Centrists disagree with each other. People who call themselves "Centrists" just want to avoid the shitstorm between right and left regardless of how inconsistent their own views are.

Thats not the point. The point of centrism is that you don't always need to go to the extremes. Not allowing ALL guns, not allowing ALL abortions, etc etc.
Centrists just want compromises. Like allowing free-trade in general, but installing some restrictions like minimum wage, marternal leave, etc. Sure people can disagree on certain issues, but that isn't limited to centrism, like you say. Every ideology has room for arguments, and the more extreme ones tend to have more.

right guys let's just have a compromise on the holocaust and only kill 3 million jews