You're viewing a single thread.
I get that argument on paper but I think it's more of the government's doing. Hear me out first, we could live off the grid, build our own house, our own farms, never work for a job, but the government stops us, they are the weapons of the banks and rich who enforce authority.
They gave the housing market and land to the banks. I understand many blame minorities for taking our jobs, when in reality, capitalists just hire whoever works for cheaper, and yes, that's true. But if wasn't for government regulations, more jobs could exist for everyone, or you could live off the grid.
I like to cite how many despise healthcare being tied to your job, but government involvement caused that in the first place.
We live under corporatism/fascism. Yes, the rich run everything, but they have the government be the ones to control us. You must first get through the pawns if you want the king.
You think it's building codes keeping people in poverty??
Let's try to elaborate more.
We live under corporatism where the rich have bought out everything. The banks own the land. Big Pharma runs the medical industry. And the military industrial complex runs NATO and such. We call this money lobbying.
It doesn't just affect politicians, even agencies and armies. The FDA and CDC for instance are owned by big pharma. Big pharma lobbies to these agencies to create more regulations, yet, these regulations the agencies make never seem to hurt the big guy, only the smaller companies starting up. They want to kill the competition. That's why medicine and insulin can be so expensive.
Banks like JP Morgan financed the war on terror. We came into the middle east to help their people rebuild, instead, we expanded JP Morgans banks, and drew out the war to finance them better, among many other terrible things.
There could be tons of jobs right now, but people lobby to have regulations crush the smaller guys so few monopolies have power. The government enables the rich.
So, when someone is in poverty, let's ask why from every angle possible. Why can't they have a house? Credit scores, banks owning everything, and blackrock eating up the housing market. Why can't they get a job? Not enough jobs available. Why can't they find food and temporary place to stay? Inflation, which is the silent tax making food more scarce, and no one wanting to give the poor a place to stay and help them get off their feet and become independent.
When you see all of these things, you realize that the powers that be don't want us to be self sufficient and independent from them. I don't see it as just "housing codes." More as government control. Think of the banks as the king, and the government as it's military.
Yes, I understand oligarchy and also corporate capture. Those things are bad.
What does that have to do with friends and neighbors blaming minorities?
I've talked with socialists before. They had interesting reasons to justify socialism. They talk about how minorities come over the boarder and steal jobs, but claim that it's because the rich hires who works for cheaper, that's why this happens as minorities will work for cheaper. At first, I thought it was an unbeatable argument. But, if it wasn't for such government regulations, more jobs and competition would be available for these people. And if things didn't work out for people, they should just be able to homestead like what people once did.
Some socialists believe that late capitalism has caused our recessions. They see value in work, but not the dollar. My argument is that if it wasn't for the FED causing inflation, things wouldn't be so bad. Woodrow Wilson created a centralized bank, worse thing possible. And we had presidents ban the gold standard to top it all off, that's why money feels useless. If it was a finite currency (like bitcoin aims to be) then I see great value in it.
Honesty, I'd consider myself to be libertarian at the level of federal government. But less libertarian and more constitutionalist the closer to home it gets. I don't necessarily support government, but definitely governance if so to speak.
People like Ted K were definitely smart. He believed we should go back to the Neolithic era in the sense where we have our small local communities with direct democracy. In terms of freedom, and maybe happiness, that's the best option.
You think you understood his comment?
No. I didn't.
He seems to be saying that we must either choose anarchism or corporatism? Or that building codes and other regulation is a slippery slope to poverty and fascism?
Permanently Deleted
To be fair to my egregious summarization he kicks off by saying life would be better if people could just build homes off the grid.
Anyone can build off-grid if they want to, as long as they purchase their land and pay property tax. OP admitted to being mostly libertarian, so I think they're really just complaining about taxes. I personally think libertarianism is a slippery slope to anarchism, because taxes are what pay for roads, police, firefighters, etc.
No one ever gets my points. No one can build off grid if they want to because they have to buy the land. It was never like that if we were to go back to the U.S. in the late 1700s.
Property tax and income tax I'm against. But I said that I do believe in governance at the local level, and as long as it's constitutional. So taxes on gas for instance to pave the roads is sorta ok in my book.