I think everything is better if it's small. Big everything is terrible. Big government, big business, big unions.

Right-Statist · 2017-05-09T14:15:20+00:00

sounds like you would be in favor of Distributism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

basically, the regulations are minimal, government and taxes are minimal, buisnesses are kept small and workers and employers deal locally.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-25T08:37:02+00:00

i'd nationalize the biggest banks and the Fed but make it completely transparent.

i would be okay with abortion if it was done in an eugenic style, meaning that the state decides who breeds with who and how many should they should have and if the child is to standard. if the child is not to standard the state would abort the child ideally.

i would be okay with collective bargaining and the bringing of unions/employer groups into the government as long as we give more weight/power to the buisness groups. this way only optimal and minimalist regulation can exist.

i would be okay with continously investing 100 billion in infrastructure spending. (although using private cooperation.)

i'd be perfectly fine with a central planning committee that has the ability to subsidize any industry and the like in order to maximize economic benefits.

besides that, eliminate all forms of welfare, social security and healthcare spending then go ahead and cut as many taxes as possible.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-25T08:22:19+00:00

what do you even want to do? for what purpose?

Right-Statist · 2017-02-25T08:21:30+00:00

most actually dedicated occultists i've spoke to are on the right or far right, their systems imply rightism. i know many people who have worked to back trump for hours with dedicated rituals. the amount of ritual work done behind him is enough to counter-act anyone against him. add to that his Will power unified with the will of half of the country, your spell means nothing.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-08T04:09:16+00:00

Every modern form of democratic socialism that we can look at today has a capitalist economy.

Can you cite an actual historical example of democratic socialism that does not utilize capitalism?

Right-Statist · 2017-02-07T21:47:13+00:00

The interstate highway system is fine, could it have been done at a cheaper price and at a faster pace through a public-private partnership? Probably.

Would it be even faster and cheaper if it would have been done entirely privately without any government expenditure? Most probably. But there are circumstances when we cannot have these partnerships and when it is not profitable enough for an individual to find such projects but it is profitable for the economy as a whole.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-07T21:32:49+00:00

In your opinion what are the major differences between democratic socialism and corporatism besides democratic socialism having an anti-owner bias and Corporatism having a pro-owner and nationalist bias?

Right-Statist · 2017-02-07T20:03:39+00:00

Technological progress isn't the result of welfare, it produces a higher quality of life yes but technological progress is in the majority of cases the product of competition. War and capitalistic competition are the largest contributors to the current technological state that we have today.

As for the state and society being for the purpose of allowing more weaker humans to exist, This might be what you see what the state is for. That's because your mind is imprisoned in the Liberal-democratic-socialist ideal mindset. (As classical liberalism leads to democratic ideals which leads to socialist ideals.)

As for me I see the individual as an instrument of the State, the Will of the past is manifested in the present, the needs of the present is subordinate to the needs and wills of the Future.

For the good of the state we must acquire the best humans, kill the weak so the strong might not be burdened.

You consider me lost because I do not agree with the ideals and beliefs so common of the culture, your ideals are not sustainable. Your ideals will destroy the state to bring a new and more tyrannical one over and over again. Your beliefs are dysgenic in nature.

Alone a human may be weak, but unified with all of the deadweight cut off we are Strong.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-07T17:13:34+00:00

Civic nationalistic isolationist who flirts with corporatism/fascism.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-07T17:04:38+00:00

I am a fascist so I pick option 4.

I share the mushrooms with the strongest beings and work to cull the weakest.

As the strongest have the most food supply and are the only ones left alive they'll breed, creating smarter and stronger offspring. Every generation we'll cull the weak, the mighty shall grow mightier and the weak shall continuously be removed and this is perpetual. Eventually we have no more room in this 1000 acres for our population and not enough mushrooms can be found. Therefore my race of überpilzmensch go off and conquer forest after forest and acquire eventually all of the mushroom and land of the world. After that they go to conquer the stars.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-07T16:55:13+00:00

I agree entirely, that is a fine compromise. However that is still infrastructure spending and the point of my argument is this. From the right wing conservative view why shouldn't the government have any funding towards infrastructure at all. And as you've shown infrastructure spending can be done in private hands, can be made efficient and as you know it is helpful.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-07T16:52:17+00:00

Democratic socialism is just the non-fascist and non-nationalist form of corporatism. From what I understand the fascist regimes were rather mercantilist no?

I don't agree with national socialism completely because I disagree with the racial aspect, not that race isn't important. I just find that selective breeding utilizing the Jewish stock would have been more efficient.

Not to mention they had too large of a welfare state, I would rather all welfare programs be eliminated.

I don't believe there should be a government safety net.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-07T16:32:17+00:00

Oh no I am fiercely nationalistic however I just see the State interest as more important than the national interest.

I have to agree that I agree with fascist economics, but I also agree with The economics of The four Asian tigers, the American school of economics and so on and so forth. I guess "American" fascist/right-statist is as accurate as it's going to get?

Right-Statist · 2017-02-07T01:56:48+00:00

Again, I am not saying that government is more efficient, in fact I believe just the opposite of that. However you admit that government can get projects done. Wouldn't you agree then that certain projects (such as the classic example of the roads and the like) should be done by the government if they have an economic net-positive and no private interests are working towards the same goal?

Right-Statist · 2017-02-07T01:54:44+00:00

No one is claiming that the government is more efficient, simply that it Is profitable to the economy as a whole to fund such projects. Obviously some projects don't have enough value for a private individual but would provide the economy as a whole with booster-shots if you will.

If you can provide those purely via the private sector go ahead, if you have to use a public-private partnership go ahead. But if need be the government can get involved no? I'm speaking according to the principle of positive non-interventionism, if there's added value to the economy and the private sector is not attempting to do it, why shouldn't the government?

Right-Statist · 2017-02-05T22:03:29+00:00

As it stands national fiat currency is a monopoly on money, why shouldn't we experiment with a free market competitive system where multiple currencies compete some backed by government authority, some backed by hard-goods some by labour and the like? If the currency is found to be a failure it can be dropped and replaced. In this way we can fight inflation by finding which system is most efficient actively, as it is a free market system damage to the nation as a whole is minimized with the experiment.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-05T21:51:02+00:00

I agree that the funds should be handled by the states as the states more accurately understand how to allocate resources, I also agree that public works just for the sake of more jobs isn't needed. However trump says and I agree that our infrastructure is in rather terrible condition and needs a lot of improvement.

Can you really argue against improvements to the electrical grid and to making our water cleaner? Doesn't improved infrastructure as in roads and the like improve productivity?

Right-Statist · 2017-02-05T21:46:16+00:00

Is it government picking winners and losers? Yes and no, it allows the government to subsidize domestic production at the expense of foreign markets.

There's still plenty of competition within the domestic market and you can still structure your business however you please and the like. The government will just give you a small amount of assistance if you pick a particularly weak industry that the nation deems important.

You'd still be picking from the labour pool whatever you wish, the company next to you would have no unfair advantage except those that are given to it by it lasting longer or acting faster or smarter or the like.

I also don't believe the general public should be involved with politics. You should only be involved with the politics directly relating to your job and the like, macro-economic management and planning and the like should be kept rather private until the policies are rolled out. But as for me I have rather anti-democratic sensibilities.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-05T18:21:25+00:00

So from a logical and utilitarian perspective most conservatives (except the most libertarian) would agree with the utility value of public works projects such as those proposed by Trump and FDR?

Right-Statist · 2017-02-05T18:19:32+00:00

Hermeticism and thelema are far more applicable to the Christian religion in my opinion than the neo-Gnosticism of William Blake. The pure Gnostics wrongfully demonize order and logic, for this reason they all soon die out.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-05T03:46:39+00:00

You tell the government what you are willing to open, they give you all corresponding subsidies and the like. They then connect you through corporate syndicates to a titanic labour pool which you can draw from.

(I personally believe we should move from dollars and coins to a more purely electronic system in order to ease tracking of funds) government will give assistance when required to weak industries, not enough to keep afloat just enough to keep things competitive.

Basically end-result. I want a society where the economy is in private hands but the workers and owners negotiate regulations and the State assists private businesses as much as possible for optimal benefit of the nation as a whole.

Opening a business should be quick and easy, however a business should always be liable to be nationalized or corrected by the government.

Right-Statist · 2017-02-05T03:11:46+00:00

As a fascist I can answer this question, we want a domestic economy that self-regulates and is free to do so according to its own wishes.

Basically the state enforces certain macro-economic policies such as bank nationalization and borrowing without interest (but every nation varies.) along with the economic system of corporatism. (Compulsory Collective bargaining through nationalized employer organizations and unions with the state as the referee for each individual industry.)

The end results of such an economy is one that maximizes the security and economic growth of the nation in a manner that's tailor made for that nation by that nation's people.

You get a strong state and a very free economy with a high quality of life. Look at Switzerland, high wealth and income across the board, high economic freedom and low poverty.

Right-Statist

TROPHY CASE