Capitalism Cures Poverty

[K@th]

But, my dear friend, if we do not learn to sacrifice small differences of opinion, we can never act together. Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his own opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at others. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.

Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/john_adams_389106

While we must, by all available means, prevent the overthrow of the government, we should avoid planting and cultivating too many thorns in the bosom of society.

[Smitty-48]

I don’t think we use the word here like you do in collectivist Canada. No one on our national stage is offering to do shit for “society”. They offer stuff to demographics, regions, or tax brackets.

You never used the word at all, until the international leftists began to take over in the 1970's, again, find me the word "society" anywhere in American lore, prior the coming of the Cultural Marxists.

Really? Is George Washington far enough back? I can't believe you've never heard of society being used until recently. Weird, that.

Altho’ I pretend to no peculiar information respecting commercial affairs, nor any foresight into the scenes of futurity; yet as the member of an infant-empire, as a Philanthropist by character, and (if I may be allowed the expression) as a Citizen of the great republic of humanity at large; I cannot help turning my attention sometimes to this subject. I would be understood to mean, I cannot avoid reflecting with pleasure on the probable influence that commerce may here after have on human manners & society in general. On these occasions I consider how mankind may be connected like one great family in fraternal ties—I endulge a fond, perhaps an enthusiastic idea, that as the world is evidently much less barbarous than it has been, its melioration must still be progressive—that nations are becoming more humanized in their policy—that the subjects of ambition & causes for hostility are daily diminishing—and in fine, that the period is not very remote when the benefits of a liberal & free commerce will, pretty generally, succeed to the devastations & horrors of war.

“From George Washington to Lafayette, 15 August 1786,” Founders Online, National Archives Source: The Papers of George Washington, Confederation Series, vol. 4, 2 April 1786 – 31 January 1787, ed. W. W. Abbot. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1995, pp. 214–216. Page scan at American Memory (Library of Congress)

He endulges {sic} a fond idea, it's a conversation not American lore, nowhere is it written into American lore, that America is the Republic of Humanity at large, otherwise George Washington would be a Communist, which, pretty sure he wasn't.

[Smitty-48]

But, my dear friend, if we do not learn to sacrifice small differences of opinion, we can never act together. Every man cannot have his way in all things. If his own opinion prevails at some times, he should acquiesce on seeing that of others preponderate at others. Without this mutual disposition we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.

Again, rhetorical to a conversation, not written into American lore.

Because power corrupts, society's demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.

General reference to human nature, is not invoking the republic itself as the Society of the United States of America.

While we must, by all available means, prevent the overthrow of the government, we should avoid planting and cultivating too many thorns in the bosom of society.

Yes, well, Lincoln was a tyrant, that's true, the biggest thorn planter of them all, he invokes "society" as a rubric to burn half the country to the ground under his jackboots, without any legal basis whatsoever, a perfect example of the weaponization of "society".

Now find me an actual binding document which holds you to report to a "society"

Better yet, see if you can find one which binds you to a "Progressive Infant Empire Republic of Humanity Writ Large", George Washington, as pretty sure he wasn't defining the state as being that.

Context; used the words in an official capacity written into the record, binding you in anyway to a "society", not spoke the words ever in a conversation, nor "endulged as enthusiastic idea", nor general reference to human nature in general.

[Smitty-48]

Republican* president LBJ’s Great Society?

Exactly, the rise of international leftist ideal in America right there, right thur, precisely where America veered off the path and lost the plot. LBJ was indeed the father of the SJWs

And where has that gotten you? Oh yes, Liz Warren little fella, here she comes.... embrace the "suuuuuuuuuuuck".

*Pretty sure LBJ was a Democrat, guy, Barry Goldwater was the GOP candidate, who tried to warn you of the perils of the "society" at the time.

[Smitty-48]

I mean, if you want to take Washington's words completely out of context, and accept a binding mandate of the Progressive Infant Empire of the Republic of Humanity Writ Large, then don't come crying after about open borders, no travel bans, and dindu nuffin gibs, because that's all inclusive to the "society", the Humanity Writ Large Republic knows no limits, and that is exactly what the internationalist left desires and in fact demands that America be.

Once you say "society will decide", then there's no borders, there's no barriers, nothing is defined, you can't vote "society" out of office, you have no legal protections from the "society", you're not autonomous from the "society", and everybody everywhere is in "society", it's a limitless mandate for the left to run amok without being able to restrain them in any way; the Progressive Infant Empire of the Republic of Humanity Writ Large Kumbaya.

I'm just warning you from the other side, because I live under the rule of "society says" and I can't for the life of me figure out how to stop it now that is has become so deeply entrenched, whatever rights and freedoms I ostensibly have are all swept aside with ease by my supposed and limitless obligations to "society".

[TheReal_ND]

Republican* president LBJ’s Great Society?

Exactly, the rise of international leftist ideal in America right there, right thur, precisely where America veered off the path and lost the plot. LBJ was indeed the father of the SJWs

And where has that gotten you? Oh yes, Liz Warren little fella, here she comes.... embrace the "suuuuuuuuuuuck".

*Pretty sure LBJ was a Democrat, guy, Barry Goldwater was the GOP candidate, who tried to warn you of the perils of the "society" at the time.

Thank you so much for poking this faggot in the eye over that.

Conservatives need to realize that they are in fact just liberals a quarter century behind the progressive trend.

[Smitty-48]

Conservatives don't exist in Society, Society of course finds conservatism to be repugnant, conservatism is an anathema to Society.

[Hastur]

I get the same knee jerk kick reflexes from the word Society (Samhälle in Swedish) as Smitty. It's the go to excuse for all kinds of collectivist ideas. The base upon which Socialism and Communism rests.
It means something else as well but that doesn't matter anymore. Today it's primary use is to limit liberty.

I should add that here we don't even have a word for Liberty. It's called negative freedom as in "freedom from".

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

And, by the way, I don't know how Ma & Pa get out of footing the bill eventually, either way. They pay the wages. They pay taxes for the subsidies, or they pay by having their currency devalue as the state prints money for the subsidies. No matter what, they wind up paying. But if they are just paying the damn living wage, at least they aren't also paying for the massive, wasteful behemoth needed to pay by other means.

Not receiving a living wage, and laboring under unsafe conditions isn't maximum liberty for the worker. Avoiding the appearance paying a living wage in the short term is barely liberty for Ma & Pa. Having this shite relationship enforced by a single-party state certainly isn't most liberty to most.

You keep confusing Ma & Pa for society. If SOCIETY wants something for its members then SOCIETY is responsible. Society uses taxation & regulation to redistribute wealth. If you think Ma & Pa are the best source of this largess rather than the aristocracy then you simply make enemies of Ma & Pa. They sure as shit don't want to be responsible for you.

This isn't about what society wants for its members, it is about what those members want for themselves, be it higher wages, safer conditions, fewer hours, or taco Tuesdays. Society can either tolerate attempts from members to secure those things, or even encourage them, or society can set itself against them... ostensibly because better conditions for the shit munchers would be 'bad for society,' as measured by the price of gadgets.

I am not certain that Ma & Pa, engines of wealth that they are, are more liable to resent OSHA regulations and living wages, than being required to pay, rather circuitously through state subsidies, for Ma & Pa down the street not to compensate their workers. Seems like just going the long way round to the same result.

[Martin Hash]

And, by the way, I don't know how Ma & Pa get out of footing the bill eventually, either way. They pay the wages. They pay taxes for the subsidies, or they pay by having their currency devalue as the state prints money for the subsidies. No matter what, they wind up paying. But if they are just paying the damn living wage, at least they aren't also paying for the massive, wasteful behemoth needed to pay by other means.

Not receiving a living wage, and laboring under unsafe conditions isn't maximum liberty for the worker. Avoiding the appearance paying a living wage in the short term is barely liberty for Ma & Pa. Having this shite relationship enforced by a single-party state certainly isn't most liberty to most.

You keep confusing Ma & Pa for society. If SOCIETY wants something for its members then SOCIETY is responsible. Society uses taxation & regulation to redistribute wealth. If you think Ma & Pa are the best source of this largess rather than the aristocracy then you simply make enemies of Ma & Pa. They sure as shit don't want to be responsible for you.

This isn't about what society wants for its members, it is about what those members want for themselves, be it higher wages, safer conditions, fewer hours, or taco Tuesdays. Society can either tolerate attempts from members to secure those things, or even encourage them, or society can set itself against them... ostensibly because better conditions for the shit munchers would be 'bad for society,' as measured by the price of gadgets.

I am not certain that Ma & Pa, engines of wealth that they are, are more liable to resent OSHA regulations and living wages, than being required to pay, rather circuitously through state subsidies, for Ma & Pa down the street not to compensate their workers. Seems like just going the long way round to the same result.

You did exactly what Smitty said you would with the word "society." Read what he said, "society" is used by the collectivists to justify taking your liberty. Instead, I tried to explain that society was the mutually beneficial treaty we had with each other to not kill one another, that we would make our own decisions with no obligations from elites making decisions for us except in very restricted cases. But Smitty kept insisting that the societyists would use that loophole to do what they wanted, not what you wanted. Then you come along. Goddamn, Smitty, always right.