Post: #151

(11-26-2016 06:15 AM)weambulance Wrote:  ^

Yes, but at a certain point our labor force will have a minimum IQ to participate. What then? I'll admit I haven't read through this thread recently but I recall not seeing a satisfactory answer to that question.

The fact is, labor with a low intelligence requirement is the easiest to replace with robots. And humanity isn't getting smarter, at least not to any appreciable degree. Thus, logically, at some point there will be a significant number of people who are simply too stupid to handle the jobs that are available. What happens to them? I don't have the answer, and nobody else does either that I've seen.

I'm not saying UBI is inevitable. I just don't know what we're going to do with low IQ people when the McJobs run out. You know, if there isn't a world war that knocks us all back a few decades first.

The world should have started mandatory sterilization of anyone under 90 IQ thirty years ago.

Post: #152

Why is everyone so accepting of Welfare for the masses?

It's never going to happen.

I'm a pretty moral, good natured guy. And do you know what I would do if I was world dictator? I'd remove reproductive capabilities of anyone below a certain intelligence threshold. If they resisted, they'd be exiled and left to fend for themselves, effectively killing them.

I believe in God, but despite that, I know that Darwin was right about a lot of things. Like survival of the fittest.

We have been coddling the weakest most useless parasites for far too long. Society would be 50 years ahead in technological advances if we didn't have all this welfare. There should be an "insurance" fund, where you can opt to put in a portion of your earnings for a certain period of unemployment payment or disability payments. It would be run like EVERY OTHER INSURANCE, and be PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT, not run by government thugs. If you don't get that insurance and something happens, tough luck, you are the weakest link, goodbye!

You guys are so wrapped up in "But what about these millions of morons?" They would never have existed without welfare in the first place! Think about it: Remove ALL forms of social welfare, how many people would die within 6 months? One year? 5 years? A generation? How many more would survive, but never find a mate (no resources) and thus never reproduce? Tens of millions. The problem solves itself as soon as people stop trying to fuck with nature.

The flaw in your thinking is that it's our RESPONSIBILITY to "correct" nature. Nature, or God, or whatever you want to call the external powers that be, knows how to ensure the success of humanity. It kills off the weakest. Your constant insistence that the weak be given welfare is the very reason the weak still exist.

EVERYONE should be given the OPPORTUNITY to excel, and indeed, in America, everyone is given that opportunity. Parents too poor to send you to college? Government pays for it. Can't get a PELL Grant? Lots of employers offer free tuition reimbursement to their employees. UPS does it for part time package handlers, and a monkey could do that job.

Also, you seem to think that everyone will want goods produced by robots. I have another insight for you: THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A MARKET FOR HUMAN MADE PRODUCTS!

Look at the Amish. They make money by selling hand-made goods. Very high quality things. Also, look at hand-stitched leather, or hand made soap, or any number of other products. Look at organic foods. If we do indeed eventually have vats that produce meat automatically, do you really think everyone is going to be satisfied with that? Of course not! There will be a sizable portion of the population that will pay a premium for milk that was hand cranked from a Cows udders. Organic beef. Cabbage grown in the ground, etc.

Also, there will be people who will pay more for handmade furniture (just like today). Handmade clothing, or candles, or any number of other things. Fucking ice sculptors for crying out loud. There's something beautiful and special about the craftsmanship of the human hand. Just the knowledge that SOMEONE MADE THIS. They poured their love and soul into creating this thing, and I OWN IT. That will ALWAYS have a value.

Post: #153

^ Ok how about if that goes well then they think damn let's raise the bar to John Galt's level of IQ to get rid him and everyone at his intellect or lower. There are a lot of people smarter than him we can even advance quicker!

We could also take people the day they retire out back and be rid of them too no matter how smart they are.

Post: #154

You don't get it.

It's not being Hitler. You're not just killing people you don't like.

You simply don't give the weak assistance, and they die on their own. That's how nature works. Removing reproductive capabilities is simply a way of hastening the natural result.

Post: #155

The half of the US population that receives gov. handouts wouldn't just go out behind the shed and die, there would be mass upheaval. And people who possess the characteristics needed to succeed today (high IQ) may find their characteristics aren't as important in a chaotic world turned upside down.

Negative incentives for government handouts could be interesting. For example set a date 9 months in the future and anyone receiving handouts who has a child after then gets their handout halved or something along those lines.

Post: #156

I'd bet my ass that a small, resource rich group of high-IQ, high trained individuals would kill/destroy a large group of low-IQ, untrained, idiot masses with access to limited food, water, resources and weapons any day of the weak.

You think the Baltimore riots couldn't have been taken care of? They could have shut down that crap in 2 hours if they wanted. The national guard could have stopped that as soon as the order was given. They simply don't have the intelligence necessary, nor the resources, to mount an effective attack against a highly trained and intelligent enemy. It's that simple.

Post: #157

If your plan is to just cut off the resources of the dumb people and even sterilize them, that's just ridiculous. It will never fly, and it's not worth considering.

Post: #158

^

People said the same thing about Trump. Look where we are.

But aside from that, I'm not a politician, so my views are merely theoretical.

Also, although I appreciate you giving me the credit, this isn't "my" plan, it's the plan of nature. It's been that way since the dawn of man. Those unfit do not survive, and even those that somehow manage to survive, do not reproduce.

Post: #159

Rather than let them die, the most feasible political solution is mandatory birth control. I talked about it in the Future of America thread.

Post: #160

I think your plan is far too forgiving. You let them have 3 kids THEN cut them off? They already set up future generations for failure. You're not stopping anything. It's a Hydra.

Post: #161

(11-28-2016 06:07 PM)John_Galt Wrote:  I think your plan is far too forgiving. You let them have 3 kids THEN cut them off? They already set up future generations for failure. You're not stopping anything. It's a Hydra.

Nah man, I seriously doubt most will get past 1 kid. Cultural reinforcements and stigmas are very powerful on women. Just the fact they are required to use birth control will make them feel very bad.

At 2 kids the birth control they are required to use is so invasive the chances of them having another is probably less than 1%.

Post: #162

I admit, your plan would be far more likely to succeed, politically speaking, than mine, but I'd rather just cut the head off the snake once and for all: No welfare. Period.

As Frank Underwood said: "You are entitled to nothing."

Post: #163

^

What you would prefer, and what the bulk of Americans would actually support, are very different things. What you have not yet addressed at all is human nature.

It would take a generation to convince Americans that mandatory birth control (some kind of temporary, long term, reversible method) should be required for welfare. It will take several generations to rid ourselves of the welfare state entirely, if that is even possible.

If we're going to make any progress at all, we need to cut the legs out from under the progressives. We need to destroy their platform, destroy their methods of cheating, and break their stranglehold on the minds of the youth. The more we enable them to play the "Republicans/Conservatives are just rich white people who hate the poor" card, the less likely we are to succeed at any of it.

One concrete step we can take is stop giving people money for welfare. Stop cutting them checks. They want housing and food and clothes, fine, they can live in a government apartment and pick up their government food and clothes at the distribution center. If they want cash, they'd better find a job.

Post: #164

Don't let the left brainwash you.

I think there are far more reasonable people than you imagine.

Welfare is ridiculous. We cannot sustain 20 trillion in debt forever. It just can't last. So "if we even can" isn't a debate. It's "how long can we afford it?" And the answer is this: A lot less longer than you'd hope.

Like it or not, when shit hits the fan, the freebies are going to be cut first. I don't get how people think we NEED to give people free shit because they were born. NO! That's what your family is for. There's no family? Find a church. Oh, no churches? Too bad. You reap what you sow.

Post: #165

John Galt, you're preaching to the choir.

Realistically, I don't think welfare will be cut off in Western countries. I think it will be expanded and eventually become some form of UBI.

Sometimes I wish there were a new continent, like America back in the old days, where we could just move and start from scratch. Unfortunately, there isn't.

A more realistic option is to legally minimize or even eliminate your taxes and move to a cheap country like Thailand or Phils where there is little or no welfare. Here is an excellent blog post buy a guy who has over a million dollars in savings and doesn't pay income tax: http://www.gocurrycracker.com/never-pay-taxes-again/

Post: #166

I'm not preaching to the choir though.

Several well-respected members have stated their support for welfare. They're too kind-hearted to accept the brutality of nature. It's silly. Saying welfare "can't be cut off" is an illogical argument. It can't be continued indefinitely. It cannot be sustained. SOMETHING has to break.

Post: #167

The left isn't brainwashing me. You just apparently don't understand human nature in this context, or what drives politics in this country.

How are you going to couch your proposals in palatable rhetoric, precisely? Because as this last election has proved quite thoroughly, that's the only way to communicate with 95% of the voting public. Most people literally cannot understand what you're trying to say, the way you're trying to say it.

I'm perfectly aware that what we're doing is not sustainable. But my approach actually has a chance to work. Yours doesn't. Keep preaching about turning off welfare, and absolutely nothing will change right up to the day we do have a war or some kind of financial collapse.

In addition to what I stated in my last post, we should also be putting serious effort into making energy cheap. Cheaper energy = cheaper subsistence costs for people on welfare, besides generally being an enormous boon to the prosperity of our society. That too will require stripping away progressive ideas and control, which we have to be in power to do. If we become the party of "rich white assholes who hate poor brown people" because we want to cut welfare, we'll simply hand the reins of power right back to the progressives.

It took 100 years to get us where we are, in small incremental steps. It's not going to just change to a sensible situation overnight. That's ridiculous, and recognizing that fact doesn't make us "supporters of welfare". We just recognize that for the near future, welfare is going nowhere, and it's a huge waste of time, energy, and goodwill to try to force the issue.

Post: #168

Here's my rhetoric:

"It's over folks. I'm sorry. We're losing HUGE amounts of money via Welfare programs. It's terrible folks, just terrible. We have to produce folks, we just have to produce. We're going to take the welfare money, and we're going to use it to create jobs. Jobs for everyone. You want a job? You get a job. Period. Everyone get's a job. But we have to stop the welfare. We can't give away stuff anymore."

Post: #169

Here's a play by play:

Post: #170

I also am not sure how "unsustainable" welfare is, tax wise. Fact is welfare payments for food and shelter are quite low. It's welfare for healthcare which is super expensive, but as far as welfare for basic stuff it's very affordable and with proper birth control it wouldn't be much of a burden.

Universal healthcare is a disaster, however, and Trump can get costs down but as long as there is a universal mandate healthcare costs will never go below pre-Obamacare days. Trumpcare will be cheaper than Obamacare but not as cheap as it was pre-Obamacare.

Post: #171

Welfare is welfare.

"If you don't work, you don't eat."

It's that simple.

Another good idea:

If you don't pay taxes, you don't vote.

What's with the pro-socialist attitudes here? (Welfare is a soft form of socialism, for the record)

BTW federal spending on welfare programs eclipses everything else.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ternet-mi/

Post: #172

So, you don't have any solutions or practical plans at all. If you tried that "this is the truth, build a bridge and get over it" shit your whole party would get fucked bigly in the next election.

And since I apparently wasn't clear before, calling us "pro-socialist" is intellectually dishonest bullshit. Observation of reality is not endorsement. What you're trying to pull is of the same caliber of argument as a woman claiming I'm sexist because I say women are weaker than men.

Nothing you've said is new to me, you know. I feel like I'm arguing with myself from 5 years ago. Fortunately I grew out of the stubborn idealism phase because it's worse than useless in actually changing minds and getting shit done.

Post: #173

(11-29-2016 12:46 AM)John_Galt Wrote:  Welfare is welfare.

"If you don't work, you don't eat."

It's that simple.

Another good idea:

If you don't pay taxes, you don't vote.

What's with the pro-socialist attitudes here? (Welfare is a soft form of socialism, for the record)



BTW federal spending on welfare programs eclipses everything else.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...ternet-mi/

This is what the guys say right before the revolutionaries chop their heads off and put them into the basket.

And I say that as a guy who's never received a dime of welfare in his life, and never plans to.

Edit: Phrased more succinctly, "You are entitled to nothing" means that you're not entitled to say, not having a mob of starving peasants break down the walls of your gated community, rape your wife and daughters, torture you to death, and take all your shit.

If you want to tell me that the current setup is bad, or that it's incentivizing people to slack off when there are good jobs they could take, or that we'd be better off offloading welfare to private charity than using the government, these are all useful arguments to have.

But if you're simply going to take a "Fuck you, what's mine is mine" stance, do not be surprised when the response is "Fuck you, what's yours is mine."

Post: #174

It seems like we're devolving from intellectual discourse into personal insults, so I'm going to hit some other threads after this post.

Observation of reality: Welfare serves no useful function for the contributing members of society. "They aren't trying to kill us." is not a function. That's like paying the mafia not to rough you up. This is madness.

"I'm not pro-socialism, I just accept reality." Ok. So I don't understand what we're doing here, trying to make a political platform? I thought we were just having an intellectual discussion, I didn't realize we were trying to get voted into office.

As for the "stubborn idealism" comment, you've failed to produce any evidence that show's my views are completely unrealistic. Give people a choice: Either you get your taxes cut by 50% or you keep welfare---you're suggesting to me there isn't a comparable number of people who would be motivated to vote for a 50% reduction in taxes compared to those irate about losing welfare? What percentage of the country in on welfare? What percentage pays taxes? Exactly. No one has ever tried the policies I've put forth here, just like prior to Trump, no one tried his policies. Likewise, what i'm proposing hasn't been tried before. There's no comparable politician in recent American history to base your judgements on. That's why I said don't let the left brainwash you. It's just like this homo-tranny acceptance bullshit. MOST people aren't on that train. They just think everyone else is, due to Facebook promoting that shit and the MSM giving it blanket coverage. Thus the regular, mentally healthy people are AFRAID to say what they really think. And this gives the perception that "everyone" likes fags. It's just not in line with reality.

Anyways, it has been an enjoyable conversation. If we can cut out the insults and such, I would very much enjoy continuing it.

Post: #175

(11-29-2016 01:13 AM)John_Galt Wrote:  It seems like we're devolving from intellectual discourse into personal insults, so I'm going to hit some other threads after this post.

Observation of reality: Welfare serves no useful function for the contributing members of society. "They aren't trying to kill us." is not a function. That's like paying the mafia not to rough you up. This is madness.

If I remember right, welfare was established in the US primarily to keep the communist party from coming to power. Without it, we could've easily gone down the road of Stalin. I'm not sure why "Not being killed by an angry, starving mob" isn't a function. I don't like being killed by angry, starving mobs, and I assume you don't either. "This is madness" is not an argument.

Quote:"I'm not pro-socialism, I just accept reality." Ok. So I don't understand what we're doing here, trying to make a political platform? I thought we were just having an intellectual discussion, I didn't realize we were trying to get voted into office.

As for the "stubborn idealism" comment, you've failed to produce any evidence that show's my views are completely unrealistic. Give people a choice: Either you get your taxes cut by 50% or you keep welfare---you're suggesting to me there isn't a comparable number of people who would be motivated to vote for a 50% reduction in taxes compared to those irate about losing welfare? What percentage of the country in on welfare? What percentage pays taxes? Exactly. No one has ever tried the policies I've put forth here, just like prior to Trump, no one tried his policies. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WOULD VOTE FOR. There's no comparable politician in recent American history to base your judgements on. That's why I said don't let the left brainwash you. It's just like this homo-tranny acceptance bullshit. MOST people aren't on that train. They just think everyone else is, due to Facebook promoting that shit and the MSM giving it blanket coverage. Thus the regular, mentally healthy people are AFRAID to say what they really think. And this gives the perception that "everyone" likes fags. It's just not in line with reality.

The largest form of welfare in this country is social security/medicare/medicaid. It is an immensely popular program, one of the most popular, in fact. There's a reason that it's considered the "third rail" of American politics. Numerous political careers have been dashed on the rocks trying to change it. If your argument is that everyone hates this wildly popular program, very well, but the burden of proof is definitely on you.