Same guy as the previous one
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (50)
sorted by:
Says the guy who thinks it’s ok to tax you like crazy for “the greater good”.
It’s okay to discriminate against you “for the greater good”, it’s okay to force people to die taking an unproven “vaccine” “for the greater good”, it’s okay to kill more babies in 50 years than war and homicide throughout the countries entire history “for the greater good”, it’s okay to permanently damage children and forcing them to be chronically ill their entire lives because a doctor claimed they were a girl, as it’s once again, “for the greater good”.
Exactly
I'm fine with that. I do not care about "limited government" anymore, not when all the corporations and education system are being run by far leftists. What's the point when the corporations will openly discriminate against you or when they teach pre-pubescent kids about masturbation and the elasticity of the vagina.
Limited government works if we are allowed to enact justice ourselves.
Limited government only works in a moral ethnostate. (Aristotle).
If someone believes in limited government they need to limit the charters and legal protections given to corporations. Why should the individuals running the beasts not be personally responsible for their actions? Why do we let them monopolize IP they never authored instead of forcing them to actually be productive? Why are regulations often tailored to benefit the largest players in the market instead of the little guys? Why is the vast majority of mainstream media in the world held by a handful of giant corporations? Obviously these are rhetorical questions.
Today corporations and the state are two heads of the same beast. Good progressives know this, which is why they push for "responsible" governance of companies instead of tearing them down or uniformly enforcing anti-trust laws. (which you only have to do to make up for the aforementioned government protections in the first place)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pusZXECS0mM
Brainwashing someone into neutering themselves is literally against the NAP by my definition. If I say more I'll be called a glownigger.
If only we could all be so gloriously incandescent.
With respect to corporations, when big enough they act like governments. If you let them rule you, it's not limited government. It's just tyranny organized slightly differently.
This is where we end up with free speech. Supposedly there's competition, but oh look you're banned from Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and AirBnB--- possibly all in one day.
True "small government" policies would abolish public schools entirely, which I totally support.
Actually breaking the power of socialist public schools and stopping the Democrat teachers who brainwash your kids from abusing their power is 100% limited government.
Protecting kids from mutilation is well within the scope of the criminal laws of a limited government.
Outlawing abortions is an overreach but if you accept that it is murder, again, it's just a basic criminal law to protect children.
and the voting shit is a lie, never happened. Voter ID laws are popular and democrats lie about them.
By every legal and medical definition elective abortion is murder. There is no legal right to pull the plug on a comatose patient expected to fully recover in a matter of months and that’s the exact closest comparison you can make to a fetus.
Oh no, he used the words "limited government"! Now I'm forced to let people murder, let people cheat in elections, let pedophiles molest children, and let kids mutilate their genitals in taxpayer funded medical institutions!
DARN, now I know how Rumpelstiltskin felt.
If I need the opinion of a retarded faggot midget I'll ask Robert Reich. He should go back to creepily hitting on female indie musicians.
He's got a point though. This is something right-wingers need to figure out. This is why the National Socialists have a better case for enforcing morality than libertarians.
If you truly believe in limited government then your fixes to the above problems should be as follows:
That should solve the whole "not the party of limited government" critique.
Murder is murder, so that takes care of abortion. Send them all to jail.
Teachers shouldn't be grooming kids, takes care of that and "trans" kids.
Literacy tests to vote also makes a huge difference.
I'm all for small government, but we have to fix the problems first.
Don't forget that tax payers fund public schools, so we most definitely have a right to decide what gets taught and what doesn't. And I think we're all fed up with being extorted via taxes and not having a say in how things work, so either remove all taxes or they need to stfu and accept that we most certainly have a seat at the table.
I'm all for big government as long as the government does what I want it to do and I'm not going to pretend I'm for small government while I also promote the government using its power to "fix problems".
I just wanted to get people out of politics to make government "smaller". Democracies seem fairly "large". 90% of people don't deserve to have an opinion on politics and shrinking who gets power seems like a good way to shrink "government" instead of pretending each citizens gets an equal say thus "expanding" government.
Sure but a 300 million person democracy that regulates a fire service seems to be quite a bit bigger than a single monarch that regulates a fire and police service. I mean think about the administration required just for the voting alone... over what, a fire service? Way too big of administrative clutter imo.
Still, I threw the monarchy in there because I despise democracies and would never want to ever be in one if given a choice.
Yeh but who cares? That isn't what most people mean by big and small government. Though I can forgive someone for thinking that since our Uniparty and faux conservative movement for the past 50 years has given us nothing but a dialectic over "muh taxes", and never the opportunity to actually restructure or eliminate government control. Sure if you cut the EPA's budget they can't annoy people as much for a while, but as long as the regulatory framework exists they'll come back.
Why do you want inbred retards running your country?
Better than malicious inbred retarded evil pedo demonic cannibals tbh.
From your other comments in this thread, you seem to just want some sort of autocracy and throw out "monarchy" as a generic substitute for autocracy. But monarchy is a very specific thing, and its key feature is hereditary succession. (I say the same thing to the leftist retards who flippantly throw around the term "fascism" without understanding a damn thing about what the key features of a fascist political system actually are.) The fundamental flaw of monarchy is that eventually monarchs realize that they can concentrate power by fucking their cousins, siblings, and aunt/uncles. And that's what I mean by inbred retard. See the Habsburgs.
So my question to you is why monarchy specifically? And what form, an absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, devolved monarchy, or something else? And why not another form of autocracy, like a military dictatorship? Or an undemocratic oligarchy?
Don't care what liberals think, just like they don't care what we think when we mock them for being "the party of tolerance."
In fact, you should go into a leftist forum and re-word your entire post as an argument to ending the idea that they're not the party of tolerance. See what they say to you.
I'd try to reform the republican form of government--proportional representation--before scrapping it for a monarchy, even though a monarchy can rightfully enforce some sort of formal moral code. Our institutions, all our sources of moral guidance, have been corrupted though, so I might be overly optimistic about the possibility of reform.
The other reforms sound reasonable but what does any of this have to do with a "national socialist" state?
I'm just pointing out how libertarian types (small government) often still promote moral authority on the people, which isn't small government so there's a logical incongruency in their political stance. It can be spoken to, sure, but usually it's a lot of mental gymnastics to basically say they believe in small government in certain respects and big government in other respects. In the end, it's just big government, another way.
I'm saying National Socialists at least don't try to pretend they're for small government and are 100% honest that they like big government which makes them more honest and logically sound in their political stance compared to libertarians, imo.
The reason I made the comparison is because usually libertarians see National Socialists as their antithesis and I'm saying at least your political rival is more forthright in their intentions.
"discussions"
Why is gender a political thing in the first place, leftists who constantly invent new genders, then tell the right that they're the ones who are constantly thinking about gender.
One should always strive to not use violence, but when violence is already on the table one should absolutely use it to the most beneficial manner possible.
That's how the "limited government" ideology has worked for a long time. The government is going to involve itself in our business, so we just as soon leverage it into making our business how we'd prefer it.
That's fine. I want a huge, powerful government that mercilessly persecutes my enemies, makes things better for me and my allies, and does whatever it takes to make sure we never end up in a world where communists can sterilize their kids, block roads and point guns at me if I disagree, and a jury of my "peers" convicts me of murder for not letting them shoot me first. You can't affect me by sneering and saying left-libertarian catchphrases at me because I'll just tell you to fuck off.
who gives a fuck what they have to say about anything?
With limited government there would be no national curriculum, and transgender and gay rates would drop down instantly in youths. No need to say anything more.
That is exactly what limited government is.
Okay, groomer
Stopping people from fully committing to pathology is not oppression. No more than you are oppressive for expecting people to take baths.
My god, that just sounds great. Where do I sign up for that party?
This fuck lives in Bizarro World if he actually believes this idiotic statement.
It's a shame that laws must be put in place to prevent or reverse the intervention of social reformers into our institutions, but the whole idea is to have everyone clamoring for "social justice" and burrowing into our lives like ticks to JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LEAVE US ALONE!!!
I happily admit to not being for limited government. A weak but moral state will be quickly be crushed by an immoral force. The state must be both strong and moral.