Ron Paul’s phony populism
- Thread starter ColdBlooded
- Start date
I'll admit, I am now a cynic because I actually believed, Obama would change US foreign policy.
Briefly going over Ron Paul's predictions and track record, he is the most legit of all candidates. I should look into him further. I def wouldn't vote for that fat faggot gringich, or any of the other Republican fruit loops you guys have available. lol
Try and get it expunged, I'm still working on it.
-
One of the good things to come out of our dominatrix relationship with the US, is a little thing called an E-3 Visa.
Briefly going over Ron Paul's predictions and track record, he is the most legit of all candidates. I should look into him further. I def wouldn't vote for that fat faggot gringich, or any of the other Republican fruit loops you guys have available. lol
Try and get it expunged, I'm still working on it.
-
One of the good things to come out of our dominatrix relationship with the US, is a little thing called an E-3 Visa.
It has been well established (by you) that everyone who disagrees with your point of view lacks basic comprehension skills.
You'll probably never wake up and realize that all we've ever had was technocracy and that social engineering actually hinders our social evolution. The state, by definition, is a violent monopoly and completely at odds with the moral identity of the people. When all else fails, they've always got a gun to coerce the people into submission...the antithesis to human morality. I would imagine you can somehow brush over this and dismiss it in order to maintain your view of government as a force of good, whether presently or as the future answer to our problems. You are presently not willing to accept the reality that the state cannot create virtue, morality, rationality, reason, etc. Quite the contrary, when you consider the history of states over the last 4,000 years.
The people who wrote the US Constitution were far from perfect, I mean, they actually presumed to own other human beings (African slaves). The ideas contained in their various writings, especially the Bill of Rights and The US Constitution were real truths, however. Human rights are not determined by mathematics! I mean, read the Bill of Rights and point out the flaws for us...I'll be glad to consider your response thoughtfully and carefully.
In the meantime, consider how willing you might be to give up your life and/or the life of your family and friends for the good of the collective. No problem, right?
You'll probably never wake up and realize that all we've ever had was technocracy and that social engineering actually hinders our social evolution. The state, by definition, is a violent monopoly and completely at odds with the moral identity of the people. When all else fails, they've always got a gun to coerce the people into submission...the antithesis to human morality. I would imagine you can somehow brush over this and dismiss it in order to maintain your view of government as a force of good, whether presently or as the future answer to our problems. You are presently not willing to accept the reality that the state cannot create virtue, morality, rationality, reason, etc. Quite the contrary, when you consider the history of states over the last 4,000 years.
The people who wrote the US Constitution were far from perfect, I mean, they actually presumed to own other human beings (African slaves). The ideas contained in their various writings, especially the Bill of Rights and The US Constitution were real truths, however. Human rights are not determined by mathematics! I mean, read the Bill of Rights and point out the flaws for us...I'll be glad to consider your response thoughtfully and carefully.
In the meantime, consider how willing you might be to give up your life and/or the life of your family and friends for the good of the collective. No problem, right?
This is why I say that you lack most basic reading comprehensions skills - because after all this time you still haven't understood that I do not talk about anything like what we currently have as "the state".
Also, the word "technocracy" has different meanings to different people, with the main point of contention whether economists count or not. And it's a big point of contention because what we have had as "technocratic" governments has always been only economists and no scientists, while it should be the opposite - the economists in their present form are nothing but peddlers of woo and should never be allowed anywhere close to decisions making. This is why I prefer not to use the word at all.
Another thing you have completely failed to understand is that I do not call for technical experts to be in charge of decisions making because I am a scientists myself, I call for that because in the end we want to optimize decision making for the common good. Deregulating society is guaranteed to fail because:
1. People will generally not do things in the interest of the common good, they will do things in their own selfish interest
2. Even if we were somehow to convince people to put the common good first and their selfish interest second, it is not possible for any single human to be sufficiently informed to be able to figure out what the best decision about everything is.
Ideally, we want to use the accumulated knowledge of all of humanity to achieve that decision-making optimum and this means trusting the people who have that knowledge in a particular area. Note that this is very very different from what we have now - now we have in charge people who are only comptetent in successfully getting elected but are utterly incompetent and unqualified to take informed decisions in any area requiring even minimal expertise. I am not defending that system, I want to dismantle it. I am just pointing out that complete deregulation is not a viable alternative but a recipe for disaster which people can take seriously only in due to complete lack of understanding of what drives human behavior and human nature
Also, the word "technocracy" has different meanings to different people, with the main point of contention whether economists count or not. And it's a big point of contention because what we have had as "technocratic" governments has always been only economists and no scientists, while it should be the opposite - the economists in their present form are nothing but peddlers of woo and should never be allowed anywhere close to decisions making. This is why I prefer not to use the word at all.
Another thing you have completely failed to understand is that I do not call for technical experts to be in charge of decisions making because I am a scientists myself, I call for that because in the end we want to optimize decision making for the common good. Deregulating society is guaranteed to fail because:
1. People will generally not do things in the interest of the common good, they will do things in their own selfish interest
2. Even if we were somehow to convince people to put the common good first and their selfish interest second, it is not possible for any single human to be sufficiently informed to be able to figure out what the best decision about everything is.
Ideally, we want to use the accumulated knowledge of all of humanity to achieve that decision-making optimum and this means trusting the people who have that knowledge in a particular area. Note that this is very very different from what we have now - now we have in charge people who are only comptetent in successfully getting elected but are utterly incompetent and unqualified to take informed decisions in any area requiring even minimal expertise. I am not defending that system, I want to dismantle it. I am just pointing out that complete deregulation is not a viable alternative but a recipe for disaster which people can take seriously only in due to complete lack of understanding of what drives human behavior and human nature
I wonder if we could get a tally on all the crimes against humanity that have been committed in order to defend the common good, and another tally of how many crimes against humanity have been committed in order to defend property rights and individual liberty what the results would be.
Regardless, if you truly want to break up the current technocracy...then you'll first need to figure out how to get free enough to organize and implement such a society without being snatched up in the middle of the night, detained, imprisoned, executed, marginalized, demonized, etc. I would argue that Ron Paul would push for such freedom. What you seek is the very social evolution that we are totally capable of...but you somehow expect it to materialize out of the violent monopolistic technocracy that currently dominates world leadership and governmental systems of rule through social and economic engineering. The current technocracy is so pervasive and selfish...it must be mitigated in order for anything different at all to come about, especially if you want change to come quickly.
If you think the technocrats are all economists, you are a fool. Economists didn't study and master mind control and social psychology for the purpose of controlling public opinion. They didn't promote and develop eugenics. They didn't develop nuclear weapons technology. They didn't engineer the holocaust. Almost all of these things are the result of "group think" and an elite class sure of the fact that they understand what the "common good" is and which way is the best way to implement it.
If someone came to you right now and told you that America was overpopulated and running out of resources and you had to be exterminated, would you submit to the common good?
Regardless, if you truly want to break up the current technocracy...then you'll first need to figure out how to get free enough to organize and implement such a society without being snatched up in the middle of the night, detained, imprisoned, executed, marginalized, demonized, etc. I would argue that Ron Paul would push for such freedom. What you seek is the very social evolution that we are totally capable of...but you somehow expect it to materialize out of the violent monopolistic technocracy that currently dominates world leadership and governmental systems of rule through social and economic engineering. The current technocracy is so pervasive and selfish...it must be mitigated in order for anything different at all to come about, especially if you want change to come quickly.
If you think the technocrats are all economists, you are a fool. Economists didn't study and master mind control and social psychology for the purpose of controlling public opinion. They didn't promote and develop eugenics. They didn't develop nuclear weapons technology. They didn't engineer the holocaust. Almost all of these things are the result of "group think" and an elite class sure of the fact that they understand what the "common good" is and which way is the best way to implement it.
If someone came to you right now and told you that America was overpopulated and running out of resources and you had to be exterminated, would you submit to the common good?
1. Those things are nowhere near as prevelent at present as you think - that there is someone behind the scenes pulling the strings is only a conspiracy theory that is most likely incorrect. The evidence is perfectly consistent with nobody driving the train, which is actually something much scarrier, as I've outlined before.
2. None of those horrible things were done by scientists - they were done by people who blindly believed an ideology and were not able to reconsider thier foundational assumptions. That's precisely the opposite of how a good scientist thinks and behaves.
1. America is overpopulated and running out of resourves
2. There is no need for anyone to be exterminated at present, we just need to stop having children. If I was given a dollar every time I hear that canard and 10 dollars every time I hear it right after I've explained for the 156th time that we need to impose a ban on births now so that we don't end up killing each other in a mass dieoff event later, I could have retired already. I don't have children and don't plan to have any so you're not going to scare me or embarrass me with such scenarios. I practice what I preach.
P.S. There is another common canard "If you think the world is overpopulated, why don't you start alleviating the problem by killing yourslef". If someone tells you something of the sort, you can immediately and confidently place their IQ in the under-80 bracket. The people who understand that ovepropulation is a problem are a small fraction of the population. Their function is to serve as catalysts for the conversion of the rest of the population from people who have no clue about the gravity of the situation into people who understand it. If they disappear all that will happen is that population will decrease by less than 1% (which gain will be wiped out in a few monhts due to continued populaiton growth) but there will be nobody to catalyze the conversion. Not that it is practically possible to achieve that conversion - we are not going to do anything of significance to tackle the issue and so the civilizational collapse and mass dieoff scenario will with close to 100% certainty unfold at some point, whether gradually or relatively quickly - but such an event will close off whatever small possiblity there was to turn things around
2. None of those horrible things were done by scientists - they were done by people who blindly believed an ideology and were not able to reconsider thier foundational assumptions. That's precisely the opposite of how a good scientist thinks and behaves.
1. America is overpopulated and running out of resourves
2. There is no need for anyone to be exterminated at present, we just need to stop having children. If I was given a dollar every time I hear that canard and 10 dollars every time I hear it right after I've explained for the 156th time that we need to impose a ban on births now so that we don't end up killing each other in a mass dieoff event later, I could have retired already. I don't have children and don't plan to have any so you're not going to scare me or embarrass me with such scenarios. I practice what I preach.
P.S. There is another common canard "If you think the world is overpopulated, why don't you start alleviating the problem by killing yourslef". If someone tells you something of the sort, you can immediately and confidently place their IQ in the under-80 bracket. The people who understand that ovepropulation is a problem are a small fraction of the population. Their function is to serve as catalysts for the conversion of the rest of the population from people who have no clue about the gravity of the situation into people who understand it. If they disappear all that will happen is that population will decrease by less than 1% (which gain will be wiped out in a few monhts due to continued populaiton growth) but there will be nobody to catalyze the conversion. Not that it is practically possible to achieve that conversion - we are not going to do anything of significance to tackle the issue and so the civilizational collapse and mass dieoff scenario will with close to 100% certainty unfold at some point, whether gradually or relatively quickly - but such an event will close off whatever small possiblity there was to turn things around
Look at the data as you said you would when I posted it. Be sure to look at global reproductive rates. How do you know if those are true facts on the UN site? Really? I don't know bro...they're compiled by the finest technocrats the world has to offer, of course. A better indicator, is the fact that even though they are provided by the UN, they seem to be at odds with the overpopulation scare tactics promoted by the UN themselves over the years, pretty typical of state entities, though...they often produce policies based on assumptions that don't actually match their own data.
You haven debunked shit.
The UN says population will peak at some point in the middle of the century at 10 billion people. How exactly is that debunking the overpopulation myth? The estimates are that we overshot the carrying capacity of the planet when we passed 5 billion 25 years ago, and those are estimates that do not take into account the non-renewabiltiy of non-renewable resources; if they did, the sustainable number would shrink by one or two orders of magnitude. So given that we are already way past the carrying capacity of the planet at 7 billion, how could a sane person with two functioning neurons in his brain claim that the fact that the UN projects global population peaking at 10 billion means that there isn't anything to be worried about? What sort of sick twisted logic is that?
On top of that, one has to always examine the assumptions that claims people make are built on. It is possible that the brightest people applied all of their fancy knowledge to a problem and ultimately came up with some utter BS because some of their initial assumptions were not valid. I deal with computer models applied to real life a lot in what I do and this happens all the time - people will throw some really fancy, sophisticated and even intimidating math at a problem, you will read their description of what they did and it will look like some really smart people did that (because indeed really smart people did it) but the model does not describe reality well at all because those same extremely smart people forgot to consider something critical and often not even subtle at the very beginning. It's a common consequence of the dysfunctionality of our current educational system that breeds narrows specalists who tend to miss the forest for the trees.
The UN reports are a classic example of that phenomenon. They project that population will peak at 9, later revised to 10 billion by asuming that the Third world will develop and that the demographic transition is a function of wealth. Those are critical assumptions that this projections is built on and they are utter nonsense. The Third world will not develop because the resources for that to happen simply do not exist and the theory of the demographic transition is pure BS based on utter disregard of understanding of human behavior in the light of evolutionary biology.
The UN says population will peak at some point in the middle of the century at 10 billion people. How exactly is that debunking the overpopulation myth? The estimates are that we overshot the carrying capacity of the planet when we passed 5 billion 25 years ago, and those are estimates that do not take into account the non-renewabiltiy of non-renewable resources; if they did, the sustainable number would shrink by one or two orders of magnitude. So given that we are already way past the carrying capacity of the planet at 7 billion, how could a sane person with two functioning neurons in his brain claim that the fact that the UN projects global population peaking at 10 billion means that there isn't anything to be worried about? What sort of sick twisted logic is that?
On top of that, one has to always examine the assumptions that claims people make are built on. It is possible that the brightest people applied all of their fancy knowledge to a problem and ultimately came up with some utter BS because some of their initial assumptions were not valid. I deal with computer models applied to real life a lot in what I do and this happens all the time - people will throw some really fancy, sophisticated and even intimidating math at a problem, you will read their description of what they did and it will look like some really smart people did that (because indeed really smart people did it) but the model does not describe reality well at all because those same extremely smart people forgot to consider something critical and often not even subtle at the very beginning. It's a common consequence of the dysfunctionality of our current educational system that breeds narrows specalists who tend to miss the forest for the trees.
The UN reports are a classic example of that phenomenon. They project that population will peak at 9, later revised to 10 billion by asuming that the Third world will develop and that the demographic transition is a function of wealth. Those are critical assumptions that this projections is built on and they are utter nonsense. The Third world will not develop because the resources for that to happen simply do not exist and the theory of the demographic transition is pure BS based on utter disregard of understanding of human behavior in the light of evolutionary biology.
The coming population bust...
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=the+coming+population+bust
Projections for future populations are based on fertility and reproductive rates. Carrying capacity is based on consumption habits and population, not population alone. A million people in India is not = a million people in the US. 20 Indians have the same footprint as 1 American.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=the+coming+population+bust
Projections for future populations are based on fertility and reproductive rates. Carrying capacity is based on consumption habits and population, not population alone. A million people in India is not = a million people in the US. 20 Indians have the same footprint as 1 American.