LustfulAngel Posts

I've explained my philosophy on romantic interactions very clearly, and is that not what we're debating? You accused me of being chauvinistic against females, when I never have. From defending the position of the Sacred Feminine, to even stating a female's 21st century advantages in the dating realm. I've argued for a woman's superiority.

And all I ever argued, was for the feminine to remain feminine. Instead of its current self destructive behavior that IMO is partially to blame for the increasing divorce rates across the country.

If we're to be real specific, it is of course natural for a guy to be friends with a female with non sexual intentions. However, does the guy use this to his monetary or social advantage? Hell, he can't for that very usage is what would be defined as chauvinistic.

Of course I have been interested in women, but I am saying in the hypothetical that if a female were to ask a male, and if the male were to say 'no', that no is a very flat no.

For a male, in society a girl friend is a girl he is dating. There's no versatility involved for the guy. Unlike the girl who can access a male's social, psychological and economic power as long as she makes herself even slightly available.

TLDR, in a nut shell is that versatility exists for females in the dating game. It does not for men. The 'versatility' for men is called cheating.

It's not victimization for me to non objectively observe the dating field and recognizing that men can and in fact do get screwed.(Hey, so too can women if that makes you feel better)

Men are just gonna have to recognize what situations to get themselves in and out of. Recognizing they deal with more land mines than women do.

You're wrong to claim that it's a victimizing image. You're also wrong when you(Yes, YOU were the one that made the claim, I never insofar as wrote) claimed that I ever held the position that only men suffer from unrequited love.

The only two things you got correct was the emotional support and that yes Most women would monopolize "guy friends"

To the contrary, it is the woman(and I'll even assume you are one) who cannot acknowledge the 21st century reality of her position, because to do so would be to fundamentally change the discussion from the age old social inequality that is no longer there, or more aptly the shift that has occurred to the other side of the spectrum.

A guy, on the other hand does not ask for favors from the unrequited women. They may be co workers, etc or whatever their situation implies but if a man is not interested he is flatly not interested.

If you are a woman, and you ask a guy. You'll know the answer fairly quickly, the "friend zone" does not exist for a woman. Or rather, its drawbacks don't exist for women.

The guy on the other hand, he is compelled by both his natural urges to continue to court the woman(as well as a woman's own initiatives by giving such soft praise) to continue to keep the pathetic chump in her corner.

If I'm being chauvinistic, I'm doing so against my own gender(or the pathetic half of it anyway) who lets themselves get caught up in the "friend zone", instead of simply and utterly moving on.

I've given you plenty to debate on, you've just chosen not to engage in it. I can lead a donkey to water but whether or not you drink it is a whole another manner entirely.

Actually, it's reality. I'm sorry that you don't live in reality but a relationship is often between two people and two people can yes, in fact abuse each other. Acknowledging the other's abusive tendencies will at least make for open and clear dialogue.

And what's chauvinistic about acknowledging a female's advantages? Uh, Hello?

I acknowledged the female's superiority, not the other way around. You've proven the American Education system is now so terrible that basic comprehension is out of the reach of many.



I feel pity about our future prospects

Quite to the contrary, my egotistic friend this *IS* a discussion spot. Regarding "Love, romance and relationships". And we engaged in the topic at hand, expanding on its various elements.

If we cannot discuss the matter of which the topic is involved, why is there even a forum in the first place? How is it possible that I "targeted" Dia? I disagreed with her rather obnoxious approach towards the OP, the 21st century ideology that women can do no wrong in the dating world, and for a guy to be rejected in a manner that humiliates him is not to the fault of the passive aggressive female.

If you want a TLDR version, here it is: If Women expect men to be candid, honest and frank, men expect(and need) that honesty all the more so. Being passively put off is NOT merciful, in fact it's quite cruel and misleading.

No different from how we expect advertisements to properly advertise and if not the fraud is prosecuted.

P.S: "Report" the thread to be locked if you want, though if you report this thread to be locked that means every other consequential thread which has a discussion in it will also have to be locked(for consistency purposes).

If only it were that simple, Dia. In all honesty, we know it to be quite more complicated: A woman can put a guy in the "friend zone", cue a few weeks or months later the girl calls up the guy and says "I miss you" and so the female pulls the guy's strings.

Your right in that a girl has no obligations to return a guy's feelings, but a friend zone doesn't "imply" that at all. There's a simple reality: Either a male and female are in a relationship, or they are not. It's black and white, there is no gray.

The "friend zone" in a way, exists as a gray area. For females and females alone.
If females do not "exist for sex"(and I agree that they don't) then equally is it true that men don't exist purely to wine and dine for his "female friend"?

Yet, that is what a vast majority of females in today's society would like to believe. The "guy friend" if not financial support, is mental and moral support.

So tell me Dia, what is so great about this "friendship"? A male is egocentric, this is true and always will remain true. So what does 'ego' mean? It means the very core essence of a person. To an extent, the human race is egocentric. The male just happens to be moreso than the female.

You may think a friendship that's totally benefic to you is benevolent. To the male who focuses primarily on himself(and all males do, in varying degrees) this is an insult.

The concept of "Friends with benefits" is sickening. Perhaps to a few males, if the benefit is sexual they might put up with it. I won't deny this, but I'll charge just the same that females want those same benefits and in fact get them.

Without the drawbacks.

Let me see if I can phrase it better for both you and him: He's kind of discouraged about the fact that he was silently put off, and that up until recently he thought was praise.

On the one hand, I agree with the other guys in that you shouldn't put too much of a factor into the word 'sweet' alone. Look at body gesture, eye contact, as well as tone of voice. If all of those things are in a positive, affirmative manner then surely there's mutual interest.

On the other hand, there are plenty of girls who put guys off "softly", part of it is ironically, as Dia calls you 'shallow' it's actually these women who are shallow: They'd much rather be turned away softly(at worst) and would much rather be accepted by the man that tickles their ectasy.

In 21st century egotism, the female actually believes men have the same psyche of wanting to be turned down softly.(This soft rejection, which also has the convenience of stashing a guy in a friend zone) is also a secret weapon of sorts for females.

The truth, couldn't be farther. Most men, would actually like to hear it straight from the horses mouth. Not a friend, not a colleague. And some half assed "Oh you're a nice guy" is actually a stinging insult.

If I'm such a "nice guy", then why reject me in the first place? No, I'd rather hear you say "I'm not interested." I can then actually move on.

Love, in all of its wholeness is pain. Trying to soften that pain, in reality actually deepens it. From innocent words, to even a rebound relationship in which "opps, I got pregnant by a guy I didn't actually want to be with."

Just be truthful, candid and frank.

The Republicans only control the House(and at that, BARELY). Democrats control the Senate as well as the White House. They also had Democratic rule from 2004-2010 in the House.

Democrats in fact Blocked Fannie and Freddie reform.


Why? Check out where the money flows baby

I'm sick and tired of hearing the Democrats blame "Bush" or "Republicans" or anything else for what will be an 8 year term. The greatest testimony of leadership is to be able to accept one's flaws.

Something Democrats and their supporters desperately need a lesson in. Their behavior lost this formerly blue dog democrat.

Great, plan to create economic conditions that'll render this universal travel? We can speak about doctors without borders all we want, but the airliner industry isn't going to kneel itself over for a bunch of pragmatic idealists. Neither too will railroads(who've already lost out to the airliners as well as conventional car travel)

And after what happened with that incident, I'm sure cruise liners are suffering and individual boat owners(yachts) are much the same as cars.

Instead of naive ideals, here's a reality: Cultivate every country on the face of the earth. As I've pointed out before, the Founders had a country millions of dollars in debt due to inflation and the war.

If the Founders could do it, so can everyone else. Instead of "doctors without borders", how about for example modernization in North Korean medical study? By golly, it'll actually be cheaper for the North Koreans and in more abundance.


But in your utopian world, in this utopian world that is not possible. Wealth is changing hands, not expanding. In a centralized world, wealth is expanding both individually and collectively.

My philosophical and economic beliefs aren't irrelevant on the account of a bunch of sheep being sheparded in the wrong phase of history. Just as the Founders weren't incorrect just because the many were too weak to flee the tyrannical king.

Come on, please. From your own article:



You also might want to look at the slowing Indian Economy

And do I need to point out the GDP of the likes of Singapore, India, Malaysia, Vietnam or Qatar? In comparison to the U.S. Or hell, Sweden?

Forget GDP, how about number of citizens? You'd have to look at China, Hong Kong(not that it's an independent nation from China. I'm sure Chinese Nationalists would agree. In the same way Taiwan was/is heavily disputed), Japan, Russia, etc.

And in regards to free trade, are these nations giving up vital resources? Ore and rare metals for example is heavily protected by the Chinese.

See This

And this

When lesser nations are able to essentially receive more than what they give out, obviously the Western Markets suffer from it. Why and how you've been unable to make this correlation continues to boggle the mind.

The true economic model nations such as China are using is a common sense approach to value their economy, more than the economies of other nations. Once upon a time, Western Nations held this approach.

Now we've given our wealth to Eurasia and "developing nations", the result being this mirage you have that if the U.S. continues to weaken the bane of its economic force than the world will be a better place(AKA: Free trade)

Well, perhaps I don't care for the rest of the world. If America is to suffer for the rest of the world, then I say the rest of the world needs to find a way to develop it's own national economies.

You know, you have an awful tendency of over exaggerating, making false claims and never having anything to back up for it.

"Freedom", what "Freedom"? You mean the freedom as preached by Herds of people interfering with others to get to work?

Capitalism, and it's greatest myth(and you getting caught by it is no surprise) is that it grants the private sector capital. I'd hate to side with the far left, but no it doesn't.

See This

And this


Where the Left will oppose me now, on dispelling the myth of their economic program(and I know I had this debate with Lelouch) is the Minimum Wage which I oppose in the strongest terms.

Why? Because to anyone who can read between the lines, it is a cap on economic growth. It has legalized slave work for corporations, this is capitalism in a nut shell.

Tying this in with the Free Trade dilemna, we've pretty much covered why America's screwed.

So what's the solution? More Low Wage jobs! Because that's surely what we're lacking(lol)

I've proposed a Fixed Wage(IE: All Wages at $15.00 minimum(This is the minimum for what would classify as a 'good job'). In other words, All Americans would be sufficiently paid for services rendered due. As well as Education and Post secondary reform, I'll have this country producing in mass in no time.

Fascist Economic Policy of synergy and utilization is far superior to Capitalism, and the oligarchy's abuses of the masses of the people.

Don't call this a Republic, in a nation state where State Governments are losing more power and effectively representation in Parliament. Nor is it exactly a Communistic State, though the consolidation of wealth eventually ends up creating two classes: The haves and have nots.

There are those who cry out "Communism hasn't been fully realized yet", but the exact opposite is true: Communism, Leftism has had it's experiment last far longer than any Western philosopher ever thought possible.

The consequence has been outreaching, Leftists would say that the 'right' or conservatives are too rigid. I'd counter that Leftists have no idea of a social or economic order.

To me, This is a Plutocracy guided through Liberal Principle

You couldn't get a worse combination. Not only do the wealthy exhaust political and
economic power, but they do so in a manner that increases the Public Debt and divides the people.

We're not a Communistic country, not yet anyway. Wealth hasn't been consolidated enough and federal control hasn't reached that plateau. But with the "Affordable Health Care" act(which made Health Care ironically MORE expensive)

See this

This is how the USSR fell. The military adventures into Afghanistan, the rising costs and the consolidation preventing wealth expansion.

Above all, note that we are a Nation state that spends only 3% of our budget on
Education.

The corrupt and the naive, when both forces join together it destroys a Nation State. America has to eliminate the Leftist cancer that has deprived it of its natural wealth and its proper utilization.

Let's start with the European-Japanese link you provided. Towards the bottom of the page, it's noted of several deals of cooperation, among which not only opening up markets to both sides, but also to protect the other's national interests.

Then there's the actual EU economy which even in spite of its noted drawbacks is still a large part of the Global Economy.

As a student aiming for an International Business degree(the irony), I'd like to introduce an economic theory to you: Circular Flow.

It comes from my book, Macroeconomics(2010) and the chapter starts off with a very ironic quote from a free trader: Milton Friedman




Circular Flow is:

"Circular flow diagram explains how
money travels through the complex economic system involving households,
businesses, governments, and
foreign agents."

Specifically, there are two systems: Open and Closed. Households(that is average people like you and me)we enter the Goods market(Foods, electronics, etc. All of these are classified as 'goods') whereas Businesses are in the Factor Market:

Or simply put: Land, labor and Capital.

We have a pretty big country 2.3 billion acres worth of it to be precise

So why are we suffering this relative downturn? In a very short answer:
Free Trade

To be more elaborate, the value of investing in America as compared to investing in a shithole. Land might be cheaper in the "developing" nations, labor? Dirt cheap. About the only thing the U.S. would be good for now is Capital.

But oh wait, there's the Capital Gains tax.

The entire notion of Free Trade(and especially in valuing capital to the point of
high taxation) has screwed the Private Market.

Shall I go on? As we noted earlier, households(and thereby the Private Sector) is mainly interested in a Goods Economy but as we all know, nobody's going to just buy something because it's a "good".

The price has to be right, and the quality has to be as well.

When even Huffington reports on it, shit gets real

So you not only have products coming in at a cheaper price range, but they're cheaper in quality

The American People, docile as they may be are actually quite intelligent shoppers for the most part. They're not going to spend money on crap no matter what label it's given.

To a much lesser extent(and less deadly) the same goes for Mexico, etc al. The quality isn't as good and the Private Consumers aren't so gullible enough as to spend that kind of money.

Unfortunately, that isn't the end of the problem in our "consumer economy". The outsourcing which free trade allows, means that it's much more beneficial for companies to produce labor overseas as we noted.

This means U.S. products are being phased out

So the Private Consumers have even less choice, and with a lack of U.S. employment, it's a whammy at every economic turn.

I'll make the rest of this as short as I can:

A Closed Economic Model:
Transactions between Businesses and Households, that doesn't count foreign agents.

To quote the book again:

"Without foreign agents, the government,
or a system of savings and investment, the
economy is free of leakages—taxes, sav-
ings, and import expenditures that are not
spent in the economy. "

I would disagree here slightly, depending on the Government model if we weren't so interested in the "military welfare" of other nations, defense contractors, "health care" lobbyists, etc. Our money centralized in a bunch of junk that doesn't support a single citizen.

A government that produces capital to invest in the national economy wouldn't
be a leakage. This government, can't even begin to be described as a leakage. It's a black hole consuming our economy.

Now then, there's the "Open Economic Model" AKA Free Trade. In some examples above, I showed you a good deal of the economic consequences but I'll have academics back me up:

"In other words, when an American consumer
buys imports (products or goods made in a foreign
country but sold in the United States) or when a US
company hires customer service representatives in
India, money leakages are created."

However, the leakages are then "backed up" by "injections of capital" which
should rightfully be called inflation. Making Fiery's support of it laughable, he's a Libertarian. He should be opposed to inflationary spending, does he want Weimar Germany to repeat in the U.S.?

"Leaks:
Firms using Labor, Capital and other resources
from Foreign Households.
Consumers purchasing goods and services from
Foreign Companies"



"Injections:
Foreign Households purchasing goods made
by U.S Firms.

Foreign Firms sending wages and rens to
U.S Households."


Our "injections" are inconsistent, mostly because they are either coming from relatively poor countries or the investment is pail in comparison to
our selling.


The model I support, in opposition to Fiery is a Hybrid Economic Model. Trade with prosperous nations, as for the poorous ones, they need self starting investment more than anything.

America didn't become America overnight, we took advantage of what we had. We're losing our competitive advantage because we lost sight of that fact.

Developing Nations will strengthen their economy by improving their own national economies.

What the hell did you buy? Canada, being but a few hours trip from Canada to Pennsylvania(Philadelphia, where I live is one of the U.S. financial power cities, largely because of its connections to airlines and home grown businesses)

It's not as easy to say "America's against free trade"(Hell, you're a part of NAFTA. Clinton's baby deal. There are several determining factors to how much a package costs


Also,I've quoted from scholars who merely analyzed the facts as they were. Offering my own intellectual interpretation and then economic theory that "free" trade as it currently exists not only punishes America, it also punishes developing countries who are in no position to lose their own infrastructure.

Earlier, I cited Japan's protectionist policies, this article explains why Japan engages in such policies(and also what it would take to open itself up to free trade): Regional trading blocs such as India or China opening up. Unlike us, they're not stupid enough to trade just for the sake of trading.

You know, your capitals don't make a point. While several of the Founders were in support of open borders, I don't believe to the determent of the Nation State.

Given our economic circumstances, how can you even suggest our government has not followed "this ideal"? Because we hold tariffs on sugar? We've lost millions of manufacturing jobs and we're millions in the red with our trade deficits.

There were several economic concerns in the Revolution, but taxation without representation rang the loudest. 'Free trade', and it's supporters have taxed the American People without representation. No, worse yet: They've robbed the people of their ability to self produce.

"Under free trade the trader is the master and the producer the slave. Protection is but the law of nature, the law of self-preservation, of self-development, of securing the highest and best destiny of the race of man. [It is said] that protection is immoral…. Why, if protection builds up and elevates 63,000,000 [the U.S. population] of people, the influence of those 63,000,000 of people elevates the rest of the world. We cannot take a step in the pathway of progress without benefitting mankind everywhere. Well, they say, †˜Buy where you can buy the cheapest'…. Of course, that applies to labor as to everything else. Let me give you a maxim that is a thousand times better than that, and it is the protection maxim: †˜Buy where you can pay the easiest.' And that spot of earth is where labor wins its highest reward"

From the very wiki article you posted. Well fucking said, Mr.Mckinley.

21st century version(me): Buy where you get the most bang for your buck.

We are not in the business of International Welfare.

I reviewed the material you've posted, including the Jones Act Video and the Ron Paul link. Firstly, let's start with dismissing the idea that the Founders were proponents of "free trade"(Lord knows, the very concept didn't come about until Clinton's term passing NAFTA)

Mr. Paul correctly speaks of how we inflate the dollar via discretionary printing but the trade INBALANCE is largely why that occurs.

While this Cato Article would like to make the claim against Protectionism, it actually laid out the claim for it: We won't suffer as a result from Protectionist policies as a result of a high manufacturing base. The question isn't whether or not to protect American Industries but to what extent. I say, to the extent that reverses the loss of 50,000 manufacturing jobs and countless of millions in trade deficits across the globe.







I don't believe I express my opinions in a dogmatic fashion, I am heavily opinionated insofar as it's intellectually necessary to be heard. Speaking meekly doesn't get the attention of other intellectuals. Besides, if I were speaking in a dogmatic fashion when did I oppose you as a person or a human being for disagreeing with me?

It's annoying as hell, to be sure. And I believe Libertarianism to be the policy of neutralism, rather than the pro active approach we need to lower the federal deficit, to pay sufficient attention to the concerns of the people. I also believe that the people, in of themselves don't always have the best interests in mind or have the best solutions(in fact, intellectually most of the time they don't)

But never have I spoken dogmatically against you, I just strongly believe that I've chosen a correct path in my socio-political development in the hope that I can serve my country as a statesman.





We have different definitions of what "State" means. Government is merely a building, without the representatives who occupy Capitol Hill and the chambers of Congress and the House of Representatives our government doesn't exist.

A government is not an organic body, government is given organic life by the Human Beings who run it. So American Nationals thereby constitute the State.

Secondly, American Citizens are mostly certainly sovereign. You can eat, drink, fuck whomever you'd like. Just as long as it doesn't violate U.S laws. All Fascism merely holds is that the Citizenry of the Nation State put as much value in the State as themselves.

Fascist policy can be summarized best as: "All for one and One for All."





So a good time for a Libertarian is a non existent government? I'm glad we've finally confirmed this. And while it's true that the U.S currently has more laws than any other nation, we need at least something of a functioning government in order to enforce the laws we do have on the books.





Not quite, there is a difference between separation from a colonist nation to form your own, and the separation of different classes within the union. Again, otherwise the Republic wouldn't have been formed. The U.S. Constitution of 1812 overrode the Declaration of Independence and subsequent documents from that time.

Speaking of the Declaration, the Founders wrote something on it that explains their position on the idea of Separatism.



Also



21st century English Translation: Separation between the Citizens and Government should only occur when basic human rights violations occur, and that separation is so serious an issue, that it shouldn't be resorted to over petty differences.

The Founders weren't separatists, their entire revolution was on creating a "more perfect union" between Americans and to stake a claim in their independence.





That would be you, my friend as I clearly highlight: "It leaves sufficient scope to individuals". Limiting useless or harmful liberties(such as those I discussed in the earlier thread) and preserving the ones that are essential.

The reason Government has to make decisions on such matters, is quite simple: Do you expect the people to do so? Could they? Even under a Democracy, or say Libertarianism that proclaims that the most essential part of life is the non violation of property, you well acknowledge that people do in fact violate property.

Fascism isn't necessarily any different than any other form of government before it, except for these crucial factors: It's more centralized, more efficient and it recognizes that not all "freedoms" are equal. Should CEO'S have the "freedom" to make hundreds times more than the average American Worker to whom they owe that lavish lifestyle to begin with?

It's anti-capitalistic and has its roots in cronyism and Aristocracy. While Fascism has garnered a reputation for supporting businesses, NS Germany banned speculation and a lot of the reform was on the basis of supporting "the fatherland"

You know, instead of their fat crony pockets. This supports us, how?

You might argue that it's their property, I will concur on that notion: when properly earned but when a system is gamed, when people gamble via stocks and ruin hundreds of millions of lives are they not taking away other's property?

It is not that the Fascist State is anti-business, or anti-rich. It's pro-everyone is rich, because if everyone is rich then the State is rich. It's anti-corruption, greed and theft.






Just before the height of the Economic Crisis, the American People universally declared that our local industries must be protected. Even though the benefits of Free trade were largely seen as positive

Though in reference to a specific trade agreement with the Koreans, this article makes the case for the overestimation of the 'lack thereof' negative effects we'd see from Free Trade.

In Fine Print

I'll submit that I don't know 'everything', hell, I don't know much at all about the trade problem other than the very annoying concept that we Americans deserve to have jobs in America.

But what I have read, specifically the part about how a trade deficit is created via lower value of exports(items sent out) compared to imports gives me a little economic theory:

Free Trade hurts America, precisely because it is free no different from how currencies are devalued by having more in circulation. Or no different from how if an item is cheaper/free in the average supermarket, the consumer expects it to be worth shit.

I should know, the 'intimation' cheese I brought from Save A Lot was so filthy I dared not cook another pizza with it.(It was only a buck)

Again, that's a theory and feel free to correct me. But on this particular subject I am far from dogmatic, I merely make an educated observation(Aka: guess)





All forms of government require a motivating factor, what is used as a said factor is irrelevant. George Bush cried out domestically that 'they' hate us for our freedoms. Both on the Left and the Right, the cry is to 'spread democracy across the globe'

It wouldn't be ideal if the egalitarian society were to be divided, for after all the purpose of an egalitarian society is to eliminate said divisions. But nevertheless, I believe in discussion and dialogue, complaints too can be valid for true leadership is the ability to adapt to various circumstances and conditions.

A balance then must be found between dissent and treason, willfully sabotaging the vast majority of innocent civilians or holding lawful grievances as our constitution allows and ordains as necessary for the survival of a true Nation State.






That's all nice and dandy Fiery, except....

I care about America

When our youth are poorly educated, our schools are falling(and failing), when our teachers are poorly compensated and when hundreds of millions of Americans are homeless. I don't care for the welfare of say India.





Oh for Fucks sake ;) If we're to be literal Super Saiyan=Intellectual. I'm not sure if you agree, but I believe myself to be an Intellectual as well. Perhaps, you would summarize me to be on the 'Dark Side'?







Communism didn't turn into a dictatorship, Communism IS dictatorship(of the political elite). Joseph Stalin murdered and butchered hundreds of millions, far more than Germany or any of the other world powers. The links I had seen on the first Goggle page were unconvincing and getting into this argument is both pointless and unnecessary.

Secondly, unfortunately most "fascist nations" fell the way after WWII and as noted, it was a world war. Why not focus on the time before the war? IE:1933-1939.

I cited Italy before, but Italy's economic progression comes nowhere close to the German Economic Miracle(Reading about this miracle, and hearing audio of Hitler explaining German Economics is primarily the reason I decided to make this decision)

How long am I to wait while the Democracies and even now from your statements Libertarians continue to rack up the trade deficits, refuse to protect the nation and see it as separate from the well being of its own citizens?

For one thing, it might surprise you but the Nazis supported Privations and thereby the concept of Private Property. I reference the Journal-Study from Economic History Review "Against the Mainstream: Nazi Privation in 1930's Germany"(2010)

As we know, Germany was under the failed Weimar Republic before the National Socialists came to power, and like all other democratic states, Germany was in large control of its central bank, the railroads/lines, energy consumption as well as manufacturing. Otherwise noted as Nationalization.

Most Western Nations held the norm of Nationalization according to the Study, it was only when Hitler came into power did the Western World see what was occurring in German Economics.

In 1932 The dying Republic liquidated United Steelworks, it is suggested by the Study the reasons for this were: A: "To have effective control over the firm" B: To socialize costs derived from the costs of the Great Depression and C: To prevent Foreign Capitol from taking over the firm.

I directly quote the Article now:

"Soon after the Nazi Party took power, United Steelworks was reorganized so
that the government majority stake of 52 per cent was converted into a stake of less
than 25 per cent, no longer sufficient in German law to give the government any
privileges in company control.48"

"According to Kruk, this operation was the largest single sale—until
the end of 1936—within the process of †˜indirect consolidation’ (of the public
debt), in which privatization was used as a tool for debt consolidation."

Debt Consolidation, sounds like a very crucial thing America needs to do doesn't it?

While the National German Bank was kept largely under Nazi Influence, the biggest Commercial Banks such as the Commerz-Bank, the Deutsche Bank, the Golddiskontbank and
finally the Dresdner Bank.

All of them were privatized and the State didn't retain ownership.

Of the 7 or so initiatives, only the main German Railroads(as well as the main German Bank) were maintained by NS Control. Everything else was privatized

"The activities of private business organizations and the fact that big
businesses had some power seem to be grounds for inferring that the Nazis
promoted private property."

"Guillebaud stresses that the Nazi regime wanted to leave management and risk
in business in the sphere of private enterprise, subject to the general direction of
the government.Thus, †˜the State in fact divested itself of a great deal of its previous
direct participation in industry . . . But at the same time state control, regulation
and interference in the conduct of economic affairs was enormously extended’."

"Guillebaud felt that National Socialism was opposed to state management, and
saw it as a †˜cardinal tenet of the Party that the economic order should be based on
private initiative and enterprise (in the sense of private ownership of the means of
production and the individual assumption of risks) though subject to guidance and
control by state’."

So specifically, what was it that the National Socialists wanted to control? If they believed to a good extent in Private Enterprise and initiative?

"It maintained private enterprise and provided profit
incentives as spurs to efficient management. But the traditional freedom of the
entrepreneur was narrowly circumscribed’.100 In other words, there was private
initiative in the production process, but no private initiative was allowed in the
distribution of the product. Owners could act freely within their firms, but they
were extremely restricted in the market."

In summary, two things: A: International Trade and the loss of German Goods overseas.
Just as the Founding Fathers earlier summarized, Hitler also came to the conclusion(and campaigned heavily against) the internationalization of the country.

We bare the fruits of a Liberal experiment that had its roots dating back to the
Great Depression. And we can see that Protectionists were right, the loss of
millions of jobs, increasing public debt of all nations and the weakening
Global Economy.

B: Market Manipulation, which we in the U.S. also allow rather liberally. Wall
Street and it's "too big to fail banks" were allowed to be "bailed out"(Nationalized) at the debt of the American People. Such stocks were either banned or heavily
restricted in Germany.

Not to say that trade, or commerce is bad but when even the Council of Foreign Relations finally admits to the flaw of the ideas that virtually their forefathers came up with, when European leaders say 'Multiculturalism' has failed. It's from a socio political level.

One that was expected, not only from the so called "far right"(I maintain it's a Third Position.) But also from the left as well(As you yourself acknowledge the
Fathers as 'Liberals' in the contemporary sense)

Here's my summary of my beliefs:

"Trade with prosperous nations(key words), entangling alliances with none."

I've no interest in selling ourselves off to "developing nations"(and as we see
with China. That has SO worked out to our favor hasn't it?) But also, as I thought about it more carefully I also come to an Economic Hypothesis:

According to economic facts that we know today, the European Union(and the Global Economy) as a whole has continued to shrink. Is it safe to say that developing countries are suffering because they cannot develop as they become widely dependent on U.S. Imports?

Much the same, as we've become an Exporting Nation (with virtually just about anyone)
the quality of U.S. brands becomes even more expensive, ever so rare and indeed damaging to our central economic markets.

A Trade Balance requires the same discipline as a U.S. Budget Surplus. With massive
debt both nationally and abroad, now is the time to reevaluate where we are
from a economic philosophical standpoint.

We felt compelled to "share our riches", now we have none and a whole lot of
obligation to boot. It can only be called insanity to drain one of National Resources while at the same time going massively into debt to do so.

No doubt the Libertarian(such as yourself) will link this to war expansion(I maintain that depends on the quality of the leaders of men to prevent that from happening)

But what about a 'Global National Economy', where these developing nations develop their various ecosystems and ecostructure?

In your earlier video, it's noted that Hawaii has its various goods and resources that it can contribute to the International Scene. In much the same example as Hawaii, developing nations should first focus on their own ecosystem
and then expand gradually in the trade market.


The 'Global Economy' needs to slow down, consolidate itself and on a micro management level be more efficient and less costly. The 'Global Economy' is no less than the National Economies of all countries.

Thereby a worldwide National Policy would be best pursued.





On this regard, it's actually rather interesting. The recent generations isn't the first time we've come to know soda, sugars,etc. So why are they so dangerous? Artificial Ingredients The same is also held true for meat and even vegetables in our time, whereas in the time of our parents even wheat was freshly made.

From Monsanto's Harvest of Fear( Vanity Fair,2008)

"Monsanto already dominates America's food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation's tactics--ruthless legal battles against small farmers--is its decades-long history of toxic contamination."


What kind of tactics? These kind:


"As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto's genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company's patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him--or face the consequences."


"Rinehart was incredulous, listening to the words as puzzled customers and employees looked on. Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto's fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn't a farmer. He wasn't a seed dealer. He hadn't planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small--a really small--country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone."

"It made me and my business look bad," he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, "You got the wrong guy."


"When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can't remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: "Monsanto is big. You can't win. We will get you. You will pay."

Here's just one more segment on this company(from the same Article) describing just how poisonous these things are:

The Control of Nature

"For centuries--millennia--farmers have saved seeds from season to season: they planted in the spring, harvested in the fall, then reclaimed and cleaned the seeds over the winter for re-planting the next spring. Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on its head."

"Monsanto developed G.M. seeds that would resist its own herbicide, Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops. Monsanto then patented the seeds. For nearly all of its history the United States Patent and Trademark Office had refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented."

"It's not like describing a widget," says Joseph Mendelson III, the legal director of the Center for Food Safety, which has tracked Monsanto's activities in rural America for years."

"Indeed not. But in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the world's food supply. In its decision, the court extended patent law to cover "a live human-made microorganism." In this case, the organism wasn't even a seed. Rather, it was a Pseudomonas bacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills. But the precedent was set, and Monsanto took advantage of it. Since the 1980s, Monsanto has become the world leader in genetic modification of seeds and has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data."

"Farmers who buy Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers. This means that farmers must buy new seed every year. Those increased sales, coupled with ballooning sales of its Roundup weed killer, have been a bonanza for Monsanto."

Companies such as Monsanto poison our food supply and violate the trust consumers should have.

It's not just Peru though, but a vast majority of Europeans have done the same

Why shouldn't companies like these be banned from the American Market?

Sure, that wouldn't be a free market but health>"free"





Which leads me to what I said earlier: There is no such thing as freedom, well being comes from civilized order and Anarchy, while idealistic is A: Neither a government and B: Isn't order. It's a philosophy that expects order to come from its citizens.
Which is why there isn't an Anarchic State.

No one ever said you had to "toe the line" per say, just be respectful of your community and relative basic laws(many of whom as a Libertarian you agree with, such as non aggression). Example:

I've nothing against gay people, but marriage ultimately is an institution. Whatever sexuality you may be, there's no need to flaunt it in public. This isn't so much about government being in people's lives as it is about the 'rights' of a minority(in this case the LBGT community) overseeing the rights of a majority.

People can agree to disagree, but the LBGT community(much like Feminists) are not being persecuted. In fact, I'd argue such groups end up self persecuting and end up hurting their own causes.

Most citizens, irregardless of sexuality simply don't give a damn for what you do in bed. From a moral standpoint, it happens to be a mostly heterosexual nation and so, to keep the social order we'll keep it that way.

When and if homosexuality becomes the majority in America, they'll find that the discussion will change. Homophobic? No, it just plain makes sense. Although there are various types of clothes, some type turns us off more than others and we bother not to look at them or after looking at them, we have the pleasure of looking at the next rack in the store.

TLDR: Fuck whoever you want, just don't force other people to "accept" you for it, and don't openly engage in acts in a heterosexual country just for the purpose of ticking people off.

For the record: I'm bicurious(admittedly, I lean very much towards women). Again: I've nothing against anybody, I have something against alienating the general public.

It isn't right to be "prejudice" for example, but we really have to define what a "hate crime" is. Even if you're a bigot, as long as you're not physically threatening anybody who cares what the hell you're saying?

"Hate crime" is political thought speak for silencing dissent and I don't approve of it.(See, I'm not a totaltarian mad man bent to wrecking havoc. I just want a centralized country)







Never denied that, if I take the liberty of using force that force can be used against me. The Golden Rule however states basically to treat those as you were to be treated. If I were to use political "force" to lower taxes, to properly regulate trade so as to bring about a trade balance. Punish corporations who acted against American interests, and thereby brought jobs back to America did I not use force to its justifiable ends?

The only ones who suffered from the force I applied, were those who were using their force(and mostly lobbying. Lobbyists IMO are treasonists against the Country. They violate the very little essence to a 'democracy' which makes it a system for propaganda consumption. IE: That the people have a voice)

It's from the knowledge that force can be used against me, that I can be careful when and how to apply force. I'm an anime guy(I guess we all are) and I watched Gundam Seed(Destiny). So allow me to quote Uzumi Nara Athha(in his dying message to Cagalli):

"Foolish are those who seek power, but those who reject power are also foolish. If you wish to seek power, in order to protect those values and that which you hold dear to you then I'll give it to you in your time of need."








"god" did not ordain me(or other political leaders) to shepard people. Society itself ordained it so(in it's various forms of governing) because Anarchy has led to mostly chaos, disagreement and violence.

If Society's order must be maintained, then I chose the most efficient and least restrictive method in doing so. It would be wrong(and politically incorrect) to say that I would copy every last minute detail down. But I see nothing wrong with privatizing the economy, lowering, restructuring and ultimately getting rid of our debt.

Centralizing our trade partners, and assuring that we only get into favorable deals.
And allowing those developing nations to continue to develop. They can't afford to lose homegrown investment(and at the same time, a dose of foreign investment would probably be a boost to them).

At any rate, a "free market" doesn't exist. And it's not because governments are "controlling", it's just not feasible. The ones who want "free market" the most, are the ones who want to continue pawning the game that keeps lesser nations broke, developed nations are stunted in their growth and the vast majority of the people are
screwed.

Is that what you want?






In establishing an Anarchic Social Order, you too would be justifying using force to maintain this society. To be more specific: This broad definition means that any political leader is using force to impose their *will* on the people.

In my mind, the proper word is assimilation, which though similar has a distinct difference:

A State of Similarity

I won't hide it, through reading various economic, socio political and esoteric texts and books I realize that I'm an egalitarian philosopher. From the very beginning, before I read such texts I dreamed of 'Univeralism', a political concept not yet touched on nor the word itself popularized.

It was then at first, that I believed that the world could be united first via collective means. But when reading about Social Darwinism and Individualism,
as well as America's not so hidden animosity towards each other did it become clear that Universalism couldn't be had, not without first considering the individual.

Fascism, then, was the answer thought of by Hitler and Mussolini. A merger of both Individual and Collective. If a Collective mindset could be established, while preserving Individual Value, Universalism could be born.

We are in a different world than the one from 1933-1945. Though "Tolerance" is quite different from "acceptance", people have come to some degree of understanding that everyone has Individual Perspective.

The world will then be connected, via those Individuals who seek out each other. In other words, why have a bigoted 'white' person next to an African-American? All you're doing, at best is creating inner turmoil and at worst the polarizing sides will go at each other.

I see it like this: America connects to Asia, Asia connects to America. Europe connects to Russia, the African Nations will eventually reach out and connect to European Nations.

Self-Determinism is my philosophical approach to bridging the world together in Universalism. Not everyone will agree with everyone, but everyone will agree with someone.

The "Third party" syndrome will assure that one connection will become many indirect connections.

We are freed from the hatred and bigotry of the past, this allows us to identify with ourselves in a constructive manner and through that self identification allows us to reach out to others.

The manner in which we are currently trying to construct the world, is an illusion of said progress and the continued fostering of dissent and a lack of self identification






I never have and I never will, but I will make the argument that the time has come for us to embark on what has been Humanity's greatest challenge: The One True World.

Or rather, you believe in principle there is no line, except "the violation of natural rights." However, given such a lairess-faire approach, natural rights will be(and have been) violated throughout the course of history. As an example, the right of Prostitution puts those women at risk(of STD's among other things) and for what? Is it a profitable business? Not in the long run as one may lose attraction(especially if the high speed life includes drugs, etc).

It's harmful not only to the individual but potentially to the general public as well as morally decaying.

There's the right to purchase firearms as well as the right of association, but combine these two rights together and you have gangs and gun violence. Does that make firearms or the right to peaceful assembly wrong? No, but it does mean these "rights" need to be properly regulated and laws properly enforced.

Rather than a "free" society, we should aim for a stable and prosperous society. There is in fact such a thing as too much freedom.

Well, neither Wikipedia nor other dictionaries were quite clear to the definition(nor to the context in which Fiery apparently used it). I'll use any source, provided it's not a paux-site.

Yeah, might not have been the best choice seeing as via my online college campus I do have access to an entire collection of college dictionaries but I actually try not to use that for debating as it might be unfair.

Though I did use my library in the last post to make the case of a thesis regarding Fascist Economics, which is little more than calling for a Centralized Economy.

As opposed to our wasteful, bureaucratic spending that's currently damaging our economic system.

It's not douchey, conceited to be sure but that conceitedness isn't pointed against anyone in our beloved community. More to prop myself up than anything :).

I'm a Male, a Alpha Male whose intellectualism guides his thoughts. In addition, like virtually any other adult here I'm compelled by my sexual urges and desires. Though, in missing my childhood from time to time I do feign the innocence of boyhood.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pontification

I'm speaking to myself, am I? Then what was the point of inviting me to the conversation? This is the problem with opposing viewpoints, I'll agree with you in that it's a pointless discussion: It only has a purpose when one is convinced of the other's ideas.

If a person isn't convinced of those ideas, then it becomes pontification. We're both unconvinced of the other's ideas, so shall we agree to this being the last time we converse?





Yes, Japan has many prefectures, America has its 50 states. In this regard, how does this separate the people from the state? It merely fractures it. Just as there are different towns, communities, etc. Without the said towns, communities, cities there isn't a state.

Unification acknowledges their individual contribution, combined with the greater good however leads to a much better result. The president often brags about what a "melting pot" we've become, but as the North/South have once again taken different ideologies it has severely divided the country.

I'll ask you again: This benefits the country, how? Oh, and please don't tell me "political dialogue", we ourselves are experiencing the limits of the "fruit" of this experience.

I mentioned before that the Founders faced opposition to the Republic, but knew it must be done. One of the reasons as we all learned in civics class, was that the colonies, far from united actually used different currencies.


The Founders rejected Separatism, they noted the separatism of democratic dogma and how it led to suppression. When you can divide people into classes as Karl Marx did, it's easy to direct them against each other and to enslave them.





Interesting that you reference it in a tone of a battalion, because separatism with its different ranks allows you to do precisely that. What do you think the Civil War was? The South, wanting to maintain a system that was well off for the Southern States and the North, a side that rejected said system and ironically enough used *force* both to force the South to concur on the decision, as well as to subjugate the South.

I do not believe Unification violates the individual, as I've said before: It merely looks at the individual in the scheme of the larger picture. Can prosperity be had an in Individualistic Society? Perhaps, but not for long.

As Rome was fractured, the Roman Empire fell the way of history. Fornicating dissent is an old, tried and true tactic of enemy nations or combatants to weaken one's forces. However, for a leftist state to exist it creates these very divisions in peace time so as to subjugate the state.






Let's get real specific about "Economic Freedom"

Government spending, high taxation and crony corruption are listed among the main reasons

None of this however, seems to be in unification. In fact, it seems to me like government is using class warfare to consolidate and use the spending power of the citizens for themselves.

I've long supported for example, lowering the Capital Gains tax in half. In addition, I wish to lower taxes all across the board. As far as regulations are concerned, they are but a necessary evil as well.

(As seen in Freddie and Fannie, the mortgage crisis, etc.) The overlying theme was corruption in a combination of finance and government(Such as the Clinton-Graham deal that violated the premise of Glass-Stegall)

Ironically, this country has a history of protectionism from Glass-Stegall,to the
Founders disdain for monopolies(due to the lack of competition monopolies would present)

Ironically, in legalizing Obamacare, the supreme court has just enabled the greatest monopoly of all. The intentions of the Founders are obsolete insofar as political "will"(or shall we say corruption) exists.

If a Republic can no longer be held, if it's no longer strong enough to protect the well being of its citizens then its about time we took a different direction for a stronger nation.





Sugar, solar panels, textiles, dairy, etc. My god, are we trying to duplicate the failed Greece Economy? How much do you think these items bring in per capita? I could care less if we still depended on Britain for tea and coffee.

We have to protect our manufacturing, our businesses, our housing department. There is no such thing as a "free economy"

See this

By and large, the only way to secure prosperity for a nation is to secure and increase national productivity.




Certainly, it was an era of prejudice, racism and a worldwide war that slaughtered tens of millions of Human Beings. You won't hear me defending those actions, but what you will hear me defend is the economic and socio political system, which is in fact a New World.

Can you imagine if war did not break out? If the political factions were able to synergetically merge in proper fashion? The incredible efficiency that was seen, and a stronger economy that could result from such a merger.

As I promised, now that we're discussing the economic benefits of Fascism I will now make the argument for the New World, that unfortunately was lost in a racial warfare that spread across all sects of the earth.

From "The Evolution of Fascist Economic Practice and Theory"(Harvard, 1932) is an evaluation of Italy Economic practices.

Specifically, via Syndicates the separate political classes were classified and centralized. "With Labor on one side, and Capital on the other" The state, then was an intermediate between the two sides. As was well known, strikes and such were prohibited under fascist(or national socialist) ideology.

So how did that play out Fiery?

From the Review:

"The annual expenditure of the Ministry of Corporations and of the Thirteen Syndicates was approximately 68,207,000 "lire"(Italian Currency)." The cost of Strikes and lost days? "125,856,000" or twice as much in cost to the Italian Economy.


Also from the same Review:

"At all events the 'Corporate' State up to January 1930 had been able to negotiate up to 172 national and 5,721 provincial collective contracts, an indication that considerable progress had been made in effecting satisfactory agreements between the two classes."

Italy also pursued an aggressive strategy to stabilize its currency:
"Italy's debts to America and Great Britain were settled; the American Debt for $2,042,000,000 or a reduction of 74%. And the Great Britain debt similarly was settled from $610,840,000,000 to $276,750,000."

The same review also goes onto state that Lairess-Faire Economics is only good when the economy is strong. Italy, who lacked national resources and whose wealth was estimated at 1/10th of the United States needed a stabilized economic model.

At the time of the Great Depression, the Italian Fascists decided upon a strategy with several key points:

1: Higher Economic Production, Because lower production means a lower tax base as well as higher unemployment. Who would've thunk?

2: Balance the trade balance sheets, because even a temporary unbalance would harm the stability of Lira.

3: It has fostered those industries vital to National Defense.

As it stands, the U.S. spends more money on "National Defense"(AKA: Military) than anyone in the world. But our social infrastructure sorely lacks, I noted that we only spend 4% on Education, but Welfare/transportation, etc aren't that much better.

Welfare in fact barely gets 10% of the National Income, making complaints about our bloated welfare system, rather factual but also severely overstated.

We can reduplicate this program, the only difference being we must foster those industries vital to National Growth.

That's about the only little tweak I would make.

One Italian Fascist economist, named Fantini is quoted as stating this about Protectionism(As Italy dealt with a situation where exports were 72% of imports):

"Protection tends to encourage national production in the face of foreign competition and 'dumping'; it serves to provide work for one's nationals;it forms production on a large scale at a lower cost. It aids infant industries(I assume start up businesses would be a modern translation) as well as war industries."

Ironically, Fascists supported "private initiative"(or the private market):

"There is nothing more erroneous or false than this conception(State Socialism);
it is absurd as a thesis and infantile as a means or as an end. Private initiative
is always the strongest, the most original and the most dignified foundation for all production and activity"

The only factor in which would involve the State would be "When Private Initiative is lacking or is insufficient or when State interests are involved. Such intervention may assume the role of control, assistance or direct management." State Agencies are to promote in every way possible an increase in production.


Arnaldo Mussolini is quoted as saying: "The State we know by experience is not able to, nor ought to be an active element in Production. It is not able to support competition or to undergo the chance of the vicissitudes of production. But insomuch as we live in an intense period of life in which it is easy lose notions of value or duty and inasmuch as our times are propitious for the most unbounded selfishness, the strong State intervenes with its laws and with its labor courts to correct eventual unequitibrium and hardships in the field of production."











Slightly off topic but did you ever watch the DBZ abridged series? Well, just as when Freiza begins to fight Vegeta(and he begins bragging about being a super saiyan):

"I feel like we've been here before, have we been here before?" "Oh my god we HAVE been here before."

That's how I feel surrounding this, I said it twice. Let me say it a third time: Leftist Ideology such as Communism, Marxism and Democracy does not insofar care for its people. Its political subjugation is for the political elite, who've merely swapped royal capes for suits.

Fascism on the other hand, has merged State and Individual interest for the better of both. There's a difference from a beneficial merger and subjugation.







**Sigh** How is it possible for an individual to be less than a group or of the 'collective'(IE: That, which he's a part of)? Who would be the 'Millions of would be masters'? (If you reference parliament, we presently have about 500 or so(mostly unqualified) representatives supposedly on our 'behalf' but still a number that isn't even a fraction of our beloved continent.

And wouldn't that be the case irrespective of any political ideology? In our democracy, if you are "prosperous" by means of robbing a bank, that's a crime.

If, on the other hand you're prosperous because of running a successful business or
a clever innovation that supports yourself, other Americans and heck even the world at large. Who would oppose that? And why?

Fascism represents universalism, Individual Unity. I envision a world where Americans can reach out to Asia, Asia to Europe, etc.

It is not possible to unite the world, but by first uniting regionals and a general respect for the nationality of another it is then possible.


It is Marxism/Communism that denies the individual, Fascism is the ideology of mergers. Yin/Yang. Clay and Dough.

Imagine this, Fiery: That was Italy, Germany. Nations that didn't have the wealth, or the raw materials that America does. What were to occur if America, with her raw materials were to use them in an efficient manner?

If we were to look at it from a Nationalistic perspective, instead of a paux-individualistic perspective that historically over the last few decades has hurt both State and Local Economic prospects.

I imagine, if we were to make the most powerful country in the world into the most efficient country in the world, a new renaissance would be born. The New World, once again led by American innovation.

In my mind, the radical european leaders created a new economic model that if not for the war, led to a resurgence in the European continent. That new economic model, merged previously separate models of thought into one molded ideology.






Where's the distinction? Whether it's initiated or retaliatory it is still force. If you disapprove of force altogether, you cannot approve of force used in self defense.

Unless, you were to finally acknowledge that force can be used to its justifiable means. If I have an inability to make 'the distinction', then I would summarize that you have difficulty understanding that there is no distinction.

There's justification, self satisfaction but there is no difference. Just as when a cop murders a suspect resisting arrest; it is preferable as opposed to the criminal continuing to kill, but one doesn't call it 'righteous'.






An old saying: You can lead a donkey to water, but you can't make him drink it.

Economically speaking, if people could be left to their own device and be better off for it that would be wonderful(even Fascists quoted above acknowledged that). But the simple fact is, Man cannot for the most part be left to his own devices.

I'm justifying using force to make it easier for those others to live. On the account that they themselves cannot make it easy for themselves, let alone others to live.

And what 'force', consolidation of various economic engines? Restructuring and creating new structures and pillars of society? Is this to be constituted as force?

I don't feel the need to resort to violence, I will gladly campaign that a centralized economy, a nationalized economy with emphasis on both the individual and community would be best for all. It's rather unfortunate and sad that the vast majority of people have chosen our current economic and social model by default.

But any sort of violence, or force used in the wrong manner would only justify and further prove that the ideology I chose to support was 'extremist', 'wrong', 'malefic' etc.

Not only would it be politically unwise, it's also unnecessary. I feel as though we will nationalize our economy. Perhaps it might take things getting worse but when times get tough it is only then when people are prepared to make the difficult choices that allow for prosperity.

It might not be me who heralds a movement towards the future, but if I can support it. That beats living in the current present, which feels like a dead man(country) walking.