Uhhh...based libertarians?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (72)
sorted by:
They absolutely come for the welfare state, that's a driving factor for mass migration in Europe, but it's also a factor in the US. The primary factor in the US is a corporate plantation which gives them an effective welfare state.
It's called "controlled opposition".
This is a supply and demand thing, but it's a different problem you have the wrong direction for a solution. They literally can't hire people legally without incurring huge costs. American labor is over-priced because of all the protectionism that makes sure no one can afford it. This drives up use of illegal labor as well as automation. If it were legal to pay Americans a simple wage with no massive legal and regulatory barriers in place, there would be no issue.
This is why California is doing everything in it's power to destroy the "gig economy". They want everyone to be paid $25 an hour with a massive corporate benefit scheme at an incredible cost that will destroy all but the largest businesses who will get subsidies, tax-breaks, and write-offs to stay afloat. They want only corporate slaves, and for everyone else to be a politically and economically dependent underclass made loyal by welfare state slavery, grateful that Amazon finally gave them a chance after being on a wait-list for 2 years.
If legal American labor was allowed to compete with few restrictions and mandated "benefits", the competition would be too stiff for illegals to want to come. Instead the government ensures that they create conditions that incentivize the largest businesses to import as many millions as they can carry.
Like I said, if you want to create even worse mass migration, increasing the cost of legal American labor is the best way to do it.
Your point also applies to workers already in the US and legal as well. We have seen a trend in the last few years of some companies starting to move manufacturing back to the United States. You have seen many automotive factories opening in places like Tennessee and Kentucky, you have seen large electronics and microchip factories being built in Arizona, there is a small but growing shipbuilding industry starting up in Alabama and Florida, and Texas was asked what industry it wished to expand and they said "Yes." But you may notice, none of that is California, or the Upper Midwest ("Rust Belt"), or New York.
And why go South? Well, because instead of having to give their workers lavish benefits packages and significant hourly wages, they can go to the South/Southwest, give significant but not obscene benefits, pay wages that while lower than other areas are plenty enough for local standards (a $15/hour wage in Texas will get you MUCH further than a $25/hour wage in Michigan or California), and there is also more room to expand when the time comes. Then there is the bonus that workers in the South are not only not interested in unionizing, they are actively hostile to unions, which paradoxically can be better for the workers in this modern age.
But of course, the people being left behind because their own ideologue became so toxic to business that they decided they would never come back, only become even more hostile to business. Which just causes the problem to keep spiraling out of control, and eventually something to is going to have to break. I am just not sure what will break.
There's nothing paradoxical about it. Unions have destroyed the industries they were part of, because of the protection rackets they build.
Academic Agent's video on Wales is probably the finest example of Unions absolutely exterminating a lucrative industry in a resource rich country. Wales not having a coal industry is like West Virginia not having a coal industry, but significantly worse. The Union/State/Corporation triad did something that should not have even been possible.
They are hostile to business because they've never run their own. What any area fully run by Democratic Socialism needs is not a half-way compromised approach of introducing Reganomics or Thatcherism. They need radical Economic Liberalization. An absolute smashing of the regulatory and subsidy schemes, they need the removal of taxes on sole proprietorship. Maybe even a suspension of the payroll tax. Possibly an end to zoning laws.
If you make it so that any Tom, Dick, and Harry can basically pedal goods for money, you'll start rebuilding the cultural structure that allows people to take responsibility for their future, generate long term time preferences, and will become your base of support at the next re-election. The phrase "I thought you were crazy, I can't believe that worked" is how you know you did well.
You will have to take power focusing entirely on the idea of "keep what's yours". That's the thing you have to harp on. It's not the government's, it's not the public's, it's not the community, it's yours. Focus on preserving the individual's ownership, and then take dramatic actions initially. After a few years, the political environment will have shifted dramatically in your favor as people adjust to the economic freedom you gave them, and you should be able to exploit those gains politically.
But you can't be a coward about it. You gotta kick them in the face initially and weather the storm. They'll forgive you once they decide you may have been right.
Absolutely, especially in this day and age where workers have plenty of rights but now Unions want to have them be treated like kings because it justifies their existence (not really caring it ruins their industry, and thus their job, in the process).
I was more getting at that in the past, there was at least an argument to be made for Unions in the face of brutal, uncaring corporations. Or at least, that is what the average normie would argue and believe. Having done discussions with you before, I am sure you would say something to the effect of "You empower workers by making it so the corporation is not all powerful, and they only got all powerful because of government largesse." (probably not wrong, just saying there was at least an argument in 1850).
Jeez, and this is what people blame Thatcher for? As I would always say with my friends back in the day, "It takes skill to fail that hard."
The problem I see here is that they are going to kick, scream, bite, and do anything they can to try and get you voted back out the first chance they get, especially if you try to touch their precious gibs.
Although, I can see some very long term hope in that as areas around them continue to grow and see their quality of life improve, you may hit a critical mass of people saying "Well, why cant it work here?" and start demanding the same policies. Going back to what I know, Omaha, NE has been doing VERY well by big city standards because their mayor (the first Republican elected in about 15 years, and the first to get elected multiple times to the job) has been cutting property taxes while also balancing the budget by making sure new businesses come in and making it a good, clean city that people want to live in.
Of course, like I have told you before, she also did this by letting the police off the leash and letting them utterly crush BLM the first time they tried to stage a riot, so she also saved the city from major damage, which just feeds a feedback loop that will draw in more people and business.
Also, slightly off topic, I just looked at her election this year. I knew she was reelected, but I hadnt known that she utterly smote her Dem challenger to the ground, winning 64%-34%. Considering Omaha usually votes Blue for federal level stuff, I wonder if this is just more evidence of a coming shift in 2022 and 2024.
Something like that. The only reason you could get the Corporate Plantations of the old 1870's mining towns that controlled all business was because the US was pushing to develop coal as a national security resource for military action and industrial power, so the Feds & the State of West Virginia did everything in their power to subsidize coal development artificially, and then to protect the corporations on top of that.
Had the coal industry developed more naturally, you'd never get Mining Towns because such things would have been far to expensive to even consider building in the first place, and you would have had a more thorough economic development, involving smaller mines, more infrastructure, more subsidiary businesses, and decentralized town development. Towns would have developed to support mines and other industries within the region, rather than towns being constructed solely for the purposes of the mines.
Instead, the Corporate Plantation system creates a debt-based form of slavery (ala the song "16 tons"), and then you get the Coal Wars coming out from both Leftist revolutionary agitation along with over-zealous corporate power, and a government seeking to protect it's focus on a national security commodity.
Absolutely. "Thatcher stole jobs from Scotland and killed Coal in Wales" is the normal narrative in Britain. This perspective is effectively unheard of.
Even among Economic Liberals, many will still say that how Thatcher conducted the economy was wrong because she was too hands-off and too many coal workers lost their jobs when she cut programs and subsidies.
The way I look at it, Thatcher talked a good talk, but she wasn't any more Economically Liberal than basically JFK. She cut programs, and didn't make too many deals with the unions, and lowered taxes, and got a bunch of growth and development out of it. But, she was by no means the type of person to do anything I would push for. She created a bunch of government programs that created low-tax zones in certain areas, rather than just lowering taxes across the board. She never really gave up on government intervention in the economy, she just loosened the reigns a bit.
She acted like she'd operate the country with Milton Friedman as her economic advisor. The British press treated her like she was a lunatic, far-right, Austrian Economist, or a slave to Corporate power. In reality, she just liberalized the economy away from the absolute Socialist shithole that the Labour party had turned the country into.
Yeah, that's why you can't be a fucking pussy, and you gotta go hard on day fucking 1.
"Welcome to Day 1. The payroll, property, and sales taxes are hearby suspended. These taxes will no longer be collected by my government. Anyone who has refused to pay these taxes will be hereby pardoned. Specific names will be announced shortly. Program cuts will now be made since the people will be able to keep their money. They will fund programs by requesting services from private providers."
"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
"Welcome to Day 2. The attempt on my life has left me scared and deformed. However, it has not changed my unwavering desire to see our glorious final victory against the Communist hordes. As such, we have re-organized the Galactic Republic in to the 1st Libertarian Order of Ancapistan."
"EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
You'll get 2-4 years for the situation to normalize and prosper. After the Great Fire of London, the city was rebuilt in about 3. Same thing after the Tulsa Race Riot. You have to ensure that economic growth is faster than the political blowback against you.
Then you can go for the re-election. Even if you lose, you will have disrupted the Leftist organizational capacity so severely, that it will take them a great deal of time to re-structure it. That's why after Day 1, you need to start selling computers, demolishing government buildings, selling government property, and cancelling government contracts.
This is basically indicative of my entire argument. You've got to assert human freedom very aggressively, and very early. The consequences for that will be good in the long run as people might not truly understand why things went well from a large macro-economic / socio-political perspective. But on the ground they'll be putting 2 & 2 together and seeing that your policy about this, had a very positive effect on that, and they'll see that you're responsible for their prosperity by having loosened the reigns and allowed them to succeed.