Donald Trump's Economic Policy

[Will Torbald]

Not only is this a false trichotomy, but it's false across the board. You can NOT move, without their permission, paying their fees, filling out their forms, or doing so in a way they okay. You can NOT overthrow it by force because they have greater technology and perceived legitimacy. You can NOT change it through votes! This has been pointed out so many times already.

 

The perceived legitimacy is the lynch pin. If you can convince people that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories, that taxation is theft, that VOTING ACCOMPLISHES NOTHING (which is NOT doing nothing as you continue to claim), they are seen as nothing more than the annoying mosquitos that they are. If the enforcer class rejected the proposition that they are immune from morality, we'd have a revolution TODAY without a drop of blood shed.

 

What's the view like from this mental prison you so desperately insist on staying within? Must be breathtaking.

How do you think America went from a minarchy to the empire it is today? By voting in increasingly leftist politicians. If voting changed nothing, it couldn't have changed at all in any direction, but it changed towards the left and towards the chimera it is now. Hard empirical reality is out there and it is votes that did it. It is also through force that America became independent from England, so to say that force doesn't change government is another lie. Third, I said to move out, but I didn't imply it was hassle free, but it's possible. The other step is that, if you manage to convince enough people of your morality, what are you going to do? You will either collectively move out, violently overthrow the government, or vote in politicians that will dismantle the state from the inside. Ok? See how it is you who continues to do the ad hominem of claiming I live in a mental prison? It is so cringey to hear that. Give it up already.

[dsayers]

How do you think America went from a minarchy to the empire it is today?

How did America go from statism to statism?! How does one go from B to C when reciting the alphabet? How did you go from a fertilized egg to a multi-trillion celled organism? How did the boat at the beginning of Titanic go from unsinkable to sunk?

 

to say that force doesn't change government

Strawman.

 

I said to move out, but I didn't imply it was hassle free

No. In fact you implied that it was hassle free. Somehow, you experience no cognitive dissonance when telling somebody that in order to ESCAPE a bully, they must first APPROACH that bully to get their permission.

 

If I vote that your wallet is mine, what does this mean? Nothing. I would need the fictitious power of the State for my vote to mean anything. You're basically saying that you could talk an entity into killing itself when as you pointed out, its track record is to do nothing less than take the people at their word and amass as much power (the opposite of killing itself) as possible. PERCEIVED LEGITIMACY is the lifeblood of the State. You ADD TO THIS when you vote.

 

You detract from this when you step out of that mental prison and understand that you ARE free and that you can NOT overpower the perceived legitimate State with force and need to instead whittle away that perceived legitimacy in part by convincing others to NOT vote.

[Will Torbald]

How did America go from statism to statism?! How does one go from B to C when reciting the alphabet? How did you go from a fertilized egg to a multi-trillion celled organism? How did the boat at the beginning of Titanic go from unsinkable to sunk?

 

Strawman.

 

No. In fact you implied that it was hassle free. Somehow, you experience no cognitive dissonance when telling somebody that in order to ESCAPE a bully, they must first APPROACH that bully to get their permission.

 

If I vote that your wallet is mine, what does this mean? Nothing. I would need the fictitious power of the State for my vote to mean anything. You're basically saying that you could talk an entity into killing itself when as you pointed out, its track record is to do nothing less than take the people at their word and amass as much power (the opposite of killing itself) as possible. PERCEIVED LEGITIMACY is the lifeblood of the State. You ADD TO THIS when you vote.

 

You detract from this when you step out of that mental prison and understand that you ARE free and that you can NOT overpower the perceived legitimate State with force and need to instead whittle away that perceived legitimacy in part by convincing others to NOT vote.

 

You have no path to anarchy. You're back to where I started when I said that not voting equals allowing the mainstream candidate to win. You can't convince everyone to not vote. The minority that is left will elect somebody. The remaining government will continue importing third world migrants who won't listen to your moral discourse. It is a suicidal road.

How did America go from statism to statism?! How does one go from B to C when reciting the alphabet? How did you go from a fertilized egg to a multi-trillion celled organism? How did the boat at the beginning of Titanic go from unsinkable to sunk?

 

Strawman.

 

No. In fact you implied that it was hassle free. Somehow, you experience no cognitive dissonance when telling somebody that in order to ESCAPE a bully, they must first APPROACH that bully to get their permission.

 

If I vote that your wallet is mine, what does this mean? Nothing. I would need the fictitious power of the State for my vote to mean anything. You're basically saying that you could talk an entity into killing itself when as you pointed out, its track record is to do nothing less than take the people at their word and amass as much power (the opposite of killing itself) as possible. PERCEIVED LEGITIMACY is the lifeblood of the State. You ADD TO THIS when you vote.

 

You detract from this when you step out of that mental prison and understand that you ARE free and that you can NOT overpower the perceived legitimate State with force and need to instead whittle away that perceived legitimacy in part by convincing others to NOT vote.

 

You have no path to anarchy. The idea that you will convince enough people not to vote, and that that will abolish the state is impossible to actuate. Low IQ people don't care, and they are the majority. If by some miracle you do, the government will just import third world migrants to keep voting. It is a suicidal road to be a minority group, not vote, and think that the masses will follow. It equals allowing the growth of the government, like I said in the beginning. The perceived legitimacy is absolutely irrelevant as long as you have no path to anarchy. You're dead in the water, and it's rising.

 

Edit: I wrote two replies because I thought the first one had disappeared.

[Worlok]

As always, inaction does not equal action. Also, there is a false premise here that votes matter. Finally, you have deflected and not addressed anything I've said. A little integrity please. You know I won't be distracted by anything less.

 

I would argue that there is no such thing as "inaction." All there is is making a different action not directly relating to the context that you are referring to. I suppose inaction would require non-existence. Inaction within a context requires action in another context. Your argument denies responsibility, but this would be an entirely different discussion. That discussion being whether an action taken had intent within a general context. E.g., not voting in support of a mainstream candidate. Then you would determine that there is responsibility.

 

Fact is, if you don't vote because you think a person will win the vote anyway, you are making an action in support of that occurring and have responsibility for that candidate winning a vote. If you don't vote because you think the system is rigged and your vote doesn't actually have an effect, then supposing you are right, you have no responsibility for the outcome. Supposing that you are wrong and your vote does count, you are both responsible and ignorant.

 

Given the voting system in the US, can you say for absolutely certain, with supporting facts, that a vote in general has a value or not? "In general," meaning regardless of what you vote or what you register and regardless of voter fraud occurring in various places, whether static or random? Are votes in general counted and thus used to elect, for example, POTUS, or are they not?

 

As per the OP, what kind of moron believes what politicians say? Trump has expressed that the dumb crap he says on tv is attention whoring.

[dsayers]

The idea that you will convince enough people not to vote, and that that will abolish the state

I wish you could leave your cage like on a furlow or something so that you could see how ridiculous it is to use a phrase like "abolish Santa Claus." I can see it, which is why I've never said such a thing.

 

I would argue that there is no such thing as "inaction."

You would be wrong. Of all the near infinite things you could be doing right now, you're inactive towards all of them but one. You'd have an easier time arguing there is no such thing as action based on sheer volume alone.

 

Perceived legitimacy is the lifeblood of the State. Voting adds to this.

[Will Torbald]

I wish you could leave your cage like on a furlow or something so that you could see how ridiculous it is to use a phrase like "abolish Santa Claus." I can see it, which is why I've never said such a thing.

 

You would be wrong. Of all the near infinite things you could be doing right now, you're inactive towards all of them but one. You'd have an easier time arguing there is no such thing as action based on sheer volume alone.

 

Perceived legitimacy is the lifeblood of the State. Voting adds to this.

 

You can abolish the practice of people dressing as Santa, or telling children that their presents come from the North Pole. In the same way you can abolish the practice of people dressing as politicians or green army men, and making "laws" that are forced on people. It's the action, not the concept, that becomes inert. I'd prefer if you were to stop being so rude, by the way.

 

If you can't be inactive of at least one action, then it follows there is no such thing as absolute inaction. The lifeblood of the state is the lack of practical alternatives. People don't revolt because they think it is legitimate, but because sudden anarchy will inevitably lead to a state of temporary chaos. The sacrifice required by the sudden abolishment of the state would send enormous waves of crime and destruction. We had a police strike for one day here, and cities were looted everywhere. That is why it has to be done gradually. The state has to be first reduced, and then abolished. You can't reduce it by not voting, you have to vote for those who will.

[dsayers]

you can abolish the practice of people dressing as politicians or green army men, and making "laws" that are forced on people. It's the action, not the concept, that becomes inert. I'd prefer if you were to stop being so rude, by the way.

I would prefer that you experience cognitive dissonance when you make self-detonating claims. I would prefer that you not validate the State by prophesying the necessity of patronizing it. Why do your preferences trump mine?

 

You can NOT abolish the practice of people dressing as politicians and army men because you would need politicians and army men to erect/enforce such an abolition! The point was you put words into my mouth because you like to strawman and I never spoke of abolishing the bogeyman because I accept that he doesn't exist.

 

The lifeblood of the state is the lack of practical alternatives.

IF what you're trying to claim was true, that would be the reason for tolerating it, not its lifeblood. But this too is a self-detonating claim. Because in your life, you interact with EVERYBODY without initiating the use of force. So your claim that there is no way to accomplish your goals without violence is false. There is nothing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except violence itself. Your inability to imagine (or indeed observe in your own life) the ways we could do X, Y, and Z without violence is no excuse for telling the beast that you are indeed its supper, and so are all your neighbors and their unborn children.

[Worlok]

I wish you could leave your cage like on a furlow or something so that you could see how ridiculous it is to use a phrase like "abolish Santa Claus." I can see it, which is why I've never said such a thing.

 

You would be wrong. Of all the near infinite things you could be doing right now, you're inactive towards all of them but one. You'd have an easier time arguing there is no such thing as action based on sheer volume alone.

 

Perceived legitimacy is the lifeblood of the State. Voting adds to this.

 

Your argument against me actually supported my argument. Action in context, intent, and responsibility. Unless you meant inaction in a single context, but action in another may still be referred to as "inaction," which is something I believe I quite clearly dismissed in my original response. You apparently acknowledged this, when you typed, "inactive towards all of them but one." in which action is being taken. Said inaction is to not take action in one context, but to take action in another. Awareness of not taking action in one context, but to take action in another is acknowledging both contexts and as an action in itself deciding to act in the second context. I.e., you are aware of "a" and "b," but decided to act on "b." This is a negative action on "a" because you are aware of it and make a decision on it to act on b instead. 

 

I thoroughly meant what I just typed, although it may be irrelevant bullshit about the definitions of, "action" and "inaction" while having nothing to do with the topic. In which possible case, I apologize.

[Somewhere]

I think there is a real problem with tariffs, because in addition to the standard economic distortions introduced by any form of taxation, tariffs discriminate between two classes of producer, foreign and domestic.

[dsayers]

Your argument against me actually supported my argument. Action in context, intent, and responsibility. Unless you meant inaction in a single context, but action in another may still be referred to as "inaction," which is something I believe I quite clearly dismissed in my original response. You apparently acknowledged this, when you typed, "inactive towards all of them but one." in which action is being taken. Said inaction is to not take action in one context, but to take action in another. Awareness of not taking action in one context, but to take action in another is acknowledging both contexts and as an action in itself deciding to act in the second context. I.e., you are aware of "a" and "b," but decided to act on "b." This is a negative action on "a" because you are aware of it and make a decision on it to act on b instead. 

 

I thoroughly meant what I just typed, although it may be irrelevant bullshit about the definitions of, "action" and "inaction" while having nothing to do with the topic. In which possible case, I apologize.

I'm having a hard time following this, so I apologize if this is a lacking on my part. To me, it seems to fail the five year old test, so my initial reaction is to regard it as obfuscation. As I type this, I am NOT eating a carrot. However, you cannot infer from this that I have ACTIVELY chosen to not eat a carrot or that I even considered as much before typing. As such, if political voting is a thing and some monster gets elected, you cannot say that the people who did not vote added to this outcome was my initial position.

 

To pass the five year old test, it simply comes down to one of the first principles that X cannot equal the opposite of X. Action can never be conflated with inaction.

[Tyler H]

I've been watching Stefan's videos on the Don for a while. I've watched every one of them and I can say I now put my full support behind Mr. Trump. I think it's safe to say that I can defend him on most any of his foreign/domestic policies and defend him from the media lies that surround him. However, I can't seem to find any empirical sources to defend his economic policies. I'd like to be able to stump my friends who denounce his economic plans, but Stefan has never directly addressed his economic ideas. Can anyone help?

Can I ask what specifically Stef said that convinced you to vote for Trump?

 

Also Schiff has some things to say on Trump's economic policy.

 

 

 

:Edit to install video:

[ValueOfBrevity]

Can I ask what specifically Stef said that convinced you to vote for Trump?

 

Also Schiff has some things to say on Trump's economic policy.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XIvfmYqDRYs"frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

To summarize Schiff's position:

 

Trump is still government. Anything he does will ultimately be another government intervention with typical backfiring.