The problem, or at least one of them, is people being able to vote for the state to threaten or use violence to take others property and give it to them.
This has been know as an issue for a loooong time, and it is going to bring down the west. Women, in particular, have married the state … they can now have child after child with ‘the state’ being the provider … this is a crime against the taxpayer, and it is child abuse. … However, for those who go into government because they desire power over others … it is fantastic. no group has suffered more because of the state push to get people on welfare, than minority males.
The solution, changes need to be made such that the state simply no longer has the authority to seize the earnings or assets of the population.
Laffer (of the curve fame), expressed the opinion that the state would, over the long term, maximize tax receipts with approximately 25% of GDP going to the state … we are far beyond that across the west. This means that taxation is nothing other than punitive at this point. It certainly does NOTHING to remedy wealth inequality, and democrats actions betray that they do not care about wealth inequality.
A constitutional amendment stating that no citizen can have more than 25% of their earnings taken in tax would be a start.
Question … if 100% taxation is the definition of slavery, what is 50% taxation?
test
Rush was right about what he dared to call chickification.
“Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning…Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the state’s U.S. House and Senate delegations. In the Senate, suffrage changed voting behavior by an amount equal to almost 20 percent of the difference between Republican and Democratic senators.” http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
You don’t have to vote. You can leave it up to your man.
Your response is a non sequitur. What I do in the future changes nothing about what happened to Americans’ evolving (or devolving depending on one’s point of view) relationship with, and expectations of, their governments after women secured the right to vote a century ago.
Not really non sequitur. A direct comment to what is being discussed and the topic of the discussion.
Women suffrage is an interesting story. There was a great movie, Iron Jewed Angels. Do we want to give voting to /those/ women? Ansolutely!
OTOH, allowing all Karens to vote also? Just can’t see how that leads to any good.
And by now genders are pretty mixed up, and there’s no shortage of male karens. The ripe warm-body democracy shows all the expected symptoms of dysfunction. Giving put power without attached responsibility will always come back and bite you in the ass.
As the John Lott paper pointed out, women’s suffrage was the decisive factor in enacting Prohibition – the utmost Karen moment in American history. Perhaps the lack of attached responsibility is the problem, but I’m not so sure. Take the temperance movement as an example: while the women activists correctly identified a genuine problem, their failure lay in applying the wrong tool to achieve their desired solution. I don’t imagine they could’ve ever anticipated that their good intentions would result in an unprecedented level of gangland warfare replete with mass murder by automatic weapons, an enormous loss of tax revenue at the same time they were demanding huge increases in government charity, and the break-up of the very families they meant to save as fathers wound up in prison when bootlegging offered the only available means of supporting their families when their honest, Depression-era jobs evaporated.
I came across this in a piece titled, “Women and the Progressive Movement,” by Miriam Cohen: “…in order to progress as a society, the commitment to individualism had to be tempered with an appreciation of our social bonds…they tended to focus discontent on unregulated individual power.” https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/women-and-progressive-movement
The piece describes a number of genuine social problems that women admirably assumed a responsibility to address. I wonder where our nation would be today if they hadn’t insisted that government was the one-size-fits-all solution.
I wonder where our nation would be today if they hadn’t insisted that government was the one-size-fits-all solution.
We would likely be colonizing the moons and other planets. Rugged individualism is a prerequisite for the risky ventures of exploration and alien settlement — whether the alien world is either a new continent or a celestial body.
Risk was one of the issues prompting women’s activism, and understandably so: “Given the high male mortality due to work accidents and poor job conditions, the growing numbers of young, very poor widowed mothers was a major social problem. By the early twentieth century, many family welfare experts were convinced that if at all possible, poor children of widowed mothers should be kept at home, rather than placed in orphanages, which had been the custom in the nineteenth century…” https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/women-and-progressive-movement
Risk and rugged individualism can’t ignore the realities of child dependency. It isn’t simple to strike the right balance between encouraging risk and discouraging dependency. Then as now, women inordinately bear the burden of child-rearing, so a backstop of last resort is essential. IMO, the troubles began when government muscled private charity out of existence, either entirely or by regulating it to a shadow of itself.
Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung too far, and risk aversion has become the accepted norm in too many aspects of Western civilization. This inevitably results in economic and technological stagnation, which allows the less risk averse societies (i.e., China, Iran, etc.) to dominate. Such autocratic societies are the norm in human history. For past couple of centuries, the United States has been an anomalous beacon to the world, shining the benefits of liberty, and we are pissing it all away to advantage those who prefer subjugating their citizenry to benefit a few more-equal barnyard animals.
I hope you’re wrong; I fear you’re right.
As do I.
I am often labeled a pessimist regarding human behavior; however, too often I am proven to be a realist. I always hope I am wrong in my expectations of human behavior. I am too often disappointed.
As with the first Amendment and liberty itself, not everyone will use it as you like. And removing their liberty for that reason means that there is no true liberty, just privilege. Parents are failing society, not women who vote.
Nowhere did I (or would I) suggest anyone’s legitimate franchise be taken from them. If we want to retain our liberties, as I believe we both do, it seems wise to focus our efforts where those liberties suffer the greatest threat of erosion. Over the last century, a large cohort of women have favored the (false, IMO) promise of security from government over individual liberty protected by government. Until the majority of them see the advantages of self-determination as the most effective means of serving their best interests, what hope have we of stopping the ever-increasing government intrusion bent on micro-managing every intimate aspect of our lives?
Not every comment I make is directed at you. They fit where they fit. I don’t format the blog.
Okay, you’re going to have to help me out here. Both of your posts are replies to me and use the word, “you.” Do you mean this reply isn’t directed at me, the other one isn’t, or neither is?
In English the pronoun “you” is used in a general sense to refer to general others. “You” is a plural pronoun despite its common use in modern English as a singular.
You are—–plural
They/we are—-plural
It/he/she is—–singular
Thou, Thee—-singular
The blog comment formatting is as it is. From now on Allison Ashby I will use your name when I am addressing you Allison Ashby. If I use a general ‘you’ without your name affixed then I’m speaking to general others or membership at large or the ether.
I comment on ideas and thoughts. You, Allison Ashby have ideas and thoughts but you, Allison Ashby are not your ideas or thoughts. I don’t know you Allison Ashby. I will never know you Allison Ashby. The only thing that is happening here is discussion, people saying things about stuff.
I hope that helps.
Y’all are, pardon me, pissing up a rope.
Let’s continue in Middle English, or Latin if “you” want to get too frisky.
I’m having a little fun/rum. I hope y’all are, too.
These are his observations of women based on his time in history.
He also lived in London where societal “communication” revealed much of this to him.
I think we should look at history as a teacher, both the good and the bad in this point in history.
Something can be learned from what we read. About history, about geography, politics, and even about ourselves.
I suppose if the word “womanised” was stricken from this quote, then it would be more palatable in this age of anti-feminine feminism.
But then it wouldn’t be his words from that time.
What makes any of those qualities female?
Whoever down voted me, show your face and give your reasons.
I didn’t downvote you, but it’s possible we’re just looking at a case of imprecise words and language drift. Perhaps he’s not saying those qualities are “female” so much as saying they’re “effeminate.”
Like the difference between saying “that guy is gay” and saying “that guy is a flamer.”
Perhaps you were down-voted because of your excessively-abrasive and overly-confrontational comments throughout this collection of comment threads.
Why would anyone in his/her right mind openly-admit to doing the down-vote given the apparent hostility in the tone of your comments. Such hostility is nothing but a breeding ground for retaliation and hatred — neither of which are encouraged on this web site.
I shall look to your leadership in future for proper comportment as there is no hostility ever in your tone.
Good luck. I look forward to being held to such a low standard. Edit: If you found this to be aggressive and hostile, then I suppose your search is over. 😉
Careful, the thought police will be after you …..
I say to the thought police, “Bring it on! 2+2=4.”
29 replies on “And here we are….”
The problem, or at least one of them, is people being able to vote for the state to threaten or use violence to take others property and give it to them.
This has been know as an issue for a loooong time, and it is going to bring down the west. Women, in particular, have married the state … they can now have child after child with ‘the state’ being the provider … this is a crime against the taxpayer, and it is child abuse. … However, for those who go into government because they desire power over others … it is fantastic. no group has suffered more because of the state push to get people on welfare, than minority males.
The solution, changes need to be made such that the state simply no longer has the authority to seize the earnings or assets of the population.
Laffer (of the curve fame), expressed the opinion that the state would, over the long term, maximize tax receipts with approximately 25% of GDP going to the state … we are far beyond that across the west. This means that taxation is nothing other than punitive at this point. It certainly does NOTHING to remedy wealth inequality, and democrats actions betray that they do not care about wealth inequality.
A constitutional amendment stating that no citizen can have more than 25% of their earnings taken in tax would be a start.
Question … if 100% taxation is the definition of slavery, what is 50% taxation?
test
Rush was right about what he dared to call chickification.
“Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning…Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the state’s U.S. House and Senate delegations. In the Senate, suffrage changed voting behavior by an amount equal to almost 20 percent of the difference between Republican and Democratic senators.”
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
You don’t have to vote. You can leave it up to your man.
Your response is a non sequitur. What I do in the future changes nothing about what happened to Americans’ evolving (or devolving depending on one’s point of view) relationship with, and expectations of, their governments after women secured the right to vote a century ago.
Not really non sequitur. A direct comment to what is being discussed and the topic of the discussion.
Women suffrage is an interesting story. There was a great movie, Iron Jewed Angels. Do we want to give voting to /those/ women? Ansolutely!
OTOH, allowing all Karens to vote also? Just can’t see how that leads to any good.
And by now genders are pretty mixed up, and there’s no shortage of male karens. The ripe warm-body democracy shows all the expected symptoms of dysfunction. Giving put power without attached responsibility will always come back and bite you in the ass.
As the John Lott paper pointed out, women’s suffrage was the decisive factor in enacting Prohibition – the utmost Karen moment in American history. Perhaps the lack of attached responsibility is the problem, but I’m not so sure. Take the temperance movement as an example: while the women activists correctly identified a genuine problem, their failure lay in applying the wrong tool to achieve their desired solution. I don’t imagine they could’ve ever anticipated that their good intentions would result in an unprecedented level of gangland warfare replete with mass murder by automatic weapons, an enormous loss of tax revenue at the same time they were demanding huge increases in government charity, and the break-up of the very families they meant to save as fathers wound up in prison when bootlegging offered the only available means of supporting their families when their honest, Depression-era jobs evaporated.
I came across this in a piece titled, “Women and the Progressive Movement,” by Miriam Cohen: “…in order to progress as a society, the commitment to individualism had to be tempered with an appreciation of our social bonds…they tended to focus discontent on unregulated individual power.” https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/women-and-progressive-movement
The piece describes a number of genuine social problems that women admirably assumed a responsibility to address. I wonder where our nation would be today if they hadn’t insisted that government was the one-size-fits-all solution.
We would likely be colonizing the moons and other planets. Rugged individualism is a prerequisite for the risky ventures of exploration and alien settlement — whether the alien world is either a new continent or a celestial body.
Risk was one of the issues prompting women’s activism, and understandably so: “Given the high male mortality due to work accidents and poor job conditions, the growing numbers of young, very poor widowed mothers was a major social problem. By the early twentieth century, many family welfare experts were convinced that if at all possible, poor children of widowed mothers should be kept at home, rather than placed in orphanages, which had been the custom in the nineteenth century…” https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/essays/women-and-progressive-movement
Risk and rugged individualism can’t ignore the realities of child dependency. It isn’t simple to strike the right balance between encouraging risk and discouraging dependency. Then as now, women inordinately bear the burden of child-rearing, so a backstop of last resort is essential. IMO, the troubles began when government muscled private charity out of existence, either entirely or by regulating it to a shadow of itself.
Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung too far, and risk aversion has become the accepted norm in too many aspects of Western civilization. This inevitably results in economic and technological stagnation, which allows the less risk averse societies (i.e., China, Iran, etc.) to dominate. Such autocratic societies are the norm in human history. For past couple of centuries, the United States has been an anomalous beacon to the world, shining the benefits of liberty, and we are pissing it all away to advantage those who prefer subjugating their citizenry to benefit a few more-equal barnyard animals.
I hope you’re wrong; I fear you’re right.
As do I.
I am often labeled a pessimist regarding human behavior; however, too often I am proven to be a realist. I always hope I am wrong in my expectations of human behavior. I am too often disappointed.
As with the first Amendment and liberty itself, not everyone will use it as you like. And removing their liberty for that reason means that there is no true liberty, just privilege. Parents are failing society, not women who vote.
Nowhere did I (or would I) suggest anyone’s legitimate franchise be taken from them. If we want to retain our liberties, as I believe we both do, it seems wise to focus our efforts where those liberties suffer the greatest threat of erosion. Over the last century, a large cohort of women have favored the (false, IMO) promise of security from government over individual liberty protected by government. Until the majority of them see the advantages of self-determination as the most effective means of serving their best interests, what hope have we of stopping the ever-increasing government intrusion bent on micro-managing every intimate aspect of our lives?
Not every comment I make is directed at you. They fit where they fit. I don’t format the blog.
Okay, you’re going to have to help me out here. Both of your posts are replies to me and use the word, “you.” Do you mean this reply isn’t directed at me, the other one isn’t, or neither is?
In English the pronoun “you” is used in a general sense to refer to general others. “You” is a plural pronoun despite its common use in modern English as a singular.
You are—–plural
They/we are—-plural
It/he/she is—–singular
Thou, Thee—-singular
The blog comment formatting is as it is. From now on Allison Ashby I will use your name when I am addressing you Allison Ashby. If I use a general ‘you’ without your name affixed then I’m speaking to general others or membership at large or the ether.
I comment on ideas and thoughts. You, Allison Ashby have ideas and thoughts but you, Allison Ashby are not your ideas or thoughts. I don’t know you Allison Ashby. I will never know you Allison Ashby. The only thing that is happening here is discussion, people saying things about stuff.
I hope that helps.
Y’all are, pardon me, pissing up a rope.
Let’s continue in Middle English, or Latin if “you” want to get too frisky.
I’m having a little fun/rum. I hope y’all are, too.
These are his observations of women based on his time in history.
He also lived in London where societal “communication” revealed much of this to him.
I think we should look at history as a teacher, both the good and the bad in this point in history.
Something can be learned from what we read. About history, about geography, politics, and even about ourselves.
I suppose if the word “womanised” was stricken from this quote, then it would be more palatable in this age of anti-feminine feminism.
But then it wouldn’t be his words from that time.
What makes any of those qualities female?
Whoever down voted me, show your face and give your reasons.
I didn’t downvote you, but it’s possible we’re just looking at a case of imprecise words and language drift. Perhaps he’s not saying those qualities are “female” so much as saying they’re “effeminate.”
Like the difference between saying “that guy is gay” and saying “that guy is a flamer.”
Perhaps you were down-voted because of your excessively-abrasive and overly-confrontational comments throughout this collection of comment threads.
Why would anyone in his/her right mind openly-admit to doing the down-vote given the apparent hostility in the tone of your comments. Such hostility is nothing but a breeding ground for retaliation and hatred — neither of which are encouraged on this web site.
I shall look to your leadership in future for proper comportment as there is no hostility ever in your tone.
Good luck. I look forward to being held to such a low standard.
Edit: If you found this to be aggressive and hostile, then I suppose your search is over. 😉
Careful, the thought police will be after you …..
I say to the thought police, “Bring it on! 2+2=4.”
There are FOUR lights!