INTERESTING STATISTICS
According to Pew Research:
* 71% of Hispanic immigrant households are on welfare
* 59% of Hispanics have children out of wedlock
* Almost 60% don’t have a high… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=503319116931650&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-10 01:25:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1193338960602222592
No you can’t. Try it. Shit talk is shit talk. Then compare it to the TRILLIONS that the USA uses and fails to obtain returns on. You want to fix the USA? Reduce inequality? Privatize education with vouchers. Make universities carry student debt. End immigration entirely.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-07 13:27:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192433469219131393
Reply addressees: @cashmoneyglock @studentactivism
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192432653942718464
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1192432653942718464
DEFINING SOCIALISM FOR YANG
—“Journalists who come to Des Moines tomorrow with an open mind will have those minds blown. #Yangapalooza
secure the center secure the future”—@AndrewYang
—“Its not socialist to tax big tech companies and give everyone a $1,00 a month. Everyone gets it, its pay for with technology. Its not socialist!”— @ironpatriot2016
—“Curt?”—
Rule of law = Sovereignty, Property(Demonstrated Interest), Reciprocity, Court,Testimony, Jury, Resulting in markets.
Socialism = Borrowing by the state, to make investments by the state, in industries producible by the state, and the redistribution of earnings into the commons.
Authoritarianism = Borrowing by individuals, Investment by individuals, in industries producible by individuals, producing returns for individuals, that is appropriated (stolen) by the state, and redistributed to non-borrowers, investors, producers.
The principle means by which jews,christians,muslims, in the old world, and marxists, postmodernists, and feminists in the modern world, is to use words people don’t comprehend in operational terms, to conduct false promises by sophisms that do little but bait fools into hazard.
Unfortunately there are a lot of fools to bait into hazard.
Unfortunately we let them vote into a single house of representatives, creating rule by majority-of-fools best deceived by false promise.
When if we had created houses for commoners, and women we could debate and trade.
I would happily debate Andrew because I am not aware of anyone else living who understands issues of modernity as well as I do. Because some of his desire can be produced by moral rather than immoral means. But really, he’s not very smart he just says ‘free stuff!’ for attention.
And fools come for the bait.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-01 15:48:00 UTC
STATE SPONSORED HYPERCONSUMPTION OF GOODS, SERVICES, INFO, AND VIRTUE SIGNALS
—“What we like or want may not be good for us.” –Curt Doolittle
Context of the original quote was that we… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=496055167658045&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 16:41:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189583050075791360
STATE SPONSORED HYPER-CONSUMPTION OF GOODS, SERVICES, INFO, AND VIRTUE SIGNALS
—“What we like or want may not be good for us.” — Curt Doolittle
Context of the original quote was that we… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=496048954325333&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 16:32:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1189580797596127232
STATE SPONSORED HYPERCONSUMPTION OF GOODS, SERVICES, INFO, AND VIRTUE SIGNALS
—“What we like or want may not be good for us.” –Curt Doolittle
Context of the original quote was that we have used a variety of techniques to generate hyper-consumption and especially conspicuous hyper consumption, and even worse, conspicuous hyper consumption of virtue signals. In other words, we may like hyper consumption but that does not mean it is good for us, any more than hyperconsumption of the pleasure response by drugs is, or hyperconsumption of sedation by alcohol, or hyperconsumption of calming by nicotine, or anything else in any similar spectrum.
So, yes, “all things in moderation” for the individual but this isn’t enforceable if the entirety of the political economy is generating hyperconsumption for hyper-taxation, and hyper-redistribution.
The state should not engage in the provision of the incentive to hyperconsume. This only benefits the financial sector. Instead, just redistribute liquidity in response to shock and sags directly to the consumer and cause business to fight over it.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:41:00 UTC
STATE SPONSORED HYPER-CONSUMPTION OF GOODS, SERVICES, INFO, AND VIRTUE SIGNALS
—“What we like or want may not be good for us.” — Curt Doolittle
Context of the original quote was that we have used a variety of techniques to generate hyper-consumption and especially conspicuous hyper consumption, and even worse, conspicuous hyper consumption of virtue signals. In other words, we may like hyper consumption but that does not mean it is good for us, any more than hyper-consumption of the pleasure response by drugs is, or hyper-consumption of sedation by alcohol, or hyper-consumption of calming by nicotine, or anything else in any similar spectrum.
So, yes, “all things in moderation” for the individual but this isn’t enforceable if the entirety of the political economy is generating hyper-consumption for hyper-taxation, and hyper-redistribution.
The state should not engage in the provision of the incentive to hyper-consume. This only benefits the financial sector. Instead, just redistribute liquidity in response to shock and sags directly to the consumer and cause business to fight over it.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-30 12:32:00 UTC
Take it a step farther. You and your family are unable to produce your own income, and are dependent upon the rest of us to provide for you. Should you have the right to reproduce, or are you, by reproducing given the unproductivity of your genes – making reciprocity or theft?
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-28 14:57:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188832264458854405
Reply addressees: @thanos_pope @JohnMarkSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1188831794419916800
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@thanos_pope @JohnMarkSays Take it a step farther. You don’t wait until you have sufficient assets, nor do you wait to choose a mate, to pay for your offspring, and because of your bad judgement you place the burden of your failures on the polity? Is that reciprocity or theft?
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188831794419916800
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@thanos_pope @JohnMarkSays Take it a step farther. You don’t wait until you have sufficient assets, nor do you wait to choose a mate, to pay for your offspring, and because of your bad judgement you place the burden of your failures on the polity? Is that reciprocity or theft?
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1188831794419916800
THE PROBLEM OF LEFT EGALITARIAN THOUGTH
—“That is the problem with the egalitarian program in a state of post-industrial revolution production. A uniform level of income distribution is… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=492657594664469&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-25 18:32:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187799035266162688
Like anything else, proportional taxation and proportional insurance – as long as costs and returns are shared we continue to support each other. We just must eliminate free riding on top as well as bottom.
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-23 19:09:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187083563910516736
Reply addressees: @fryskefilosoof
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1187082326926352387
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@fryskefilosoof Great question. (a) yes the family, otherwise we have the rapid expansion of bad families like we have in the 20th. (b) That does not mean that if a family’s means of provision of care are exhausted we cannot insure the family from destitution – that’s irreciprocal (moral hazard)
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187082326926352387
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@fryskefilosoof Great question. (a) yes the family, otherwise we have the rapid expansion of bad families like we have in the 20th. (b) That does not mean that if a family’s means of provision of care are exhausted we cannot insure the family from destitution – that’s irreciprocal (moral hazard)
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1187082326926352387