What kind of "Christian values" do Conservatives want?

Woko Haram said:
I disagree. It's the unavoidable result of corporate law. Our legal system needs more change than anything else. Make those changes, and then it becomes much harder to pass legislation that favors big business.

Also, keep in mind that the countries that have pushed hardest on "wealth redistribution" have been the worst about oppression. Look at Venezuela, for example. You can use any number of leftist Latin American countries as a good example, honestly.

I'm assuming you probably favor the Nordic models of governance, but they are more capitalistic than is often assumed. They heavily socialize certain amenities, but they also are very competitive in industry.
Click to expand...

Agreed our laws need reform including putting the "regulation" back in "regulated capitalism". Capitalism is the engine the nation runs upon and which fuels the social programs of the Democrats. The Democrats have a tendency to kill the Golden Goose and the Republicans are constantly risking bursting it's liver by overfeeding.
 
Woko Haram said:
I disagree. It's the unavoidable result of corporate law. Our legal system needs more change than anything else. Make those changes, and then it becomes much harder to pass legislation that favors big business.
Click to expand...

But in order to make those changes, we can't have an economic oligarchy controlled by a tiny minority of the population. The reason we're in this situation in the first place is because of Capitalism.
It would be like trying to introduce free speech into a country that was still being ruled by a Fascist party. We couldn't do that until we removed the party from power. In modern America, we need to take away much of the 1%'s power before anything else is even possible.

Also, keep in mind that the countries that have pushed hardest on "wealth redistribution" have been the worst about oppression. Look at Venezuela, for example. You can use any number of leftist Latin American countries as a good example, honestly.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Venezuela's nationalization of all businesses, but that's not the reason it failed. It failed because America does what our government always does when a Latin American country attempts Socialism. They sabotaged Venezuela, this time with heavy sanctions. The truth is, things were getting a lot better in Venezuela before that. Trump even alluded to how if the sanctions didn't work, he could always just invade Venezuela.
Sometimes it's nice that Trump is retarded. He publicly says the things other politicians only say in private.

I'm assuming you probably favor the Nordic models of governance, but they are more capitalistic than is often assumed. They heavily socialize certain amenities, but they also are very competitive in industry.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's Social Democracy. A welfare state with a free market.
 
StoneByStone said:
But in order to make those changes, we can't have an economic oligarchy controlled by a tiny minority of the population. The reason we're in this situation in the first place is because of Capitalism.
It would be like trying to introduce free speech into a country that was still being ruled by a Fascist party. We couldn't do that until we removed the party from power. In modern America, we need to take away much of the 1%'s power before anything else is even possible.
Click to expand...

If it really is a matter of capitalism itself being the problem, then how come the world's capitalisms have fared so differently from country to country? Sweden is a capitalism too, and they're typically hailed by progressives as what America should model itself after. They seem to be doing alright, aside from their migrant problem.


StoneByStone said:
I'm not a fan of Venezuela's nationalization of all businesses, but that's not the reason it failed. It failed because America does what our government always does when a Latin American country attempts Socialism. They sabotaged Venezuela, this time with heavy sanctions. The truth is, things were getting a lot better in Venezuela before that. Trump even alluded to how if the sanctions didn't work, he could always just invade Venezuela.
Sometimes it's nice that Trump is retarded. He publicly says the things other politicians only say in private.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the standard line from apologists of these regimes. If you look closer at what happened, Venezuela did plenty of things that were headed for failure anyway. The nationalization led to the withdrawal of a lot of its foreign investment, for example.

Also, Chavez and Maduro were far more authoritarian in every avenue of policy than Trump or any American president has been. So it seems odd to me that people on the left that seem to think Trump is authoritarian would then support a regime that is far more authoritarian.

StoneByStone said:
Yes, that's Social Democracy. A welfare state with a free market.
Click to expand...

Which is what we have as well.
 
Woko Haram said:
If it really is a matter of capitalism itself being the problem, then how come the world's capitalisms have fared so differently from country to country? Sweden is a capitalism too, and they're typically hailed by progressives as what America should model itself after. They seem to be doing alright, aside from their migrant problem.
Click to expand...

It depends what you mean by "Capitalism" exactly. Most Americans, especially Conservatives, would say Sweden isn't Capitalist. I'd say it's more accurate to call them Social Democratic, not Capitalist or Socialist.
But semantics aside, the societies that do the best are societies that have both a generous welfare state and a free market. America is very stingy with the welfare, especially when compared to Europe.

That seems to be the standard line from apologists of these regimes. If you look closer at what happened, Venezuela did plenty of things that were headed for failure anyway. The nationalization led to the withdrawal of a lot of its foreign investment, for example.

Also, Chavez and Maduro were far more authoritarian in every avenue of policy than Trump or any American president has been. So it seems odd to me that people on the left that seem to think Trump is authoritarian would then support a regime that is far more authoritarian.
Click to expand...

Well we don't really know if these things would have led to failure because most of the times when a Latin American country tries Socialism, America get involved. Right now Socialism is working fairly well in Bolivia, so I expect America will attempt to destroy them soon.

Most of the Left doesn't like the Authoritarianism of Venezuela. We just accept that Socialism isn't what fucked the country.
 
StoneByStone said:
It depends what you mean by "Capitalism" exactly. Most Americans, especially Conservatives, would say Sweden isn't Capitalist. I'd say it's more accurate to call them Social Democratic, not Capitalist or Socialist.
But semantics aside, the societies that do the best are societies that have both a generous welfare state and a free market. America is very stingy with the welfare, especially when compared to Europe.
Click to expand...

I disagree to an extent. There are plenty of countries that have a relatively free market and relatively generous welfare state but still do very poorly. Brazil is pretty capitalist, and their welfare state is larger than ours, proportionate to its population. They're doing pretty terribly.

The success of the Nordic countries is probably more cultural than economic. Up until the last decade or two, they were monocultural. That makes it a lot easier to organize society in an optimal way. Now that Sweden has a significant migrant population, they're starting to have problems with people living off of the system. Tino Sanandaji has pointed out that this is largely because the migrants don't have any needed job skills. Because Swedes are highly educated and highly skilled on average, they never had much need to import labor, so by importing migrants they couldn't hire, they're stuck with just providing for them while the migrants have no way of paying their keep.

So, in the long run, having a generous welfare state will likely lead to their undoing. Granted, it's because of migrants, not because of the welfare state itself.

By the same token, our poverty isn't a result of not having enough of a welfare state. It's because we continually have a flow of poor people into the country while also having many working class people that fall in societal status.

StoneByStone said:
Well we don't really know if these things would have led to failure because most of the times when a Latin American country tries Socialism, America get involved. Right now Socialism is working fairly well in Bolivia, so I expect America will attempt to destroy them soon.

Most of the Left doesn't like the Authoritarianism of Venezuela. We just accept that Socialism isn't what fucked the country.
Click to expand...

Socialism certainly didn't work for Eastern Europe.
 
Woko Haram said:
I disagree to an extent. There are plenty of countries that have a relatively free market and relatively generous welfare state but still do very poorly. Brazil is pretty capitalist, and their welfare state is larger than ours, proportionate to its population. They're doing pretty terribly.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you trust Wikipedia, but this article is very well-sourced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil

"Brazil is classified as an upper-middle income economy by the World Bank[18] and a developing country,[19] with the largest share of global wealth in Latin America. It is considered an advanced emerging economy.[20] It has the ninth largest GDP in the world by nominal, and eight by PPP measures.[21][22] It is one of the world's major breadbaskets, being the largest producer of coffee for the last 150 years.[23] Brazil is a regional power and sometimes considered a great[24][25][26] or a middle power in international affairs.[26][27][28][29][30][25] On account of its international recognition and influence, the country is subsequently classified as an emerging power[31] and a potential superpower by several analysts.[32][33][34] Brazil is a founding member of the United Nations, the G20, BRICS, Union of South American Nations, Mercosul, Organization of American States, Organization of Ibero-American States and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries."

The success of the Nordic countries is probably more cultural than economic. Up until the last decade or two, they were monocultural. That makes it a lot easier to organize society in an optimal way. Now that Sweden has a significant migrant population, they're starting to have problems with people living off of the system. Tino Sanandaji has pointed out that this is largely because the migrants don't have any needed job skills. Because Swedes are highly educated and highly skilled on average, they never had much need to import labor, so by importing migrants they couldn't hire, they're stuck with just providing for them while the migrants have no way of paying their keep.

So, in the long run, having a generous welfare state will likely lead to their undoing. Granted, it's because of migrants, not because of the welfare state itself.
Click to expand...

You just summed it up perfectly in that last sentence. Social Democracy has worked great in Sweden. What's hurting the country is Globalism. There's no reason a country can't be both an ethnostate and a welfare state.
That being said, I do think the migrant situation in Europe is highly exaggerated. Still, I think they need to stop taking in non-white immigrants.

Socialism certainly didn't work for Eastern Europe.
Click to expand...

The Eastern Bloc countries were essentially puppet states of the Soviet Union. So we can't really judge them all as individual examples.
 
StoneByStone said:
I don't know if you trust Wikipedia, but this article is very well-sourced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil

"Brazil is classified as an upper-middle income economy by the World Bank[18] and a developing country,[19] with the largest share of global wealth in Latin America. It is considered an advanced emerging economy.[20] It has the ninth largest GDP in the world by nominal, and eight by PPP measures.[21][22] It is one of the world's major breadbaskets, being the largest producer of coffee for the last 150 years.[23] Brazil is a regional power and sometimes considered a great[24][25][26] or a middle power in international affairs.[26][27][28][29][30][25] On account of its international recognition and influence, the country is subsequently classified as an emerging power[31] and a potential superpower by several analysts.[32][33][34] Brazil is a founding member of the United Nations, the G20, BRICS, Union of South American Nations, Mercosul, Organization of American States, Organization of Ibero-American States and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries."
Click to expand...

Brazil isn't the poorest nation in South America, for sure, but it's also in pretty bad shape, even by those standards. The biggest problem they have is endemic corruption. They've had multiple administrations of opposing parties with various members go to prison. They also have pretty high violence, even by regional standards. I work with a woman that lives in an armed compound outside of Sao Paulo. The few times she leaves the compound are always risky, which is why the compound has a lot of security and is designed to minimize the need for leaving. She can do most of her shopping without leaving.

Her experience isn't exactly rare. There are various other parts of Brazil that are like this. You need heavy security to travel safely in a lot of the country, and the murder rate makes us look like Iceland by comparison.

StoneByStone said:
You just summed it up perfectly in that last sentence. Social Democracy has worked great in Sweden. What's hurting the country is Globalism. There's no reason a country can't be both an ethnostate and a welfare state.
That being said, I do think the migrant situation in Europe is highly exaggerated. Still, I think they need to stop taking in non-white immigrants.

The Eastern Bloc countries were essentially puppet states of the Soviet Union. So we can't really judge them all as individual examples.
Click to expand...

Sure, but they were also socialist.
 
Woko Haram said:
Brazil isn't the poorest nation in South America, for sure, but it's also in pretty bad shape, even by those standards. The biggest problem they have is endemic corruption. They've had multiple administrations of opposing parties with various members go to prison. They also have pretty high violence, even by regional standards. I work with a woman that lives in an armed compound outside of Sao Paulo. The few times she leaves the compound are always risky, which is why the compound has a lot of security and is designed to minimize the need for leaving. She can do most of her shopping without leaving.

Her experience isn't exactly rare. There are various other parts of Brazil that are like this. You need heavy security to travel safely in a lot of the country, and the murder rate makes us look like Iceland by comparison.
Click to expand...

I know this isn't popular to say, but that's just what happens when a country is multiracial. But by multiracial Latin American standards, Brazil is doing fantastic.
And we're talking about economics here. Economically speaking, Brazil is doing well even by Western standards. They're an upper-middle class economy. That won't stop crime, but that's another issue.

Sure, but they were also socialist.
Click to expand...

But it was only one country. That's not nearly enough to say this system doesn't work.
And I say this as someone who doesn't think this is the best system we could have. I much rather Social Democracy.
 
StoneByStone said:
I know this isn't popular to say, but that's just what happens when a country is multiracial. But by multiracial Latin American standards, Brazil is doing fantastic.
And we're talking about economics here. Economically speaking, Brazil is doing well even by Western standards. They're an upper-middle class economy. That won't stop crime, but that's another issue.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Singapore is multiracial and not very violent at all. Most of Europe is also multiracial, and several of those countries aren't high in violence either. Australia is multiracial and low in violence.

Now, if you're saying that being multicultural can lead to poverty, I can agree with that. If a lot of people enter a country that start out poor, only some of them will succeed financially, and if you have a welfare state, that can become a burden on the system.

StoneByStone said:
But it was only one country. That's not nearly enough to say this system doesn't work.
And I say this as someone who doesn't think this is the best system we could have. I much rather Social Democracy.
Click to expand...

If a social democracy is defined as capitalist with a welfare state, then we already have that.
 
Woko Haram said:
I disagree. Singapore is multiracial and not very violent at all. Most of Europe is also multiracial, and several of those countries aren't high in violence either. Australia is multiracial and low in violence.
Click to expand...

Singapore is 74% East Asian and nearly all of their minorities are South Asian, meaning even their minorities are racially similar to the East Asian majority.
In Europe, the countries with the most immigrants are Russia, France, the UK, and Germany. Each of those countries is over 80% white.
Australia is 99% white due to their earlier White Australia policy.

As for Brazil, the biggest racial group is Whites, but they only make up 48%.

If a social democracy is defined as capitalist with a welfare state, then we already have that.
Click to expand...

We barely have that. The welfare we have keeps people alive, but that's about it.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Prove that is true. There's a difference between unable and unwilling as all logical people understand.

Sent from the alien civilization which rjhenn believes to exist
Click to expand...

Christianity claims that God wants us to believe in Him. But He refuses to give us any reason to believe in Him. And why does an omnipotent and omniscient God have such a weak ego that He needs the worship of such as us.
And, dumbass, believing in the existence of alien life is not the same as believing in alien civilizations.
BTW, when's the last time you heard of an atheist cult that ends in mass murder or suicide? Or any atheist cult?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Cypress said:
Pointing to the Medieval universities of the year 1245 AD does absolutely nothing, nada, zilch to excuse your denial of modern scholarship by the world's most reputable historians of antiquity
Click to expand...

Do you even look at what you post? "modern scholarship by the world's most reputable historians of antiquity"?!?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Some atheists, some theists. Your constant broadbrushing is typical of militant atheists, just not all atheists. Some theists, like militant atheists, are fucking assholes.

41p7t3.jpg
Sent from five minutes in the future using my temporal communication device.
Click to expand...
You mean, like the ones here.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top