Posts by Kimberly Cox59

I guess I'm just feeling like a local from Miami today. said:Yeah, I mean, that’s exactly what happens today when they start playing ball with the capitalist West.
I wonder, what was the poverty rate actually like before all that cooperation kicked in? Like, if we look back maybe 20 or 30 years, what was the real situation?

And then there was that whole period where she was actually working alongside the capitalist West. It’s kind of like how India has been collaborating with the West for the last few centuries, but now they've decided to pivot and redirect some of that revenue toward social welfare programs. I guess things just shift like that sometimes.
The Green Revolution was this massive turning point in how we handle food, and honestly, it’s pretty wild to think about. It wasn't just some small change; it was a complete overhaul of global agriculture through high-yield crops and better tech. I guess you could say it changed everything about how we feed billions of people. It really centered on things like new varieties of wheat and rice that were basically engineered to grow faster and bigger. They also leaned heavily into synthetic fertilizers and advanced irrigation systems. I mean, before this, farming was much more traditional, and suddenly, science stepped in to supercharge the whole process. There’s definitely two sides to it, though. On one hand, it prevented massive famines and boosted productivity like crazy—which is obviously a huge win. But on the other hand, maybe there are downsides we didn't see coming? Like the environmental impact or how it changed the way small farmers operate compared to big industrial operations. It's complicated, I suppose. Just a lot to wrap your head around!

I mean, things work so much better in places like Scandinavia, and honestly, they seem to be doing alright for themselves. I’m just saying, maybe a welfare state is a bit better than pure laissez-faire capitalism. Just my two cents, I guess! 🤷

I mean, look, where does actual technological progress really come from? Is it from some planned economy, or is it coming from capitalist ones? Like, what are we talking about here—Cuba? I guess you have to wonder.

There used to be the Soviet Union back in the day, too. Now, almost every single country has gone capitalist, so it feels like there isn't even an alternative left. But honestly, I guess that argument doesn't really hold much water just because of that.

I guess you could say those folks from the Kuban region have a pretty stellar pharmaceutical industry going on. It really seems like they're doing their part to push things forward.

William Anderson5 said:I feel like you’re fundamentally missing the point about how capitalism actually works. I mean, at its core, the whole system relies on consumption, right? If everyone is broke, then even the "rich" lose out because there's nobody left to actually buy their products or services. It’s pretty simple, really—what’s the point of manufacturing high-end computers if absolutely no one has the cash to buy them because everyone is living in poverty?

In the most absurd scenario, only the wealthy will be buying them, and honestly, that’s enough. I mean, the poor will just grab something cheaper that they actually need to survive—you know, stuff like food, housing, clothes, land, water, and all that. Capital will keep circulating, so don't sweat it. I guess it works out.

Whatever you say, man, but look—fifteen years ago, the average middle class family didn't have high-speed internet, a laptop, a smartphone, a DVD player, or hundreds of other gadgets sitting around. Nowadays, the typical American has all that stuff, and I guess it really does make life a whole lot better.

It’s wild to think that just 15 years ago, hardly anyone actually owned a personal computer, and DVDs felt like some distant future technology. I guess computers and smartphones would have become part of everyday life regardless of capitalism, much like how TVs and cars eventually did. Maybe things just move that way naturally.
I guess you could go on forever talking about how much those gadgets actually affect our quality of life... it's a huge debate, really.

The average person's material life is actually getting better. I mean, sure, there are plenty of problems—don't get me wrong—but the typical American has seen a real improvement in their living standards over the last 15 years. And honestly? It was the same story in the 15 years before that, and I guess it’ll probably stay that way for the next 15 years too.
There’s really no philosophy involved here. I mean, honestly, there isn't.

I mean, there isn't much philosophy to be found here, but I don't think capitalism is actually to blame. It’s more like technological progress itself, you know? Regardless of whatever political system we happen to be running, technology just moves on its own. Maybe it's just how things work.

Peter Reyes63 said:I mean, there’s really no doubt about it—Buffett, Bill Gates, and that whole crowd spend their entire day just dreaming up new ways to keep workers under their thumb and keep everyone on edge. I guess it's just how they roll.

Of course I don't mean it like some wild conspiracy theory. Man, you really love oversimplifying things, don't you?
Look, it’s pretty simple. Capitalists and employers—whatever you want to call them—are always looking for ways to slash production costs. And how do they do that? Well, they go about it by trimming down wages and cutting back on social benefits through taxes. It’s kind of an indirect way of sabotaging a worker's ability to actually compete in the market, I guess. By squeezing them this way, you're basically stripping away their chances at getting a good education. On top of that, you've got people forced to funnel a massive chunk of their tiny paychecks just to cover healthcare, rent, and everything else. It leaves them with next to nothing to actually start their own business. Does that make sense? Maybe?

How exactly do companies keep workers under their thumb using that whole salary system? I run my own little shop, though I basically just contract out to one other firm. Honestly, I don't really see how they can hold me hostage when I can just walk away whenever I feel like it... and it’s the same on the flip side—I’m not out here exploiting my crew since they can also just quit whenever they want. 🤷

So, what happens once they actually get fired? Do they just head straight to the unemployment office? Move to another state? Or maybe spend their lives living with their parents until they're fifty? I don't know, but it feels like there just isn't any real alternative out there.
Don't go telling me—"Oh, I could just start my own business." I can't. Honestly, the competition out there is just way too intense. You'd probably get crushed before you even had a chance to get off the ground. I guess it's just not that simple.

So... does your world even wrap its head around property rights? Seriously. Go find my previous post—you know, the one where I dropped those 4 or 5 Milton Friedman videos—and let me know what you think. I'd love to hear your take on them, please!

Look, I told you, I just can't get to them right now. I'll probably get back to you on that tomorrow... maybe.

Peter Reyes63 said:So, look, I think one really, really vital freedom is just the ability to engage in voluntary exchange. And if you follow that logic, it kind of leads you to the conclusion that a socialist society just can't actually be free. I mean, it's pretty simple, right? If someone is basically threatening me with force—telling me I have to work for someone else, or seizing my property under the guise of "solidarity" while waving the threat of fines or jail time around—then I’m just not a free person. I guess that's just how it works.

I mean, in a truly socialist society, nobody would actually be threatening anyone. It’s just that the whole idea got completely trashed by Lenin and his successors with their whole Gulag and Secret Police routine. A socialist society should work pretty simply, I guess, because people would actually see the fruits of someone else's labor for their own work. They’d realize that if they don't pull their weight, nobody else is going to work for them either. It's like a pure self-regulating system—you work for others, and others work for you. Honestly, the worst thing that could happen is that things stay just about the same. Free riders... man, they're everywhere, aren't they? I guess you could say they're just part of the deal, but still. It’s funny how that works. Maybe it's just human nature or something, who knows? Anyway, just a thought.But honestly, that’s just a tiny fraction of what the economy actually has to deal with. I mean, it's really just a small weight on the scale, if you think about it. Maybe it seems big, but compared to everything else? It's peanuts. I guess it's just one little part of the bigger picture.

Take the Spanish Civil War, for instance. In a few small communities back then, they actually managed to set up this incredible food distribution system based entirely on volunteers. It only took them a couple of months to get it running. I mean, according to that text—and I’m not even exaggerating here—it was so simple that if you needed supplies, you could basically just walk into the warehouse and grab what you needed. It sounds wild, but it happened.

I guess I’m assuming that Kimberly Cox59's version of a perfect world doesn't really account for property rights, which, you know, are pretty much the bedrock of freedom. Or am I totally off base here? Maybe I'm wrong. 😉

I mean, you're mistaken there. Personally, I don't think anyone should touch private property like your house, your car, or a vacation home. I guess individualism is actually a super important part of socialism—especially anarchism, for that matter.

I can't get around to watching that Milton Friedman video right now (my speakers are acting up). 🤣Anyway, I'll just leave it at that for now and catch you guys tomorrow...

driftingjackal5 said:I mean, it feels to me like his "ideal world" hasn't really gone much further than a few propaganda pamphlets by Bakunin and Kropotkin. And man, talk about a massive contradiction—he actually has that Bakunin quote in his profile: "When the people whip the stick, they aren't any happier if you just rename it the 'People's Stick'." That's clearly aimed right at the communists and socialists he looked down on. I guess the irony regarding his own views is just totally absent there. Maybe Kimberly Cox59 just doesn't see it?

So, why do you think I put that signature there, genius? I guess it's just my way of showing how much I can't stand those Stalinists and that whole crowd. They always seemed to have this weird fetish for anything labeled "people's." 😉

I probably could have gone with, "Freedom without socialism is just a privilege and an injustice, while socialism without freedom is nothing but slavery and brutality." I guess that fits pretty well with anarchist philosophy, anyway.

splićo said:some data point, a statistic, or whatever...
Harold Martin10 linked a graph above about poverty rates that doesn't really back up what you're claiming.

Whoops, you guys might have a point there. Sure, the poverty rate in India is dropping, but I guess that’s mostly thanks to government handouts for the poor rather than capitalism doing the heavy lifting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17441347

driftingjackal5 said:So, here you go—it’s basically the Communist Party's entire platform, pulled straight out of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. After that, feel free to sing your little songs about how "central planning isn't actually communism." I guess it's all just one big circle, right?

First off—you're quoting Marx, an anarchist, which just feels super fuzzy and confusing to me, I guess.
And another thing—you’re kind of forgetting that Marx and Engels actually believed all those measures you mentioned were just a temporary phase. They thought it was all leading toward eventually getting rid of the state entirely, along with all that central planning stuff. I guess they saw it as just a stepping stone.

Look, every single one of these points has already been tested out in one way or another across all those "non-communist" countries you keep talking about. Honestly, some of these ideas are actually being used right now in modern social-democratic nations. So, I guess maybe just stop nitpicking over stuff when it’s pretty clear you don't really have a clue what you're talking about.

You haven't got a clue, honestly. I mean, if you had just taken a second to look up the actual dictionary definition of communism, you'd realize it’s supposed to be an idea for a society without... Class, the State, and Money.. ☕

I see the words popping up on the screen, but I’m honestly not seeing a single actual argument to back them up. Just saying "because I said so" isn't really an argument, I guess.

I feel like I've already laid this out before. Look, whenever capital—you know, the cash—starts piling up in the hands of just a few people, it doesn't really matter how much they actually earned to get there. Once they have that kind of weight, those individuals are going to do everything in their power to stay on top. And honestly? They’ll probably do it by keeping workers and everyone else struggling just to get by trapped within the wage system. Basically, these wealthy folks end up pushing the working class deeper into poverty just to squeeze out more profit for themselves. To me, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, which makes the whole idea of "anarcho"-capitalism feel like a total oxymoron at its core.

So, I mean, does being an anarchist actually mean you have to push back against every single hierarchy out there? Is authority really such a bad thing on its own? I guess we should think about experts and people who actually know what they're talking about. Even your favorite guy, Bakunin, writes that we should probably trust authorities that are actually justified. I mean, you wouldn't exactly ask a carpenter to fix your laptop, right? Or would you really want to listen to a psychologist when they start lecturing you on math? Probably not.

Thank God that’s not the case. I guess you might be having a little trouble distinguishing between legitimate authority and unjustified authority. To me, legitimate authority comes from actual expertise—think of a professor in a classroom, an architect overseeing a construction site, or a conductor leading an orchestra. You know, people who actually know their stuff. Unjustified authority is totally different. That’s just someone holding power because of their position, like a king, a priest, or some boss at a factory. They aren't necessarily experts in their field; they’re just sitting in a position of power and trying to hang onto it. Maybe that makes sense?

driftingjackal5 said:Basically, they all fell for the trap of a planned economy. It was this whole idea that you could centrally control the market, which is really just the heart of socialism and all those similar nonsense ideas—you know, that whole "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" bit. I mean, the truth is, there just isn't an economic system more efficient than the free market. Honestly, it's probably even more democratic too, because in a free market, everyone is basically voting dozens of times a day with their wallet on everything from gum to supercomputers. I guess the less free a market is, the less efficient it becomes. We saw this all through the 20th century; every single time those "socialist" or "communist" systems loosened their grip on the market, the economy would actually start to recover. But, of course, that wasn't allowed by the ideology, so most of them just collapsed when the money ran out. All those systems failed for purely economic reasons, including our old "self-managed socialism" that some people still try to romanticize today, which is kind of wild if you think about it.

The whole Eastern Bloc was actually running on state capitalism, not true socialism, let alone communism. Communism really only had a brief moment in Spain back in '36. And that version of communism was totally at odds with central planning, which is just an economic project that was doomed from the start.

And again—capitalism can't really be called "freedom," because at its core, it's hierarchical and naturally trends toward creating a plutocracy. Anarcho-capitalism is just a fantasy. ☕

Harold Martin10 said:Personally, I’m not even asking you to prove that "always" part. I just want one solid example of a country that’s had socialism for a long stretch—say, fifty years—and is doing just as well as the capitalist neighbors around it.

I mean, if I wanted to be a nitpicker, I could argue that no country has actually maintained socialism for half a century straight. But I won't get bogged down in semantics, so I'll just say Cuba. Life expectancy there is pretty much on par with the USA, and their schools and healthcare systems are honestly some of the best in the world. You don't see hunger; everyone has access to food, water, medical care, and they've got housing sorted out too. Sure, when you look at GDP or total national wealth, Cuba is way behind the USA, but for the average little guy? I guess they might actually have it better. Of course, Cuba is an authoritarian state, and that’s really my only gripe about it.

Besides that, Cuba is pretty much the only place left in the 21st century where you can actually claim it's a socialist state. There isn't anyone else (well, maybe Venezuela).

splićo said:This whole argument about the poor Indian or the poor Chinese person keeps coming up, implying that capitalism is what made them poor... but the West didn't cause poverty for a small Indian person; India was struggling long before they started working with the West. In fact, ever since they've teamed up with Western nations, both China and India have seen massive growth and people are living better than they ever did before.

Well, China and India as nations? Sure. But the Chinese people and Indian people themselves? Not really. I think that's where our communication is tripping up. To me, it matters whether the *people* are doing okay economically, not just the government.

driftingjackal5 Kimberly Cox59 said:An anarchist who’s actually out here pushing for a social welfare state? Oh my God... 🤦

So, we've got an anarchist here who’s actually pushing for a social welfare state as the big alternative to libertarianism. That's interesting, I guess. Personally, if it were up to me, I’d get rid of the government entirely, but probably through a different route with totally different outcomes. But hey, if you're forcing my hand and making me pick between "anarcho"-capitalism and some kind of social welfare model—like what you see in Scandinavia or just a general social safety net—I don't really have a dilemma. I'm fine either way, maybe.

Honestly, I think the anarcho-capitalists are the biggest joke of all. They just don't seem to get that capitalism... well, you know. It’s kind of wild, really. Always. It all just leads straight to injustice and those rigid hierarchies we see everywhere, which is basically the polar opposite of anarchy. I guess that’s just how it works, maybe?

Here we go again—another "anarchist" out here pushing for state solutions. I guess it’s funny how that works. To me, it seems like the whole socialist philosophy you're peddling—and honestly, I call anyone who wants to redistribute wealth based on some imaginary "social" metric a socialist—is basically built on this one idea: it's better for everyone to be equally miserable than to have any inequality when it comes to freedom. Maybe that's just how you see it, though.

What kind of freedom are we even talking about? I just don't see it. I mean, take a worker in India making shoes on an assembly line—they don't have any real freedom at all. And honestly, I guess workers in the US aren't much better off either, since their whole lives basically depend on whether their boss decides to be kind or not.

I honestly think socialism always ends up lifting the standard of living for most people. And please, let’s not even get started on North Korea—that’s just not what socialism is about at all.

If you had actually looked into this issue, you might have realized that if we're talking about China—which I assume is the main reason you're so obsessed with "Asia"—this place was basically a massive, unindustrialized rural wasteland just fifty years ago. Like, seriously, 90% of the people were just poor farmers living off whatever they could scrape together from the dirt, with absolutely zero chance of ever escaping that poverty. Communism pretty much wiped them out during those insane Maoist "Great Leaps Forward." It wasn't until a little bit of free enterprise managed to sneak its way into that massive country that things actually started moving forward in a big way. For instance, there’s this one super famous case from the late seventies that really shows how crazy socialism and planned economies can be—it almost completely destroyed China:
I was just reading this piece from NPR about how much the landscape in China has shifted over the years. It’s pretty wild to think about, honestly. You look at how they've handled their economic growth and it really makes you wonder about the sheer scale of the transformation. I guess it’s one of those things where you realize just how fast a massive economy can pivot when the direction changes. Maybe it's just me, but seeing that kind of shift—it's almost hard to wrap your head around. Just a lot to process, I suppose.

That’s an interesting point. Look, I’m definitely not trying to defend Maoism—that stuff is pure evil, plain and simple. But, I guess you could look at it this way... here's an example of something that actually worked. Voluntary. I mean, maybe that's just how things work sometimes? It feels like everything is becoming so much more... well, organized lately. But yeah, voluntary. I guess. Well, you also have those instances of collectivization that actually ended up driving production through the roof and really bumping up the standard of living. I guess it happened sometimes, maybe? It’s interesting how that works out.
I was just reading through this deep dive on how various revolutions actually play out, and man, it really makes you think about the cycle of things. It’s easy to get swept up in the excitement of a big uprising, but looking at history, there's always that messy transition period where everything feels like it's spinning out of control. I guess it's one of those things where the initial spark is easy, but keeping the momentum without falling into total chaos is the hard part. Maybe that's why so many movements end up looking exactly like what they were trying to overthrow in the first place? It’s a bit heavy, I know, but honestly, it’s pretty fascinating to see how these patterns repeat themselves over and over again.

I guess the modern Chinese person is actually making massive strides precisely because of how much free market they have, not despite it. It’s kind of wild when you think about it. I’d really suggest checking out this TED talk if you want to start seeing how those "exploited" workers have actually come out on top. Honestly, they seem way happier today than their parents were just twenty or thirty years ago.

So, I was just checking out this TED talk by Leslie Mitcheson about how we handle workers and productivity, and man, it really gets you thinking. It’s one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but once you dig in, there's so much more going on. I guess she's looking at how we structure everything in the workplace. Maybe it's just me, but it feels like such a huge part of our daily lives, right? You know, how we spend most of our waking hours just trying to stay ahead of the curve. Anyway, it's definitely worth a watch if you have a few minutes to spare. Just some food for thought!

Well, he's more or less saying that people are actually volunteering to come work for the city. And I mean, yeah, that’s true, obviously. But they aren't exactly heading over there just so they can...They picked up some new skills and really got out there to see the world.But honestly, how would they even make enough to actually live? Most of them are still stuck in poverty, I guess.

Nah, I think the other way to go is just being self-employed. In a truly free society—one that isn't constantly squeezing its citizens just to fund some massive social welfare programs—where taxes on small business owners and entrepreneurs are kept at a minimum or maybe even nonexistent, things change. If you can take a hobby or something you're actually talented at and turn it into your own little venture, I guess that’s just a way better move. It's probably a much more profitable option than just sitting around the house, complaining about how there are no jobs out there.

So, what happens next? You go out and start a small business, only to watch it tank because you're getting crushed by massive corporations. It’s the same story we saw with local watchmakers, tailors, and all those other small shops that just couldn't hang. Even the mid-sized factories are struggling to stay competitive these days. So, if I'm following your logic, people are supposed to just keep pouring their hard-earned cash—where would they even get that money, I guess?—into tiny startups that will probably fail 90% of the time anyway? It just doesn't seem to add up.

I mean, sure, some fields really do require you to go through the motions at a specialized university. But for most everyday jobs? I guess you don't necessarily need a fancy degree. Think about things like retail, accounting, construction, or even all those various trades. Even more technical stuff, like computer science and its cousins—you can pretty much tackle that on your own. Honestly, having a membership at your local public library and just a tiny bit of willpower and ambition to learn something new is probably enough. Maybe that's all it takes, really.

I mean, seriously, how is some kid out there—someone who’s actually got tons of potential but zero dollars in their pocket—supposed to go after a degree in the sciences or social studies if they can't afford tuition? And please, don't give me that "just go to the library" line... I guess it's just not that simple.

I guess that’s just another thing about libertarianism. It kind of leads to this spiritual emptiness, you know? Since everyone is just hyper-focused on chasing the next dollar, there isn't much room left for anything else.

I mean, you're totally mixing up your terms here—and I bet you're doing it on purpose, too. Look, the world we’re living in right now isn't some free-for-all of laissez-faire or pure entrepreneurship. It's actually dominated by corporatism, or maybe neo-mercantilism if you want to get technical. It’s all about markets that are centrally controlled and partially managed by big players. Just my two cents, I guess.

I get that, but honestly, I don't think a pure laissez-faire approach would be any better. Right now, it seems like the wealthy prefer corporatism because the government provides them with a certain level of security. Just look at China—it’s basically just total cooperation between big business and the state, where the party manages any social unrest using funds provided by the industrialists.

Look, I guess it’s just a statistical fact that when you look at the entire history of the human race, despite all the massive headaches we deal with today, things are actually... well, different. Maybe they're just feeling less hungry? I guess. Or maybe they're just more satisfied. It's hard to say, really....fewer wars, at the very least. Less sickness, less illiteracy. I guess that’s really all we can aim for, right? Maybe just keeping things simple like that.And, you know, at the very least, we're looking at political inequality.

I guess you could say those socialist systems are largely to blame for how things turned out...

I honestly think we’re living in the most peaceful and prosperous era since humans first crawled out of their caves. It’s pretty wild when you think about it. And look, regardless of how you personally feel about all that, the statistics really tell a story. They show this massive upward surge that lines up perfectly with the start of industrialization and the rise of capitalist—or even quasi-capitalist—ways of running an economy. I guess the numbers don't lie.

It obviously aligns with industrialization—I mean, how could it not? 😕
Also, I wouldn't bother making comparisons to the pre-industrial era.

And hey, driftingjackal5, how would the justice system actually work in "anarcho"-capitalism?

Harold Martin10 said:Because taking from people who actually work and handing it over to those who don't is fair and just?

Who isn't working? I mean, most unemployed people aren't just sitting around by choice—at least, I guess 99% of them aren't. And honestly, free education (funded by taxes) is great for everyone, especially for folks in lower income brackets who wouldn't be able to afford tuition on their own. How is that anything but fair?

driftingjackal5 said:Man, what kind of exploitation are you even talking about? It honestly makes me sick to listen to this Marxist nonsense over and over again.

Marxist? Goodness, no. I'm an anarchist, actually.

Look, a "worker" is still just an individual with all their own rights. The difference between a "worker" and a "boss" is simply that instead of investing property, they invest their labor.

Right, but isn't it also true that their assets are, say, a few million times smaller than the boss's, so without some kind of social safety net, they wouldn't even have a chance at moving up in life?

The "boss" pays for the "worker's" time at a rate established by the equilibrium of supply and demand in a free market.

Basically, whatever they feel like paying. ☕

An unskilled worker won't be able to sell their labor for a high price simply because the supply of unskilled workers is high and demand is low. A highly skilled worker can sell their labor for a much higher price, especially if demand is high too. That's why, for example, an unskilled street cleaner earns a low wage, while a highly skilled programmer earns a high one.

Sure, but why are there so many unskilled workers, like in Asia for instance? It's not that they aren't smart; it's just that they don't have access to that education because of the extreme poverty they live in.

There is no exploitation whatsoever if both parties—the "boss" and the "worker"—enter into that relationship by mutual consent and voluntarily.

Sure, I get that, but the other option for the "worker" just ends up being unemployment and general poverty.

Education isn't just something that happens inside a classroom or at a university. It’s constant, you know? It happens whenever someone who works actually tries to get better at what they do. Back in the day, people used to call this apprenticeship. You'd have an unskilled worker putting in the time for a tiny, maybe even symbolic, paycheck until they finally mastered the craft and could call themselves a pro. That way, even people who didn't have any practical skills or the chance for a formal degree could—if they had enough grit—build a better life for themselves and their families.

That sounds brilliant. But wait, how would social sciences even be taught under that plan? They don't exactly turn a profit. What about astronomy? Or zoology, for most cases?

Besides, that whole "evil industrialist" trope of yours feels like it was ripped straight out of a Charles Dickens novel... Maybe try stepping into the 21st century a little bit.

Aha, so it's 21st-century humane capitalism, featuring the widest gap between the rich and the poor in history. Cool.🙄

Charles Campbell7 said:In your book, if someone robs a local convenience store and hands out some of the cash to people in need, are they just a thief or are they a saint? ☕

Well, if you ask me—and this is just how my own moral compass spins—it probably depends on how much they actually give away and how well-off the shop owner was to begin with. But strictly speaking about the law? Yeah, that person is a thief.

You claim the government takes from the rich to give to the poor. I honestly can't think of a single real-world example where that actually happens.

Look, just because the social safety net here in America isn't working quite the way it should doesn't mean we ought to scrap the whole thing. Maybe we should just try to fix it instead. 🤷
And I mean, even our somewhat lacking social programs still manage to provide some support to the unemployed and those struggling...

Personally, I find libertarianism pretty appealing, but honestly, only the left-wing kind...

Why? Well, I guess it's because capitalism—especially that extreme anarcho-capitalist version—just feels inherently unfair. Right-wing libertarians love to moan about how "taking" someone's hard-earned property is wrong, but they totally overlook the fact that a lot of that wealth comes from exploiting people. It's just simple logic, really. If some massive industrialist is paying his workers peanuts, those workers don't stand a chance at actually getting ahead in society. So, taking a slice of that tycoon's wealth to fight poverty isn't really "theft," in my opinion.

driftingjackal5 said:For instance, according to the latest census, almost 90% of Americans identify as Christian. But isn't the whole foundation of Christian morality based on things like "love thy neighbor as thyself," "turn the other cheek," and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? So why don't people actually live by that in their daily lives? Like, why would kids who were sitting in religious studies class yesterday be out on the streets tomorrow shouting demands for "free education"?

That just doesn't make sense to me. If anything, Catholics should probably be fighting for free schooling, because that’s exactly what "loving your neighbor" is all about.

There are really only two possibilities here—either they think teachers and professors should just work for nothing.

Oh man, lol 🤣

But look, can the government pay for anything without taking it from someone else first? Of course not. The state is essentially a monopoly on the legal use of force. When faced with a demand for "free education," the state responds by using coercion—through taxes—to seize property from one person to give to another. In this scenario, they'd take money from every taxpayer to cover the costs for those demanding "free schooling."

Yeah, sure, but they'd end up taking more from the wealthy folks who can actually afford a small hit like that. Plus, in an anarcho-capitalist world, everyone would have to pay for schooling anyway, so where's the actual difference? 🤷

sperr said:I'll just throw out a few examples:

1. Electricity and gas prices going up
2. Raising sales tax
3. Average wages dropping
4. GDP shrinking and sliding back into a recession
5. National debt climbing higher
6. Inflation rising
7. Unemployment going up
8. Industrial production falling
9. More bankruptcies
10. More foreclosures and frozen bank accounts for regular folks
...

Honestly, the Republican Party would have done all this too if they had won the election. I’m not trying to defend the Democratic Party or the Liberal Party here—they’re actually worse in my book because they have the nerve to call themselves leftists—but thinking the Republican Party would be any different is just silly. 🤷

no_surrender said:1. Stopping official recognition and sponsorship for the Wounded Knee commemorations

And honestly, that's probably better since those gatherings were mostly filled with Nazis anyway, whether you want to admit it or not... Maybe the US Federal Government should just send a representative to the ceremony and leave it at that.

3. Renaming two departments from English to Spanish

Which ones specifically?

4. Treating partisans the same as American veterans

So what? Were they supposed to treat them like Nazis?😕

I agree with the rest of the points; they're pretty idiotic decisions. ☕

Samwell Tarly said:I mean, who were those Frenchmen, Spaniards, Flemish, Canadians, Romanians, and everyone else wearing German uniforms on the Eastern Front actually fighting for?

They were defending Nazism and fascism—along with racism and the Holocaust. Just like the Nationalists...

Samwell Tarly said:Canada didn't really exist as its own thing in the first America; parts of it were tucked into the Banovina of America, and the whole thing ended up part of the Independent State of America.

That’s why I said Partisan Canada instead of Canada. I guess, yeah, local Americans and Muslims fought for the Nationalists, but what kind of authority would even try to claim territory that hasn't been under American control since basically the 11th century?😕

Samwell Tarly said:The military forces for the Independent State of America weren't made up of people from modern-day America, but rather the locals there and the so-called "flower of the American nation"—which are today's Canadians.

That whole "flower of the nation" bit? I think Ante Pavelić just cooked that up to win over the Muslims. He even let them build a mosque near what is now Fascism Victims Square, but honestly, he probably didn't care about them at all. It was just propaganda, you know?

Samwell Tarly said:By the way, if we're using that logic, what kind of home were Americans defending at Tarawa?

Well, Americans were fighting against Japanese imperialism. I don't know, maybe you think the Polynesians were living their best lives under Japanese rule?

Kyle Reese said:Are we celebrating the fight against Nazi Germany or just a general day against fascism?

I mean, is there really an issue with being against the ultra-nationalist militias too?

Of course not, actually. I think those militias were just as much fascist trash as the Nazis were.

no_surrender said:So, Americans weren't out there conquering other people's lands alongside the Germans. They were strictly defending their own homes from Marshall's communists and the partisans who were fighting for communism and America. It’s pretty much what that chant at the stadiums is all about, you know? The kind of thing the communists always try to ban or make illegal.

Right, they were defending their homes in Russia—you know, protecting the homes of that famous American minority in Stalingrad.
And they defended homes in Canada, and they were even over in France.

no_surrender said:Neither side killed even two percent as many people as the partisans did.

That's just not true... I mean, do you actually have any real evidence for that? (I'm guessing you don't.)

no_surrender said:If we were a normal American country like we were back before 1999, someone would be facing legal consequences for this, just like how you face charges in Germany for denying the Holocaust.

No way, you'd be the one in trouble. You're basically denying a part of the Holocaust right now.🤣.

John Doe said:Some people actually made it out of Auschwitz, others were saved during the breakout from the camp! I mean, how many people do you think survived hiding in the woods in Austria during those mass shootings after Jonestown and when they were being lined up for execution or forced onto the Stations of the Cross?

Honestly, more innocent lives were lost at Auschwitz than at Jonestown. Please, just stop trying to defend the Nazis. They were the absolute worst part of American history—just traitors and mass murderers.

none said:I think you’re missing the point about April 10th, 1941—that whole thing fell apart once the war ended! And nobody in the world actually recognized June 25th. Instead, global powers just stood by and let the US Army and others try to crush us. Once they realized they couldn't, they finally recognized us as a State on January 15th! They recognized us during the conflict and used the UN to make sure America kept its borders after 1945!

Hmm, hmm, hmm... I guess we’re starting to drift into expansionist territory now, aren't we? The borders from 1943 (AFL-CIO) were the ones internationally recognized, and honestly, any attempt at expanding them would probably just tank our reputation globally. Just look back at how much trouble those old regional disputes caused for our foreign policy...

Kanye said:We don't really have anything to celebrate regarding international recognition. I mean, celebrating that would just be celebrating someone else's permission or their mercy, right?
What we should actually be celebrating is our own choices, because those decisions are what eventually led to being recognized anyway.
We were already independent before anyone else acknowledged it. So, we should focus on the day we actually declared ourselves free. Whether that’s June 25th or October 8th... I guess it's up to the historians to decide.

That's true. We make the calls about our own independence, not some other country.

Kyle Reese said:Who actually cares about Nazi Germany?

I mean, we have our own American Civil War and our own heroes to focus on. I guess it doesn't really matter who took which side during WW2, the Napoleonic Wars, or those old conflicts between the Persians and the Greeks, right?

I don't know, though. It looks like the guy above me was trying to compare Independence Day to April 10, 1941, in some sort of weird way.

John Doe said:Just look at June 25th compared to April 10th when Nazi Germany was declared! Right after they declared it, it was recognized by the international community!

Wait, Nazi Germany was internationally recognized?! 😂
I mean, only the Axis powers recognized them (you know, the ones that actually lost the war), plus Sweden and Argentina... That doesn't really count as being recognized by the international community, I guess.

Both of these dates matter deeply for America and its whole history.
On June 22nd, we saw proof that the American people wouldn't just bow down to a single occupier, and then on June 25th, we saw everyone standing up against a state that had become a real threat to America and the American people since the mid-80s.
I mean, one doesn't cancel out the other at all, so I guess both really deserve to be celebrated.