In my search for new ways to piss off the people I despise, I thought why not see what these failures are actually proposing as policy and if it's more fantasy than a new std not coming from degeneracy. Off the top of my head:
Affirmative action: nope, doesn't work, there's no practical application for this as you a depriving those with skills positions for those less skilled and better suited elsewhere
Open borders: Yes, this is a workable policy. So long as you remove ALL social safety nets. No welfare, no unemployment care, no medicare, do that and you can have open borders.
Defunding of police: This is fine so long as EVERY restriction on weapon ownership is also removed. I doubt criminals would act freely if everyone is openly carrying rifles and shotguns let alone handguns.
Social care programs: Not too much of a problem in moderation so long as you ALSO have a border under as tight control as the Korean DMZ and a border security that got training from the NVKD. If you have that then you just have to ensure the programs are not to the point it disenfranchises working.
Green policies: Not bad so long as they are focused at infrastructure upgrades and improvements and not by subsidiaries to companies or extra taxation and regulation for companies that are still using fossil fuel.
Safety regulations: This one is mixed, on the one hand we've seen what happens without the proper safety procedures in place (see the Halifax explosion and Texas City disaster) but on the other you don't want to make it so stifling that it slows production and development or even disenfranchises companies complying (like the recent allergy debacle)
LGBT+ initiatives: No
Reparations: No
That's all I can think of for now, feel free to add more or if you think I was wrong in my assessment of these policies.
Good point, but then they maintain their sacrifices to morloc so we'll put that in the maybe pile
Same goes for them getting the "vaccine" as they like to call it. The ones most eager to get that shit are also the ones that support them most.
These can only be sound if the underlying motivation is factual. Right now "green" initiatives all assume that the world is imminently doomed, which isn't remotely true.
The policy also has to be about results not the method.
Like they want to reduce CO2, but instead of hybrids that eliminate 90% for half the cost and no downsides they mandate battery cars.
Just keep raising the fleet average efficiency by sensible amounts and let the market decide how to accomplish that.
The proof this "CO2 will cause the apocalypse" hysteria is bullshit, is their own behavior. If they really believed their own shit, they wouldn't be giving a pass to the PRoC or India. The fact they're only targeting places that have already gone along with this nonsense, is proof that it's really just about getting more control.
Yup, if carbon was going to literally end the world, we would have nuked China from orbit.
Very true, if it was more 'efficency and production upgrades' then I could easily accept that.
I suppose it's not as catchy as 'green initiatives' but harder to misuse.
Re: safety regulations, the main reason they exist and are as expansive as they are is that we don't really have the ability to tell someone "your company harmed someone, we think that was due to negligence, you are responsible for what happens in your company, so we're going to punish you". So instead we regulate behaviors to prevent situations where that harm can even occur.
You see this sort of mentality start to occur in day-to-day life in some parts of the country. A grocery store in Oakland (I think) made the rounds not too long ago because it had gates physically preventing you from leaving the store until an employee checked your receipt. Because we can't punish shoplifting in some areas, so the solution is to make it more difficult to shoplift by making everyone's life miserable.
It's a very leftist mindset.
Yeah they turned my desire not to be blown away thanks to a 'yeah that'll do' attitude near dangerous materials into making everyone more miserable
regulations written in blood are the only valid ones.
Yes but they don't only need to be written in the blood of the victims'. I believe in ancient Rome they made engineers stand under completed bridges while they removed the support scaffolding.
Way more effective than thousands of pages of "safety regulations" ever would have been.
That would be closer to the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist approach to liability. So naturally leftists hate it. The structure of corporations is one thing you would think we could find common ground with them on, if they actually had any principles. If we removed many of the liability protections corporations provide to their owners and demanded that any company activities had to be "owned" by one man, that would solve a ton of the malfeasance we see today. Collective management is a cancer to free men.
The issue I take with libertarians on this subject is they tend to be uncomfortable with, say, executing an executive for gross negligence resulting in death. Even someone like Hoppe tends to speak purely in terms of financial liability. Whereas I think that if that's off the table you create a moral hazard. And past a certain scale of negligence simple financial liability is an insufficient punishment for Justice to be done.
Open borders doesn’t work as no societal cohesion will always lead to collapse. There has never been a successful “multicultural” society in all human history, and they always end violently.
I know it isn't quite a society, but Pirates were almost universally more successful seamen than their counterparts. Much of that success is owed to the purely merit-based structure they had. Any race or sex could climb the ranks if they were skilled enough, which meant the best of the best rose to the top.
There was also some semblance of cohesion in pirates though. They had their own code structure based on maritime law and held their own to it, otherwise captains would have their throats slit in the night and competitors would burn each others ships down.
It could be argued that America was open border before any social programs, accepting on mass European and Asian migration and without the social safety net they would travel only if they thought they could work and earn more there.
And the European migrants all had to naturalize their name and learn English. They also intentionally limited immigration to people they believed could assimilate.
Good points, I'm relating some of this to current year and I firmly believe that a key factor to the migration efforts to the west is the social care systems they have.
That and the lack of enforcement and money from certain organisations telling them the West's streets are paved with gold..
European imperialism should never have ended: change my mind (slightly /s)
I KNOW none of what I said would happen for any of the policies I said might work because:
But it would be funny if ANY of their policies were enacted this way, like if the police went but suddenly grandma going to the store with a 4 gauge or social care works but border security were given predator drones.
Anything to do with women : No.