Another School Shooting

[K@th]

[
Be sure to thumbs up Marco "small hands" Rubio, then.

Did that. I like him; don't always agree with him, but I do like him.

[Speaker to Animals]

You can see what the liberal thinks "self-government" really is inherent in DrY's post above.

To them, sacrifice means marching in the street with your pussy hat, putting up a Facebook filter, driving around with a bumper sticker to "raise awareness".

They really aren't serious about government. That's why I want to disenfranchise them. When I proposed that you should have to serve a single term of enlistment or get a commission to vote in federal elections, they balked, I think because they damned well know it's not that important to them. If they had to set aside four years of their lives to serve the country and potentially sacrifice for it, they wouldn't even bother.

That's the kind of people who want to cast votes without consequences to themselves. They demand you give up your human rights, and when their policies result in mass killings, they not only demand you give up more rights, but they give the state ever more power to lock down our society. It's a really bad equation that would be solved with one simple tweak. They really are so selfish and lazy that none of them would even bother with politics if military service were a prerequisite.

[Fife]

There is no question that, under our current constitution, there should be some kind of significant cover charge to get in the federal booth. I'm doubtful about military service being the only path, but I'm thinking of what I'd be satisfied with.

[Speaker to Animals]

There is no question that, under our current constitution, there should be some kind of significant cover charge to get in the federal booth. I'm doubtful about military service being the only path, but I'm thinking of what I'd be satisfied with.

It's not perfect and there's nothing special about military service. I am just using it as a measure of the kind of behavioral traits that make for such a shitty electorate. Deselect for the lazy, selfish personality types. I guarantee you that probably 80% of the left (at least) would just walk away from politics if the prerequisite were military service.

I am not even talking about mandatory military service like some nations impose either (including European nations the liberals seem to think are paradise). This isn't draconian policy by any means.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's like that Florida policy Kath was bitching about earlier. It was actually genius. Require drug screening to receive state welfare. The result? A huge percentage of these people didn't even bother because gibs were less important than getting fucked up, and they obviously had enough money for drugs, so it's not like they can argue the state should subsidize drug abuse.

The entire left could be squashed by simply imposing responsibility in exchange for rights. Rights without obligations are an anathema to liberty, If you want to vote in federal elections, then you better be willing to go to war when the people you voted for drag us into another one. If you want to vote in state elections, you probably should be a net tax payer, else it's kind of a pointless game where you just vote for more gibs. Does that suck the disabled get cut out? Sure. But the downside isn't that bad compared to what we have now. Want to get welfare? Maybe you can do some work around the community while you are on it, and prove you aren't wasting our money by submitting to a simple drug screening test. I mean, fuck. How hard is that?

[Fife]

Taleb's new book that came out yesterday is titled "Skin in the Game." From the Amazon blurb: “Never trust anyone who doesn’t have skin in the game. Without it, fools and crooks will benefit, and their mistakes will never come back to haunt them.”

[SuburbanFarmer]

It's like that Florida policy Kath was bitching about earlier. It was actually genius. Require drug screening to receive state welfare. The result? A huge percentage of these people didn't even bother because gibs were less important than getting fucked up, and they obviously had enough money for drugs, so it's not like they can argue the state should subsidize drug abuse.

The result was that the drug testing cost billions of extra dollars, the medical supplier made out like a bandit, and no cases were ever found. Benefits were unaffected.

Any idiot can clean up for 24 hours, or beat a drug test, for free money. Why is it that the Right always assumes that people are no smarter than livestock?

[DrYouth]

I would even go so far as to propose that maximal self-government is proportionate to the ratio of militia to state military/police.

So by that token Afghanistan is now ripe for maximal liberty... also the hinterlands of Pakistan...

Are you headed there to reap the liberty soon?

[Speaker to Animals]

I would even go so far as to propose that maximal self-government is proportionate to the ratio of militia to state military/police.

So by that token Afghanistan is now ripe for maximal liberty... also the hinterlands of Pakistan...

Are you headed there to reap the liberty soon?

I doubt the Afghan people have a huge chub for liberty, DrY. Fallacy much?

[Speaker to Animals]

It's like that Florida policy Kath was bitching about earlier. It was actually genius. Require drug screening to receive state welfare. The result? A huge percentage of these people didn't even bother because gibs were less important than getting fucked up, and they obviously had enough money for drugs, so it's not like they can argue the state should subsidize drug abuse.

The result was that the drug testing cost billions of extra dollars, the medical supplier made out like a bandit, and no cases were ever found. Benefits were unaffected.

Any idiot can clean up for 24 hours, or beat a drug test, for free money. Why is it that the Right always assumes that people are no smarter than livestock?

An increase in upfront costs is better than the long term costs of an increasing welfare state.

If we cut single mothers off, for instance, in the 1980s, it would suck for maybe 10% of women. Do it now, and you are talking about more than half your generation's females living off the backs of men. Would it be more expensive to simply provide day care and direct services to children without a dime going to the hands of women? Probably. Long term, though? Not a chance. What you subsidize you get more of. Had we not directly rewarded women, we wouldn't be in this situation now.

The result of that program was a huge percentage of applicants just walking away when they got a notice to report for a drug test. That's a win.