You think I deleted my post? No, it was removed by the mods.
Unfortunately, we will always disagree on this. I do not believe a person has value simply because he is white. Does the person have a higher predisposition toward being value because he is white compared to black, yes. I do believe that. However, a white person can still be worthless. If there is ever a war fought tomorrow over establishing a new imperium and a white guy was standing in my way by promoting a gynocracy and Jewish degeneracy, I would kill him in an instant. His skin color is worthless then.
Well, you use white to describe race so it gets mixed in the message. Perhaps you could start using Aryan? You likely don't because you probably aren't Aryan but you are white. Truthfully, white people should start using the proper race in discussions. Since race and color are so intermixed, I butcher it all the time. I understand the differences between races better than most.
Believe it or not, in a society without growth, you run into a problem where people truly do have no value. Growth is actually what has been hiding this problem. As growth has been shrinking, we've seen a contraction on resource distribution and this is impacting people's quality of life. The "conspiracy theorists" discuss how the richest in society want to kill billions off because they don't see the value in these people and that could very well be true.
If you are in a community of 20 people where only 10 people own 20% each of the resources and 10 people work for the 10 other people, then you develop technologies to require only 5 people to work. Why employ the other 5? Worse yet, imagine those 5 people have 20 kids between them and now you have 25 people that you don't need in your society. Why should anyone have to support them? Your system forces land-owners to have to give up resources to others on no basis other than quantity of people. You say people have value for their mere existence but this is simply not true and it's unjust to force the existing owners to have to share what they own with others simply because those others exist. The proper thing to do is create incentives in society that stop those 5 people who have no reason to exist from procreating. I of course would rather the land-owners be white people rather than Jews but the Jews are currently working a system where they are the owners. Still, if we had full control over our societies that would still be the ideal. More people for the sake of more people isn't necessarily better. Why share resources with people who do not do anything to earn those resources? It's entirely unjust.
Capitalism doesn't have to necessitate growth if you control the system. Our current capitalist system does indeed promote growth because most people are nothing more than slave labor for the capital owners and given the resources on our planet, more people was in fact better and may in fact still be better to promote the growth of resources but the growth of resources does not have to be the rules of the game. There's nothing to stop socialism from promoting growth of resources either. If those who ran the socialist system wanted to put resource maximization at the forefront they would do so and many socialist countries do in fact do this, at least resource maximization for the people in charge while the rest of society suffers worse than capitalism.
It is very simple to implement a capitalist system and literally ban immigration. There done.
I'm extremely well-read which is probably the problem. I am as absolutely against liberalism, modern morality and Marxism as it gets. I have studied it and I do not agree with it one bit. It doesn't lead to a good outcome for society at all. You'd think you'd have proof of concept already enough with the way society is today. We're living in a liberal marxist modern moral society. This is what you get. You're happy with this? Or are you going to pull the "this isn't REAL modern liberal marxism"...
Capitalism is merely an economic system. Most everything else you describe is a moral system. Do you know what Free Enterprise is? Here is a simple definition:
Free enterprise, or the free market, refers to an economy where the market determines prices, products, and services rather than the government.
That is all I am advocating for. Prices being set by owners. Thing such as "requiring growth", Diversity & Inclusion. Neoliberal Globalism. Climate Change. These are all moral values not inherent in capitalism at all. There's nothing that says capitalism must have these qualities. There's nothing to say socialism must either. Today we have a bunch of LGBTQ+ leftist socialists meanwhile National Socialism was anti-LGBTQ and so too were the Bolsheviks. These things are moral values which underpin a society's economic system.
I can tell from talking to you that you believe capitalism is more than free enterprise and that everything you inherently believe is fucked up with this world is inherent to capitalism. This couldn't be further from the truth. Most of the things that are a problem of society are inherent of liberalism and the moral values it has setup as a foundation to this society. It's liberal values that persist that you must give "liberty" to capital owners to do what they want with what they own. Liberty to do immoral things is not liberty worth having at all. Oh sure, set whatever prices you want but don't sell weapons to our enemies. Don't import in slave labor from other countries to increase profits by driving down labor. Don't tax citizens more and use the funding to subsidies business ventures to exploit the masses. Liberal values though is what is being used specifically to exploit the masses. This idea that we must provide healthcare to all, that we must save the world from climate change, that we must promote equal rights for all sexes, genders, races, handicaps, etc... is specifically how capital is exploiting people; by using your worthless ideal of altruism to extract value from you so you can feel morally virtuous with your joke liberal values.
You think I deleted my post? No, it was removed by the mods.
Unfortunately, we will always disagree on this. I do not believe a person has value simply because he is white. Does the person have a higher predisposition toward being value because he is white compared to black, yes. I do believe that. However, a white person can still be worthless. If there is ever a war fought tomorrow over establishing a new imperium and a white guy was standing in my way by promoting a gynocracy and Jewish degeneracy, I would kill him in an instant. His skin color is worthless then.
Well, you use white to describe race so it gets mixed in the message. Perhaps you could start using Aryan? You likely don't because you probably aren't Aryan but you are white. Truthfully, white people should start using the proper race in discussions. Since race and color are so intermixed, I butcher it all the time. I understand the differences between races better than most.
Believe it or not, in a society without growth, you run into a problem where people truly do have no value. Growth is actually what has been hiding this problem. As growth has been shrinking, we've seen a contraction on resource distribution and this is impacting people's quality of life. The "conspiracy theorists" discuss how the richest in society want to kill billions off because they don't see the value in these people and that could very well be true.
If you are in a community of 20 people where only 10 people own 20% each of the resources and 10 people work for the 10 other people, then you develop technologies to require only 5 people to work. Why employ the other 5? Worse yet, imagine those 5 people have 20 kids between them and now you have 25 people that you don't need in your society. Why should anyone have to support them? Your system forces land-owners to have to give up resources to others on no basis other than quantity of people. You say people have value for their mere existence but this is simply not true and it's unjust to force the existing owners to have to share what they own with others simply because those others exist. The proper thing to do is create incentives in society that stop those 5 people who have no reason to exist from procreating. I of course would rather the land-owners be white people rather than Jews but the Jews are currently working a system where they are the owners. Still, if we had full control over our societies that would still be the ideal. More people for the sake of more people isn't necessarily better. Why share resources with people who do not do anything to earn those resources? It's entirely unjust.
Capitalism doesn't have to necessitate growth if you control the system. Our current capitalist system does indeed promote growth because most people are nothing more than slave labor for the capital owners and given the resources on our planet, more people was in fact better and may in fact still be better to promote the growth of resources but the growth of resources does not have to be the rules of the game. There's nothing to stop socialism from promoting growth of resources either. If those who ran the socialist system wanted to put resource maximization at the forefront they would do so and many socialist countries do in fact do this, at least resource maximization for the people in charge while the rest of society suffers worse than capitalism.
It is very simple to implement a capitalist system and literally ban immigration. There done.
I'm extremely well-read which is probably the problem. I am as absolutely against liberalism, modern morality and Marxism as it gets. I have studied it and I do not agree with it one bit. It doesn't lead to a good outcome for society at all. You'd think you'd have proof of concept already enough with the way society is today. We're living in a liberal marxist modern moral society. This is what you get. You're happy with this? Or are you going to pull the "this isn't REAL modern liberal marxism"...
Capitalism is merely an economic system. Most everything else you describe is a moral system. Do you know what Free Enterprise is? Here is a simple definition:
That is all I am advocating for. Prices being set by owners. Thing such as "requiring growth", Diversity & Inclusion. Neoliberal Globalism. Climate Change. These are all moral values not inherent in capitalism at all. There's nothing that says capitalism must have these qualities. There's nothing to say socialism must either. Today we have a bunch of LGBTQ+ leftist socialists meanwhile National Socialism was anti-LGBTQ and so too were the Bolsheviks. These things are moral values which underpin a society's economic system.
I can tell from talking to you that you believe capitalism is more than free enterprise and that everything you inherently believe is fucked up with this world is inherent to capitalism. This couldn't be further from the truth. Most of the things that are a problem of society are inherent of liberalism and the moral values it has setup as a foundation to this society. It's liberal values that persist that you must give "liberty" to capital owners to do what they want with what they own. Liberty to do immoral things is not liberty worth having at all. Oh sure, set whatever prices you want but don't sell weapons to our enemies. Don't import in slave labor from other countries to increase profits by driving down labor. Don't tax citizens more and use the funding to subsidies business ventures to exploit the masses. Liberal values though is what is being used specifically to exploit the masses. This idea that we must provide healthcare to all, that we must save the world from climate change, that we must promote equal rights for all sexes, genders, races, handicaps, etc... is specifically how capital is exploiting people; by using your worthless ideal of altruism to extract value from you so you can feel morally virtuous with your joke liberal values.