Skip Navigation
conservative @lemmy.world Ekybio @lemmy.world
NSFW

Think of the children

slate.com A Big New Report on American Children Is Out. It’s Horrific.

“Protect the children” is a popular modern rallying cry. If only.

A Big New Report on American Children Is Out. It’s Horrific.

NSFW for: Potentially challanging your narrative and worldview.

I recently found this article summarising important findings.

Breaking out of ones own bubble is important. And I would like you to remember this the next time you are at a ballot.

If you really think of the children, vote according to reality.

And if you FEEL personally attacked by this article and bash me in the comments, whataboutism away from the subject or bothsides-ing the issue; Thanks for making my point for me and seek help.

53

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
53 comments

  • Eh, I see how you got there but I dunno about that. In my terms, a Communist (far left) State redistributes all wealth (~100% tax) and in a Minarchist system (far right) there is virtually no tax because there is virtually no State to fund. Thus no reason to employ force to gain said funding. The game theory is clear either way; A small State can only inflict small tyranny. A (mid to) large State typically has a war-machine.

    I am more Right-skewed than typical Conservatives. I identify as Libertarian, but the LP itself is/was a mess. Mises Caucus seems legit tho. I believe that the State has limited rightful duties. As enumerated in the Constitution, the feds only need power to 1)Make and maintain currency shit (shit job), 2) Enforce or sovereignty (shit job), and 3) Enforce and promote popular law (shit job). But they want to do everything else...

    Do you think your taxes are well spent? I know you dont, lmfao. If they reallocate spending then maybe I'd be cool with (some) taxes. Here and now, no. Im being misrepresented and it's tantamount to theft. The problem isnt lack of funding, its more a lack of budgeting and prioritizing the wrong stuff. Making another committee or council only worsens the issue. They must be starved.

    • Dude, I'm sorry, but this just demonstrates a bizarre misunderstanding of the left and right spectrum, and a complete misunderstanding of communism.

      The left-right dichotomy most certainly represents opposition or favour toward liberal capitalist democratic states. Here's a rough outline.

      Where on Earth did you hear that communists want to redistribute all wealth through a 100% tax? Seriously, wtf is that all about?

      Communists want workers to control their work and work their own way without a boss taking all the profit.

      • You didnt answer any of my questions. Interesting. You must really love and respect our acting governments ;] I know you don't.

        Communism is the opposite of fascism?! This only makes sense if you believe in horse-shoe theory. And, I don't. The game theory IS the Occams Razor. A small govt commits small violence, and reciprocally.

        Benito said that 'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.' Sounds a lot like today's so-called neo-liberalism. Corrupt all the way down.

        If each person owns their [labor], how does it become the peoples' [labor]? It gets redistributed. If you only own [widget] (not money) and government takes your [widgets] it is ostensibly a 100% tax. Just not of fiat, but [labor].

        • You didnt answer any of my questions. Interesting. You must really love and respect our acting governments ;] I know you don’t.

          No, we just won't get anywhere until we get past the foundations.

          Communism is the opposite of fascism?! This only makes sense if you believe in horse-shoe theory. And, I don’t.

          I don't believe in horseshoe theory and it still makes sense. Why shouldn't this make sense?

          The game theory IS the Occams Razor. A small govt commits small violence, and reciprocally.

          This sounds like gibberish.

          Benito said that ‘Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.’ Sounds a lot like today’s so-called neo-liberalism. Corrupt all the way down.

          Yes, this is true. Capitalism, and liberalism (later neo-liberalism) inevitably leads to fascism.

          If each person owns their [labor], how does it become the peoples’ [labor]? It gets redistributed. If you only own [widget] (not money) and government takes your [widgets] it is ostensibly a 100% tax. Just not of fiat, but [labor].

          Because everyone owns these things communally. There is no private property, and thus no need for money. There is also no state, so no need for a separated governmental apparatus. The people rule themselves on equal footing, with no class distinctions. And all is made and shared on the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need".

          You need to move past the cold war propaganda that told you communism means big government. Communism means no government.

          • No, we just won't get anywhere until we get past the foundations.

            Nah, Im good. I dont talk to people who show zero candor. Ive said a lot, and if you cant follow then-- tsk!

            Answer at least the police use of force issue and if its good Ill probably reply. "Is it good that the State has a monopoly on force?"

            • Zero candor? Lmao I've told you what I thought, haven't I? I've made my points. You don't understand the left right distinction. That's what we're talking about. Your unhinged theories with zero relevance to reality don't really mean much since they rest on faulty assumptions.

              Why are you asking such obvious questions? No, of course it isn't fucking good. I'm a communist, is this not obvious by now?

              • It was always obvious, lol. Just trying to get you out the closet, sheesh. Lemmy is hilariously more Commie than Reddit, somehow. You're pretending to be a radical enlightened centrist, who dont really actually exist. Stop it :p

                I dont think you've made points, tbh. You showed me a .png, deflected moral questions, and deferred to current state power whenever possible. But we're getting a lil candor now ;]

                If right wing means 'ultra capitalistic', and capitalists dont like paying taxes, would it not be fair to assume that right-systems favor low taxes... Can you fund an excessive, wasteful, state on low taxes? Can you fund sweeping tyranny? This is just syllogistic reasoning. Its not some slippery academic nonsense. Im not appealed by authority.

                You can say a Commie totally-not-a-state doesnt use money, man. But it will still exist in a world that does. Scarcity will always exist. And thus markets/economies will always exist. Even if they're black (aka the real free market, lol).

                • You’re pretending to be a radical enlightened centrist

                  What are you talking about? I haven't pretended anything, certainly not that.

                  I dont think you’ve made points, tbh.

                  I've made two, which I've continued to elaborate on:

                  You don't understand the left right spectrum

                  You don't understand communism

                  You showed me a .png

                  Hey! I spent time making that! It roughly describes the left right spectrum. You barely even commented on it.

                  deflected moral questions

                  I've answered your questions dude... Wtf are you talking about?

                  and deferred to current state power whenever possible

                  Um, wtf are you talking about? I keep criticisng state power.... Are you trolling me?

                  If right wing means ‘ultra capitalistic’, and capitalists dont like paying taxes, would it not be fair to assume that right-systems favor low taxes…

                  Yes, and they do. On the rich, anyway.

                  Can you fund an excessive, wasteful, state on low taxes? Can you fund sweeping tyranny? This is just syllogistic reasoning. Its not some slippery academic nonsense. Im not appealed by authority.

                  I'm not the one saying they actually want low taxes. They just want low taxes for the rich, by using either flat tax or very minor progressive taxing.

                  You can say a Commie totally-not-a-state doesnt use money, man.

                  Why say "totally-not-a-state"? Now you're the one deferring to state power by assuming it's necessary. And why should it use money if all goods are freely available?

                  But it will still exist in a world that does.

                  A world that does what? Use money? Well, if we're for some reason assuming this end-stage communism has been reached without a global revolution, then methods can be set up for external trade, assuming this hypothetical communist society hasn't been embargoed by the world for daring to try communism, like has happened to Cuba.

                  Or invaded, like Vietnam, Argentina, Chile, etc...

                  Scarcity will always exist.

                  Who ever said it didn't? But we already possess the capability to feed the world and still have some left over. The issue isn't scarcity, it's economics.

                  And thus markets/economies will always exist.

                  Economies maybe, but markets aren't inevitable. They haven't always existed.

                  Even if they’re black (aka the real free market, lol).

                  If you're gonna appeal to the black market as some sort of ideal free market for the world market to aspire to, then I worry that I've been taking you far too seriously.

                  • Im actually pleased if you did produce the .png yourself :] Barely commented on it? Ive flipped it over because it DOES describe taxation if you assume (correctly) that UltraCapitalists dont like paying taxes and dont want their companies to go public-sector. Im merely reframing your view by making inferences. Simple assumptions.

                    You DID deflect questions. Theres some you missed still, but its cool. We've had a lot to say. I dont think your a robot (anymore) :] Im on mobile, so forgive me if I dont hit all your comments, too. Also we really should condense to one reply thread. Been here before, makes things easier. Im gon try to wait until you reply to my last to make it happen.

                    I am a Libertarian, not an anarchist. I like the idea of a State. They just also happen to suck in practice. Im giving you hell about Communism but I have criticisms of 'Neo-Libralism' and cuckservatives. For instance, if our nation has open borders then how do I still have property rights if Uncle Sam cannot establish their own rights to property! How can I enjoy my (positive) liberty when the dollar is failing to poor economic planning?! And so on. Technically this will make me a statist, sure. But given the need to redistribute, AnComns are just a larp. AnCaps almost make sense, but its squirrely.

                    I agree foreign intervention is fucked up and beyond the scope of what our nation was intended to achieve. Retaliation? Maybe, but only if Congress approves and the budget isnt skyhigh. However I go even farther. US founders specifically warned of 'estranged and entangling foreign relations.' This is describing UN/NATO and so on. Im against those sorts of councils.

                    I would like to hear YOU (not wikipedia) explain the difference between markets and economies. I suspect all you'll come up with is scale...

                    We have the ability to feed the world on paper. Heres how you can tell its BS though... We havent worked out water yet. Water is virtually imparishable, comes in 1 flavor, is needed everyday, cannot be deformed, can be transported by static pipes... But its not done. Imagine how much harder of a problem food is than water. Its incalcuably more difficult.

                    Awful things happen in the black market. Human trafficking and hitmen and so on. However it is infact a free market. Most critiques of capitalism come post-robber barron. When the FED was formed. Then blew our load fighting for Europe whoch tanked our finances. So we switched to fiat to fund endless wars and dick with other free peoples. And everyone lives in debt to the banks named after the same robber barrons now. Charming. I would suggest you and I probably never saw a free market.

                    For instance: Opening a gas station. Gas prices are set by OPEC. US agencies tell you the tax rates, they tell you all the expensive standards they want you to achieve. Then across the street another gas staion opens up. If you charge way more than him, its 'price gouging.' Way less, 'predatory prices.' The same?! 'Price collusion.' Gas stations net profit in selling chips than gas. "Free market."

                    Most ironically, the practice of making gouging/collusion/predatory tactics unlawful is to prevent monopoly. Meanwhile, the oligarchs openly lobby the government.

                    • I would like to hear YOU (not wikipedia) explain the difference between markets and economies. I suspect all you’ll come up with is scale…

                      Not just scale, but category. Economy describes the entire flow of goods around a given area. Market is a specific way to distribute goods, that is predicated on competition between sellers to sell goods to consumers. Economies don't necessarily have to be market economies.

                      We havent worked out water yet. Water is virtually imparishable, comes in 1 flavor, is needed everyday, cannot be deformed, can be transported by static pipes… But its not done.

                      Because of capitalism. The infrastructure is already there to freely give water to entire nations. But certain people would lose out on money if it were nationalised.... and those people have lots of money to lobby with.

                      Imagine how much harder of a problem food is than water. Its incalcuably more difficult.

                      Again, the infrastructure is already there. It's just not used that way.

                      Most critiques of capitalism come post-robber barron

                      LOL no. Socialism has been a movement since capitalism began, dude.

                      So we switched to fiat to fund endless wars and dick with other free peoples. And everyone lives in debt to the banks named after the same robber barrons now. Charming. I would suggest you and I probably never saw a free market.

                      Seems pretty free right now. Ask Jeff Bezes and Elon Musk. They're living pretty free.

                      I'm not sure why you're not a socialist if you see the problems inherent in capitalism. The core difference between the two is that capitalism is set up to enrich owners of a business, and socialism is set up to enrich the workers. I'm honestly asking, why do you object to that?

                      • Pffffffffft! You point to Bezos and Musk as 'free market' guys yet Bezos in prticular made his monopoly through non-compete practices and Musk through govt subsidy. Bro, plz. These are the oligarchs. Dont put them anywhere near a gas station worker! Further, these are people, not markets. I dont... I just dont, lmfao.

                        Monopoly is not a problem with capitalism, it is a problem with government. Of coure a business seeks to grow/profit. But govt was supposed to protect consumers from monopoly. They didn't. Clearly. Do I blame Bezos/Musk (whom I give $0) or the government that was supposed to protect me (whom I give a significant percentage of net-wealth). Arguably, we would not have our current oligarchs without the collusion between State and corporation... Whats the word for that again?

                        Socialism has existed since capitalism began? So are you calling Communism Socialism now? Do you agree with V. Lenin when he said 'The goal of Socialism is Communism.'? The slope is slippery, lmao.

                        Its funny, man. You'll play appologist for the USSR (re: Holodimur) but then go to say no, it wasnt real Communism. This strikes me as an inconsistency. Its easy to find flaws in things that actually exist ;]

                        The infrastructure for water kind of exists in the West. But its also pretty piss-poor. I live near Detroit/Flint. It took ~9yrs to fix the shitty infrastructure. This how I know you're an idealist-- You're diminishing the seriousness of the differences in the problems. Water is baby-mode compared to food.

                        Consider my experience of public services. Roads: Detroit. Schools: Detroit. Living standards: Detroit. Police response: Detroit. Fire response: Detroit.... The public sector is a joke.

                        Go back to the very beginning where I mention Thomas Sowell. You have the anoited vision, you think that impossible things can be achieved with enough money (which is tantamount to force). I don't, I think some problems are legitimately impossible by their nature. If you shrug off food shortages and starvation as a 'capitalits' problem then I know you guys are damned, lol. It IS a hard problem. Try and tell me that it's not.

                        You can assure me that I wont get the bullet, but what if Im only gulag'd? :p What if you're just some prole and have no say?! People like me are a problem for you guys. Once you get enough FORCE you wont be talking with me... This talking/pseudo-intellectual phase is merely the boot getting put on the foot. I know, Ill be re-educated and made to say I love the State. Hell, maybe you'll get an extra [widget] if you turn me in ;]

                        Im going to go to work, but I would like to make a little consensus between us :] "Fuck this bullshit neo-liberalism." Agreed?

    • Technically communism should be a moneyless, stateless society. No government to give taxes to. No corporations to take your money. No money to take. No one to force things. It's all for the people by the people. The idea that you're pointing to communism as force in order to defend your decision to vote republican on an article about pedophelia is pretty telling. This is why some people assume libertarians want to fuck kids.

      • Same questions as to the other commenter:

        If my [labor] is the peoples' labor, what recorsue do the people have if I want to horde? Force. What if Im a [widget] maker and the people want [widget]... What happens if Im done from making [widget] and the people still need [widget]? The dynamic of owing the State community for your forced labor is pretty... Statist sounding to me.

        We can talk about theory until we all feel gooey, but it just doesnt seem to go that way. I know, I know. The meme, it's never been tried, lol.

        People doing bad things IS a facet to freedom. People do bad stuff. Do you think selfish animal nature can be regulated away with enough tax? Maybe, but gosh you'll need a big community State.

        • If my [labor] is the peoples’ labor, what recorsue do the people have if I want to horde? Force.

          There are just so many mistaken assumptions to correct before I can even touch this question. Let me make an analogy:

          If I want to drive my car, what do I do if my driving license is suddenly Korean?

          To answer this question, I have to take for granted driving licenses can spontaneously change which country they are from. This is absurd, and I hope you can agree that I don't need to answer what would happen in that case.

          Similarly, it is absurd for you to want to hoard in a communist society. With free access to social goods, they will always be there when you want them. What is the point in hoarding?

          What if Im a [widget] maker and the people want [widget]… What happens if Im done from making [widget] and the people still need [widget]?

          Someone else makes widgets...? Why would you be the only person in the world making these things? If it's a good people really want or need, surely you'd teach others how to make them?

          The dynamic of owing the State community for your forced labor is pretty… Statist sounding to me.

          That's not how it works.

          • Okay, so what happens when I dont work but want the peoples' stuff? Just as you hid your true colors, you are obfuscating all the forseeable places where force WILL be applied. It will be applied somewhere. Maybe it'll just be me. Should dissidents like me get the bullet? Why not?!

            There is a lot of hand-waving here. Like how great things can be. And all I see is Holodimur and One-child policies. Large spying governments with huge militaries taking land from farmers, always followed by famine. But I know, its all really chill on paper. Slick academics make it sound sexy, sure. And Im sure this time we'll find those chill sociopaths to put at the reigns of power, lol.

            You can try to explain it to me, I guess, but this sounds like the most statist worldview imaginable. You're using an analogy about drivers licenses to a libertarian. Fuck a drivers license. Its just a regulatory device to attach fines to a person. The identification card is not for you, its for them!

            • Okay, so what happens when I dont work but want the peoples’ stuff?

              You only work if you want to. No one is going to force you. It is natural for people to want to work because we get bored if we don't. Communists believe in leaving it up to you when you want to work, and what you want to do, and how and where and why. And you can go and take what you need from the freely available goods when you need it.

              “For as soon as the distribution of labour comes into being, each man has a particular, exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critical critic, and must remain so if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood; while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”

              - Karl Marx

              Just as you hid your true colors,

              I never did that.

              you are obfuscating all he forseeable places where force WILL be applied.

              Such as where?

              It will be applied somewhere.

              Why?

              Maybe it’ll just be me. Should dissidents like me get the bullet? Why not?!

              Because there is no reason to shoot you just because you don't enjoy... checks notes being allowed to work or not work when you feel like it.

              There is a lot of hand-waving here.

              Such as when?

              Like how great things can be.

              How is this a hand wave? I have explained above, and you haven't even responded. This reply here doesn't even touch any points I've made. You're just repeating yourself.

              And all I see is Holodimur

              So, there are a few points to make here. This video goes into a whole lot of detail and is thoroughly sourced and reasoned in a very balanced manner. The TL;DW is:

              1. The soviet famine was largely the result of natural factors.

              2. It was then worsened considerably by a very slow and negligent response from Stalin.

              3. It affected more than just Ukraine. Kazakhstan and even Russia itself also suffered.

              4. Stalin did send help - but not enough, and it was sent secretly so as not to let the outside world discover the famine.

              In summation, it was far from deliberate, but Stalin's response was cold and insufficient, and cared more about appearances.

              All in all - not very damn communist. Because, surely you know, The USSR was not communist? The first clue is it has a damn state. That's a big clue. I'm generally not a big fan of the USSR and the big fuckin state is one of the reasons.

              One-child policies.

              That's China right? Yeah also another big fuckin state that I'm not a big fan of. Here's a fellow communist also hatin' on China.

              Large spying governments with huge militaries

              Yep, things I'm also not a fan of.

              taking land from farmers, always followed by famine.

              Lol wut? Taking land from farmers? Yeah, with communists it's generally the opposite. If farms are being taken over, it's from fat cats hoarding land for private use, to be taken into public hands for the use of all.

              But I know, its all really chill on paper. Slick academics make it sound sexy, sure.

              Yeah, slick academics also make rocket science sound sexy. And then you follow the theories and oh my goodness, you've made a fuckin rocket. But if somewhere along the way, you decide to swap out aluminium for styrofoam, you've made an expensive waste of fuckin time. So the think is - if you're trying to make communism and you make a big fuckin state, you've taken a wrong fuckin turn or you were fuckin lying!

              And Im sure this time we’ll find those chill sociopaths to put at the reigns of power, lol.

              WHAT FUCKING REIGNS OF POWER? IT'S COMMUNISM! IF THERE ARE REIGNS OF POWER YOU BUILT IT WRONG!

              You can try to explain it to me, I guess, but this sounds like the most statist worldview imaginable.

              HOW? A stateless society sounds statist? Are you high? Because I am, and it still sounds out there to me.

              You’re using an analogy about drivers licenses to a libertarian. Fuck a drivers license.

              Did you... miss the point? It's a prop. Jesus fucking Christ. Oh my God. You're so hung up on such a small detail that the wider point was completely missed. Let me try again.

              If I go to eat a cake, what do I do if it asks me out on a date?

              In order to answer this question, I have to take for granted that not only can cakes speak, but they also understand what dates are, and might proposition me.

              Its just a regulatory device to attach fines to a person. The identification card is not for you, its for them!-

              Yes. So fucking what. It doesn't fucking matter in the context of the analogy. Now think about the damn point it's making and respond to it you fucking loon.

        • Well if we want to take the idea of forcing to really anything, then you still want a government, which means rules, which means you are also in favor of forcing. You just want a government run by people volunteer their free time.

          And if you want to learn some of the more intricate workings of communism, you can do research. But yes, everyone who can work still does work. Just as your system forces you to work or starve and live on the street.

          Turns out every side has somethings that get forced and other things that don't, because the world isn't exactly a binary as you suggest. Even the concept of left and right has been broken down more into a square called the political compass. And some even argue you could add another axis for social issues. But at the end of the day, communism would allow freedoms in certain areas, such as it being a stateless society, while yours would mean you get to keep the money and not pay taxes.

          And then you show at the end you aren't even here for a conversation. I never said I was a communist, and I mentioned how communism doesn't have taxes, and yet you still use it as a come back.

          Maybe learn something about these theories before you spout off about them.

You've viewed 53 comments.