It is a widely held belief that technology is an unalloyed blessing designed to make human life easier. No one is disputing that—but can we really ignore the potential fallout?
We are constantly bombarded with this phrase "disruptive technology"—a term that essentially carries the subtext that certain technological leaps come at a devastating cost to humanity. Specifically, it refers to the kind of rapid development that strips humans right out of the production cycle, driving unemployment through the roof. On a global scale, the scarcity of jobs that allow anyone willing to work to actually earn a living is undeniably one of our most pressing crises today.
Now, let’s be clear: technological progress has always resulted in certain jobs disappearing, but it has also traditionally created new ones. Everything worked fine as long as that ratio remained positive—you know, as long as we were creating more opportunities than we were destroying.
But today? The landscape is shifting under our feet. We are witnessing automation accelerate at such a pace that it is making human labor redundant in almost every sector of manufacturing. This balance has been violently disrupted, and frankly, it’s no wonder we are seeing rising resentment toward the free market and a surge in protectionist rhetoric across the country.
The real question remains: where does this all end, and is there even a way out?
wanderingbadger77 said:Who cares. I’ve had enough just thinking about Carl Bildt and his version of "humanity."
The Swedes are basically the textbook definition of what happens when you get too comfortable with state welfare and start believing your own hype, losing any actual survival instinct.
They'll be writing about this in history books soon... calling it "Swedish societal decadence."
Marks once said that "the production of too many useful commodities creates too many useless people"—and added: "if anything is certain, it is that I am no Marxist."
It seems very few people actually grasp what Marks was getting at, and the most tragic part of it all? The ones who *should* be the most informed on his theories within the political spectrum are often the most clueless of them all.
rapidhawk2 said:Foreigners and work? Please. They didn't migrate here to build careers when the government is practically handing out social safety nets and welfare checks. Why on earth would anyone bother with grueling, low-wage labor just to earn an extra $300 a month? The real question isn't about their motivation; it's about how much longer the American middle class can be expected to foot the bill for these handouts through their own hard-earned paychecks.
So, you call them freeloaders? Have you ever watched a lion in a zoo when it doesn't have to hunt for its next meal? It just sleeps all day long—yet it still carries itself like the king of the jungle.
Honestly, I’m wasting my breath trying to convince people of a simple truth: if you leave your apartment door wide open and get robbed, the thief isn't the one at fault—you are, for failing to do the one thing you were supposed to do, which was locking the door.
crimsonwolf20 said:The Nationalists advocated for "American socialism," which means the leftists and collectivists—at least when it comes to the most vital part of a political program—deal with the relationship between the state and the citizen. Just Google "American socialism."
Just because they were nationalists doesn't take away from their leftist worldview regarding a massive state, the nationalization of industry, stripping away economic freedoms, state monopolies on services, an all-powerful government that dictates prices, central redistribution of wealth based on the planners' whims, a central bank under total state control, and de facto party ownership of what is nominally private property.
It's just like the National Socialist German Workers' Party in Germany, which is socialist at its core, just like their name and platform confirm. They were economic leftists. You supporters of the centrally planned society might find that uncomfortable to admit, but your struggling won't change the cold, hard facts.
Economic leftists and rightists loathe one another because they are rivals within the same project—the "centrally planned society," as you so aptly put it.
In reality, an outcast or a heretic from within one's own faith is hated far more intensely than someone following a completely different religion! Therefore, it stands to reason that the proponents of the "centrally planned society" catechism cannot stand one another—namely, those who demand power through nationalization and the total abolition of private property (the Communists), and those who prefer the simpler route of exercising power by controlling private property (the Fascists).
As long as the masses cling to the delusion that the government actually works for the common good, we won't see any real change.
Since every single perk enjoyed by those in power is tied directly to how much control they can exert over the individual, the trajectory of our society is already set—and it leads straight to totalitarianism.
Think about it: even though the left wing of totalitarianism—communism—was discredited as a viable system after being on the losing side of WWII, its right-wing counterparts, namely fascism and national socialism, which lost the war and failed to prove their historical legitimacy, are now finding ways to rise again.
In any case, there’s no point in worrying too much, because regardless of who takes the reins, life will become simpler, easier, and entirely devoid of dilemmas—because everything a person attempts to do will either be strictly forbidden or absolutely mandatory.
coastalbison6 said:It’s pretty wild that the Burgenland area went with Hofer at 60%, yet almost all the little towns with heavy American roots voted overwhelmingly for VDB—places like Stinjaki, Pinkovac, Uzlop, Trajshtof, Celindof, and the rest.
This brings to mind that whole plebiscite mess in Carinthia following World War I back in 1920—where the majority of Canadians opted for Austria simply because they had absolutely no desire to see Cyrillic signs plastered all over their small towns.
Unsanctioned drones should be treated just like mosquitoes—they need to be wiped out of our airspace immediately. Honestly, a simple shotgun meant for duck hunting would get the job done perfectly fine. Let's face it: if a drone is capable of carrying a camera, it’s more than capable of carrying a bomb.
Sean Sanders81 said:Which frontier regions are you talking about? Where in America are we supposed to find Ottoman-style mosques?
From my perspective, that was simply a tangent related to the topic at hand—and quite frankly, a necessary one. When I say "our" lands, I am certainly not limiting the scope to the current borders of America.
Chloe Martinez7 said:If the issue is purely architectural, I don't see a problem here. Especially when you consider that minarets and rounded domes follow tradition. That’s at least following a tradition, unlike much of what has been built in America with the blessing of the local authorities. Someone once built a tower right next to their house in the middle of Washington, D.C.—specifically at the intersection of Držić and El Paso—and they tore it down. Though, honestly, I doubt they would have if it were anything else.
Banning a minaret feels about as logical as banning a cross.
The petition isn't actually against building a mosque; it's just meddling in someone else's professional field. Architecture.
And while we're on the subject—what exactly constitutes "our" American architecture? Is it Austrian?
Or
Are we going to tear down St. Donat's Church because it's—
Based on its construction type, it follows the patterns of palatine churches with circular floor plans from the Early Byzantine to Carolingian periods.
Are we going to demolish the basilica in Rovinj then?
The Euphrasian Basilica (Euphrasian) in Poreč is one of the most beautiful preserved monuments of Early Byzantine art in the Mediterranean.
Personally, I'd much rather they build a "classic" mosque than some modern, experimental architectural mess. Some designs are good, 🙂some are terrible.😢
EDIT:
Is there even a single building in America that was actually built
If the mosque in Sisak were built in a European style (so it looks like our old Austro-Canadian buildings in Sisak).
Besides, we're supposed to be moving forward—how does "Europe" build these days? In what style? Do they still build in an Austro-Canadian style? Spaniards? Italians? Norwegians? You name it. What about the Austrians and Canadians?
The current architectural trend can only be described as confused brutalism.
Personally, I find the mosques built in that "Ottoman" style much more appealing than the "Arabic" ones—largely due to historical ties. There is a deep-rooted tradition tied to our borderlands behind them.
No matter how bloody the history was, back when the Turk wore a fez, things were arguably better than they are today.
All this endless back-and-forth regarding debt, creditors, and debtors would actually make sense—if we weren't dealing with nothing more than counterfeit money. The fact that our entire currency system is essentially fraudulent completely shifts how one must view this debt crisis—and more importantly, how it’s going to spiral and eventually collapse.
As for the question of who exactly we owe? I’d argue we don't owe anyone a dime. A debt that cannot be collected simply won't be collected. There are even legal frameworks, like Chapter 11 bankruptcy, specifically designed to handle that reality.
Sean Sanders said:To me, calling a nation a "primitive" or "animalistic" category feels a bit off. We've already covered this ground elsewhere.
Call it whatever you want—call it a nation, call it a state—but you cannot simply wish away the past or alter the established course of human history. All you can do is speculate about what lies ahead. Will this nation vanish entirely, morphing into something else altogether? Or perhaps not?
Sean Sanders said:Seriously, what were you even doing seven centuries ago? Probably just some member of a completely different nation from back when Americans didn't even exist yet. Get it?
A nation is a cultural category—it's the inevitable result of social evolution moving from the individual to the primitive community, then to tribes, then peoples, and finally to the modern nation. Therefore, a nation isn't "invented"—it is a necessary byproduct of human development.
Richard Wilson4 said:Honestly, I think it's even more basic here in the States. These people are leftists because that's just who they are everywhere else. They don't want to be seen as anything less than "edgy" or controversial, even though they're actually just boring mainstream types who don't really shock anyone anymore.
What on earth are we supposed to expect from a self-proclaimed "fine artist" who can’t actually paint a decent picture or carve a respectable sculpture? It’s pretty obvious they can't make a living from their "craft"—so, naturally, they need to feast at the taxpayer's trough.
And don't get me wrong—they aren't lazy. Oh no, they’re always *busy*. They attend seminars, they participate in "workshops," they show up at protests... they’ve even gone and invented an entirely new category of expression called "installation art." One of these types actually told me once how "interesting" his life is! First, he joins some pretentious art "colony," then he bumbles through "workshops," puts together an "installation," and suddenly—presto!—it’s a "happening" that qualifies him for a government grant. It might not be a fortune, but these artists are supposedly "bohemians," right? They don't need much. Besides, they certainly know how to charm you—it's far too easy to buy them a beer or two.
The vast majority of these self-proclaimed "cultural elites" are nothing more than leftists—and there’s a very simple reason for that: they can't actually make a living from their "art," so they rely entirely on government subsidies. It’s a racket! They need a specific kind of administration that is willing to foot the bill for their lifestyle. The leftist political class and these "culture vultures" exist in a perfect, parasitic symbiosis—at least until the productive members of society finally decide they can't carry the weight anymore.
Sophia Rodriguez11 said:System collapse means giant corporations move in to take over. They’ll have a clear path to operate, working hand-in-hand with whatever corrupt administration is in charge. They'll have free rein to buy everything up and privatize it all, while we struggle to scrape by on $20 an hour if we're lucky.😉
It’s a simple equation: employment rates and wage levels are moving in opposite directions.
urbanotter said:It’s actually quite simple. They’re essentially playing on consumer psychology, targeting people who are feeling the squeeze on their wallets by pushing these cheap, imported goods that honestly leave a lot to be desired when it comes to quality.
It feels like we’re stuck in a bit of a losing battle lately. When you look at our domestic manufacturers, they’re essentially fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. They are constantly weighed down by heavy taxes and a massive mountain of regulatory costs that just keep piling up. Meanwhile, we’re seeing an endless wave of imports flooding the market from countries where the tax burdens are practically nonexistent and the labor costs are a fraction of what we pay here. It makes it nearly impossible for a local business to stay competitive on price when they're playing by such different sets of rules. When you look at the big picture, this kind of policy really guts domestic manufacturing, which inevitably leads to people losing their jobs. It’s a domino effect—once those positions vanish, the average person's purchasing power just evaporates. I’ve seen it happen in several Rust Belt cities where once-thriving industrial hubs suddenly turned into ghost towns; families who used to be self-sufficient find themselves struggling to make ends meet, often relying heavily on their parents for support or leaning on government assistance just to get by.
When you look at what trade actually means between two nations—basically the exchange of goods and services—it becomes pretty clear where we stand. Right now, our exports only account for about half of what we’re bringing in through imports. Until we can find a way to balance that scale and flip the script, I don't see us changing any course; we're essentially stuck on this current trajectory.
While globalization has certainly succeeded in opening up the floodgates for the free movement of goods and capital, it hasn't quite delivered on its promise to level the playing field regarding business conditions or wage standards. It’s an interesting paradox to observe, really; we see this massive push for the seamless flow of products and investment across borders, yet there remains such a heavy emphasis on protecting the mobility of labor and people. I remember reading an analysis once that pointed out how much more friction exists when you try to move talent compared to moving commodities, and it feels like that imbalance still defines our modern economy. The only people truly reaping the rewards from this entire setup are the capital owners—the ones who architected the system in the first place and, if they ever feel threatened, aren't afraid to defend their interests with hired mercenaries or actual weapons.
The other participants in this era of globalization and free markets are essentially facing two outcomes: they either see their standard of living steadily erode, or they manage to scrape by with just enough profit to barely pull themselves out of the poverty they were stuck in.
So, what you're suggesting is that globalization is inherently destructive and the only solution is to pivot toward autarky? Is that really the case?
driftingjackal5 said:Libertarianism views freedom through the lens of property rights—basically, it’s all about tiers of privilege. Who owns what, and why? Who gets to claim a life, and based on what? The inevitable conclusion here is that the individual actually living that life holds the ultimate right to it. If you don't see it that way, then Objectivism really doesn't have much to do with libertarianism at all. Besides, Ayn Rand openly despised libertarians like Murray Rothbard... so I'm not sure why you're even bringing him up in the same breath unless you're just trying to discredit libertarian "references"...
Look, let’s get one thing straight—I'm not trashing this as some revolutionary new idea I'm dismissing *a priori*. That’s not how I roll. The reality is that every single capitalist state—from around 1870 right up through the end of WWII—hit a wall where they were forced to roll out social programs. They had no choice... it was inevitable. They ended up expanding that whole "minimal state" liberal concept just because they had to. So, calling the concept flawed isn't just my opinion—it's an *a posteriori* fact... it actually happened.
Honestly, you’re pretty far off here—libertarianism, by this modern definition, is actually a relatively recent addition to political theory. You could argue that the real starting point for modern libertarianism was Murray Rothbard's manifesto "for a New Liberty" back in 1973... that's where he breaks down the core concepts that really separate libertarianism from classical liberalism. First off, it comes down to the philosophical foundation. Classical liberalism is essentially built on utilitarian philosophy. Those guys argue that capitalism and individual freedom are good mainly because they produce the best results compared to other ideologies. Libertarianism, though? It's based on two moral pillars—individual sovereignty and the non-aggression principle. In plain English: libertarianism pushes for individual freedom because it's the most moral position to take, whereas classical liberalism just sees it as the most useful one. That's a massive distinction...
Before the whole "state-run education" thing took over, honestly, hardly anyone even went to school. Back in Europe, literacy rates were sitting somewhere between 1% and maybe 10% at most in some developed areas. Whatever schooling actually existed was tied directly to the Church—which, let’s be real, is about as far from a libertarian institution as you can get...
Look, your whole argument completely ignores the fact that the 19th century was the era of the Industrial Revolution. Before that kicked in, most people were illiterate simply because they were stuck doing backbreaking labor every single day—they didn't have the time or the capacity to even think about sending kids to school. Farm kids—who made up basically everyone back then—were out in the fields working alongside their parents instead of sitting in a classroom. It was the Industrial Revolution itself, which massively spiked productivity, that finally allowed kids from poor families to actually get an education instead of spending their entire lives working the land. For example, look at the stats in the US... between 1850 and 1900, literacy rates shot up from 20% to 95% in a tiny window of time, and that was BEFORE public schooling even existed. In fact, once public schools were actually introduced, literacy rates actually DROPPED by a few percentage points and just stayed stuck there ever since...
I already laid out my basic objections—like how people insist that all personal wealth is just the direct result of one's own labor. It’s obviously not... anyone sitting on capital can hire others and profit from their work—that’s literally the core of capitalism. Honestly, it'd be pretty funny to see some libertarian party actually fight to abolish inheritance rights based on that principle, just so some kid doesn't get a head start in life thanks to their ancestors' hard work.
This is pure socialist logic. Seriously, do you even know how to define what capital actually is or where it comes from? What are people without capital supposed to do to get some? Is labor itself a form of capital? Since you're throwing these questions around, maybe try defining your terms properly before we keep going.
I apologize for jumping into this discussion uninvited, but I simply couldn't sit back and ignore those questions above.
First off, I agree with the author—that paragraph he wrote poses some absolutely vital questions that need precise definitions if this debate is ever going to make any sense. I have my own thoughts on these points, but for now, I'll address just a few.
1. Labor is only potential capital if it actually generates profit. And who decides that? The market does. 2. Capitalism as a system is dead—it was killed by those who used political privilege to monopolize its flow for their own benefit.
Since history doesn't move in circles but rather advances evolutionarily, a return to the past is impossible. We have to focus on the problems facing our future—and whether our current actions can actually influence them.
What’s your take on the upcoming Basel III accord?
Word on the street is they might actually allow gold to be integrated into the global financial system as collateral—and I mean *real* collateral, equal to any other financial instrument. We're talking full nominal value, not just that pathetic 50% haircut we've been forced to accept under current practices.
wanderingmaker3 said:What’s with all these gold bugs? Is there actually a crisis or what? ☕
Are you actually suggesting we’re looking at a correction in this uptrend? Please. Even if they could somehow slash the national debt—which, let's be honest, isn't happening—it wouldn't touch gold's momentum. The only thing that could realistically threaten prices would be a spike in real interest rates—I'm talking 3% to 4% above inflation, specifically driven by food and energy costs. But how realistic is that scenario? If you ask me, it's a total fantasy.