patrick.net

Reality's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 5246 - 5285 of 5,285     Last »

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 8:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

This is fucking asinine. You consider a 10 or 20 in 100,000 risk of death in childbearing (or abortion) to be the equivalent of the 100% risk of a man losing control over half his life to be equitable???

What do you mean by "losing control over half his life"? If the man is so poor that he can not afford to live a life after paying child support, perhaps he should get a vasectomy if not abstain from sex altogether.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 8:48am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

The average child support in this country is only around $430/mo, the median is less than $300/mo. What kind of losers are we really talking about that would "lose control over their life" due to that little payment? Indentured servitude? Holy shit, what then do you call $2000-5000/mo income tax? or $500/mo property tax? Perhaps men who can not set aside $300/mo should pre-emptively get vasectomy?

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 8:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

mell says

This reasoning only works in a patriarchy though which we currently clearly do not have. If the man is expected to pay he would have explicit control over who has the child (custody) and could also direct the woman's actions for the best of their family (no matter if they are married or not). If you are the provider, you are also the dictator.

Men can easily do that when he voluntarily pays double or more of the legal requirement for child support, like I'm doing with my ex-wife. She is much more compliant than she ever was while still married. Giving the women custody and paying them sufficient child support to raise the children while the men still being involved to provide fatherly guidance and love is highly advantageous to all involved: the women and children are taken care of, and the competent men can have more time to make more children with decent genetic stock.

Likewise, if the man wants his cum dumpster to abort, all he needs to do is pay her enough to compensate for her physical and emotional pain. The threshold is not that high for most girls. As for those men who can not afford either, of course they ought to be drafted into paying for their own spawn before any of the rest of us is drafted into paying.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 8:59am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

1. & 2. If you don't like the driving analogy, then how about running and knocking over someone?

3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.

4. Child support formulae are not based on 100%, but based on both parents sharing the responsibility. That's why joint and equal physical custody in the same town usually would result in ZERO child support payment. However, for most couples, the men are much more productive in employment, so it makes sense for one party to contribute more time while the other contribute more money. On average $430/mo, median less than $300/mo, that is not nearly enough to raise a child, but simply the difference in terms of time and effort between the two parents.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Reality says

3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.........right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You GENIUS you!!!!

A man tricks a woman into bed and the next morning she wakes up regretting her decision (like she's done many times before) and this is the same as being forced by the government to pay her money for 18 or more years.

Yes, it's called being responsible for one's own behavior. After the man deposits sperm inside a woman, he has about as much right to cry regret rape as the woman who willing slept with the man the night before; i.e. none whatsoever!

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says

3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.

How so? Women don't enjoy sex and make a conscious decision? Again, this is an advocacy for a patriarchy were women are not up to par with men mentally. I am not saying that this isn't the case, there's lots of discussion about biological differences (feelings vs rationality), but you cannot have it both ways. If women demand (and already have gotten more than) equality, then there is no tricking into sex (by either side), only a conscious rational choice (knowing the risks well).

I think you touched on the real answer: feelings vs. rationality. If women were entirely rationally calculating her risk of death in the stone age regarding pregnancy, none of us would be here. One can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy, with the force of 300,000 years of evolution telling her to keep it. Any men taking the risk of dumping live sperm inside her has to cope with the consequences before any of us are required to pitch in. Unless we pass laws for infanticide when the father refuses or is incapable of paying support, we have to make the father pay, so that he is not off to knock up even more young fertile women, which are limiting resources in terms of human reproduction. "Ooops, Sorry!" is not good enough! You break it, you keep it! You knock her up, you pay for the spawn! Simple enough.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Raising children costs a lot of resources. That's just reality. It's quite unrealistic to expect most women to be able to do it entirely on their own. It's either the biological fathers stepping up or being forced to step up to take responsibility for their own actions, or the rest of us taxpayers having to pay for the spawn. I'm not sure why Iwog and Dan are so fond of being cuckolded by criminal bad boys who want to shirk their paternal responsibility after taking up room in young and fertile reproductive systems.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

mell says

One can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy, with the force of 300,000 years of evolution telling her to keep it.

Fine, then we cannot allow women to make important decisions while they are PMSing (which can be all the time these days) - maybe they should be restricted to the kitchen and living room during that period ;)

Perhaps more importantly, the founding fathers had it right in restricting voting right to adult males meeting property ownership requirement.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Reality says

ne can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy

Nominated as the most misogynous statement ever made on PatNet. Also, this is proof that one can be both a misogynous and a misandrist.

Nope, just scientific fact; aka Red Pill Reality. You apparently never dealt with pregnant women up close and personal. Like I said before, you argue like a feminist SJW type living in a petri dish.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

The real world where a woman has three distinct ways of removing ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PREGNANCY AFTER SEX. What fucking world do you live in where you keep lying about it?

All of which involve more pain, more emotional stress, more medical safety risk, and more bleeding than the man having a vasectomy.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Still agree with your hero YesYnot? I get a vote and you don't. LOL

There wouldn't be a comprehensive welfare system if the male losers and women were not allowed to vote. In that case, women would be forced into choosing competent and supportive men for mating. Then the child support issue is taken care of on its own, as would be a number of other inter-gender issues that we are currently facing.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

All of which involve more pain, more emotional stress, more medical safety risk, and more bleeding than the man having a vasectomy.

Oh boo fucking hoo.........she has some pain and/or stress for a little while. You think it's easy for a man who shares the stress and has the added bonus of not having any control at all?

How much pain and stress does a man feel knowing he's going to have to pay a woman he probably doesn't like money for 18 years, he'll get put in prison if he doesn't, and meanwhile she has nearly all the power over the child? How many men commit suicide because of this?

He can avoid all of that by having a vasectomy, which is a lot easier to do and less painful/risky than either abortion or female sterilization.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:35am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

There wouldn't be a comprehensive welfare system if the male losers and women were not allowed to vote. In that case, women would be forced into choosing competent and supportive men for mating. Then the child support issue is taken care of on its own, as would be a number of other inter-gender issues that we are currently facing.

Oh I wasn't debating your stupid and childish viewpoint. I was just saying that YesYNot idolized you right before she figured out what a fucktard you actually are. I found it funny.

Not stupid or childish at all. Just pointing out the fact. Do I want to remove all women from voting? No. However, some kind of property requirement and tax payment requirement would go a long way towards weeding out the free-riders creating more free-ride schemes and turning a democracy into an ochlocracy.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:38am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

He can avoid all of that by having a vasectomy, which is a lot easier to do and less painful/risky than either abortion or female sterilization.

So he can mutilate himself and prevent any future children just to try and gain some equity over all the choices and abilities to abandon all responsibility that women are guaranteed under the law.

That makes sense. How about this? Equal protection where men and women are treated as equals.

Abortion is mutilating the woman too. Whatever right the woman has regarding abandoning the child, either before or after birth, the man can easily access by paying the woman (into either abortion or giving up for adoption). What you are arguing for, is for a loser man who is too dumb to use either persuasion or money to achieve his goal, but somehow he should have the right to foist his spawn on the rest of us! Makes me think you are a socially incompetent loser yourself.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Not stupid or childish at all.

Like I said, I found it amusing that you voiced your stupid and childish opinion right after YesYNot thought you were pretty smart. I don't really care what your reasons are for being stupid and childish. That's your business.

You are just making content-free arguments. Of course I'm smart: I'm smart enough to both recognize what the Founding Fathers did was correct, and smart enough to recognize that going back there entirely is not feasible, now that more women are more educated, and some women may actually be smarter and more rational than you.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:45am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

You think so? Well how about this. The implications of your system is that the REAL losers, those men without a job or a purpose in life, are the ones who face no consequences whatsoever, who can make 50 babies if he wants and stick them up your ass because you'll be paying the taxes, and laugh at how stupid you were for giving him a pass.

Nope. I advocate mandatory contraception as condition for receiving welfare benefits, both both men and women (and mothers of children have to name the father in order to receive welfare, consequently have the mandatory contraception applied to the father too). Such a loser man would have vasectomy either before or after his first child.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:47am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Reality says

Nope. I advocate mandatory contraception as condition for receiving welfare benefits, both both men and women (and mothers of children have to name the father in order to receive welfare, consequently have the mandatory contraception applied to the father too). Such a loser man would have vasectomy either before or after his first child.

Aaaaaaaand there's the transition into fascism. Brilliant.

What fascism? Welfare is fascism as it uses coercion for distribution of resources. What I propose is just a rational condition for receiving welfare, so the skullduggery that you brought up would not be able to exploit and enlarge the welfare fascist state.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Probably because you're either a blue pill mangina or still lying about your gender.

I'm still married and my wife is more content than any other woman I know, especially among my extended family.

That's pretty funny for a man living his life according to female reproductive preference -- life-long monogamy.

Your wife's reproductive system has aged past usefulness, but yours has not.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 9:53am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Reality says

What fascism? Welfare is fascism as it uses coercion for distribution of resources.

Actually welfare isn't fascism because it's generally agreed by the majority to be a good thing. If you don't like it, Somalia awaits you. Making sterilization mandatory however is fascism.

Fascism usually have the support of the overwhelming majority of the population. Long term contraception does not have to involve sterilization. In any case, mandatory sterilization started in the US before in it started in Germany. What I propose is condition for receiving welfare, not mandatory on anyone per se, just a condition for receiving welfare. It's far more effective in the long run than mandating work as condition for receiving welfare.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

In American society women have 100% of the power to decide the future of her pregnancy and 0% of the responsibility if they so choose.

In American society Men have 0% of the power to decide the future of her pregnancy and 100% of the responsibility if she chooses.

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that pregnancy is taking place _inside_ her?

Look, vasectomy is a lot less painful, less risky, and involves less bleeding than tying the tubes inside a women. Do you think the woman should be legally empowered to decide whether her man gets a vasectomy?

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

He can avoid all of that by having a vasectomy, which is a lot easier to do and less painful/risky than either abortion or female sterilization.

That's bullshit. Abortion is safe, even safer than modern childbirth.

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:18am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Abortion is mutilating the woman too.

Most forms of abortion involve more bleeding than vasectomy; so if vasectomy is called "mutilation" then abortion certainly is mutilation. Dan, when it comes to feeling vs. rational thinking regarding women vs. men, I'm inclined to classify you on the side of women thinking with feelings instead of rationality.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Reality says

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that pregnancy is taking place _inside_ her?

And a child takes place inside a man's wallet and physical labor.

My body my choice remember?

Not when it comes to being assigning responsibility regarding consequences of one's actions.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Reality says

Most forms of abortion involve more bleeding than vasectomy; so if vasectomy is called "mutilation" then abortion certainly is mutilation.

ROFLOL.............um...............menstruation? GOD IS MUTILATING WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

What's your point? Cutting a woman should be legal if it involves less bleeding than menstuation?

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Not when it comes to being assigning responsibility regarding consequences of one's actions.

Unless you're a woman...........

How the fuck can you be so stupid?

What are you talking about? The woman has to endure the physical aspects of pregnancy. Nobody is doing that for her. Unless she gives up raising the child, she is very much required to raise the child. BTW, if your argument is that women should be required to pay surtax just like child support if she gives up the child after giving birth, then I might be inclined to agree with you. In fact, if the woman gives up the child after birth, and the father usually has the right of first refusal! If he takes the child, the mother would indeed be required to pay him child support!

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Reality says

What's your point?

My point is measuring mutilation by the amount of blood involved, which is exactly what you did, is ridiculous and I ridiculed you for it.

That is certainly a valid measurement. Abortions usually involve much more bleeding than menstuation.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

The woman has to endure the physical aspects of pregnancy.

Or not. She can simply take a morning after pill.

You are clueless. The morning after pill prevents implantation. There is no pregnancy involved.

iwog says

Reality says

Unless she gives up raising the child, she is very much required to raise the child.

You mean unless she decides otherwise, she can do what she wants?

Just like a man can decide not to ejaculate.

iwog says

Reality says

In fact, if the woman gives up the child after birth, and the father usually has the right of first refusal!

Unless of course she has decided to leave his name off the birth certificate.

The man can litigate to seek custody. What's your point? Leaving his name off the BC is just like the man can run off and disappear.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Reality says

That is certainly a valid measurement.

Exactly!! So since it's a valid measurement, god is mutilating women. You're so smart.

You are the dumb ass who thinks menstuation is mutilation. Menstuation bleeding is just like nose bleeding, no mutilation involved. However, if you want to compare mutilations, bleeding severity is certainly a valid measurement.

iwog says

Abortions usually involve much more bleeding than menstuation.

So does giving birth you twit.

What's your point? Tax is usually more than child support.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:37am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

You are clueless. The morning after pill prevents implantation. There is no pregnancy involved.

This event occurs after conception, after the man has already lost control of his life.

Paraphrasing your own argument: God condemns the man into losing control of his life. LOL! Perhaps you should stop depositing sperm inside women if you are incapable of persuading her what to do with it? Conception has no legal standing.

iwog says

Just like a man can decide not to ejaculate.

This occurs before conception.

Conception has no legal standing.

iwog says

The man can litigate to seek custody.

Unless she decides he can't and the courts will always side with her.

Not when she is already giving up custody.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

Nope, you are. You measured the amount of harm based on the amount of lost blood. It's YOUR argument. It's YOUR metric. According to your logic, giving birth is EXTREME mutilation.

You should think about these things before you pull arguments out yer ass.

When talking about the severity of mutilation, you have to have mutilation to begin with. Menstuation, nose-bleeding and all-natural child births do not involve mutilation to begin with, just natural bleeding. Abortion and surgical child birth however do involve mutilation.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 11:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

iwog says

When talking about the severity of mutilation, you have to have mutilation to begin with. Menstuation, nose-bleeding and all-natural child births do not involve mutilation to begin with, just natural bleeding. Abortion and surgical child birth however do involve mutilation.

Dance monkey, dance!

Live birth involves far more mutilation than having your tubes tied. You've obviously never examined a real woman.

Why am I not surprised by your strawman tactics. I said "all-natural child birth" as opposed to "surgical child birth" whereas you dumb ass wanted to talk about "live birth."

In other words, you already conceded the point! LOL!

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 11:14am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

Whether or not a procedure is safe is not relevant to the fact that it's a human rights violation to force it upon another person, especially a medical procedure that has no medical purpose. Your argument is identical to requiring women to have a transvaginal sonogram before getting an abortion. It is morally abhorrent and illegal, and quite frankly despicable and disturbing.

Nope. Men choosing to have vasectomy undertake the procedure for a very clear medical purpose: avoiding depositing sperm in a woman while enjoying sex. You may want to try that, Dan, considering what a loser you are.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 11:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. A man does not give up his rights simply for having consensual recreational sex. Your statement is as logical as saying that a person gives up his right to bear arms if he ever orders a happy meal from McDonald's.

He acquires a probabilistic responsibility when he deposits sperm in a fertile woman.

Hell, I could make a far better case that people who have children give up their rights to possess firearms because guns in the home are a danger to children. You want to go there?

Only in your deranged mind.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 5, 10:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Two words: Independent Contractor.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 7, 9:52pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

bob2356 says

Venezuela is socialist like Somalia is capitalist, with the same results. Even that great socialist rag the WSJ can see the difference. Too bad ironbrain doesn't have a clue. . http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/04/07/venezuelas-not-suffering-from-socialism-but-from-anti-marketism/#7003a9a42b5348c87cf42b53

Somalian economy and living standards improved much faster under their brief period of anarchy in the 1990's than they ever did under socialism: even under no central government protection, the private enterprises built the wireless network for the country, while its former peers continuing on Somalia's previous socialist trajectory, Cuba and North Korea, saw central government active banning of personal computers and wireless phones.

Tim Worstall's article proves only his own economic illiteracy. Share holding and partnership by private individual choice is not socialism. When Goldman Sachs was a partnership, each partner chose to be part of the partnership . . . quite unlike socialism where everyone is forced into nominal ownership while exercising no management control except the very top 0.001% who garners the real benefit of "state ownership." Worstall utterly fails to realize that when productive capital is not competitively owned by different individuals (or groups of individuals by individual member choice), the myriads of difference uses of a piece of "capital" can not be optimized. Banning competitive market on "capital" (as in "socialism") inevitably lead to waste of capital and resources, just like banning competitive market on consumer goods. There is no clear line between what is "capital" vs. what is "consumer goods." Many "consumer goods" can be turned into productive use and become "capital." A competitive market place is necessary to ensure efficient use. When the revolutionaries took over the French royal library, the revolutionaries had no qualms about burning the books and the furniture to keep themselves warm! That's how state bureaucrats would treat "capital" when they exercise management control while have no ownership.

"Socialism" is just a 19th century new word for serfdom (and slavery) that was rapidly going out of fashion under the pressure of relative free market capitalism practices that became mainstream in the 18th century. "Political mandate" is just another way of saying "The Divine Right of the King" to override individual choices. They even say "crowning" regarding politicians winning elections!

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 10, 3:10am   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (1)     quote      

Dan8267 says

unless of course, they can find someone cheaper.

Exactly, and that's exactly Patrick's point too: if women were indeed paid less than men for doing the same work, employers would replace male employees with female workers en mass.

Incidentally, shopping for less expensive alternative is what everyone does most of the time, including you, Dan. Capitalistic Free Market is the recognition of this red pill reality. Socialism is blue pill endoctrination for the masses while inevitably allowing a few socialpaths rise to the top through government coercion. There were plenty bleeding heart liberals among Russians who participated in the overthrow of the Czarist regime, but once state coercion was expanded, they all became hapless victims of the Bolsheviks, even the more intellectual Bolsheviks became purge victims of Stalin and his secret police. Only the scums rise to the top in socialism / state-slavery / bureaucratic societies.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Feb 13, 7:33am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

1. Inflation would help debtors only if the subsequent inflation rate exceeds the existing inflation expectation at the time the debt is incurred. Otherwise, the expected inflation would just work into interest rate. The constant 2% theory would not work in real life, except for cooking up some accounting gains ripe for taxation; in other words detrimental to real economic growth.

2. Post-1913 recession length count is affected by an econometric artifact: it takes time for new money to work through the system and drive up prices. That causes a statistical delay in the GDP deflator, resulting in an over-statement of GDP when the government is goosing the economy. That is on top of the problem of GDP count itself counting the full nominal value of government waste. How does the recovery since 2009 feel? For most people it feels like a continuation of long recession. Started in 2008 if not 2000 (dot-com crash)

3. Declining product price does not necessarily lead to lack of investment in new industry, just witness the computer and telecom equipment industry in the past 3 decades: prices constantly dropped yet the tech industry grew rapidly. In reality, artificially low interest rate and central bank engineered boom actually would divert capital resources towards non-productive and less productive enterprises, such as low interest government loan to bail out obsolete players (say, typewriter makers, union infested carmakers and big banking conglomerate too ponderous to adjust), and the so-called "content businesses" of literature majors when it is the technology that brings the high growth.

4. The late 19th century long recession was the result of government subsidized railroads going bust. In other words, another instance of government induced boom causing bust.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Apr 20, 5:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

tatupu70 says

Abe Lincoln is well known for having large debts in the White House and he turned out OK.

I wouldn't call someone causing more than 600,000 American combat deaths as "turned out ok." Compared to total population of the time, that's equivalent to 7 million deaths today! More than double the total number of people in the entire military now! That 620k military death toll from Civil War did not even count the civilian deaths caused by the war.

Lincoln being a heavy debtor may well have had a lot to do with his preference for heavy handed war mongering and government intervention: to reduce the real purchasing power of his debt. He was also behind the Greenback money printing scheme.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2016 Apr 21, 12:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

There is one major problem with Tubman: helping organizing John Brown's deadly terrorist attack on Federal property.

  Reality   ignore (5)   2017 Jun 29, 10:59pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote      

Tall parents tend to give births to tall offsprings, who tend to be advantaged in basketball. Short parents tend to give births to short offsprings, who tend to live longer. Should government ban both tall people and short people for their respective "unfair" advantages? thereby banning everyone?

Likewise, IQ is highly heritable. Higher IQ people tend to make more money and be more successful in their lives, lower IQ people tend to be more easily content with their lives (i.e. subjectively happier, for the same level of material well being; unless they are disturbed by agitators). Should government ban both high IQ people and low IQ people? thereby banning everyone?

What exactly is wrong with children taking after their parents? What would be the point of mate selection if outcome were completely random and not affected by the characteristics of parents at all? We know good-looking people tend to produce good-looking offpsrings; would you want a government that mandates disfiguring all newborns just to make it "fair" for everyone? "Fair" to whom?

Why shouldn't height and good-looks be taxed if earning power is to be taxed? Should the law mandate all good-looking girls to be raped? just like people making more money are raped (the word came from "rapine" or pillage) in their wallets? This may not be an entirely academic question for hard-core Marxists, as it is the logic conclusion to a policy of making everyone equal in a biological world where females are hypergamous (they choose mates based on unequalness, the very basis of mate selection, one of the primary drivers of evolution.)

Capital goods ("means of production" in Marxian lingo) have to be privately owned because the benefit of capital goods is not ownership/consumption but what to do with it. "Public ownership" of capital goods just means conferring such decision power to monopolistic bureaucrats who are not subject to market competition. Private ownership of capital goods means there can be competitive ownership: open transparent bidding on the decision power as well as displacement of existing capital goods by new capital goods embodying better technology. The economic effect of robots is fundamentally no different from mass production lines. Private ownership in the West allowed better and better cars made in the West catering to consumer demands, whereas "public ownership" of manufacturing lines in the Soviet Union meant they continued to make 1940's car models well into the 1980's! making the jobs of bureaucrats easier at the expense of the general population, who had to suffer from the resource misallocation.

Applying absolute "equality" (i.e. "levelers" at the time of American Revolution) to capital goods ownership in a population of unequal IQ's is a stupid idea, as that would just make some people "more equal" than other people in an even more monopolistic way, a la Animal Farm. At any given time, everyone's IQ is never the same. Otherwise, there wouldn't be evolution. IQ is heritable; otherwise, there wouldn't be evolution and human society/species wouldn't improve. People being different from each other, and having different outcomes (both economic and non-economic) due to the differences, are fundamental to progress and improvement.

OTOH, social agitators tend to make things worse by transferring economic decision-making power from higher IQ people to lower IQ people, while making lower-IQ people unhappy by pointing out the notional "unfairness" in their otherwise relatively content lives. It is much easier to decide what's better for oneself than deciding what's better for someone else; the best thing lower/average IQ people can do is selecting which smart phone to buy for himself/herself instead of voting on how to make the next generation of smart phones. Let the high IQ people / geniuses decide how to make the next generation of smart phones, and then let the rest of the population decide which to buy for himself/herself among numerous competing offerings . . . instead of "public ownership" monopoly by a few tyrannical high IQ people mandating which exact model everyone in society is allowed to have.