Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Against Work
This topic contains 154 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by 
Veniversum 4 years ago.
- AuthorPosts
You make a lot of fine points that I do not have the time to dissect, but this needs to be thrown out as it is a mandate. I would be fine with no schooling provided by the state. I see it as just another piece of social engineering that allowed two income families to exist (benefitting the state/corporations, one in the same at this point) while the state provided daycare, a form of indoctrination if you will, making sure that all citizens of the state learned early in life that one must be obedient to the state to ensure one’s “success”.
Great plan…we should take away public education for children who have no legitimate means to pay for it on their own since they can’t legally work under a certain age. That way, any children born to parents who can’t afford a private education can go through life being uneducated and illiterate.
I don’t agree with the agenda schools often push these days, but we should be taking politics out of schools, not taking poor kids out of them.
Anonymous24You make a lot of fine points that I do not have the time to dissect, but this needs to be thrown out as it is a mandate. I would be fine with no schooling provided by the state. I see it as just another piece of social engineering that allowed two income families to exist (benefitting the state/corporations, one in the same at this point) while the state provided daycare, a form of indoctrination if you will, making sure that all citizens of the state learned early in life that one must be obedient to the state to ensure one’s “success”.
Great plan…we should take away public education for children who have no legitimate means to pay for it on their own since they can’t legally work under a certain age. That way, any children born to parents who can’t afford a private education can go through life being uneducated and ignorant.
I don’t agree with the agenda schools often push these days, but we should be taking politics out of schools, not taking poor kids out of them.
I did not propose such a thing, I just said I personally would be fine if it did not exist. This can also mean that I wish it were not a mandate. And that it should be left out of his argument because of these reasons. With the internet kid’s can learn as much as they want about life easily before 17 or 18 that they can enter the workforce on par with your average high school graduate. I mean, most of the jobs are Taco Bell and Wallmart anyhow right?
Survivor: We’re on fiat currency, because Nixon had an election to win, so he closed the gold window — it was treasonous; a far worse crime than Watergate. I would disagree about it being a proxy for how one feels about totalitarianism and slavery, though. We had slavery in the US while on a gold standard.
Veniversum: Yes, money is not the only motivator. Even so, for technology to be realized, requires capital. Lord Kelvin discovered much because he had free time and money to do experiments. Even as recently as the 1800’s, someone like Faraday, coming from a poor family, was *lucky* to make the right connections, to get involved with the Royal Society and Humphry Davy.
JoBauers writes: I don’t know, but I do know this: Growth enabled via FIAT currencies allow those at the top to keep getting richer while the middle class keeps getting pushed down. .
I would disagree. I save most of my income and invest it. My money is in the stock market, not savings accounts. Growth occurred before fiat currency, and after it. I would argue fiat currency, may increase growth in the short term, but retards it long term. Typically it’s coupled with an ever-increasing public sector. I’m not seeing how it impacts the middle class more. Those with more savings, will lose more if/when the crash comes.
If you want income equality, then you don’t want a free market economy.
Beer: Yes, you cannot have uneducated masses. So it either has to be funded by taxes, or civil society. Without some form of education for the poor, you will obliterate upward mobility for most poor people.
Also, what about a system where individuals pay for individual education consumed, later, when they are adults? Taxes would be acceptable. e.g. my parents decide where I go to school, and when I’m older, I have to pay the tax burden — so you have school choice competition, without letting the poor go uneducated. That would help hold costs down too (the competition component lacking in today’s system). And you could still make, say, the first $20,000 of income exempt from taxation. After that, taxes would start going to services YOU consumed when a minor. There are a lot of alternative solutions to these issues that allow for more personal choice than the one-size-fits all scheme we presently employ.
And would have stifled growth… just means the corporate c~~~~~~~~~s got greedy when they saw how valuable it all was, Thanks for helping me.
Hey, you’ll take anything that seems to support your theory, huh? Tesla tore up the royalties contract and then Westinghouse gave him a fat payout for the rights to use the patents in perpetuity. Does that sound like corporate greed to you? It sounds to me like Tesla was an idiot who threw away real wealth and then squandered his considerable resources on unrealizable inventions like the mad scientist he was.
“Unfortunately, the War of Currents took a big financial toll on Westinghouse. Edison could weather the storm because he was backed by the millionaire financier J.P. Morgan. By 1907, after nearly 20 years of fighting with Edison, Westinghouse was more than $10 million in debt and teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Out of desperation, George Westinghouse approached Tesla with a proposition. Westinghouse begged Tesla to lower or temporarily rescind his royalty in order to allow the company to survive. Westinghouse further explained that if the company went bankrupt, Tesla would be faced with the nearly impossible task of retrieving his royalties from a stingy bank creditor. To Westinghouse’s amazement, Tesla tore up the original contract on the spot. Tesla was grateful to Westinghouse for believing in him when no one else would. By tearing up the contract and relinquishing his royalties, Tesla single-handedly saved the Westinghouse Electric company. In return, Westinghouse paid Tesla a $216,000 lump sum for the right to use his AC patents in perpetuity (that’s worth roughly $5.4 million today).
In retrospect, Tesla may have been a brilliant inventor but he was a terrible capitalist. In 1907, when he tore up the contract, bankers estimated the value of his patents to be $12 million. Shockingly, $12 million in 1907 is equal to more than $300 million in today’s inflation adjusted dollars.
Obviously, the smarter move would have been for Tesla to offer a five year reprieve from the royalty payment to allow Westinghouse to get back on its feet and destroy Edison. Over the next decade, Alternating Current wiped out Direct Current and became the standard electrical system across the world. Had Tesla held onto his royalty over this time, he easily would have become one of the wealthiest people on the planet. Even by conservative estimates, he should have become the richest person on the planet and the first person with a $1 billion net worth. Had he not ripped up that contract, today those same AC motor royalties would generate billions of dollars every year for Tesla’s relatives.”
Clearly you have no understanding of how business or the real world work… so long as you can make a case that money is evil, you’re satisfied. Had Tesla taken the long view rather than cash in hand for freedom to tinker without intervention or the necessities of pragmatism, he could have produced a hundred times what he did and we’d likely have global free power, anti-gravity and matter replication by now. Or maybe Wardenclyffe or its successors would have ignited the atmosphere into a global incandescent light bulb and killed off every living thing on the face of the Earth.
Either way, the guy was a genius at electromagnetism but a moron everywhere else.
Veniversum: While abolition of private property IS one of the ten planks of communism, private property has NOT been abolished in socialist and mixed economies such as the US.
2. No one should be compelled into the work force. This is not freedom, and it is not liberty.
One could also argue, nobody should get a free ride.
3. Many poor people are working jobs that they have no interest in or passion for because they are mandated by law to acquire currency in order to exist. This results in their total misery, in addition to the fact that they only make just enough money to maintain a bare existence.
It is no different than it was in earlier times — you had serfs. They had to work.
Private property most certainly has been abolished, because if you refuse to rent your property from the state, it will be confiscated from you. That makes the state your landlord and you a tenant.
It’s plan number 1, and it goes like this:
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)As for receiving a “free” ride, I am not afforded the option to refuse the ride. It’s the equivalent of me pulling up to you in a taxi, pointing a gun to your head and saying get in. Then taking you somewhere and expecting you to pay me else be jailed or executed. I didn’t ask anyone for a ride. It’s no different than mafia style extortion of business. “Pay us for protection, or else”. You’re right, it’s no different than earlier days. We do have serfs, and slavery wasn’t abolished; it was extended to include everyone. I have a major problem with that.
This isn’t ad hominem, because I didn’t actually criticize you. I simply pointed out that when you rely on ad hominem, straw man, and other sophistry, that you destroy your own credibility, which is true. Likewise if I tell you that if you stab yourself, that you are doing yourself harm, that is not criticism. I would advise you look up Ad Hominem and learn what it is so you can more closely identify it.
An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.
You attacked my credibility without any basis simply because your weak arguments got wrecked and you couldn’t deny my irrefutable points. That’s attacking my character. That is ad hominem. Perhaps you should stop using words if you don’t know what they mean.
I didn’t attack your character. I mentioned that you are attacking your own. I didn’t make a single derogatory statement about you. I know exactly what this word means, which is why I haven’t used Ad Hominem on anyone even a single time for the entire duration of this conversation. Last time I checked, I’m the person who told you about it. You have no case. If you refrain from using sophistry you will also refrain from damaging your own credibility. If you do not stab yourself, you will not harm yourself. This isn’t derogatory; it’s fact.
Is somebody having trouble paying their rent?
All this talk about being “forced into labor and debt at the point of a gun” reminds me of the woman who, when pulled over for speeding or whatever, kept telling the cop she was a free citizen of the world and not subject to his laws. Yeah, right.
You wanna live for free? Move to Pandora. Your beliefs about how the world “should” work are about as fantastic.
Is somebody having trouble paying their rent?
All this talk about being “forced into labor and debt at the point of a gun” reminds me of the woman who, when pulled over for speeding or whatever, kept telling the cop she was a free citizen of the world and not subject to his laws. Yeah, right.
You wanna live for free? Move to Pandora. Your beliefs about how the world “should” work are about as fantastic.
What are my beliefs about how the world should work, Doc? How do you even have an opinion of that, when at no point in time, have I ever expressed an opinion of how I think the world should work? I have simply pointed out that I don’t appreciate having to make payments on my property, property that I own. Law is fiction. It’s completely belief based. The function of law is to create and perpetuate an advantage for the ruling class and subjugate and suppress all others under the guise of protection. What the state cannot accomplish by legal means, it accomplishes by illegal means behind the veil of secrecy and “national security”. Likewise police commit crimes on a regular basis, even on camera, and are not convicted. The only reason they get away with all of the things that they do, is because people believe that the system is legitimate.
There are a lot of alternative solutions to these issues that allow for more personal choice than the one-size-fits all scheme we presently employ.
Indeed. I don’t see why anyone should spend 12 years delving into subjects that have knowledge they will rarely or never use, when they could be focused on things they have a passion for, and interest in, and increasing their skills at their focus.
Veniversum: Private property most certainly has been abolished, because if you refuse to rent your property from the state, it will be confiscated from you. That makes the state your landlord and you a tenant.
As for receiving a “free” ride, I am not afforded the option to refuse the ride. It’s the equivalent of me pulling up to you in a taxi, pointing a gun to your head and saying get in. Then taking you somewhere and expecting you to pay me else be jailed or executed. I didn’t ask anyone for a ride. It’s no different than mafia style extortion of business. “Pay us for protection, or else”. You’re right, it’s no different than earlier days. We do have serfs, and slavery wasn’t abolished; it was extended to include everyone. I have a major problem with that.
The working classes are better off than they were in the past. Mostly due to technology (productivity improvements). And more stable governments, albeit, kleptocratic ones.
You have no opt-out EXCEPT voting OR moving to another nation-state with a better deal for its citizens. That is a strong argument in the US, for a weaker federal government, so that States and cities compete with each other for citizens — lowest tax rate and best services wins. That is a good way to keep government in check, in my opinion.
As for private property being ‘abolished’, relatively speaking, far more people own their house now, than did in the past, by a huge margin (see my previous posts). So, for something that was ‘abolished’, it’s certainly been increasing. I would word it differently, and say we have true private property for personal goods (TV, bed, guitar, computer), but have limited property rights on land and buildings.
At the end of the day, you seem to be arguing the anarcho-capitalist position: In such thinking, no taxes are valid; income tax is theft of my income; sales tax is theft. If I don’t pay taxes on my income, I’m thrown in jail, so you could argue I have no freedom. Property tax is theft. As stated previously, all of this is well and good IF all government services are provided by private entities — roads, schools, defense, police, fire, etc. Since they aren’t, you ARE using these services.
You seem to be advocating government comprise 0% of GDP. IF that is the case, how would you pay for these services? And how do you get from here, to there? Well, the only way would be to organize & vote it in, start a revolution, or move somewhere and start your own nation-State (Galt’s Gulch).
As for Law: Ideally, law is neutral; the alternative to law is mob rule. Before formalized law, the State, typically an autocratic King, had unlimited arbitrary powers. If you were lucky, they were a benevolent authoritarian. So I’d say we made an improvement now; the State’s powers are clearly enumerated. Is the law just? Not always — human institutions are imperfect. The killer sometimes gets off, or the wrong man is executed. Is it better than the arbitrary mob? In my opinion, yes.
Do the laws perpetuate a ruling class? Some of them, YES — if by ‘Class’ we mean ‘political party’ — e.g. laws requiring large numbers of signatures for 3rd party candidates to even get on ballots in elections, giving public funding to democrats and republicans only, etc. I would say many of our laws favor special interests with lobbying power, as opposed to favoring a single ‘ruling class’ — e.g. we have laws for defense contractors, farmers collecting agricultural subsidies, the 4.9% of the population collecting SSDI (disability insurance), etc. Who are these special interests? In many cases, US — that is, typical citizens. Once we’re 65, we will demand cost-of-living-adjustments to our social security checks. And not give a s~~~ how high taxes on young people have to go to pay it, or how many dollars must be printed to pay it.
If you get in an automobile, you ought to have to pay for roads and their maintenance. If you call the fire department if/when your house catches fire, you should have to pay for that.
I didn’t attack your character. I mentioned that you are attacking your own. I didn’t make a single derogatory statement about you. I know exactly what this word means, which is why I haven’t used Ad Hominem on anyone even a single time for the entire duration of this conversation. Last time I checked, I’m the person who told you about it. You have no case. If you refrain from using sophistry you will also refrain from damaging your own credibility. If you do not stab yourself, you will not harm yourself. This isn’t derogatory; it’s fact.
You didn’t refute a single one of the irrefutable points I presented…all you did was question my credibility with nothing to back your claim up. That sir, is an ad hominem attack…its the equivalent of calling one full of s~~~ with nothing to substantiate your claim…just a little more politely Call it what you want, you can’t change what it is, and considering you dodged every one of the absolute bullet proof points I made in that post, consider yourself DEMOLISHED.
Indeed. I don’t see why anyone should spend 12 years delving into subjects that have knowledge they will rarely or never use, when they could be focused on things they have a passion for, and interest in, and increasing their skills at their focus.
Great idea…we should be asking 5 year olds what they want to major in. Oh…wait…
Compulsory government schooling (or a government-approved substitution) is kidnapping with monies confiscated through theft. I would think a young man would have better things to do than to be sat at a desk and made to memorise trivia that will be promptly forgotten after sitting for a test. I would think there a better use for the public money than to build these leviathanesque, prison-like structures and stuff them with overpaid c~~~s and other affirmative action detritus.
However, it is useless to discuss the problems inherent to schooling without addressing the root of the problem, namely rendering human beings as chattel until their eighteenth birthday. This status of chattel is used to excuse forcible drugging with mind-altering chemicals, brainwashing, the aforementioned kidnapping at great expense, and other forms of violence e.g. spanking.
It is no surprise that as the means of engineering compliance became as potent as they have, the recent generation I unfortunately have membership has become a herd of boot-licking limp-wristed mush-minded imbeciles. I lay this on the doorstep of members of the previous generation that put them in harm’s way and were derelict in their duty of care.
There are a lot of alternative solutions to these issues that allow for more personal choice than the one-size-fits all scheme we presently employ.
Indeed. I don’t see why anyone should spend 12 years delving into subjects that have knowledge they will rarely or never use, when they could be focused on things they have a passion for, and interest in, and increasing their skills at their focus.
Anonymous24JoBauers writes: I don’t know, but I do know this: Growth enabled via FIAT currencies allow those at the top to keep getting richer while the middle class keeps getting pushed down. .
I would disagree. I save most of my income and invest it. My money is in the stock market, not savings accounts. Growth occurred before fiat currency, and after it. I would argue fiat currency, may increase growth in the short term, but retards it long term. Typically it’s coupled with an ever-increasing public sector. I’m not seeing how it impacts the middle class more. Those with more savings, will lose more if/when the crash comes.
If you want income equality, then you don’t want a free market economy.
#1 FIAT currency is the OPPOSITE of free market economy
#2 Most people do not have enough money to save and use in the stock market to keep up with inflation.
#3 I never said I wanted income equality. I was pointing out the effects of FIAT currency.
Anonymous24Compulsory government schooling (or a government-approved substitution) is kidnapping with monies confiscated through theft. I would think a young man would have better things to do than to be sat at a desk and made to memorise trivia that will be promptly forgotten after sitting for a test. I would think there a better use for the public money than to build these leviathanesque, prison-like structures and stuff them with overpaid c~~~s and other affirmative action detritus.
However, it is useless to discuss the problems inherent to schooling without addressing the root of the problem, namely rendering human beings as chattel until their eighteenth birthday. This status of chattel is used to excuse forcible drugging with mind-altering chemicals, brainwashing, and the aforementioned kidnapping at great expense, and other forms of violence e.g. spanking.
It is no surprise that as the means of engineering compliance became as potent as they have, the recent generation I unfortunately have membership has become a herd of boot-licking limp-wristed mush-minded imbeciles. I lay this on the doorstep of members of the previous generation that put them in harm’s way and were derelict in their duty of care.
There are a lot of alternative solutions to these issues that allow for more personal choice than the one-size-fits all scheme we presently employ.
Indeed. I don’t see why anyone should spend 12 years delving into subjects that have knowledge they will rarely or never use, when they could be focused on things they have a passion for, and interest in, and increasing their skills at their focus.
I agree 100%
At the end of the day, you seem to be arguing the anarcho-capitalist position: In such thinking, no taxes are valid; income tax is theft of my income; sales tax is theft. If I don’t pay taxes on my income, I’m thrown in jail, so you could argue I have no freedom. Property tax is theft. As stated previously, all of this is well and good IF all government services are provided by private entities — roads, schools, defense, police, fire, etc. Since they aren’t, you ARE using these services.
Careful Frank…if you keep calling Veni out like this he is going to question your credibility. You don’t want him to question your credibility. Any second now…he’s due for another rant about slavery and communism. Sad thing is post roads and military are in the constitution as no modern society can survive without those things, and if he claims zero tax dollars should be spent on police, fire, or school for children that poor areas should just have to do without those things, you know he’s an even more obvious troll than he comes across as.
1 – Yes and no. According to Dr. Ron Paul, legal tender laws have historically been used to buffalo unfortunate subjects in to accepting debased currency. One is not forced to transact in paper as opposed to gold, however, the tax code penalises it through taxing nominal capital gains in gold and silver at the collectibles rate of 28%. Let us say that gold is fluctuating between $1’050 and $1’100. Albert spends a 1oz krugerrand at Bob’s store one day when gold is at $1’050, and Bob in turn buys a fur coat from Carl when it is at $1’100. According to the tax code, Bob has incurred a capital gain of $50 and must be taxed. However, if gold goes down to $1’000, Bob is not credited for the capital loss. This may be regarded as a disincentive toward the use of alternative currencies.
2 – 62% of Americans have less than $1’000 in savings.
3 – Money printing benefits its first users (gov’t, banks) at the expense of the economy at large on account of the delay in prices responding. The reason that we have not seen a more significant rise in prices is because monetary velocity has declined as has the price of petrol thanks to Saudi price wars.
#1 FIAT currency is the OPPOSITE of free market economy
#2 Most people do not have enough money to save and use in the stock market to keep up with inflation.
#3 I never said I wanted income equality. I was pointing out the effects of FIAT currency.
Anonymous24At the end of the day, you seem to be arguing the anarcho-capitalist position: In such thinking, no taxes are valid; income tax is theft of my income; sales tax is theft. If I don’t pay taxes on my income, I’m thrown in jail, so you could argue I have no freedom. Property tax is theft. As stated previously, all of this is well and good IF all government services are provided by private entities — roads, schools, defense, police, fire, etc. Since they aren’t, you ARE using these services.
Careful Frank…if you keep calling Veni out like this he is going to question your credibility. You don’t want him to question your credibility. Any second now…he’s due for another rant about slavery and communism. Sad thing is post roads and military are in the constitution as no modern society can survive without those things, and if he claims zero tax dollars should be spent on police, fire, or school for children that poor areas should just have to do without those things, you know he’s an even more obvious troll than he comes across as.
I would argue that Federal taxes are the real problem. From what I understand roughly 50% of federal taxes go to our war machine, none of which is wanted by the majority of americans (as evidenced with the election of peace loving Obama who then quickly became I’llbombya once in office) So, yes, this is theft. If you LITERALLY spend half of the federal taxes on things that the majority of PEOPLE do not want, that is theft. No way around it really. No argument to be made. Consent was not even given CONSTITUTIONALLY for the war in Iraq nor the war in Libya. Both wars have laid waste to once stable countries and caused MASSIVE refugee problems as well as the rise of ISIS. So, once again, these taxes are theft. The money is not used constitutionally, nor is it used with the people’s blessing. Incoming administrations that are voted in by saying they will break from the former administrations agenda and then just double down on all of it is where the crime really happens. It is theft, it is criminal, it is unconstitutional, it is not democratic. Two party theocratic oligarchy is what it is.
Frank writes: There are a lot of alternative solutions to these issues that allow for more personal choice than the one-size-fits all scheme we presently employ.
Elaborating on what I meant by this, I object not only to ever-increasing costs of the government (public) schools, but their inefficiency. Where I live, they keep building large new buildings, palaces of cliques and groupthink.
Let’s say I want to study computer science. Why not let me spend half the day on that? Then at 16 do an apprenticeship. Learn the trade and start getting paid at 18. No need for college.
Or, I’m interested in metalworking, I start working with sheet metal, lathes, and CNC and by 18 I’m a damn good machinist ready for the work world.
And for God f~~~ing sake, TEACH personal finance. THAT is the TOP of my ‘core’ curriculum! And teach how to cook. When I was in 4th grade we learned about Java and Southeast Asia. We didn’t learn about cooking or personal finance!
Why not allow distance learning and better use computer-based training for self-paced study? Why such an emphasis on Sports where it is PART OF the schools and subsidized by the taxpayer; supporting working out, and staying in shape, that, I agree with. But why not make sports teams private & separate from schools like the UK does?
GET A JOB YOU BUM !!!!!!!!
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
