Silicon Valley Bosses Are Globalists, Not Libertarians (economist.com) 308
From a report via The Economist: In a recently published survey of 600 entrepreneurs and executives in Silicon Valley, conducted by David Broockman and Neil Malhotra of Stanford University and Gregory Ferenstein, a journalist, three-quarters of respondents said they supported Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election. But although technology-firm leaders hold views that in general hew much closer to Democratic positions than Republican ones, they are far from reliable partisan ideologues. As you might expect from captains of industry, Silicon Valley executives are much more likely to support free trade and to oppose government regulation of businesses than your average Democrat is. For example, just 30% of tech bosses believe that ride-hailing companies need to be regulated like the taxi industry, compared with 60% of Democrats.
Given their combination of socially liberal attitudes and a preference for free markets, you might call Silicon Valley executives libertarians. However, libertarians generally advocate shrinking the state as a share of the economy, which technology bosses resolutely do not. When asked if they "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could," just 24% agreed. In contrast, 68% of Republican donors concurred with that statement. Moreover, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are just as likely to favor redistributive economic policies, such as universal health care and higher taxes on the rich, as an average Democrat is. The outlook of our new robot-building overlords is far more communitarian than, say, the doctrines of Ayn Rand.
Given their combination of socially liberal attitudes and a preference for free markets, you might call Silicon Valley executives libertarians. However, libertarians generally advocate shrinking the state as a share of the economy, which technology bosses resolutely do not. When asked if they "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could," just 24% agreed. In contrast, 68% of Republican donors concurred with that statement. Moreover, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are just as likely to favor redistributive economic policies, such as universal health care and higher taxes on the rich, as an average Democrat is. The outlook of our new robot-building overlords is far more communitarian than, say, the doctrines of Ayn Rand.
Duh. Globalization = Cheap Labor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does apple have a connectors for a descending uterus? Or did you mean lightning?
They are moving to a standard cable with the new devices. Lightning was a horrid connector.
Yes, Apple does have a history of creating their own proprietary cables.
" 'extended' bluetooth protocol on their new earplugs,"
Company invents new protocol. shocking.
Re:Duh. Globalization = Cheap Labor (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for the laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
"you might call Silicon Valley executives libertarians"
Wait you were serious?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we all do need laughter in our life to help us keep our sanity. At the least we could thank them for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there another political outlook that is more self-serving for the super-wealthy?
You've made a ton of money and (1) you don't want to pay higher taxes and (2) you want to easily be able to make more money with the money you have without having to work (investing) and (3) really like cheap foreign labor.
The growing number of homeless people in SF? Opioid epidemic across rural America? People committing suicide rather than work another day at Foxconn? The market will take care of it (another way of saying "
Wait, who thought they were libertarians? (Score:5, Insightful)
I never got any indication that they were anything other than collectivist, globalists.
If they were libertarians, they would have been trying to break the stranglehold the political left has on California politics.
LK
Re: (Score:2)
I never got any indication that they were anything other than collectivist, globalists.
When you are standing on the left pole (most media), all directions are to the right.
Libertarian is basically what the left used to be but is now not left enough for the post-modern lefties. Its not a coincidence that the Libertarian Party was formed in the early 1970's just as the Democrats and Republicans were shuffling up and turning the political landscape on its side.
Re: (Score:2)
" on the left pole (most media), "
false. Most media is really close to the center, and the media talks about the left all the fucking time. Stop falling on the attack of the media by hard right outlets.
"Libertarian is basically what the left used to be"
No, not at all. Do you not know what 'the left' Means?
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for that. Most in the Soviet Union are also far left of the US. We also don't like how things are run in Saudia Arabia. Why do you think we would care how Europeans run their countries?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"they would have been trying to break the stranglehold the political left has on California politics."
That's not actually a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
That would require changing the Republican Party to be less addicted to having a stranglehold among the Solid South.
You can choose what state suits you best you know. We have a wide variety of them. 50, in fact.
Re: (Score:3)
"You can choose what state suits you best you know. We have a wide variety of them. 50, in fact."
Yeah? So I am lucky to live where I do. I know it. But your simplistic approach implies that is is easy to just uproot and move which tells me you have never had to suffer. So move along. Your input means nothing.
Wow, clairvoyant, I'm so impressed! You guessed wrong about my life but please do continue, what else do you supposedly know about me? You know people who think they have psychic abilities usually have other psychological problems. Have you considered getting some help for that? If you really do think you have psychic abilities, by all means reach out to the James Randi Foundation. We would love to have our first legitimate psychic!
Re: (Score:2)
Nah! The foremost driving force behind political animals is that they want to decide what other people do. Whether it is being intolerant of people that want to smoke weed, or intolerant of people that only want to live near people that look like themselves, both the left and right want to be the ones that get to decide what the others do. Libertarians come along and say, "Leave everybody the fuck along!!", so of course both sides have to tear them down.
-Libertarian: "Asset forfeiture without a convictio
Republicans (Score:2)
Fake News? Like Republicans are any closer to being Libertarians than Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
HUGE difference between Republicans and the GOP. And nearly all of the former have left or been booted out of the GOP.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans is a club, if you aren't in the club, you aren't republican. I think you may mean 'fiscal conservatives/social moderates'
You can say you are an elk and not be a member of the elks clubs. well, you CAN, but it doesn't make it so.
Sadly, because of blind vilification, many wont switch who they vote for.
Alpha House had a great scene where a Reagan impersonator gets up and only quote Reagan, and the GOP member start booing him. That's how coocoo the GOP have become.
I am a globalist libertarian (Score:5, Interesting)
These things are not mutually exclusive at all. "Left" does not mean you want a communist central leadership. "Right" does not mean you want a fascist central leadership.
-I- want global coorperation for our global problems, and I want as much freedom as possible without destroying the world in exploding anarchy.
Do I need to explain this further? Labels mean nothing, as everyone has a different meaning attached to it.
Re: (Score:2)
People are facing a political situation in which global trade has become their enemy. They're not economists. Businessmen aren't economists, either: global labor markets and global trade are good for business, regardless of whether they're good economics.
Global trade, in an economic sense, is a multi-layered beast of unexpected outcomes and outcomes that unexpectedly don't matter. Economics is like that: common sense doesn't work here. Common sense says pulling the lever to the right moves things to
Re: (Score:2)
I hate it when the label says beans, but when I get home it has salmon in it.
Re: (Score:2)
No straw here.
I had a long debate with an ex girlfriend. Her argument boiled down to the fact that she preferred a strong central government to make rules for everybody, because the local people were not as smart. When I argued that the people sent to DC were chose from among the same collection of ignoramuses (ignoramii?), and that now the problem was harder because the solution had to fit widely divergent situations, she responded that she didn't care, the people in her own city and state are dumb, and
Anonymous survey? (Score:2)
FTA: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/f... [stanford.edu]
We gathered a random sample of all individuals listed as founders or CEOs of companies in Crunchbase in 2013, 8,499 individuals in all. We then manually searched for emailaddresses for these individuals. In most cases we were able to gather personal email addresses
Most of them probably said what they thought the researchers wanted to hear.
Breaking news! (Score:2)
Rich people wanting government to stay the hell out of their business of using their power to get richer.
That's new... how? That might only change when (not if, more "as soon as") they're the ones owning the politicians to add that aspect to their power base.
Really? (Score:2)
Wasn't this obvious??
Leading question (Score:2)
As opposed to, "would you like to see less government regulation" or "smaller government"
They're Libertarians and FYI Hillary Clinton is a Republican so stop thinking that makes them aligned with Democratic ideals...
libertarian vs globalists (Score:2)
Worse yet, they think that Republicans want smaller gov and nothing but a strong defense. That is NOT a republican POV. That is a GOP POV that has more in common with NAZIs than with Abe Lincoln and what he wanted.
The Republican party is the one that stood up for BIG GOVERNMENT. They also support gov helping develop businesses. Railroads? Lincoln. Highway system? IKE.
Libertarian globalism (Score:3)
You can be a libertarian and a globalist at the same time. In fact the two are compatible. The dangerous philosophies are the authoritarian systems such as nationalism and socialism. They block people from interacting with and trading with each other based on what an authority think is best.
Correction! (Score:2)
Silicon Valley Bosses Are Capitalists, And Then Whatever...
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: H1B, cheap labor (Score:2)
Hey, the Union Bosses do at least a nominal amount of labor.
Re:H1B, cheap labor (Score:5, Informative)
Cognitive dissonance much? Who do you think started global trade and marketed it for everybody as the way forward, especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Hint: it's not the Chinese.
It's rather hilarious to see the West panic about this now. Globalization has been going on since the age of sail, and has thus far only benefited the advanced economies. The massive fortunes of the US and Europe rest on the foundations of global trade and extracting resources (both human and raw materials) from underdeveloped economies at ridiculously cheap prices.
But now that the benefits of global trade start to affect Asia and Africa moreso than the west, now this thing that has brought the west its current fortunes is suddenly a thing of the devil and we must all somehow magically revert back to 1500s mercantilism where each nation somehow cuts itself of from the global networks of trade and logistics and start producing everything by and for itself, which is an absurd idea.
First we (=the west, not just the US) go around telling everyone how great this global marketplace really is, and how everyone really should start to do business with us because it's for the good of everyone, and then a few decades pass and we start to blame these countries for doing exactly what we told them to do and from which we've also ourselves benefited,
This is the economy at work: people want lower prices but also high pay, you can't have both if you only manufacture domestically unless you automate, in which case the prices stay low but you won't get a lot of jobs.
The fact of the matter is that full-time employment will cease to be the norm within this century for most westerners. You can be in denial about it, but you can't stop the technological progress that's taking us there. Machines will simply become more efficient at doing most jobs than humans, so if you want to maintain your domestic demand and make sure people sustain their standard of living, I suggest you get out of the cold war mindset and start doing some reading about the socialism (hint nr. 2: free market and socialism are not incompatible, we've had both in northern/western Europe for long) that you so dread and concepts like basic income, because the solutions to the problems caused by the market itself acting as it should cannot be solved by the market.
Re: (Score:2)
"Machines will simply become more efficient at doing most jobs than humans,"
We'll just cut each others hair then.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm looking forward to a haircutting machine just like in the Jetsons, lower a hood over your head, listen to it hum for a few minutes then... Presto! A new do!
We'll call it the Flowbee 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Flowbees suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Flowbee
(drops mic)
the us needs Medicare for all that is the big part (Score:2)
the us needs Medicare for all that is the big part about losing jobs in the usa
Re: (Score:2)
You're putting too much thought into it. "globalist fear" was manufactured by the right win to attack Clinton. Mostly backed by conspiracy theory whack a doodles. I have yet to talk to anyone who uses it in a derisive was actual know what it means.
Sadly, some of those conspiracy whack a doodles are in congress.
Re:H1B, cheap labor (Score:5, Informative)
Don't forget that "globalist" is normally used by neo-Nazis to mean "Jew." These codewords go back a long way, to before our involvement in WWII. If somebody is "globalist" they don't have the nation's interest as priority #1. That makes them not True Americans (TM), which is nearly indistinguishable from inhuman beasts. That's one of the reasons the KKK used "America First" as a slogan. The notion of Jews (and Catholics) being beholden to not-America (Israel, the Vatican), was easy to latch onto.
Re: (Score:2)
All that proves is that gold nutters are nothing new.
Re:H1B, cheap labor (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What? Fascists are worse than Commies? Are you from the 1940s?
Re: (Score:2)
Nazi Germany and militarist Japan actually sustained murder rates considerably higher than the Soviet Union or Communist China. We took out the greatest threats in WWII, and that's why they didn't run up the numbers in the 1950s and 1960s.
Re: H1B, cheap labor (Score:4, Informative)
You can definitely be a libertarian and a globalist at the same time. In fact the two are compatible. The dangerous philosophies are the authoritarian systems such as nationalism and socialism. They block people from interacting with and trading with each other based on what an authority think is best!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nationalism does tend to be authoritarian, but modern socialism doesn't.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no real difference unless you constrain socialism from escalating into full blown tyranny or communism. Good luck with that
Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway & Belgium all thank you for your good wishes.
The myth of Socialism's Success (Score:3)
They sure need them, because their Collectivism is killing them and their performance is pathetic. For just one sign, consider the fact, that these countries (with the possible exception of Finland) haven't been bombed/destroyed in the WW2. Which means, their standards of living ought to be, if Socialism really was so grand, well above that of the US. It is not — not even in Norway, for all their vast oil ex
Re: (Score:3)
>that these countries (with the possible exception of Finland) haven't been bombed/destroyed in the WW2.
idiot Look where Belgium and the Netherlands are and Germany. In total, approximately 88,000 Belgians died during the conflict,[1] a figure representing 1.05 percent of the country's pre-war population,
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be name-calling, asshole...
But not Sweden, Denmark, and Norway... And yet, their performance is rather unremarkable — matching [worldbank.org], rather than vastly exceeding America's. Only Norway does much better than US — but it also does much better than others, so it can't be the Socialism (it is oil [huffingtonpost.com]).
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be name-calling, asshole...
As a Belgian I have all reasons to name call. For example, the house of my grandparents was hit by a V2.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the first place, WWII ended over seventy years ago. Some countries that had their industry mostly trashed (like Germany and Japan) are economic powerhouses now.
In the second place, some of those countries were harder hit than you think.
In the third place, they consistently rank as better places to live than the US. The US may have a higher standard of living by some limited measure, but people are healthier, happier, and live longer in Scandinavia.
In the fourth place, dying empires tend to hold
Re:The myth of Socialism's Success (Score:4, Informative)
The standard of living in those countries is well above that in the US. With better educational systems, better health care, more affordable housing, more security in retirement, etc. Sure there are small pockets of the US with higher standards of living, but when you look at the US as a whole then things start to decline. It would be interesting to see US standard of living index going state by state though.
https://www.numbeo.com/quality... [numbeo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just look at actual socialist democracies, very few of the means of production are owned and controlled by the workers.
To be fair, in so-called "communist" countries they weren't controlled by the workers either. They were controlled by military dictatorships.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a problem with communism, that's a problem with military dictatorships - which can come from any place on the axis.
Socialism is Communism-lite (Score:5, Insightful)
True. Socialism is Communism-lite. The difference is merely in the degree. The (glorious) Collective is more important and trumps the Individual. And, as Karl Marx taught us, Socialism is merely a stepping stone to Communism.
Nope, not the actual Karl Marx' version of it. But, whether the means of production are ostensibly private owned or in outright government possession is of no importance — a distinction without difference — when the government can control any aspect of the production it chooses to [townhall.com]. And it can, through that vastly giant loophole of "sensible regulations" you allow it to have.
It works exactly like that. There is not argument for nationalizing public education, that can not also be made — indeed, is already made — for nationalizing public health care, or public housing, or public Internet service provision, public science, music and other arts.
Some countries are further along down this path — to their patently obvious detriment — than others. Like I said, a matter of degree, a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. The greater the share of the GDP, that is spent by the government, the greater the degree of Collectivism in the country...
Who the fook are you to "sensibly regulate", what I am doing in my house or what sort of thing I sell to willing buyers?
Yes, it is awfully scary, that despite being the most murderous school of thought known to humanity, the branches of Collectivism [reason.com] (Fascism, Socialism, Communism) continue to appear attractive to a substantial proportion of population... You'd be appalled to meet an asshole in a KKK-outfit, but a far more dangerous asshole in a Che Guevara T-shirt hardly raises an eyebrow. Indeed, I suspect, I may be conversing with one on Slashdot right now...
Re: (Score:2)
What made Communism bad was primarily the totalitarian governments that didn't actually care about the people. Most countries that consider themselves Socialist are thriving democracies that do care about individuals. Saying that Socialism leads to Communism is like saying that Capitalism leads to Fascism. To make either move, you need to add a collectivist dictatorship based on nationalism or racism or classism or something like that.
"Sensible regulations" aren't a bogeyman. Are you rejecting all go
Re: (Score:3)
What made Communism bad was primarily the totalitarian governments that didn't actually care about the people. Most countries that consider themselves Socialist are thriving democracies that do care about individuals.
Too bad those individuals they care about aren't their own citizens. When the decline of the US middle class comes up someone always likes to point out that China has progressed greatly. That's great for China but the politicians who sold out their own citizens for other countries benefits should be hung as traitors. Or, if you prefer a more Nordic example, the politicians cared greatly about all the Muslims that they brought in but somehow fail to notice when they are patting themselves on the backs for
Re:Socialism is Communism-lite (Score:4, Interesting)
True. Socialism is Communism-lite. The difference is merely in the degree. The (glorious) Collective is more important and trumps the Individual. And, as Karl Marx taught us, Socialism is merely a stepping stone to Communism.
No, he did not. He considered most of the socialists of his time to be dreamers and utopists [wikipedia.org] who spent their time making up elaborate societies, but failed to consider how to get from the current status quo to the better society. In order to distance themselves from the dreamers and solidarize themselves with the workers movement who they saw as the vehicle of change, Marx and Engels opted to call themselves communists. But they saw socialism and communism as pretty much synonyms, which probably also explains why they called their theory for scientific socialism [wikipedia.org] and not scientific communism.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong.
Its clear you've never actually read Marx... this is evident because you think communism is this:
when the government can control any aspect of the production it chooses to.
Which you seem to have gotten from an Alt-Right site.
Communism is social (as in communal) production, not government production. Marx sai
Re:Globalization is inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Nationalism always results in war
Humanity always results in war. What do you think is going to happen when the global community tries to pressure Saudi Arabia into permitting gay marriage? They're going to say go to hell and what will the globalists do? There are only two choices, economic sanctions or military intervention.
LK
Re:Globalization is inevitable (Score:5, Interesting)
Nationalism always results in war
Humanity always results in war. What do you think is going to happen when the global community tries to pressure Saudi Arabia into permitting gay marriage? They're going to say go to hell and what will the globalists do? There are only two choices, economic sanctions or military intervention.
LK
Or the 3rd option: wait it out. As global demand for oil drops (and prices along with it) Saudi cash reserves have taken a massive hit lately and they have increased taxes, cut oil subsidies, and cut wages/bonuses in the past year or 2. In a world where alternative fuels grow increasingly accessible the Saudi quality of life is becoming increasingly unsustainable. If the US, UK, and France were to cut off military imports to Saudi Arabia as well, the country could easily collapse in the next few decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Nationalism always results in war
Humanity always results in war. What do you think is going to happen when the global community tries to pressure Saudi Arabia into permitting gay marriage? They're going to say go to hell and what will the globalists do? There are only two choices, economic sanctions or military intervention.
LK
Or the 3rd option: wait it out. As global demand for oil drops (and prices along with it) Saudi cash reserves have taken a massive hit lately and they have increased taxes, cut oil subsidies, and cut wages/bonuses in the past year or 2. In a world where alternative fuels grow increasingly accessible the Saudi quality of life is becoming increasingly unsustainable. If the US, UK, and France were to cut off military imports to Saudi Arabia as well, the country could easily collapse in the next few decades.
Do you really think the conflict over finite resources will really end there? If so, what is your evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nationalism always results in war
Humanity always results in war. What do you think is going to happen when the global community tries to pressure Saudi Arabia into permitting gay marriage? They're going to say go to hell and what will the globalists do? There are only two choices, economic sanctions or military intervention.
LK
This is exactly my point in another post that got modded troll. Why would Saudi Arabia react this way to having legalized gay marriage? Religious beliefs. Sharia Law. The root of this particular problem is (drumroll) RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!
Re: (Score:2)
Religion always results in war.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
You notice that when nationalism around the world declined, we no longer had another world war?
If man was meant for war, the military wouldn't need to train them, and people wouldn't get sick when they kill someone the first time.
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity always results in war.
Homicide rates have come down 90% since the middle ages, 95% since the stone age. Those were humans back then too. They were just like us at birth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Globalization is inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is the answer so black and white? Maybe there is some middle position that would work best for our country.
Sounds great. What is this middle position you speak? Can you elaborate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US is the fulcrum for a global economics world, and "Maintain borders" is actually pretty new. 100 years ago it was trivial to come into the US.
Do you even know what globalism means?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wahahahahahaha, thank you, it's been a long day and I needed some comic relief.
Not sure what world / universe you live in, but (most) humans don't work like that.
My *best* friend and I still get into arguments about NVidia vs ATI, when the conversation starts getting a bit heated (yet again) I have to remind him that we agreed to disagree and to talk about something else. It might be a crap example, but I am just trying to point out that humans will find *somethin
Re: (Score:2)
Isolationism and nationalism simply won't work in the long term.
Great! What will work then? What are your thoughts on strategy here? Do you have any constructive thoughts on the subject or just complain about what's wrong? It's easy to point out what's not working well. It's far more difficult to help with going in the right direction. If you're not willing to help with that, you have no right to complain.
Re: (Score:2)
" If you're not willing to help with that, you have no right to complain."
Well, that's a short sight piece of crap. I am not a fireman, and have no clue how to deal with a house fire. With your logic, if your house is on fire I shouldn't call anyone to see that the fire gets put out.
"Isolationism and nationalism simply won't work in the long term."
the opposite. Not be isolated and not being nationalist? I bet that what he was talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, I don't think that "isolationism" is necessarily the only alternative to "globalization", and while nationalism and isolationism may be compatible, I don't think globalization is necessarily exclusive of nationalism.
I'd also like some kind of working definition of what "globalism" even means. Does it mean just the free movement of goods and people across national borders, or does it mean more than that? And almost no one who claims to support "free movement" *really* supports truly unfettere
Kim would've been harmless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of factors behind that, but your post points out two of the biggest problems in our society today: First, people who have no idea what things
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Back when I was a kid the saying was "If you're 20 and not a commie, you have no heart. If you're 30 and still a commie, you have no brain".
Yes, I am actually THAT old...
It's kinda funny, though, how this actually flipped by 180 degrees by now.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, when the norm in modern society is mentally-stunted man children who are unable to think for themselves lest they be branded a Nazi, it would make sense that the only people who still have a little bit of common sense would be prepubescent children who have yet to be fully indoctrinated into collectivism.
It's anything but funny. "Books for adults" is a code-word for books by communist liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
It has been just a stupid quip even back in the day.
Nobody in their right mind would think that people like Horst Mahler [wikipedia.org] have a brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of us give up on Ayn Rand when we get out of puberty and start reading books for adults.
What do you read to get your wisdom? Please do share.
Not sure what hurts libertarians more .... (Score:2)
... People who falsely believe Ayn Rand's Objectivism defines the entire thing, or those who falsely believe conspiracy theorists define them?
Most intelligent people I know who claim to be libertarian are interested in looking at all different philosophies related to a core idea that people have natural rights and freedoms, and these shouldn't be taken away by a central government.
In fact, while the majority of libertarians probably fall into a rough category of being socially liberal but fiscally conservat
Re: (Score:2)
So are most intelligent people who don't claim to be libertarian. It's like "no more government than necessary":: approximately nobody wants more government than necessary. People differ on what these rights, freedoms, and necessities are.
As a leftist,who wouldn'
Re: (Score:3)
Which year was it when we found out that she was a serial-killer-idolizing textbook sociopath? [alternet.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I can rip apart her economic fantasy all day long. It fails on it'sown merits. The fact she collected from a system she paid into is no reason to deride her. Like I said, there are many, many other reasons to, but she became a citizen in 1931.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant corporatocrats - similar words, different ideologies.
Re: (Score:2)
>All the Trump voters
Recognizing that you're targeting specific people in a specific situation... your arguments are still flawed. Trump's base is reacting in an ignorant way to a real problem. Just because they haven't correctly identified cause and effect doesn't mean they're not legitimately hurting.
>When you admit that you simply aren't as competitive in the free market as you thought you deserved to be
Globalism is ideal in that it shares opportunity around the world. None of us got to choose t
Re: (Score:2)
>
Sadly, it's very easy for those of the common people on the losing side of this to just 'blame brown people' - most of us being white, after all.
Equally sad is the easy ability of the globalist getting rich from this situation to misconstrue and even misrepresent the concerns of the common people as being about brown people.
Re:Early influences (Score:4, Insightful)
To generalize, either you believe that all of your success is 100% due to your own brilliance and hard work, with almost none of it due to luck or any help you got from anyone else, in which case you end up on the Libertarian/Republican side of the chart. Or you believe that even though you worked hard you also got a lot of benefits from society and got some lucky breaks along the way ... and feel like you should pay it forward, in which case you end up on the Democratic/Socialist ... side of the spectrum.
Yeah, this is nonsense. You don't have to believe that you are entirely responsible for your own success to be an individualist (Libertarian or Republican). "Paying it forward" just takes a different form: private charity rather than public services. Along the same lines, collectivism does not imply that you are in favor of contributing personally; it's all about getting other people to pay for the programs you think should be available. Sure, you'll (probably) be paying those taxes you lobbied for along with everyone else... but there was nothing stopping you supporting those programs privately, out of your own funds, if that was what you wanted. The only reason to bring in the power of the State is to force others to participate.
Re: (Score:3)
"Paying it forward" just takes a different form: private charity rather than public services.
History proves private charity doesn't work. Look at France, or Russia, or China, or any other place with a socialist revolution. Private charity has never been illegal anywhere, but people still starved or died of treatable disease. Eventually people will have had enough and put the rich and powerful to the guillotine. If you don't want to end up headless, pay into the social safety net.
Re: (Score:2)
Because some people like to interfere with other peoples lives. You could put a coal plant ion you back yard and I wouldn't care IF none of the waste ever left your property.
Re: (Score:2)