Is Egalitarianism Unconstitutional?steemCreated with Sketch.

in #politics7 years ago (edited)

Not only is enforced egalitarianism apparently unconstitutional, it’s also a goal which is both economically plus philosophically impossible to achieve, as well as being societalcide, self-destruction — because it only leads (every damn time in the history of human civilization) to Seven Kill Stele megadeath if the power vacuum of egalitarianism defection is not filled by the strong and rational.

We’re at a very dangerous juncture for Western civilization because it seems nearly everyone (at least in the West) incorrectly thinks egalitarianism is beneficial.

Click all my links, otherwise you’ll bypass reading points which support my conclusions.

Impossibility of Enforcing Fairness

Martin Armstrong recently wrote:

How is it possible that we can have legalized class warfare and politicians run on extorting the rich at gun point with threat of imprisonment if they do not pay their “fair share” which is somehow a higher percentage than everyone else and this miraculously does not violate Equal Protection and Justice for All?

Which echos the theme of what I had written before that:

The dilemma you describe of the inability to have liberty without forcing liberty—which as you point out is ironically the antithesis of liberty—exists because of the collective’s capability to use more force than the individual. Max Weber’s canonical definition of government is: a monopoly on the use of force.

What you’re essentially pointing out is that liberty is not possible because leeches game the political economics and subject the society to their leeching. And any conservative group that claims to offer a better (e.g. “more righteous or meritorious”) order is still depending on collectivized force and thus is a power vacuum that ultimately is captured by leeches. Both the Libertards and Conservatzars are hypocrites.

Thus my current goal with my decentralized ledger R&D is to ameliorate the power of the centralized collective.

The more resources we put technologically out-of-the-reach of leeches, the more impotent leeching becomes.

Leeching destroys society not because society can’t produce enough for most people to be lazy, but because leeching (aka socialism aka Marxism) enable/force totalitarianism wherein the most powerful who captures the power vacuum must also be the most corrupt (in order to retain power) and megadeath all those leeches in the end. Leeching is a cyclical, repeating self-destructive cancer on civilization that periodically razes civilization to the ground in a 600 year Dark Age.

Again I view my decentralized ledger technology work very seriously, because we are entering (at least in the West) the totalitarian end-game phase of socialism.

Unconstitutionality of Enforcing Fairness

Martin Armstrong continued to explain the profound unconstitutionality of enforcing fairness:

The Supreme Court dances around this issue that clearly is unconstitutional and is a Communist idea championed by Karl Marx, which is the cornerstone of leftist politics. Yet, when we peal back the veneer and we look at the same principle in other contexts, we suddenly see a conflict of law. For example.

… [discussion of landmark Supreme Court majority decision supporting the constitutional argument in a related context] …paying dues toward union functions outside collective bargaining was unconstitutional and held that the unions “may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.” In other words, unions would have to ask for nonmembers’ permission to collect political assessments and, possibly, any dues at all. “Individuals should not be compelled to subsidize private groups or private speech.”

The very idea that a person should pay a progressively higher percentage of their income based upon their God given skills flies in the face of certainly the Fifth Amendment Taking Clause, which reads: “[n]o person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Nowhere in the Constitution is there any hint that equal justice applies for all except if you make more than your neighbor. Progressive taxation also violated the Freedom of Religion under the First Amendment for one of the Ten Commandments is very clear on the subject:

As is well known, the climax of the constitutional controversy in the United States over a federal income tax came in 1895 in the celebrated Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895). An income tax with explicitly graduated rates, enacted during the Civil War, was held to be constitutional in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (i88o), however, the progressive feature of that tax was not in controversy during that case so it was not actually decided. What is usually remembered about these cases is that the Supreme Court adopted the views of taxpayers’ counsel that a tax on the income from real and personal property is a direct tax within the constitutional requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the states, and that since these aspects of the tax were not separable the whole tax, the result was that the tax was patently unconstitutional.

So the Supreme Court ruled that a prior version of the income tax was unconstitutional for the same structure that the new one had, but the Supreme Court due to a tie vote avoided ruling on the progressive nature of new one (which is the ancestor of the one we have until now). And the worst part is the people cheered this unconstitutional tax because the witless fall into the woodchipper:

Nonetheless, lift the rug and we discover the origin of progressive taxation. The tax in question in 1894, had a flat rate of 2% on income but allowed each individual taxpayer an exemption of $4,ooo. Therefore, anyone earning more than $4,000 were discriminated against creating progressiveness which the public cheered as to be expected. That is the argument against democracy for it allows the majority to treat any minority unfairly.

In presenting their positions to the Court, counsel for the taxpayers did argue a substantial portion of their brief on the progressive nature of the tax in addition to the direct taxation argument. They maintained that the tax, because of the various progressive exemptions, violated the constitutional requirement of uniformity of indirect taxes and contravened the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They focused on the $4,ooo exemption. On the issue of uniformity the Court divided four to four and therefore expressed no opinion. Even the dissenting opinions avoided discussing the issue.

Chief Justice Steven Fields did write an opinion arguing for the unconstitutionality of progressive taxation:

Only in the concurring opinion of Justice Field is the question or progressiveness even explored. Justice Steven Field (on bench 1863 – December 1, 1897) argued that it was indeed the arbitrariness of the exemption that would in itself have been a sufficient basis for invalidating the tax. The income tax law under consideration was marked by discriminating features which affect the whole law. It discriminated between those who receive an income of $4,ooo and those who do not. It was a blatant and arbitrary discrimination embodied within the whole legislation. Justice Field thus is the only Justice to directly address the issue whereas everyone else has avoided discussing the validity of progressive taxation because it benefits government.

Nature Isn’t Fair

Armstrong goes on to explain that more than a decade later in 1916 during a time of war, Chief Justice Edward White wrote a decision on the progressive nature of income taxation and made corrupt, baseless jurisprudence claims w.r.t. the Equal Protection issue. So essentially the Constitution had been usurped at that point and the rule of law and due process abandoned.

Nature is a meritocracy only in the sense that it’s an evolutionary competition for resiliency of the species and maximization of total entropy in the Universe. If this bothers anyone emotionally or for what ever reason, then they live in denial, but that won’t help anyone advert the reality of it. Caveat emptor. And “inalienable or natural rights” don’t exist.

Equal opportunity can’t be enforced because nature will never allow it. Equality would be devoid of competition and entropy would cease to increase in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which is fundamental to the physics of our Universe.

Sort:  

funny, I was just thinking this sounded a lot like a recent Martin Armstrong article I read, and then I noticed... it was! lol :)

Yeah the legal argument comes from him. I’m adding my work interleaved. You’ll find some parallels between my ideas and his, but there are also some differences. For example, I think MA is naive if he thinks Equal Protection is a valid concept. So I’m actually implying that his entire thesis is flawed and the Constitution is flawed. Philosophy of Law is not a suitable solution the problems of the power vacuum of political economics. That’s why I’m working on decentralization technology.

I think MA is naive if he thinks Equal Protection is a valid concept

Throughout my life I never considered myself to be a rascist— meaning I didn’t attempt to judge people based on their race. Heck I have smidgen of Cherokee lineage mixed in with my Welsh (”Moore” and “Shelby” as family names), southern French/Italian (“Primo”), and German (“Hartwick”). And I attended all negro elementary school in Baton Rouge, where afair my sister and I were the only white skinned kids in the entire school other than some of the teachers. I grew up around Louisiana negros in the latter portion of my elementary school years. Although I can say I did perceive the female gender as inherently different than the male, but only recently began to understand the nature of these differences.

So when I read James A Donald’s recent blog that basically characterizes negros as inherently thugs and Mexicans (descendants from the Aztecs) as tribal to the extent of ritualistic sacrifice ingrained into their psyche, I related it back to my real world experiences. And unfortunately I have to agree with him about negros if we’re excluding the outliers. I experienced the thuggery many times in Louisiana growing up. This doesn’t mean that every black person is going to commit thuggery every day, but there’s a predisposition for it to occur. Even the way that negros communicate with each other reflects this psyche. For example, readers can listen to Jordan Clarkson relating what Kobe Byrant told him about “dunk it like a dark skin” where Kobe was insinuating to dunk it more violently.

I don’t dislike negros. I’ve even had friends who are negros. I can interact, admire, and perhaps even love just as I would any other person. I can also consider to the specific capabilities of a person, regardless of their race. Yet I will be aware there are inherent differences that I need to pay attention to. In many circumstances, those inherent differences may not matter, but in other situations they may. Why should I unrealistically expect in a general sense a negro to have the same genetics as I do, when the in fact I also know that I cannot overcome some of the realities of my own genetics (i.e. I can’t jump as high as many of them do, because of genetics). White men adapted to cold climates and using their mind and not predominately their physicality to survive frozen winters. Africans adapted to a very physically oriented survival. I don’t know whether these differences are fading fast because of the cultural acceleration of evolution that Freeman Dyson explained. Maybe so and I will lookout for theories and data on this topic. I’m open-minded. I may for example have to opportunity soon to do computer science work with some bright Indians, and I need to see what they are capable of and what if any innate cultural/genetic characteristics come into play and what impact does that have on the work production. Again I have an open-mind and need to observe carefully.

I think Jim is correct that Latinos are more erratically violent than northern whites (although perhaps southern whites such as in the Baltics also have some very violent gangs…remember reading about a negro football player from Alabama was killed by a gang in Serbia). I observed this during my visits to Mexico, Guatemala, and Colombia in 1993 and 2001. I also experienced it first-hand when I was attacked by a gang in the Philippines and consequently lost vision in my right eye. I also observe this quality in myself that the smidgen of Cherokee blood I have can cause me to well up with ferocity at any erratic moment just based on even the slightest of innuendo or attitude of someone else that I dislike. I have to constantly work to keep that inferno capped and channel it into aggressive sports to keep it from building up too much pressure (i.e. it has to be exercised, it’s innate). If I’m racist then I’m racist against myself also. Rather I think I’m just trying to be rational and correctly analyze the facts.

For example, here in the Philippines, best friends will occasionally hack each other to death with machetes during some drinking session. Or I remember my filipina maid telling me her father in the mountain had killed a few men just because he didn’t like their high pride attitude.

It seems the Europeans stopped being violent when they no longer had a rational economic reason to be so, i.e. the Vikings were violent only for economic reasons. They diversified into mental means of economic development.

Another recent event that motivated me to write this post, is the Black Panther movie mass hysteria going on in the USA. Entertainment, basketball, rap (thuggery) music, etc.. will not be economic when the Western debt bubble implodes soon. The widespread infatuation with Jeremy Meeks and rappers in the USA, is indicative of the decadence of the society. Whites got to the high economic status they had with engineering. And now China is taking those reins to reign while we in the West commit ideological and cultural suicide.

Decadence with drugs and weed:

https://www.quora.com/What-countries-will-you-never-visit-again/answer/Kyle-Zhang-19
https://www.quora.com/What-countries-will-you-never-visit-again/answer/Anya-Mary

When the rate of immigration is too high, they stop assimilating and then you lose your culture and descend into a war zone where you must arm your teachers and turn your schools into fortresses.


My UK friend proudly exclaimed that his wife got the results of her xray within a few days and was referred to another facility and then got a plaster walking cast and crutches.

Within 1 hour, I can get the results from xray (which only costs $4 no insurance) here in Davao, Mindanao. I want a private healthcare system where I can pay to get an xray and cast done in the same day at the same facility. Send the bums to a university hospital like the Charity Hospital we had for the blacks in the New Orleans.

Of course the blacks always felt sorry for themselves, and instead of working hard were out doing crime, making a zillion babies and not educating their kids, etc.. Then socialism was increased and now they think they’re successful as in Black Panter movie successful. But the fact is when socialism blows up in bankruptcy in the next 10 years, many of those blacks will be right back to doing what they did before, because they really do not like engineering. What they like is thuggery, dancing, fornicating, etc..

These are damned facts. Nobody wants to admit they are true. Of course there are outliers and I will work with anyone who is excellent, regardless of their race. As for gender, I would work with females who are beyond their fertile years. Females in their fertile years disrupt the workplace, because they are really there to find a mate. And females are very inherently mischievous in the way they compete for the baddest boy mate (due to their hindbrain and the ancestral environment in which they evolved).

It is all science. I refuse to deny the science, which even the very liberal160 IQ Eric S. Raymond had to admit are damned facts.

If we did not have the government involved in the West making it nearly impossible to discipline or terminate a female employee, I might consider working with more females as an experiment. But the government makes it extremely risky to run a business in the West. That is why I will never start another business in the West.

Unfortunately most of the businesses in the high tech world that people are working for, are only held up by the socialism. When the socialism collapses most of these businesses are going to go bankrupt. We will have a reversion to reality within the next decade as the $100s of trillions in West debt and unfunded actuarial liabilities of governments and pensions crashes down to the reality that we in the West are a bankrupt society.

And primarily because we all have the egalitarianism unscientific nonsense in our heads.

I want to live in a meritocracy that respects scientific truth. Not junk science and lies.

Go make 6 babies then try to find time to do your career. Socialism is the same. We try to pull the weight of everyone along with us. We can only do that by going heavily into debt. Yet everyone pretends the reality is not the reality until it collapses in a Minsky Moment.

Nobody wants to admit the reality. So very unscientific.


There is archeological evidence that Africa had large urban dwellings, high literacy, and peaceful civilisation before the war obsessed Europeans invaded the continent and brought all their conflict with them. Further the proto-ancestor of all British people from after the end of the last ice-age had been shown by DNA analysis to be black. It seems that the skin turns lighter by mutation, and in low light regions of the world natural selection selects for the extra vitamin D production. The idea that we are different races is not supported by DNA evidence. We all come from Africa, which is the cradle of civilisation. Also in the UK we don't have the same problems with the marginalisation of blacks. We accept people are British because the adopt the culture and act like British people, but by any incorrect notion of "race". It seems to me that the US problems with parts of its population is caused by the socio-economic divide not the other way around. Black turn to crime because the are marginalised, disenfranchised, ghettoised by the US system, not because of any inherant behavioural bias, and the biological science, archiology and DNA evidence support this.

I heard that humans are evolved from apes. Should we pander to apes and go back to being apes?

The blacks in the USA were hard working (after slavery was abolished) until the USA instituted welfare. After welfare started, the ghettos formed. That is a fact.

The UK did not take in more blacks than they could assimilate via the education system. The USA took into too many blacks as slaves who they did not assimilate. Then we did the same thing with Mexicans. The Mexicans stopped assimilating at the same rate as former immigrants because we took in too many. Our immigration rate should be about 1% a year instead of 15%.

If the UK takes in 15% of their population a year in poorest of the poor from Africa, I guarantee you it will collapse into the same mess we have in the USA. You do not share a land border with Africa as we do with Mexico. Please compares apples-to-apples, not apples-to-dragons.

Also again as a good socialist you are lying by cherry picking data about a few civilizations in Africa and not the norm for the entire continent.

And you are lying by comparing apples-to-dragons. Socialists always lie. They are so unscientific and such liars and that is they cause such megadeath.

Do you see now how the propaganda in your media does not tell the truth? They do not state factually the differences in geography between the USA and England. Come on. You Brits are supposed to be more erudite than us. Please stop the tabloid propaganda junk science.

We were your farms. Due to being before the invention of machinery at that juncture in history, we needed slaves to make the cotton you needed for your industries. Then you sneer at us. We evolved and moved up the food chain. But we have a geographical problem being on the border with Mexico.

Btw, I am all for the elevation of all races or if you prefer the term ‘cultures’ than races. I am not holding anyone down.

The Europeans destroyed the African civilisations and lied to cover it up. What the Belgians did in the Congo is beyond most people's imagination, and they way they maintain a state of perpetual anarchy there allowing mineral mining companies to exploit the coltan deposits there is shameful. You do not see anything about this in the history books or news. It's erased and invisible to most people.

So what? Europeans were also destroyed at one point in history by invaders. Competition is a fact of nature. Africans must learn to compete.

I can not walk around all day protecting a weak kid who is bullied by others. He has to learn to protect himself.

What matters is that Europeans modernized the world with industrialization.

Now the human species is on to the next challenge which is high tech and computers. Will the Africans avail? It is up to them. They appear to be very much into computers and even electronic payment systems. Human civilization is very complex. We cannot distill human civilization to a blame game.


Thinking a bit more about the social issues, they’re very complex. People tolerate and migrate to what is working for them economically in the near-term. There’s no magic solution to any social ills. But for sure socialism crashes and burns. I would prefer more degrees-of-freedom so systems can anneal for more fitness. So I continue to detest large government and expropriation of individual wealth and productivity. So I personally won’t be enthusiastically participating in UK nor American society-at-large. I will try to foster paradigms that enable individuals to empower themselves. So I continue to work on software technology.


I appreciate the negros in my hometown in New Orleans. They contributed the jazz and blues music culture and cuisine. Also they have interesting personalities. But the violence and thuggery is negative factor, not saying all do it, but it’s significant problem. Ditto the Latinos in California, but the massive level of immigration has created many social problems also. Then again sometimes I’m annoyed with white people and their strict rules and arrogant “we know what’s best for everybody else”. Generally speaking I can find people of every race and culture that I enjoy being in the company of. Generally speaking I’m positive and enthusiastic about personal human relations, but I’m cynical and skeptical about group action. Although I enjoyed the team sport of American football (not soccer) and bonded with my teammates.

No wonder why this isn't taught in school!

Anonym

That’s an excellent discussion point to raise. It’s quite interesting to note that the Gaussian (aka normal) distribution is the only distribution which maximizes entropy. Negentropy is the distance of a distribution from the Gaussian distribution.

To say that living things are more ordered than maximally uncertain, is not a refutation that nature seeks maximum entropy overall. For example the extinction of species forgets ordered information and imports entropy anew into any perspective on nature. I think you’re conflating nature as universal entity and a given state of the universe snapshot from any given perspective (which of course is relativistic and thus not a totally ordered perspective of nature).

So if our civilisation reboot, we will do it from the perspective of equal opportunity.

I don’t see how that follows and I don’t have time to dig. Cite something please.

Anonym

For some unknown reason I just spewed (archived) a blown fuse on some random person’s Medium blog (she’s like the mayor of Seattle or something similarly unimportant):

And apparently being a defender of legalized marijuana which fucks up our youth! Yet I realize the entire West coast is politically into that, so I guess I shouldn’t single you out. Hey that’s okay there’s needs to be some places for all the stoners to go and wreck the local economy and public health (and with all the natural and coming man-made disasters in California, I don’t even have to be jealous that includes one of the most amenable climates in the USA where I attended high school). No, it will never be acceptable to conservatives. The USA will split apart in a civil war because there’s no way that the Bible belt is going to go along with this.

Over here in the Philippines, I’ve observed first-hand Duterte clean up the huge mess that drugs was creating over here. Yet the ideological suicide of the West is that ideology trumps pragmatism and economics. That’s what happens when for example when Rome became decadent and we’re on the way there in the West by 2032. Mark my word. It’s wonderful to see private individuals helping others. But the socialism (doing via top-down control of government) is bankruptcy, because we’re always spending “someone else’s money” in a futile attempt to destroy the Gaussian and power-law distributions of nature. Simply impossible to sustain. Nature always wins. Because egalitarianism is inconsistent with itself. Oh but when you charge the costs to the collective debt (aka socialism), then junk science (lies!) and more unscientific data massaging lies in support of egalitarianism, is mighty profitable (until as a result the society collapses into the economic and warlordism abyss).

Jordan Peterson destroys SJW Cathy Newman (links to discussion)

Tangentially, on the issue of damned facts which are ideologically uncomfortable for SJWs, note clinical psychologist Peterson isn’t entirely correct to characterize females as always more agreeable than males, although they can be agreeable/subservient when obeying whom they perceive to be an alpha male. Rather females are perhaps less openly confrontation, yet far more irresponsible and disruptively conniving when they need to be in order to meet their evolutionary requirement to be bear offspring with the most alpha male plausible at any costs. Whereas, men are more openly confrontational but can be quite agreeable to building civilization and technology when their beta male role is acceptable to their evolutionary requirement to bear offspring with any woman (and as many as realistically plausible). This is why for example men must accept their subjugation by the elite (alpha male leaders) master plan for Bitcoin (to the extent that decentralization doesn’t apply to organization of civilization). Females can’t be focused on leadership and big picture civilization strategy because it’s counter to their necessary evolutionary role to be subservient to an alpha male (unless forced by civilization to be subservient to a beta male) because they can only carry a few eggs to gestation in their short reproductive lifespan. Even clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson attests to this fact. In terms of evolutionary resilience, eggs are rare and sperm is abundant (only one surviving male could impregnate surviving females but not vice versa).

There’s no progression in “progressive leader”. Asians understand that civilization, religion, morals, etc. are a cycle. Something loony about those of European descent that think human nature and politics are on a continual path of progression & improvement. Nope. Technology is continually progressing. Civilization and human nature are cyclical. But of course I’m a loon in your eyes. So be it. Remember my prophetic words come 2032.

Speaking of Irish Catholic lineage, slave girls used to be money in Ireland. And remember civilization has and will always be cyclical. Lol. And some of the history Catholic church is ignominious (although Christianity did preserve the libraries during the Dark ages). See what politics really is? The illusion of democracy via the debt-spigot is an alternative to war over our differences. But eventually the debt-spigot turns off. Then war…

I had been arguing with the following quoted person about the fact that global warming was a fraud and that a Maunder Minimum is coming with severe global cooling to result. He argued back. Then a couple days later I sent him a link to the news that Russia had a month of snowfall in 36 hours which was the most every recorded.

I sent a link about how the left leaning party in the UK is making a serious attempt to nationalize the postal system, the railways, etc. Then I followed up with this link about Soros and with the remark that propaganda in the British media had turned many Brits into brain washed ideologues:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/britain/soros-one-of-the-greatest-threats-against-society/

I received a reply regarding the necessity of universal healthcare and how in the UK there’s some private healthcare available to those who want:

I don't see any morally acceptable alternative, as letting poor people die is barbaric.

Everyone dies eventually.

If you want to pay for other people’s healthcare, then do it. Just don’t make that decision for me. I will decide whose healthcare I want to pay for.

It’s not about selfishness. It’s about the fact that marxism does not anneal. It metastasizes into 100% failure. After millions dead, it’s amazing to me that people like you are still so willfully ignorant of history.

100s of millions dead due to Marxism. One of the most lethal philosophies to have ever existed on earth.

It’s not about selfishness. It’s about degrees-of-freedom and the lack thereof that metastasizes into 100% failure.

universal healthcare is marxism.

We don't have to choose everything from one philosophy, we can mix and match.

You’re not free to opt-out of paying for universal healthcare for everyone. There’s no freedom in that regard. And now they are contemplating nationalizing the postal system, the railways, etc..

It's metastasizing. Eventually they’ll nationalize everything and you all die.

These snowballs accelerate inertia and effect exponentially. Don’t sleep on the night that Lilly pond is only 20% covered because the next day it can be 100% covered. Humans (and sheep) can’t perceive exponential growth of a phenomenon.

Trump is reducing regulation as much as he can. He is trying to undo all the marxism of Obama.

Universal basic income may be the only way to save the economy from automation.

Top-down myopic! Let the free market anneal. Those who can’t learn will die. Those who can learn new skills will be wealthier with automation.

Death is a natural thing. Nature culls the herd.

Marxists refuse to accept that nature is cardinal. So then they end up doing the megadeath all at once themselves.

We will all end up unemployed whilst the robots make everything

Complete nonsense.

Society went down this route once before, when the Austrians sterilised criminals and the poor.

Top-down culling is what collectivism does. That is why I think your ideology is so evil. I suggested that nature will anneal bottom up. But you prefer top down, so you‘ll get what you asked for.

Marxism means the social ownership of the means of production. I am not in favour of this. I think private ownership and competition is in general a good thing.

Via excessive taxation and regulation, the government already owns the means of production. And it’s metastasizing (meaning it’s going to get much worse).

From what I have heard it really is a hostile environment to start and run a business. https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21606293-small-businesses-fret-less-about-taxes-over-regulation-red-tape-blues

At least we can do jurisdictional gaming of the States. We force the States to compete for us. We leave the shithole states, letting them crash into the abyss and reform themselves. Trump is facilitating this by removing the deduction from federal income taxes for state taxes. So as of this year, the collectivist clusterfucks like California won’t be able to effectively charge the federal government for their excessive socialism costs. So soon there will be a mass migration out of California and it can fall into the abyss (and hopefully fall into the Pacific Ocean with a huge earthquake so that Nevada can become the new West coastline ).

See also: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/the-supreme-court-could-destroy-the-economy-in-one-decision/

However how does that apply to something like insurance? If the government calculates a premium as a % of income so that it gets enough money to cover everyones healthcare costs, how would this be improved by capitalism. You cannot lower the cost of the insurance or make the process more efficient because you have to pay the cost of treatment.

Insurance by definition should only be for things that never routinely happen. So healthcare should never be paid for by insurance, but rather by savings, as Singapore does it. By letting individuals decide which investments they save and which healthcare they avail of, there is a bottom-up free market competition in healthcare, which will always anneal (fitness) better than a top-down clusterfuck run by the government.

In this case a national agency owned by the public (its their money it is spending after all)

It’s not their money because they had no option to opt-out. The government owns their money whether they like it or not. 51% agreement is 49% people stolen from against their free will.

I am happy to pay to make sure everyone receives the healthcare they need. 75% of people in the UK support paying more to help fund the NHS not 51%.

In the end you do not get complete freedom of will in a society, because there are many things you might want to do that will end up in you being punished in prison.

The analogy to enforcing against crime to the need to force 25% to pay for healthcare even though they don’t want to, is the insane thinking that drives marxist-socialism to megadeath. Classifying degrees-of-freedom (an analog of potential energy) as a crime is literally insane.

You’re happy just like the people in the book/movie 1984 were happy. Propaganda works. But the reality is that universal healthcare leads to rationing and eventually megadeath. It takes time, but eventually gets there.

When people have to save and pay for their own healthcare, they will demand that healthcare anneals to maximum fitness. When they collectively pay for it, they save nothing and run up huge (actuarial) debts that can never be repaid (which is the case for the UK), while all parties to the healthcare system are always trying to take the most out of it and balloon it.

“An elephant: A mouse built to government specifications.” — Lazarus Long

We will all end up unemployed whilst the robots make everything

Complete nonsense.

http://degoes.net/articles/no-rise-of-machines


Regarding healthcare, I don't think it is acceptable to just let people in your country die because they can't afford to pay for treatment.

There’s a solution to that:

https://blog.jim.com/economics/the-perils-of-government-intervention-in-health-care/

In short, don’t give bums the same quality of free healthcare that we give to productive people. It’s actually the most humane solution. Otherwise you’re asking for megadeath of productive people. Choose.

His other blogs on healthcare are also good reading:

https://blog.jim.com/economics/trumps-healthcare-plan/

https://blog.jim.com/economics/the-inevitability-of-murder-under-government-health-care/

https://blog.jim.com/economics/fixing-healthcare/

https://blog.jim.com/economics/how-to-do-health-care-right/

https://blog.jim.com/economics/congressman-steve-kings-solution-to-healthcare/

https://blog.jim.com/culture/health-care-and-stockholm-syndrome/

https://blog.jim.com/economics/murdering-grandma-does-not-substantially-save-on-health-costs/

Thirty percent of hospital deaths in Britain are murder by the state. British hospitals literally stink of death, due to deplorable and obvious lack of basic hygiene. They don’t apply enough hot water and bleach to cover up what they are doing, let alone prevent the spread of hospital acquired infectious diseases.

“Community acquired” diseases (a euphemism for hospital acquired diseases) are a big problem in Britain. These diseases are frequently anti biotic resistant. The proposed solution is to use less antibiotics, rather than the obvious solution: More hot water, soap, and bleach.

And predictably Britons are correspondingly enthusiastic about government health care.

And James A. Donald (aka Jim) radically admires Britian’s Victorian era.

Btw, he is also the first guy to respond on the mailing list when Satoshi announced Bitcoin. I think he lives in the Philippines.

I don’t want people to die needlessly. We’re talking about how the economics can best anneal. Bums who can’t afford a $500 deductible, get sent to the regional public hospital that is overloaded to the gills with patients sitting on the floor and in squalid conditions. This motivates them to not be bums, and also doesn’t end up bankrupting (or turning it into horrible healthcare) for the productive. Jim explains it more thoroughly.

Also prevents people from gaming and abusing (bankrupting) the healthcare system to get time off from work, disability payments from the government, etc… I know so many people who have gamed the system that way. It’s not a rare occurrence.

And also so that people will value their families more. So that when they get old, somebody can pay their deductable:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/what-socialism-destroyed-govt-shutdown/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/history/americas-economic-history/socialism-has-destroyed-social-structure/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/how-socialism-has-destroyed-the-family-structure/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/its-about-fairness/

Collapse Coming:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/the-collapse-of-socialism-its-our-turn-up-to-bat/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/the-coming-european-revoluition/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/writings/2012-2/debt-is-destroying-everything/

Capitalism – Socialism – Communism:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/dollar-gold-dow-interest-rates/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/22302/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/socialism-at-its-best-how-to-destroy-the-wealth-of-a-nation/

P.S. I was a bum during portions of my life and received really poor quality healthcare during those times. That’s why now I‘m blind in one eye (would not be if I had the healthcare done in the USA) and have a chronic health issue with my liver due to very poor healthcare that didn’t diagnose TB early on. But I did get some healthcare that stopped me from dying in ER/ICU from an acute (perforated?) peptic ulcer. But again it was low quality. From that I was motivated to be productive and by being reproductive I was able to afford to go to Singapore to get better quality healthcare. It was a nightmare and a very long struggle. Surely my experience would be an example to other bums that they better be more productive if they don’t want to suffer as I did.

Okay we had Russia with more snow in 36 hours than they normally get in one month, and the anecdotes have been piling in and here are some more:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/agriculture/global-cooling-reducing-food-supply/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/agriculture/pandemic-can-hit-the-food-supply/

Socialism is propaganda that is not in touch with reality of how nature fluctuates in cycles and we must adapt bottom-up. Top-down systems are not able to adapt and thus they perish in mega death. Y’all think you’re being humane and compassionate, but actually you’re accomplishing the antithesis of what you purport to be in favor of, while attacking us religiously who want bottom-up annealing.

Please lose the religion and wake up to the facts.

More propaganda driven ideological suicide of the West:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2018/01/08/exxon-prepares-to-sue-california-cities-say-they-contradict-themselves-on-climate-change/

And:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/norway-forcibly-removes-12-y-o-son-after-christian-family-decides-to-homeschool-video-217663/


We will all end up unemployed whilst the robots make everything

Complete nonsense.

http://degoes.net/articles/no-rise-of-machines

I received the response:

I agree with Degoes about AI, although he does not consider that AI may be given goals by humans. It would be possible for a human to deliberately create an AI with the goal of ~freedom~[autonomy], but he is right that it won't happen by itself (we are a product of biological drives created by evolution, whereas machines are not).

Your conceptualization is too simplistic. The point is that nature is annealing bottom-up and evolutionary fitness is what drives resilience, not greatest computational resources. It’s actually impossible to compute the future, so computational superiority won’t help be more resilient and fitness to diverse outcomes. It’s the diversity of the human species (every copy is randomized!) that matters. This is the point I had made in 2013, and which is further discussed at the link I gave you before about “Complete nonsense”.

That doesn't stop idiots doing stupid things though, and giving machines bad goals to optimise. There is still the staple problem - which is I construct machine to make staples, and in give it the goal of being the most efficient possible - it goes on to destroy the world by consuming all the resources as it optimises itself to produce more and more staples more efficiently (optimising the efficiency of scale). It may not be able to do this single handedly, but such a machine as part of an organisation like a corporation can issue commands to humans to build new plants, dig new mines, hire new people etc. If humans learn to trust the machine, they will blindly follow it to their own demise. People don't always do what's best for them, just look at Facebook addiction, when it has already been shown that social media makes us more depressed and unhappy.

Although true, it’s an irrelevant FUD. You could replace ‘machine’ with “political organization” in your sentence and still be correct.


The symbolism in Obama’s official portrait pointing towards the future civil war and ideological suicide of the West. Symbolism (propaganda and mind control) is more powerful than weapons. Hitler understood the power of propaganda and FUD.


https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/economics/socialism-always-moves-to-tyranny/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/climate-change-conspiracy-against-us-all/

My comment at the highly censored StackExchange was deleted by the mods as proven by an archived copy:

Although you could follow the suggestions of the answers to leverage the law to fight on your behalf, eventually you’ll be in a situation in the real world where you’ll be on your own to deal with it. How could raise your self-esteem or personal power to deal with this on your own? That’s what I’d be thinking about long-term. Thus by implication I think the answers lower your self-esteem and personal power by handing you crutches. SJW is not an economically competitive career.

New to Steemit?

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.30
TRX 0.26
JST 0.041
BTC 97708.75
ETH 3613.59
USDT 1.00
SBD 3.30