The Left Does not Reason

[Speaker to Animals]

What would the world be like today if the U.S. had said, "we'll take them Jews?"

I guess the Nazis would still have wound up killing a bunch of people, but maybe not at nearly the same level.

Also, maybe no Israel and a much more peaceful middle east?

Nobody wanted them.

We should have just transported them all to Palestine, honestly. Press their military-aged males into regiments that would defend the place from the Germans. Send them after Rommel.

I doubt they'd have gotten involved more than defending Israel. Why should they defend British territory against the Nazis? They didn't have a lot of love for the British at the end of the thirties.

Because the alternative was getting shipped back to Europe.

[Okeefenokee]

Nobody wanted them.

We should have just transported them all to Palestine, honestly. Press their military-aged males into regiments that would defend the place from the Germans. Send them after Rommel.

I doubt they'd have gotten involved more than defending Israel. Why should they defend British territory against the Nazis? They didn't have a lot of love for the British at the end of the thirties.

Because the alternative was getting shipped back to Europe.

They weren't taking any.

[Speaker to Animals]

I doubt they'd have gotten involved more than defending Israel. Why should they defend British territory against the Nazis? They didn't have a lot of love for the British at the end of the thirties.

Because the alternative was getting shipped back to Europe.

They weren't taking any.

We sent them right back in actuality. There were entire ships packed with Jews waiting in the New York harbor, and our government said, nope, we are full up on Jews now, you have to go back to get exterminated.

Wait.. it's pretty much what the democrats did to Christians and Yazidis from Iraq and Syria. I guess some things never change..

Seriously, I would have forced Churchill to ship them ALL into Palestine, and press them into all-Jewish regiments that will defend the place. The British weren't all that invested in controlling the place anyway. If they can fight the Germans in North Africa, they can have Palestine. The regiments change their colors at the end of the war to Israel. Their whole families are right there in Palestine, giving them every reason in the world to fight. Problem solved.

[JohnDonne]

I can see why Progressivism is seductive, you are hoping for Star Trek: The Next Generation.

I will have to give up my inalienable rights or have them taken from me. Once I do, I will be given a stipend for sustenance. I will have some down time to develop myself. There is going to have to be a very powerful government to make this happen. They are going to have to influence people to go along with putting their future into the hands of governments accepted science and technology. To do all this government needs to be large, have the agencies, personnel and resources to influence and if necessary force people to accept governments utopia.

How are we in disagreement about Progressivism ?

I am looking at the alternative to Star Trek which is widespread unemployment and social unrest.

Why do you think it would be significantly more complicated to stream-line our current bureaucratic labyrinths into a mincome agency than to keep doing what we are now? People would have much more time to keep an eye on their politicians that they do now, making for better governments. Also, I propose a healthy supply of guns for the people to keep the government in check.

Bump! on this discussion.

Please explain the mincome and mincome agency. What I am imagining is everyone gets a stipend from the government. Does everyone get the same amount ?
Does Counselor Troy get the same mincome to sit next to Captain and talk about feelings while not having to wear a uniform as the guy that has to spend his work days crawling through Jeffries tubes on his hands and knees and risking dying from plasma burns in a confined space ?

With mincome, every citizen gets the same amount (Let's define this as enough to buy groceries, pay rent, plus some mess around with money, you know, to stimulate the economy.)

The government will also give each citizen a top of the line gun.

If the citizen wishes to get more for himself, then he must start a business, invent something, create something of value to sell, or work a job that a machine cannot do. The citizen will have libraries and the internet and as much free time as an enlightenment aristocrat, to add something to the world.

Now, the people will have to choose which companies they want to spend their mincome at, and so we must let the invisible hand of the mincome market decide what's best.

As for the guy risking plasma burns, who would do that job for less than it's worth if they already have a mincome?

[JohnDonne]

As for the arguments about progressives believing governments give people rights? Nonsense, a progressive doesn't need to justify progress with high falutin rights, we simply say, mincome is the intelligent and overall better thing to do, so we should do it.

The thing about claiming rights like housing is they are positive rights in that they imply that someone else is obliged to provide you with something. But it would seem to me a violation of someone's rights if they were forced to build a house for someone else, so positive rights are incoherent. I think it is better to say it's nice to build people houses and we should do it if we can.

Negative rights make much more sense. They are called negative because they only imply the obligation of others to not interfere, like freedom of speech, freedom to own guns.

[Okeefenokee]

As for the guy risking plasma burns, who would do that job for less than it's worth if they already have a mincome?

Indeed.

Why would anyone do anything if they get their needs met for free?

/scratching my chin.

[Okeefenokee]

As for the arguments about progressives believing governments give people rights? Nonsense, a progressive doesn't need to justify progress with high falutin rights, we simply say, mincome is the intelligent and overall better thing to do, so we should do it.

The thing about claiming rights like housing is they are positive rights in that they imply that someone else is obliged to provide you with something. But it would seem to me a violation of someone's rights if they were forced to build a house for someone else, so positive rights are incoherent. I think it is better to say it's nice to build people houses and we should do it if we can.

Negative rights make much more sense. They are called negative because they only imply the obligation of others to not interfere, like freedom of speech, freedom to own guns.

Well, you'll find many to agree to that around here.

[SuburbanFarmer]

As for the guy risking plasma burns, who would do that job for less than it's worth if they already have a mincome?

Indeed.

Why would anyone do anything if they get their needs met for free?

/scratching my chin.

Because some percentage of humans could actually get off the couch every day without being forced to.

[Fife]

fuckin LULZ

[JohnDonne]

As for the guy risking plasma burns, who would do that job for less than it's worth if they already have a mincome?

Indeed.

Why would anyone do anything if they get their needs met for free?

/scratching my chin.

Why? Mostly the same reasons as now, for extra income, to possess more things, to improve life for your family, and most importantly, for glory.

In the mincome society, the achievements and figures of the past will be fetishized, and only one who invents, creates or conquers will be considered glorious.

By providing a mincome the fear of dying will be replaced with the fear of not being immortal. Leading to bold risk-taking, insane ambition, and cut-throat competition.