"People Get the Government They Deserve"

So, I was browsing around Tumblr and happened to stumble upon a cluster of blogs run by people who identify as National Socialists.

One of them posted this on their page, in response to a question about whether or not we ought to send aid to foreign countries--this was their response:

Essentially, if you don't feel like reading the above blurb, the person was saying that folks in poor countries are poor because they have not made a proper government for themselves--it is their fault. We owe them nothing since they have brought their problems upon themselves. White people are inherently superior and we shouldn't be responsible for those who aren't.


I always like to explore ideas that I consider very different from my own--what do you all think of this person's view?

 

Some do, some don't, but that's an unavoidable result of Democracy when imposed by a Central government, top down rather than bottom up.

As for the piece you've quoted, I support neither National Socialism nor Socialist Nationalism.

 

Nazis should be censored. Seriously, I hope that one day someone develops an algorithm that can block out all Nazi opinions, because they're always ignorant and it's a waste of time trying to explain to them why they're wrong-- they're incapable of being objective and are totally ruled by insecurity and indignation.

The situation in Africa is a direct result of colonialism, and most of the guerrillas are funded by western interests via the diamond trade and all kinds of unregulated industry that is tolerated by whatever corrupt warlord happens to be in power. This in turn funds nations like North Korea through the arms trade, which is only really booming because US-led sanctions have crippled their economies.

Nazis always think that it's still the 1930s and we're all living in isolated communities and there is no global village... which is absurd. Everything is connected, and stable nations are stable because that stability allows the rich to profit from the instability of poorer nations. Most of the people in Africa are the same as you and me... they're poorer, but they're not bad and they're not involved in the war. And like us, their fate is being dictated by the people with the money and the people with the guns.

The biggest divisions between people are not nationality, ethnicity or race-- it's wealth. Anyone who can't see this is blind... and thinking that the rich care about you because you're both white is a big, stupid mistake. You might care about them, but they don't give a shit about you... if they did, things would be better for everyone.

 

Last two paragraphs=Good ones. 'bout sums it up. Thanks.

 

I don't think Africa's problems are a direct result of colonialism. If the West hadn't taken over Africa, the continent would be just as poor today. Ethiopia might be one example. Except for very briefly in the 30s by Italy, I don't think it was really colonized by the West.

 

I think the writer of that post is a small minded person that probably routinely misses the big picture.

 

Mono

That’s an unknowable but let’s look at it – the Europeans that carved up Africa didn’t care about the Africans it was about money, resources, power, glory, and getting one over the other guy. So the lines on the maps didn’t take in to consideration any ethnic, linguistic or tribal concerns. That was storing up a lot of problems for the future.

Europe from the end of the Roman Empire in the west has taken some one and a half thousand years to become stable (just look at the resent example of what happened when Yugoslavia collapsed), and it’s not perfect (just look at Belgium and the animosity between the Flemings and Walloons).

Now before European intervention there were African empires, states, kingdoms etc and if left alone they might have found an equilibrium that worked for them, just as Europe did.

Ok so that just one way the European imperialists fucked the place over, now I could go on about how else they fucked up the place just look up Leopold II and the Congo(1) for the type of exploitation that went on, but I’ll stop there and say that a lot of the reasons for poverty in many parts of Africa can be laid directly at the door of those European imperialists

*

(1) “He turned his "Congo Free State" into a massive labour camp, made a fortune for himself from the harvest of its wild rubber, and contributed in a large way to the death of perhaps 10 million innocent people. What is now called the Democratic Republic of Congo has clearly never recovered.” Mark Dummett, BBC

 

I agree with your interpretation of it... only for ONE REASON...because the author had to specifiy "white people" and say those "black people" and "foreigners" deserve their poor governments and bad economic situations... if it wasn't for that, I would say, that in some ways I think with this country (speaking of the U.S. now) having as much economic distress as it has and it's own poor and suffering then yea... I can kinda understand some people having the view of yes, spend our country's tax money in this country... I do think the author was coming about it from a racist perspective though. Sadily, there may have been a valid point, but very bad delivery that ruined any good idea there may have been way underneath the hate.

 

I don't think anyone should be getting taxpayer money, except the taxpayer.


I think the government should trim down to the bare minimum of what they do, and stop "helping" us, and everyone all together.

The government needs to have people to "help" to maintain legitimacy. But every time they "help us," they: Raise prices, eliminate distribution and, tax us more.

Liberals want "free" everything, but, they have to realize nothing is free. Everything comes off the backs of the few working/middle class families in this country, who actually still "pay into the pot." Cause I highly doubt the very rich or poor are giving more than they're using.

I think the government should protect life, liberty and, property but nothing more. People have a moral obligation to help one another, and I think state governments would ensure that's done. But, this Federal Government with centralized power on the country, costs more than the average Americans home.

And what do we get back? Not much in comparison. We get a so-called "safety net," if we're ever not working, but we can still afford rent. The government will pay for your food. And allegedly this prevents people from being on the streets.(There are no homeless people in America.)


So in other words, I agree we should cut foreign aid, but I think we need to abolish all waste of the Federal Government's, not just that. (But that is a big one.)

 

^There are so many things wrong with what you just said that I don't even know where to begin, and I can already tell you wouldn't listen anyways.

 

25

Oh again with the unsubstantiated assertions that you never seem able to defend from criticism in anything like a rational or reasonable way.
I mean we have been through all your guff many times.

Left wingers don’t believe that welfare and assistance is ‘free’ never have it is paid for through national insurance schemes that pay into a community chest.

Again there seems to be this implication that somehow that those seeking assistance are freeloading off the backs of a few working/middle class families but there are many countries that give much more generous unemployment benefits than the US but have lower unemployment rates than the US. And there are countries that are less generous with higher unemployment rates than the US. Also as pointed out many people that are poor enough to claim food stamps who are also in employment.

As has been explained the problem is that the free market/neo-liberal ideas that have dominated over the last 30 odd years is not about trying for full employment but about transferring wealth into fewer hands.

 

Did I offend a Liberal? *sarcasm* OMG! I'm SOOO sorry.



There's something wrong with the brain of a person, who wishes to FORCE his will unto others, using government. That is why Liberalism is wrong.

But, no- I'm willing to listen, but, you're not going to convince me, because Liberalism and there Captin Obama is what's destroying this country right now.


So go on, and tell me why I'm "wrong" and I'll tell you why it's the best option, and a lot more effective than taxing more, and forcing Americans to buy insurance and services we don't need. Liberalism is deeply flawed, and I know that because I was a Liberal, who realized how much they actually feed into the status quo and the powers that be. So go on... Say what you wanted to. It'd be nice to debate anyone other than Balbus.

 

25

LOL I've pointed out why I think you're wrong many, many many times in numerous threads and all you ever do is evade or run away.

Why is that, why is it that you seem incapable of defending your ideas form criticism

(oh please don’t claim you have because we all know you cannot produce the evidence)

 

Take it the precarious life and death market economy is deserved by the losers more than by the winners. But is that the government's responsible fault? I personally still believe that anybody can get what he deserves from a government. It is not his choice to be deserving, but like back in the original days of liberalism, the social rule determines what he deserves like a fashion, a taste for the commercial.

Thus people have to decide that they got what they deserved. I'm being deliberately 'strawman' hoping to deserve something better. Say a winner (which I am not claiming to be) wishes such a choosing capacity, how is he to be honest to history that way? I think the real problem is that he no longer tries as liberally well to be.

 

National being the key word. So taxes in California might be going to plastic surgeons in NY. Or maybe. my tax money here, is going to pay for welfare in Cali or Hawaii, where it's more expensive to live.

This is creating hardships for those Middle and working class families, who pay more (proportionally) than the rich and poor combined.

Over taxation is directly what's destroying the middle and working class. It is proven that lower taxes create jobs. You said "in the past 30 years the rich only profit from tax cuts," but, that is because all the tax cuts of the past 30 years, were geared toward the rich. I want tax cuts for low and middle class families, who pay into the pot their whole life, but get nothing back from the government.

Liberalism wants to ignore the middle/working class, and squeeze more taxes out of the group of people losing their homes and jobs.

Well, you know our official unemployment rate is inaccurate? That's only people who collect unemployment. (more tax payer money.) But there's much more unemployed than that.

Moreover, some states are different- In NY, working, or going to school, disables one from receiving food stamps. Then, in GA, nearly anyone who asks, can get foodstamps. But, the problem there is those people who are struggling to survive in NY, are paying for people who live better, than NYers do normally.

My system wouldn't abolish foodstamps, but we'd leave that up to the local governance's. The government has created this dependance and loss of jobs anyway, so yeah, they should help people in that position. But Nationwide makes no sense, and is less productive and totally unbalanced.

As i've stated many times, this is nothing more than your assumption, ignoring critical facts.


The past 40 years, our government has expanded more than 50X it's size.

It was 40 years ago government began Medicade, 30 years of unequal tax cuts and corporate benefits and, 30 years of government control, at the expense of the middle/working class. This only proves my point, not yours.



Libertarians don't believe in: Bailouts, special government benefits, The Drug War, Government monopolies, gag orders, immunity or, corporations using force to impose their will (which always only happens through Government)


People who support government, yet, refute corporations, honestly just look silly. The biggest players are obviously in bed together. But, it is little businesses, entrepreneurship and, the unemployed that Liberals are hurting.

The only "jobs" they create are non-taxed government jobs, that cost the taxpayer more. They want to continue that status quo and milk more out of the already dry tit, of fake paper money. (which is another lie in it's entity.)

The problem is, some people have too much faith invested in a flawed system which has systematically murdered innocent civilians to extend it's long arm of so-called "freedom" worldwide.

None of these are Libertarian Ideals, which have lead to our current economic problems, and I resent you suggesting so. The problem may be "neo Liberal" Ideals, but that means New Age Liberal; They believe in more taxes, more government and ultimately more force.

Libertarians want NO initiation of force, NO taxes other than a single Fair Tax and, no government intervention or spying on our personal lives. The Fourth Amendment ought to apply to Emails, texts, calls and Facebook too! They are the new model of "papers and effects."

This is why I really resent when you suggest we should abolish the Constitution, or join with a World government. America was Founded on basic Human Rights and principles which ensured a fair and equal nation. The government is not meant to be more powerful than the people, and it is disgraceful that that's how America is becoming.


But, we still have the Spirit of Resistance in our people. The Spirit that sparked minds like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the Revolutionaries of that day.


The thing is, contrary to what you or any Liberal here perceives, our Country is headed in the wrong direction.


This Fraggle kid who knocked on my views, might support Obama. If so he doesn't know/think about: the kids murdered by him without trial, the people convicted of nothing, who are being held indefinitely without remorse by Obama, the Civil Rights he has stepped on including our Right to protest government, our Rights against unreasonable searches and, our Right to a public trial.

Obama is a con and a criminal, and our system is designed to reward these crooks. Then, you have a bunch of Band Wagon Liberals who just don't care enough to look into what their politician actually does, they just want disarmament and their brand of "freedom" forced down everyone's throats.

Freedom is to be free from restraint... And, people should be, providing they don't hurt anyone or damage/steal anyone's property. That is Libertarianism in a nutshell.

Imo, if ones has to use force to impose their will on another, it is inherently wrong. Again, that's not to say that cops can't stop violent people, theives or anything like that. It's only to say that people shouldn't be punished for victimless crimes.

Liberals can't defend any of this, and what you've assumed about Libertarianism, is just inaccurate. This is a classic case of "people fear that which they don't understand." Libertarianism is the best party for Civil Liberties and freedom, and to stop this madness of unfettered government power. Neither Liberals or Republicans offer that much change for the better.

 

I was talking to Fraggle, not you.


And I ALWAYs defend myself to you. The problem you're having, is reading comprehension, or just a total lack of understanding of American Politics.

You are a progressive socialist who claims to be a Republican, who supports disarmament, world governance and, abolishing citizens Rights. The reason you don't think I can defend myself, is because you're ignoring reality.

Based on nothing but opinion, you believe Libertarianism will help the Rich. Whereas, it greatly helps the poor and middle class too. It helps African Americans by ending the drug war, and everyone by lower taxes.

It may also help some rich people, but not the rich people making their money off the back of the taxpayer. It will hurt those businesses, in a way Liberalism doesn't even touch but to "tax more," which hurts everyone.

I've laid out precisely what's hurting us, and why Liberalism and the current system feeds into it. I guess you're just ignoring reality, or, you might actually endorse this system of force and violence?

I'm curious to know...

 

25,

The US wealth gap widened because of Ronald Reagan and his smaller government/deregulation philosophy. During the 80s, wages for the poor went DOWN, wages for the middle class stagnated and Reagan's presidency culminated with NAFTA (FREE trade), which was the beginning of jobs being shipped overseas.

It was also the when the government was weakened to the point where it was easily held hostage by the corporations. Now the president is little more than a lowly civil servant without any real power, whose job is to try to make everyone happy... an empty figurehead for the neo-feudalist state that we are on the verge of right now.

I'm not so much an Obama supporter as someone who thinks the alternative is horrifying... and I don't understand why you think that the solution to a weak government is to weaken it further. This is seriously going to make everything better? What incentive would the corporations have to ever give up power? To ever stop fixing prices? Why would the rich come out of their gated communities and start sharing with the regular people? If the laws disappeared, why wouldn't they just continue to hire the best teachers, the best doctors, the best scientists for themselves? Exactly which rules are empowering the corporations right now?

Corporations co-operate ALL THE TIME, because they know that competition is bad for business. Without antitrust laws, how are you going to make sure they don't gang up on the general public? That they don't continue to monopolize resources? To destroy the environment and demand less regulation? Why would they suddenly start playing fair if suddenly all of these corporation-friendly regulations (which you claim exist) were to disappear? Why do they even NEED regulations to be powerful? If I have a lot of money, then I can buy my own success... unless you're a drunk or a gambler, it is extremely difficult to lose a fortune... and most of the mega-rich use tax havens and are in fact encouraged to do so by the banks, so they're not losing anything. It isn't that the government is passing laws saying 'all rich people must use tax havens'... it's that they're NOT stopping them.

And Obama isn't a liberal OR a socialist... he's a moderate who leans to the right on a lot of issues and only seems to lean left because the Republicans are so insanely reactionary that even their own leaders are embarrassed by them. And in case you haven't noticed, he hasn't managed to pass a single anti-gun law whereas the states have passed multiple pro-gun laws... and in addition, his health care is being destroyed by Tea Party propaganda before it has even begun.

I also think that your posts are so full of straw men and non-ideas that you're probably beyond reproach. Believe it or not, people are capable of holding a wide variety of views and opinions on different subjects and they don't necessarily conform to a pre-packaged set of beliefs.

 

25

LOL wherever have I claimed to be a supporter of the Republican Party? I have claimed that I’m a republican but please tell me you know the difference between holding a republican viewpoint and been a supporter of the US Republican Party?

What do you mean by disarmament?

I’ve stated why I think we need global social institutions to challenge free market globalization many times example here -

Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922

You’ve told me I’m wrong but you have NEVER put up any rational counter argument.

As to abolishing citizens rights, what the hell are you on about?

A charge you seem unable to refute.

Sorry but that is untrue – you’ve asserted and ranted but that is not being ‘precise’ and it is far far far away from being rational argument.

 

25

I wouldn’t abolish the US constitution just think it needs a rewrite

Oh and I think you need to study American history - The original government of the US was set up mainly by and in the interests of the ‘squire class’ (and those above). That is why it was originally an oligarchy, with a limited voting franchise (only about 10% of the population with only white men of a certain property qualification being allowed to vote and even greater property qualification to hold office. It was also the reason why slavery continued. It has been argued that the US actually didn’t become a ‘true’ modern democracy until 1965.

Again it is clear you don’t know very much about US history it is clear that Thomas Jefferson thought a new constitution should be written every generation (for him that was every 20 years or so).

"Jefferson's dedication to "consent of the governed" was so thorough that he believed that individuals could not be morally bound by the actions of preceding generations. This included debts as well as law. He said that "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." He even calculated what he believed to be the proper cycle of legal revolution: "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

 

25

And yet you can’t address the criticisms of it to repeat - The problem with this being – what do you define as ‘harm’ and that while an action may not cause direct harm it can cause indirect harm.

As I’ve pointed out and explained many time right wing libertarian ideas would (and do) cause a great deal of harm to many people.

As to freedom I repeat – right wingers throw out ‘freedom’ seemingly whenever challenged over anything - but its meaning in many of them - as has been shown many times - seems to come down in social and economic terms to the ‘freedom’ of a few to exploit the majority.

As pointed out before the meaning of what freedom means is open to interpretation.

Freedom from harm, freedom from exploitation, freedom from hardship, freedom from sickness.

There is also peoples freedom of choice this can change according to a person’s circumstance and in a monetary based system wealth can dictate those circumstances.

I mean if someone is born into power and wealth which gives them freedom from exploitation and hardship and another is born into poverty which opens them to exploitation and hardship, then there is in that society an inequality of freedom.

The society is benefiting one over the other and if the ones getting the greater benefit are few compared to the others then that society is benefiting the few and not the many?