At 4/9/13 04:34 PM, Ceratisa wrote: If Cubans are generally Republican wouldn't they be voting in a direction away from the country they escaped? Or is that conclusion somehow false.
Generally Immigrants will vote along the political lines of the country they came from. North Koreans will look more favorably upon governments that more closely resemble North Korea in spite of the fact that they lived under that system. Likewise East Germans look more favorably upon socialism in spite of often risking their lives to change countries.
Cuban Americans may be an unusual exception. Taking a position against the politics of your country, if, supposing you moved from x country to y country for economic reasons, implies that you are able to rationalize a position that the success of the country you are migrating to is due to that difference in politics.
At 4/8/13 08:43 PM, naronic wrote:At 4/8/13 09:53 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
And if statistical correlation exists that supports that "denial" such as the link between joblessness and crime, then I guess we just have to acknowledge that hating your next door Mexican neighbor because of a drug cartel documentary you watched on the Discovery Channel is pretty fucking stupid.
That statistical correlation can only support partial denial, that is, it can only support the proportion of the difference in crime that goes away once one controls for income and/or unemployment have been removed. What proportion of the disparities are you willing to attribute to these factors which you seem to think could have never entered my small feeble mind?
Page 66
"Finally, research emphasising access to the legitimate economic system typically finds that race differences persist even after controlling for socioeconomic status. Relatedly, other minority groups, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Hispanic have also experienced economic exclusion but exhibit much lower offending rates than those of Blacks. It is unknown to what excent structural or cultural differences account for lower fofending rates among other ethnic groups, but clearly soicioeconomic status and depirviation alone are inadequate explanations."
But I appreciate the way you played the role of a stereotypical reaction from a tolerant person. Get *angry* when you hear someone say something you don't like. Put forward an obvious and cliche objection to what was said, and then question the knowledge or motives of the person who said it.
[Google "White Girl Bleed Alot"]-_-
That's all I needed to know,
How Tolerant. Oh here's an interview of the author. Referenced specifically due to your attitude.
Flaherty: We know that answer to that, of course: The usual reaction of the press and its liberal allies is silence and denial. Here is what they almost always say - almost always in the same breathe: One, racial violence is not happening and two, here is why it is happening. The press is afraid to report an epidemic of black mob violence - which of course just encourages more of it. You might be surprised at the virulent, hateful emails I get - from reporters - when my readers confront them with the fact they ignore racial violence and lawlessness.
Source if you are interested. The first Paragraph contains a short background of the author.
So your reaction vindicates what I've said. We *must* deny the data because to do so would compromise our ironclad position on tolerating identities. If we are forced to acknowledge the data, we must explain it away and then apply negative social pressure on those who forced us to acknowledge the data.
It's out punishment for making you guys uncomfortable.
At 4/8/13 12:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
So, I shall repeat myelf, then.
The Election argument can hold true only of nominally democratic states [States which operate elections which pass certain minimum standards of lacking corruption or irrelevance] Just a reminder: States are not by definition democratic. In a majority of the history of states [We'll say from approximately 3000-4000 B.C.E. - 2013 A.D.] What we today call "Democracy" or "Representative Democracy" existed in at least less than half of the sovereign states in the world.
Yet the moral superiority of the state was still treated as a given at this time.
Regardless, assuming a completely non-democratic state lacks this feature you ascribe, would you personally view it as less accountable than a non-state entity? Or equally accountable? Keep in mind that non-state does not mean business. It *can* mean business and it *can* mean corporation. It could also mean someone you know personally who offers to do something for you. I donâEUTMt know what youâEUTMre going to say but I would hope your answer would be yes. Considering that the only difference between the two is that the former has a monopoly on law, the latter does not.
If you still view it as more accountable I would ask why. If you view it as less accountable then I have a different question:
Most democratic states started out with a limited franchise, say, âEUoeAll land holding malesâEU ïf Which eventually expanded to virtually everyone above a certain age threshold and who isnâEUTMt a criminal or insane. In some especially democratic countries the franchise is expanded to the deceased and non-existent. At what percentage franchise is a state more accountable than a *non state entity* -- which as a reminder may or may not a corporation and may or may not be a business.
Now the matter of Accountability is tricky since it is contextual. For example, Do I as a person any Accountability to a random family living in Pakistan? And by this I mean would that family be able to impose any sort of negative consequences upon me if I did them any wrong from the safety of my dorm room in the United States. You might say âEUoeNoâEU but itâEUTMs more accurate to say that the question itself is meaningless unless you can conceive of a situation where I intentionally or unintentionally did something negative to said family. Or if there was good reason to suppose I would pose such a threat.
So while we canâEUTMt really speak of SmilezâEUTM Accountability to the Pakistanis we *can* speak of the USFGâEUTMS Accountability to an individual Pakistani, or to Pakistan in general, or to any Middle Eastern country. This is because the USFG Has a military which it uses frequently, as well as funds which it uses to finance and train certain military groups within those countries.
**Side note 1*** Disassociation and deterrence are both theoretical ways to prevent harm being done to one party by another [And thereby solving accountability issues] So if someone does harm to you, you can either 1. Avoid them to as to make it so they cannot harm you further 2. Impose some *penalty* [social, legal, physical, financial, etc.] upon them. Suppose youâEUTMre in a public park and someone is being loud and obnoxious. You could move away from them to another area of the park, in which case âEUoeAccountabilityâEU is no longer an issue. Such disassociation could be inconvenient, and the inconvenience may be greater than the harm, in which case the alternative is to get the obnoxious person to stop by some means. If you are capable of getting them to stop, they are accountable to you in the context of the problem. If you are not capable of getting them to stop, they are unaccountable to you.
Notice though that I as a person donâEUTMt really *need* to be accountable to people living in other countries if what I do doesnâEUTMt affect them much at all.
Perhaps one can think of the 9-11 Bombings as a way that the Suicide bombers thought they could make the American public âEUoeAccountableâEU for the actions of their democratically represented government officials. Whether or not it succeeded is a different matter entirely.
A lack of accountability of Agency X against party Y occurs in one of two scenarios.
What IâEUTMll call a type 1 scenario is that party Y is completely outside the range of all parties which could in any given situation *influence* the decisions of Agency X as to whether or not it should. Pakistanis killed by US Drone Strikes are a good example of this. Of course a party Y can attempt to put itself inside *within* the range by various means. So suppose youâEUTMre on a bus and someone is creating a ruckus, supposing youâEUTMre big a muscular you could *make* him accountable to you by threatening physical violence to this person if he does not be quiet. In the case of individual interaction the issue of whether a particular method will make one person accountable to another would depend upon their psychology. If weâEUTMre dealing with an institution which tends to have similar behaviors - i.e. the profit seeking firm or the vote seeking office holder, then we can guess probabilistically whether such an attempt will succeed.
What IâEUTMll call a type 2 is when party Y is already within the range of all parties which in any given situation could influence the decisions of agency X, but the size or influence of Y relative to the size of the influence of all other parties in the range is such that the penalty Y imposes on X is less than the benefit X gets from harming Y. In some cases the benefit X gets from harming Y is due to the positive feedback it gets from another party in the range. [Example: Agricultural Subsidies]
Whether or not this scenario occurs depends on 1. Whether or not disassociation is feasible 2. If disassociation is not feasible, what the penalty mechanism is.
YouâEUTMre democratically represented government, Representative X, is made accountable through a mechanism whereby a mass of largely indifferent people are deciding whether X keeps his job. X loses his job if and only if a voting majority vote against him, the reasons for voting for or against him are different for each voter and voters may also find that penalizing X on one issue would, in theory, contribute to the rise of representative Q who would [or could] harm them on another issue.
For any given issue where accountability is relevant, it is possible that a harmed party would not be able to influence the decisions of an aggressor party or to disassociate from them *because* the range of relevant parties is large and their interests are *divergent*.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but an agency being âEUoeaccountableâEU in an abstract sense to a mass of people *all of the time* keeps it from being accountable to any one of them in situations where it would genuinely matter.
Now none of what I said demonstrates a non-state agency is *more* accountable than a nominally democratic state agency. What it shows is that being selected by the entirety of the voting populace [or in the case of US Elections, the whole of congress being elected by the whole of the voting populace] does not *increase* accountability in real life scenarios where a harmed party Y is trying to either disassociate from aggressor X or deter them.
So if you want to speak of accountability. Run the following thought experiment.
1. Pick a would be aggressor party X
2. Pick a would-be harmed party Y
3. Create a realistic scenario in which X would find it advantageous to harm party Y
4. Now establish whether or not the harm done to party Y can be ended through disassociation where the cost of such disassociation is worth the benefit of not being harmed. If disassociation is possible then the problem is solved
5. If disassociation is infeasible, what mechanism does party Y have to sufficiently deter party X.
6. If X can be deterred by Y, then X is accountable to Y in the context of this problem.
At 4/8/13 12:48 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There is a very large difference between being intolerant of someone because of an inherent or private trait, and being intolerant of someone because they choose to be baseless mean and hateful to others.
In short, disliking someone because of who they are, or how they look is bad. Disliking someone because they think and act like an asshole isn't bad. Well, not as bad.
Yes well unfortunately there is a bit of fuzziness between tolerating behaviors and tolerating identities. Not so much in reality but in how people come to conceive tolerating identities.
Tolerance for identity can creep into tolerance for behavior, especially when society maintains a zealotry about "Tolerance" as an abstract good.
We can take ethnic identity as an example. Even throwing out the presumption that all races are indistinguishable beneath the epidermis, if "race" is immutable, then there's nothing to be gained from applying negative social pressure on people who fail to conform to one definition of a ethnicity or another. [The only result, presumably, will be bitterness on the part of one group and a lack of self-esteem on the other]
Problems start to emerge when behavioral patterns show high correlation between self identified ethnicity. And out of a sense of tolerance for the identity we tolerate the behavior, this is done by either claiming the identity and the behavior have no link [And if a statistical correlation exists which challenges this denial, then the negative behavior must go under-reported and hence tolerated] or denying its existence entirely.
So someone like Colin Flaherty with no ties to "White Supremacist" groups [As far as I know] takes note of a growing trend of African Americans committing spontaneous and in some cases premeditated acts of violence against other ethnicities [Google "White Girl Bleed Alot"] , and either consciously or subconsciously, journalists feel morally obligated to either hide the ethnic nature of the violence or let it go underreported. They're so desperate not to do anything that even indirectly impugns the character of an ethnicity that they will come to "Tolerate" certain kinds of [What we assume to be] chosen behaviors which in an abstract and non-racial setting would not be tolerated.
Sexual *behavior* is somewhat similar. If sexual orientation is beyond one's control, is someone bigoted for trying to shame people into exerting any kind of sexual restraint?
And then there's that thorn, culture. If not tolerating certain kinds of behaviors is seen as a cultural relic, it is treated as a form of bigotry.
If you wanted a word which perhaps better encapsulates not hating people for their identity, Humility might do the trick.
At 4/7/13 11:05 PM, Feoric wrote:At 4/7/13 10:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If the republican party kindly asked the president to put forward a budget that includes massive tax increases and massive spending increases [on whatever the democratic party wanted] -- with a promise to vote "present" they could get around this problem easily.So basically, if the Republican party weren't the Republican party we wouldn't have this budget battle.
If they didn't behave like steriotypical republicans and instead thought like steriotypical republicans then there wouldn't be a budget battle, yes.
OI I forgot to add...
If you people are going to get into this Free market feasibility argument let me remind you. If you're going to talk about private entities versus state entities you ought to establish that some attributes [adjectives] which you acribe to one and not the other should not be arbitrarily asserted, but should be demonstrated to be necessarily prior attributes of that
For example It's not controversial to say that a Cheeta is faster than a human being, because a Cheeta is being defined as a particular animal with certain muscular and skeletal structures such that it can achieve maximum speeds above that of a human.
If you wish to speak of the accountability of a state or non-state institution, i.e. of one being more accountable than another. Why by the definition of a state, or a non-state institution must one be more accountable than another. -- Also this definition must coincide with reality. It's stupid to *define* one institution as whichever one is more accountable and then conclude from that that said institution is more accountable. Cheetas are not being defined as faster than humans, but rather defined as a particular type of animal which by it's nature [or defining features] is faster than a human. [The precise scientific reasons being difficult to explain but easy to grasp intuitively]
What is meant by Anarchism? getting rid of the State or getting rid of private property?
At any rate Minarchism *seems* more sensible to most people since it is farther down the rabbit hole of abstract craziness.
But if a sufficient majority [I'm thinking 80% minimum] of people living in a particular country were *fully* committed to the idea of a minimal state, why would they want a state to begin with?
It's hard to really separate these two things, but you have on the one hand the functioning of a society in the context of a given legal regime, and then the mentality of the citizens that brings it about.
And Minarchism in my mind is like a marble sitting on the crest of a frictionless hill. It's citizens will probably either come to want / accept the idea of more power being given to the state OR attempt to live without a state [monopoly on law] in the entirety.
In some sense Anarchy is also more likely outcome in a real life scenario, because it is more likely that an absence of what is called "Government" would come about by an unintended collapse than any government voluntarily minimizing its role and staying there.
At 4/7/13 02:14 AM, Ravariel wrote:At 4/7/13 12:59 AM, Korriken wrote:
All one big Dog and Pony show.
If the republican party kindly asked the president to put forward a budget that includes massive tax increases and massive spending increases [on whatever the democratic party wanted] -- with a promise to vote "present" they could get around this problem easily.
Almost nobody truly believes in tolerance.
If someone tells you that X is a social characteristic that they consider to be Good, or generally good, they will probably also tell you that using a certain degree of negative social pressure to get people to conform to behave in a more X direction is good. Negative social pressure is by definition a form of intolerance. This also works with respect to 'Y', some attribute which is considered to be bad. This is why in a modern hypocritical society where tolerance is taken to be a universal good, people who do not adhere to the love and tolerance standard are met with intolerance.
A certain degree of intolerance is probably a good thing. However one can promote intolerance towards behaviors [or identifies in general] which are either harmless or beneficial. Tolerance can and has not only promoted ambivalence towards behaviors which are self-destructive, but has also promoted intolerance against people who try to exercise negative social pressure on people to try and get them to conform to healthier standards.
But in general I say no one is truly tolerant because no one is capable of becoming ambivalent about everything, nor should they be.
At 4/4/13 11:23 PM, Korriken wrote:
not the point. The point is,
That's *your* point. My point is that Ideology is the *one and supreme* issue. The press will attack people who run for public office that are not sufficiently progressive, because that what they have faith in. Your solution seems to be to dig up as much dirt on the *other candidate* to overpower the Media. You still haven't touched ideology.
*head scratch* are you TRYING to throw out red herrings?
Because politicians are expendable. Progressivism has *millions* of adherents. The democratic party can and will find *someone* with an IQ above 110 that believes what they believe and on matters of personal-life doesn't engage in adultery or any other kind of degenerate behavior that could render them unelectable.
Plus, in the future, everyone's personal information is on Facebook. We may become so used to finding strange things about people that we treat them as the norm. All the while the country moves leftward because people like you were fixated on *winning an election*
These government programs can't be touched because of public ideology, and the kinds of politicians you like can never be elected *because of ideology* -- Smash a single democrat all you like but there will always be one to take his place.
I view the kind of infatuation Conservatives have for the few African Americans in their numbers as a rather shameful sign. Their eagerness to prove that they are not racist suggests nothing more than the fact that the word "Racism" has grown in its power to control other people's minds.Funny. I see it the other way around. it's like smokers, you don't notice people not smoking right next to you. but you do notice the one guy who has decided to light up while you're trying to eat. Infatuation? Not so much. They do stand out though. And the media can't stand that little fact. They bring in filthy pigs like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and Cornel West, to bash and discredit any black who isn't a dyed in the wool liberal. Also, the one that does get into a high place, according to the left, only does so by being a mindless house negro that loves to serve his white masters, and insist that the right is a bunch of old white racists, while throwing out their own racist propaganda.
I can't find a single black conservative that hasn't been called Uncle Tom, House Negro, etc by at least one of those 3. And yet, the left calls for 'civility' from the right. Funny.
Never thought I would see SadisticMonkey and Poxpower Joining forces on the dark side of the Race-IQ Debate. I wonder where he found out about this.
Knowing nothing else, the position that environment explains 100% of the variation in test scores between the populations, seems about as probable as the position that variation in genetics explains 100% of the variation in test scores. That is, highly *highly* unlikely.
And no, that's not playing the middleman. Since taking a 50% Heritability position would still amount to radical speak in today's world.
Fortunately [Unfortunately?] we'll probably get the answer sometime within the next 10 to 20 years as to what the actual heritability is.
At 4/4/13 11:49 AM, Korriken wrote:At 4/3/13 09:42 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: If it's as effective as you say then you might as well just blow your brains out. No offense. Your last best hope *would* be in such circumstances to just kill as many journalists as possible. I am trying to conceive of the most effective means possible of discrediting an institution in a non-violent way. I honestly can't think of anything better, and perhaps the "best" method is still not good enough, but the best method is still the limit you are dealing with.It's pretty damned effective. however, it's better as an attack platform then a defense platform.
Do you remember the whole Anthony Weiner scandal?
Last I checked, ideologies are fairly secure from sex scandals. You're going to find nasty people amongst all adherents of all ideologies.
I'm not denying that mud-raking can get a few republicans elected. I'm saying it will have no bearing on the Tolerance of Americans for an all-intrusive state. As such I do not much care.
Soviet Style central planning was not brought down by news releases of the private lives of the Commissars, nor could it ever be. Its inner contradictions needed to be exposed, the people who lived under it needed to be sick of it and the people who defended it needed to lose faith in the validity of their own pronouncements.
You'd think black conservatives are traitors to their own kind if you didn't already know better.
There's a joke that goes, "What do you call an African American at CPAC?" Answer: Chairman.
I view the kind of infatuation Conservatives have for the few African Americans in their numbers as a rather shameful sign. Their eagerness to prove that they are not racist suggests nothing more than the fact that the word "Racism" has grown in its power to control other people's minds.
At 4/2/13 04:20 AM, Cootie wrote: Wanna be let in on a little secret? In the long run the conservatives always lose; that is by definition how it is set up. Conservatives are trying to block progressives from changing the way that things are currently, and as it has been proved time and time again despite their posturing progress just about always wins out. They couldn't stop the abolition of slavery, they couldn't stop women's suffrage, and they couldn't stop the Civil Rights Movement. What makes them think that they can stop gay marriage and marijuana reform today?
fuck 'em.
Actually there is one very effective way to undo the last three and a half centuries of change in the way that people relate to each other with respect to their social lives, and this method is being carried out in most western countries *in earnest* by the most progressive and 'liberal' [in the american context] of politicians and ideologues.
However, as a homosexual, and as someone who does not fancy the idea of re-instituting the slavery of weaker races or of women, I don't support a instituting this particular method.
It goes by the name of "Islam"
At 4/1/13 11:52 PM, Korriken wrote:At 4/1/13 09:14 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:Anything that drives a wedge between the reality people observe and talk about privately with what is reported in the news is a good thing, the wider the wedge the greater the chance that people can part ways with the those who are called the gatekeepers.Not really. the media can still spin it to their benefit. just look at the housing bubble collapse. despite the staggering amount of evidence pointing to the Democrat party being primarily at fault for it happening, Bush and the republican party got the blame for it.
If it's as effective as you say then you might as well just blow your brains out. No offense. Your last best hope *would* be in such circumstances to just kill as many journalists as possible. I am trying to conceive of the most effective means possible of discrediting an institution in a non-violent way. I honestly can't think of anything better, and perhaps the "best" method is still not good enough, but the best method is still the limit you are dealing with.
At 3/31/13 11:11 PM, HibiscusMallow wrote:
Which is what I'm aiming for; unambiguous and one sided control of government.Including propaganda, which means whatever the goal of the party it will get drowned out by the noise made by their opponents, few will hear them say "i told you so" even if their predictions of the economy collapsing after being left in the hands of their opponents comes true.
Well it's the most obvious form of propaganda that could ever be concocted, short of an armed seizure of the press, universities and public schools, but of course *seizing* these things takes away their value as trusted instutions, and I don't anticipate them being 'infiltrated' at any point.
Really I am imagining a downward plunge in the material standard of living so steep and obvious that attempts to deny its existence would immediately call one's credibility into question. Gradual negative change is the worst of all possible worlds.
Anything that drives a wedge between the reality people observe and talk about privately with what is reported in the news is a good thing, the wider the wedge the greater the chance that people can part ways with the those who are called the gatekeepers.
At 4/1/13 09:28 AM, Korriken wrote:At 3/31/13 08:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:Not sure what the point of this is, I'm not really concerned about who is in charge as long as they are perceived as progressive and are allowed to enact their agenda.and NOW we get to the truth of the matter. Thanks for pointing this out. your idea has nothing to do with anything, you just can't stand a non progressive person in office, or opposition to the progressive person in office.
good day.
I don't want them there forever. But as long as they have the power, we might as well make it clear that they actually have the power, and that they are permitted to exercise it to a sufficient degree such that the economic damage is severe and obvious.
I view most republicans as suffering from the opposite problem. They don't care what happens to the polity so long as a self-described conservative is in office. They only whine about the RINOs now because a progressive is in office.
Today's republicans are falling back on their old stupidity of thinking about the personality of the next presidential candidate or the kind of posturing congressional representatives engage in; and ignoring the fact that more and more americans will become amenable to a progressive regime [ unless they are forcibly fed an *overdose* of those policies. ]
At 3/31/13 10:20 PM, HibiscusMallow wrote:At 3/30/13 02:12 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Americans have very little conception of prior or extant interventions having an effect on current social ills. If one politician tries to pass a law to solve some problem and the other gets in the way, the one who interferes is by default "part of the problem"Are you sure? It could also be argued that someone trying to pass a law will contribute to a problem.
Not really. I think for most people *doing something* is better than doing nothing, and the burden of proof is always on those who claim the cure is worse than the disease.
I'm saying that the effect your predict will be overwhelmed by all the other things that are going on. If one party lets go of the reins the other party will be in a prime position to influence the civil service, push its own propaganda and things.
Which is what I'm aiming for; unambiguous and one sided control of government.
At 3/30/13 11:06 PM, Korriken wrote:
I'd rather deal with decades of misery.
I'm not sure how I can share your priorities. The more drastic a change for the worse the more likely a group's discontent will manifest itself in something useful. Americans can become accustomed to things gradually getting worse if you let them.
Time saver, or pulling the trap door open?
Not sure what is meant by this. If the United States is going to go in a particular direction one way or another, you might as well get there as quickly as possible, and give no one the opportunity to "Get used to it"
I doubt we'll be a "minority" by 2040 unless
Not sure what data you're looking at.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57435957/census-more-min ority-u.s-births-than-white-now/
rticle/2008/02/12/us-usa-population-immigration-idUSN1110177 520080212
The sources I recall used the year 2042, but if some want to use the number 2050 that's fine.
and their voter base shrinks every time they do it. The leftists already vote democrat, trying to pull them over to your side is about as likely as democrats trying to get
Voters shift too, both in terms of what a single voter thinks and in terms of the composition of voters [see previous point on whites]
Perhaps, but it would also be the end of the republican
Well you see I don't care about the republican party. You are trying to attack an idea. You don't want the history books having written that the reason the US Went Bankrupt is because the stodgy old republicans weren't willing to impose a few reasonable tax increases.
only thing that will convince... what?
Sorry, I was going to say the only thing that will convince the public is if they get a chance to see what a *pure* progressive regime looks like, i.e. experience it for themselves.
This is true.
They won't. Both parties are too hung up on winning elections to serve the people. it's why they need to go.
Well then there's no reason to complain if my suggestion ends up ruining the Republican Party. But as far as I can see the democratic party, *given the OP assumptions* would suffer to a much greater degree.
You see the problem is Republicans are interfering with democratic policies to such a degree Americans have no way of knowing if the problems are being caused by their interference or Democratic policy making. If they simply let the damage be done they would have an endless pile of evidence to use and their hands would be clean. But you don't want that.Now you're making more sense... sort of.
Maybe I just wrote this OP very improperly and you are very confused. I actually wrote a pre-planned explanation on TUMBLR... Here is the link.
http://smilezroyale.tumblr.com/post/45676649524/how-to-defea t-progressivism-the-killor-cure
Hillary Clinton '16 I'm willing to take a chance on it.
Not sure what the point of this is, I'm not really concerned about who is in charge as long as they are perceived as progressive and are allowed to enact their agenda.
for taxes, I would say that works, but minimum wage would be harder if not impossible to reverse.
If the effects were bad enough, I reversing it shouldn't be a problem. Certainly the more people the law ends up unemploying, the greater the likelihood of a political coalition building to get rid of it.
This is what's always bothered me, they say the republicans are the party of the 'white people' what the hell exactly makes them such? I consider this nothing more than leftist brainwashing to steer minorities away from the republicans and into their own party. If the republicans were indeed the 'party of the white people' then they wouldn't have any non white members.
There is a hypocrisy to it, certainly the Democratic party is more the party of non-whites than the Republican Party is of whites. A majority of whites voted Republican in 2012, and an overwhelming majority of blacks and Hispanics voted for the democrat in 2012.
by and large *that* is what is meant by Racialized politics.
In general any party which supports or claims to support equality of opportunity over equality of outcome, and applies that principle consistently, is going to be seen as an enemy of minorities. That is simply what is.
In time the republican party will probably dissolve and then the democratic party will bloat and burst like a dead cow left in the sun for too long, then we'll be dealing with hopefully different parties
Well if that's what your hoping for I don't see why you wouldn't support dissolving the republican party.
Most americans don't even know what's IN the budget.
Every item of the budget has some group which will fight to the death to preserve it, if it didn't, that item wouldn't exist. Budget cutting of any kind will be unpopular, period. Unless you can make the alternative to budget cutting sufficiently distasteful in the eyes of American Citizens.
That will in turn require tax rates on par with Hollande's France.
At 3/30/13 09:15 PM, Musician wrote: You're idea just ignores empirical reality. First of all, in contemporary domestic politics, winning elections isn't primarily driven by policy. I'm frankly unconvinced that policy is the leading factor in winning elections. Modern campaigns are basically driven by marketing, having the right slogans, framing your opponent in the right way, framing yourself the right way, etc. Political realities like gerrymandering also play a role.
I'm saying that a candidate cripples their chances of winning by promising to cut specific items from the budget or open resistance to a form of transactional politics. I'm not claiming this the *only* thing that can get someone to lose an election.
Though if one were considering immigration policy a form of transactional politics, on Mitt Romney cost himself the election because he couldn't get enough Hispanic votes.
And even past the elections there's the issue of actually passing what will be seen as very unpopular measures.
If, say the GOP recused themselves from elections and truly allowed "progressives" to take total control, they'd suffer political consequences that they'd probably never recover from. Consider the fact that just being the incumbent politician drastically increases your chances of getting elected. Conservative politicians would irreversibly cripple themselves.
They don't have to *give up* any government seats. But they can't allow the people in seats they don't control to blame *them* for the current problems.
Few took the GOP's accusations of Obama drawing out the recession seriously because since 2010 the GOP has been fighting to prevent any measures from being passed. If Tax increases cause recessions as many republicans *claim*, then nothing would have been better for the GOP if some time between and November of 2012 a Tax increase had been put into effect. They wouldn't have needed to sacrifice any seats in congress to do this, they simply would have needed to make a commitment to only vote "present"
And I'm also not concerned so much with the survival of one party or another as I am trying to show an effective means of discrediting an ideology. The Republican Party can always survive in name but not in substance. I've explained above why in all likelihood the Republican Party will be forced to take more leftist positions as time passes. If that is the future then they may as well all become democrats anyway and spare everyone the wait.
Furthermore, it's not clear that the power vacuum caused by the absense of conservatives would be filled with new conservatives. It's quite possible that as conservative politicians withdrew, far left politicians would offset more moderate progressives in other areas of elected government.
We're not dealing with a power vacuum but an ideological vacuum; a policy prescription vacuum. If your center left party has been permitted to have its way on policy issues time and time again, and no Republican has had his or her hands on the legislative levers during that time, and things are getting worse and worse, do you really see it as more likely that a far-left party would be more appealing than a party which portrays itself as the diametric opposite?
At 3/30/13 06:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 3/30/13 02:12 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Tea Party Types would be best served forcing the worst government policies on the people by refusing to interfere with progressive policy.I admit that I, so far, have little idea what you were trying to get at in your opening post. I'm one for succinct answers and the addition of examples in an original explanation only serves to confuse me (as I try to apply the example to a premise I don't yet grasp and end up missing the entire example.)
So this comment renders an excellent opportunity for you to give me a one-liner of a reponse (in a sense. short paragraph is OK, but if it takes more than that to state your point, you're not being clear enough).
So, start from here and answer this: How exactly would letting the progressives win help the Tea Party types?
To use a single issue example. If you want to prove that raising the minimum wage is a bad idea, then instead of arguing against raising it, just demonstrate your point by raising it yourself or by voting "present" when your opposition tries to raise it.
I used a more blunt example with Korriken, if You and I were debating whether or not my stove was turned on, I could just grab your hand and place it on the stove and see what your reaction is. This would promptly end the debate.
And finally to generalize the principle, In real life you have policies and the effects of those policies. Ambiguous control of policies leads to ambiguity in credit and blame, whereas clear and total control of policies leads to total *clarity* in who deserves credit or blame.
When two factions are fighting over policy there is ambiguity whether things are getting better or worse *because* one party is being kept from intervening or because they are able to intervene and visa versa. If one party permits the other to do as they please , and they are sufficiently confident in what the outcome of the other party's policies will be, they can sit back and watch as things get worse, and be free of any of the blame.
At 3/30/13 11:20 AM, HibiscusMallow wrote: Your entire argument hinges on this.
the latter will use the interference of the former as an excuse for why economic and social conditions are not improvingThis isn't really significant, the opposition could easily argue that they are trying to stop economic and social stagnation which is being caused by the dominant progressives, there are also plenty of other arguments that don't involve playing the blame game.
Yes they could except public relations works against them. Americans have very little conception of prior or extant interventions having an effect on current social ills. If one politician tries to pass a law to solve some problem and the other gets in the way, the one who interferes is by default "part of the problem"
You can force the debate away by saying "We've decided to f*** the American Economy, so we're just going to let the Democrats do what they want"
I would agree there is an equilibrium and this equilibrium is shifting towards state planning and progressive ideology, I don't think you've quite nailed the wide variety of causes though. It is perfectly possible for someone to agree with the values of progressivism yet oppose progressivism as a political group and the means in which they are trying to apply these values, it is also possible for someone to be apathetic or oppose all 3 ideologies you mention, progressivism, conservatism and libertarianism. You will find the majority of people are apathetic and do not have an ideology of choice that they treat like their favorite sports team.
People at the middle are very maleable, but what matters is that the right moves to the center and the center moves to the left.
I fail to see how the rest of what you said is relevant to my point.
This is really bothering me, people can't read the argument, Tea Party Types would be best served forcing the worst government policies on the people by refusing to interfere with progressive policy.
At 3/30/13 08:46 AM, Korriken wrote:
Perhaps, but the left doesn't always win, which you more or less infer.
The hard left lost the cold war but the soft left has been extremely successful. Maybe after decades of misery and the collapse of the University System people will take progressivism less seriously. Or we could save ourselves decades of misery and just ask the Republican Party to impose a few years of misery.
You call that "losing" -- I call it a time saver.
And the trends are working against you. I hate to sound like one of *those* people but Whites will become a minority in the United States by roughly 2040, African Americans and Hispanic Voters vote overwhelmingly for what is commonly referred to as "Big Government".
It's also worth pointing out that political parties are forced to strategize if they want to win votes, it's very likely that the Republican Party will simply shift it's positions. They've done this with entitlements and the department of education. They've never succeeded in shrinking the size of the government, bankruptcy would be the quickest and easiest way to cut government spending significantly.
When has a political party not been a vehicle for power consolidation and getting people in office?
More the point that people solely interested in getting a certain club elected might as well become democrats now.
Not necessarily.
Scandals are scandals, who cares. As soon as the progressive candidate demands the Republican specify which programs he intends to cut, the Republican candidate loses.
Holding someone's feet to the fire, proverbially speaking is one thing, to be complicit in their schemes will not work the way you think. If the republicans went along with the democrats, then the republicans would be portrayed as weak spined cowards who can't bring themselves to stand up to the opposition, and guess what effect that would have.
Every time they try to halt any legislation they lose popularity, they are viewed as part of the problem, because the *bad laws* are viewed as the solution. The only thing that will convince
They look even dumber and weaker when they say they're going to put up a fight and end up making ridiculous concessions. You saw it in the sequester debates and also in the fiscal cliff debates.
Their would at least be an element of humor to it if they said "We know these laws are going to be harmful, and since we're known for being heartless to the plight of the oppressed, we'll just sit back and let these laws take effect. You won't see our fingerprints on this"
*facepalm* no. It's not. well, yeah, it would be, but unless you're looking to bring the chaos in Greece to the USA, then this is a horrible idea.
You see however bad It gets, I would prefer living long enough to see the end of it. I can't for the life of me understand how people like you think the Republican Party is going to be able to pay down these debts. It would require decades of high taxes or extremely unpopular austerity measures. What I'm proposing is harsh but if we're talking about aggregate economic dislocation, it is
The Republicans need to man up and do 3 things.
1. stop giving interviews to known leftist shills.
2. relentlessly pound on the democrats when they make a mistake, the same way the democrats pound on them.
You see the problem is Republicans are interfering with democratic policies to such a degree Americans have no way of knowing if the problems are being caused by their interference or Democratic policy making. If they simply let the damage be done they would have an endless pile of evidence to use and their hands would be clean. But you don't want that.
Remember that even if Republicans can win an election, which year by year will become more difficult. [Again, Hispanics] They still have to undo the federal bureaucracy, which last time I checked is the single largest employer. They have to upset millions of people with unpopular decisions and all the democratic party needs to do is promise to avoid that short term pain.
Simply allowing the democratic party into extreme tax hikes and spending increases will permanently discredit attempts to do it in the future.
It'll be a long time before a candidate or president ever gets the level of protection Obama received and still receives.
Why? No one is stopping the media from doing it again. Americans trust the Media more than they trust congress.
The republicans need to step up their game. Compromise is good. Compromise is how things get done (if you don't have the supermajority needed to mow down the opposition, which practically never happens) However, caving when your opponent refuses to budge just shows weakness. Being "the better man" does not work in politics. Giving in to your opponent constantly in order to prevent problems only makes dealing with them even harder in the future.
You're not caving in, you're FORCING the democratic party to do what they claim to want to do, perhaps even forcing them to go farther than they are comfortable going, and causing as much damage as possible.
If I wanted to prove a point that the minimum wage was bad, I wouldn't vote against it, I would make sure the law pushed the Minimum wage as high as possible and was as well enforced as possible. The resulting dislocation would permanently end the argument. What you get instead are incremental increases that have no effect one way or another, but they allow the proponents of it to score political points by posturing as defenders of the little guy.
If I was in an argument with you over whether or not my electric stove was turned on, I would shut up, grab your hand, and place it on the stove until you conceded that it was.
Caving in is when you make your voters forget that once upon a time you tried to get rid of the department of education and commerce.
Only someone who was firmly ideologically committed would be willing to let people suffer through bad laws to make a point.
Democrats fight dirty, they use whatever smear campaign they can and resort to character assassination on dangerous opponents when the opportunity arises. While Obama's first election was pretty much crafted by the media and a blitz of good feelings, future elections will most likely not have such charismatic people on the Democratic side.
Why not? Transactional politics has worked in the past and it will likely work again. The republican party is increasingly becoming the Part of White people, and the last time I checked whites numbers are dropping, at least in relative terms.
Once the republicans learn to do some heavy dirt digging, find something, and beat down their opponent with it, they might be on more even terms.
Obama had plenty of dirt on him, and the negative campaigning probably
But this is why I can't endure mainstream republican voters, they're so obsessed campaigning and in the here and now. The left is far more shrewd, they gained control of all of the important opinion molding apparatuses and created a special grammar which polices thought.
Of course, another thing that would benefit the republicans would be if they were actually fiscally conservative... Their biggest problem is their failing mix of fiscal irresponsibility that's as bad as the democrats and being socially conservative.
Fiscal conservatism is only popular in the abstract, most Americans do not want to cut anything specific from the budget.
At 3/29/13 07:33 AM, Korriken wrote: This is the dumbest shit I've seen in a very long time.
you can't win by insisting on losing. The only thing this would accomplish would be headlines that read "Republicans admit defeat, pave way for one party Democratic rule" and pretty much obliterate the concept of Democracy.
whatever you're on, the meds/drugs aren't doing your mind any favors.
It's not losing, The republican party "Loses" when it fails to sway public opinion on an issue, or public policy moves in a single direction *in spite* of their efforts to keep it moving to the contrary. PRESUMING, that the Republican party is an ideological instrument rather than simply a vehicle for getting politicians in office. Since The Universities and the Press are not run for the benefit of non-progressives, propaganda will fail.
If you consciously force the president and congress to adopt democratic policies which you know will be harmful for the economy, you are doing yourself a much better favor than you would be if you simply posture as the opposition.
There's also the fact that fiscal collapse is a far easier way to institute austerity than through political will alone.
At 3/29/13 11:15 AM, AlexNOSAM wrote: God your post is so ridiculous... You're mistaking and misleading.
1. I am not a progressive or a democrat.
2. Reread premise 4, "Transactional Politics" refers to the act of selling favors in exchange for votes or for campaign funds. A "Principled Conservative" or Libertarian cannot engage in transactional politics. So this paragraph consists of you saying I'm wrong because conservatives lose elections due to a reason I explicitly provided.
But here you bring totally unrelated bs as having some sort of logical connection the Romney's lose. You're bottom line is "well you see, you lost because progressivism is the only way to go.
Progressives are winning the ideological war because they control two very important institutions whose membership cannot be altered by the elections; the Universities and the Press. They win elections because they can sell votes without compromising their principles, and because Americans are becoming
The argument isn't that you should *Give up* because you don't stand a chance. The argument is that the tactics people like you Cherish are what rational people would call counterproductive -- that is to say, acting contrary to the purpose for which the action is intended to bring about.
Congressional Republicans trying to stall Obama's dragging the United States in a more economically leftward direction has only made them less popular in the eyes of the public and it has done nothing to actually reverse any of the policies he's enacted. They are doing the democrats a service by allowing Americans to get used to the 'New normal'
A sane conservative would realize that a swift implosion of the US Economy with bad government policy would permanently tarnish the reputation of progressives.
"You need to move your mainstream away from conservatism and neo-liberalism closer to us because otherwise you have no chance of winning ever again." Really you don't want to know what you sound like. The right wing parties in Europe have done that already and it did nothing good to them ideologically."
Again you're misreading. I do *not* want the
I want the republican party to *refuse* to stop congressional democrats from passing bad laws and I want them to continue to say they are bad laws. I don't want them to change their views on what the effects of these laws are, I want them to actually *demonstrate* that they are serious in their views of the damage these laws cause by letting the United States suffer under them.
The alternative isn't an absence of suffering, but a long and protracted decline.
As for your comment on the constitution, if The Republicans were able to convince Obama to flush the constitution down the toilet, that would be a rather astonishing victory on their part [the republicans that is] However I don't think even Obama is stupid enough to do that.
Fiscal collapse caused by one party and one party alone [Non-interference makes this clear] is the best way to defeat the ideological hold of progressivism. No one will be able to deny that they took a country from 1st to 3rd world Status, and really that's the *only* demonstration that will prove dramatic enough to convince a sufficient number of people.
Anything more timid is a waste of time.
At 3/29/13 12:01 AM, Korriken wrote:At 3/28/13 02:32 PM, Ceratisa wrote:that figure is a pretty incredible claim he needs to back it up, but I can't find a source remotely like that, like i said.a claim with no proof is not credible, however likely it may sound.
At 3/28/13 11:47 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I would guess that whites own a disproportionate amount of [at least legal] firearms, However I don't believe that the lack of inclination on the part of whites to commit crimes is due to the fact that other whites own guns.Given that 'whites' are the majority, it would stand to reason, don't you think?
I said disproportionate majority, not majority.
Majority would be, let's say, US population is 65% white, and firearm ownership is 65% white, more or less.
Disproportionate majority would be 65% white population, 70+% white firearm ownership.
I suspect its disproportionate because African Americans tend to live in more Urban areas.
If you don't have the attention span to read a full length post, do not make replies to the thread.
The title of this thread is a bit misleading, but not by that much. First let me state that I wanted the title to be "Libertarian-Conservatives deserve to lose" However that wouldn't fit. When I speak of Tea Party types I'm not referring strictly to the Tea Party and indeed there are many people who this post is addressed to who might actually loath the tea party. I'm principally referring to everyone from very Radical Libertarians to Vanilla conservatives whose political ideas are at least partly grounded in pro-free market economic ideology.
If you count yourself among the sorts of people I'm describing, I think it's fair to say that in this day and age your principal ideological rivals are what some people call "Progressives" -- the believers in 1. Progress 2. The idea that government policy can be scientific 3. Active government policy can be used to advance socially beneficial goals.
These three views probably describe the majority of people in almost every OECD country in the world though the number of people who consciously identify with these ideas is quite a bit smaller than that.
Also, if you count yourself among the sorts of people I'm describing, I hope you've started to notice the fact that on every major policy front for the last century or more you have been on the losing side, at least in the western hemisphere. Except perhaps on income taxes, but that too may change. Also, ideologically, people are more and more comfortable with 'Big Government' and less and less comfortable with rampant, unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism! [Notice how it's always called laissez faire no matter the financial regulatory burden or number of regulatory statues, more evidence that in basic counter-propaganda you people have been failing miserably]
I'm going to put forward a fairly simple argument for how a non-progressive like you could defeat progressivism in no less than 10 years.
Premises: The following are all things I suspect libertarians and conservatives believe are true, they don't need to be objectively true for my argument to be valid. We're simply trying to think about what sort of strategy would make sense if one held these premises.
P1. Assume [as you do] that progressivism is bad for society and the economy
P2. Assume that progressives have a tendency to blame social ills on the failure to intervene sufficiently or opposition by non-progressives.
P3. Assume progressives and moderates cannot treat progressivism with a critical eye so long as progressivism is the dominant ideology of the universities and the press. I.E. Respectable pillars of society.
P4. Assume Nonprogressive political candidates are an inherent disadvantage, since abstaining from "Transactional Politics" costs them votes and money. Nonprogressive polticians are also forced to advocate within a deepening progressive paradigm. [By P3] -- Again the only exception to this transactional politics argument is tax cuts.
Argument:
A1. Given P3+4 it seems incredibly unlikely that you will be able to affect non-progressive change within the near-term, and in the long term it may become even more difficult to effect change due to demographic shifts.
A2. Given P1 and A1, economic collapse caused by a gradual progressive shift is extremely likely, and this collapse is not something you have any power to stop or reverse.
A3. If the political practices of libertarians, conservatives, and progressives continue, the former two groups will try in vane to halt progressive policies, and the latter will use the interference of the former as an excuse for why economic and social conditions are not improving [By P2]. It is also possible that progressives may get away with spreading this misinformation, since they have been successful in the past by [P3]
A4. Suppose instead self-styled conservative politicians made an open and clear commitment to abstain from interfering with the legal proposals of progressives. That is to say, allowing them to pass whatever laws and measures they thought would work, with the stated intention of proving an economic point by inflicting harm. They would do this on the grounds that Democratic ideologues accept sole credit for success and blame for failure
Alternatively, those who are trying to see this non-interference solution carried out can work to convince as many republican voters as possible that it is in their direct interest to allow the democrats to have long-standing supermajorities in government when the proverbial "SHTF" moment occurs.
A5. It would be extremely difficult for progressives to continually blame what is sometimes described as "Capitalism" when your political opposition refuses to play the game of the evil oligarchy halting progress and FORCE the progressives to sit on the throne, have all of the power, and own their successes and their failures.
In simplest terms, if you wanted to prove the minimum wage was a bad idea, you would do whatever you could to FORCE your political opponents to increase the minimum wage to as high as you possibly could. Likewise with tax increases, spending increases, etc.
If the Republican Party had spent their energy trying to expand the provisions of Obama-care, and hasten the time frame which the provisions would be carried into effect.
The republican party could get quite creative in their [educational] misanthropy. They can respond to every criticism with a "Fuck you" followed by a letter to President Obama imploring him to raise taxes on the rich, and calling him an evil right-winger if he declines to do so.
Libertarians and conservatives have been doing the precise opposite of what they ought to be doing if they were even deadly serious about their convictions in their economic ideas and wanted to crush-progressivism once and for all. And in my mind, until you start thinking this way, you DESERVE to continue to have progressivism kick your You-know-what, every time.
And no I'm not trolling, this post is dead serious.
I would guess that whites own a disproportionate amount of [at least legal] firearms, However I don't believe that the lack of inclination on the part of whites to commit crimes is due to the fact that other whites own guns.
Traditionally marriage has had nothing to do with love, it functioned as a means of increasing one's social standing or forging alliances between families [for the wealthy and powerful] and for most all classes was a contract designed to ensure that neither father nor mother could abandon the children they decided to bring into the world.
Marriage also has some secondary social benefits in that it was a way for society to use a man's own libido to harness his productive energies. Men who are married are generally happier and healthier in spite of the fact that they work harder and end up having to make more money than they personally need to raise a family.
Easy access to pornography, the relative sexual openness of young single women, the fact that women can earn as much or more than men, and the ability of a mother to use the Government as a de-facto father-provider have all rendered Marriage more or less obsolete.
Therefore gay marriage violates the sanctity of marriage about as much as having sex with someone for the 100th time ends their virginity. An increasing proportion of the people who continue to have successful marriages are having fewer or no children at all, these sorts of people don't really "need" marriage. On the other hand, the kinds of people who are having children are uneducated, low IQ, and out of wedlock.
Even as a homosexual myself nothing annoys me more than gay activists ranting about 'rights' and 'equality' - both of which are denials of reality. But I am inclined to think that if Homosexual marriages can prove to be stable and encourage couples to be productive and law-abiding, they ought to be permitted.
At 3/5/13 07:29 AM, TheMason wrote:At 3/5/13 04:12 AM, Thecrazyman wrote: It should actually become "In the Hearts & Wills of the American People We Trust" when it comes to the US Currency, why is this? Because "In God We Trust" written in our nation's currency violates the Wall of Separation between State and Religion to begin with.
Well I don't put an iota of trust into the hearts and wills of the American People, and neither do the people who produce the currency you're talking about.
At 3/24/13 02:00 PM, T3XT wrote: Who else misses the Republicans of old?
Before the Republican party contained one too many religious fanatics and slimy businessmen, we had badasses like Abraham Lincoln, who promoted social equality and civil rights. I miss the days of Republicans who were true people for the people.
Of course, within the past fifty years or so the tables have been turned, which is why I now consider myself to be a strong Democratic liberal. But I know the Republican party wasn't always full of George W. Bushes and I miss the great Republicans of years past.
Who else misses old-school Republicans?
I miss old-school democrats, but I'm wise enough to know that the party of Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion will not be coming back.
First, Lincoln did not promote equality, he was quite clear that he viewed the African Race as inferior to the White race and the war he waged against the confederacy was principally motivated to keep all of the states subordinate to the Federal Government. He also thought the best way to deal with the African problem was to encourage freed slaves to return to Africa, presumably in the American Colony in Liberia.
I dislike the fact that your history teachers never explained this to you.
Second, the kinds of positions a given political party can take is fashioned by demographic and ideological forces, both of which are not within the control of any political party at any given time, though they can be in the control of previous political parties.
Rockefeller Republicanism, which is really the closest thing to the kind of pro-business progressivism that Lincoln represented isn't really popular with anyone.
I'm expecting the party system will undergo a change within the next 30-40 years, though It will not be to your liking. I predict that politics will become increasingly racialized, as whites become a minority in the US their voting will *probably* become more like that of other minorities, that is, having overwhelming majorities voting for a single party. The Democratic party will increasingly be liberated from any requirement to appeal to white voters, which means that the Republican Party may become *MORE* liberal than the democratic party. [Blacks and Hispanics are less liberal than whites on social issues]
It's not a pleasant prospect.
What kind of socialism is being talked about.
I won't even talk about a planned economy, regardless of how many additional pages of regulations get added on post industrial economies today, nobody really defends the idea of the government operating businesses. Socialism really should refer to and only to the planned economy since that was it's traditional definition. Republicans are going to turn themselves blue in the face and suffer from the boy-who-cried-wolf by calling various manifestations of the welfare state socialism.
So let's talk about those manifestations.
In the poor to rich wealth transfer, which is sometimes called Socialism. If the wealth transfers are narrow, concentrated, and targeted, you run the risk of creating an underclass. If the wealth transfers are broad to the point of encompassing a near majority or large plurality of society, you run the risk of creating a program that can never be reformed by voluntary political retrenchment.
In the Young to old wealth transfer [which is rather antithetical to the rich to poor transfer since old people are usually the wealthiest demographic in developed societies] is far worse than a rich to poor wealth transfer. You run the risk of depopulating your native population. State run old-age care replaces the role children traditionally played towards their parents with the cold impersonal love of the State. Young adults get hit with taxes which make it harder for them to raise their own kids, and the incentive for them to have children as a way to have them provisioned for in old age decreases. Therefore everyone has fewer children and in most developed countries with generous welfare states, You have greying populations, fewer young people supporting larger numbers of older people.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
