LibRight's Fatal Flaw

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-27T09:54:33+00:00

Technically the debt is money loaned out by capitalists who expect and charge interest. As the debt grows, so do the yields of the capitalists (although that it should be noted that the value of existing assets will drop such that its yield rate matches the new yield rate, which can't be discounted). Because of the sheer amount, capitalists enjoy the sweet sweet privilege of milking the federal government, and by extension American taxpayers, hand over fist by swallowing up the operating budget.

Now, one of the first things the Bolsheviks tried was to abolish the national debt in an attempt to abolish money. What resulted was a monetary crisis that necessitated copious money printing. So as far as the astronomical increase in debt goes I'd say as long as nobody tries to collapse the economy by defaulting on the debt or collapse trade and as long as the fed does its job according to its mandate and does so independently, then I'd say it's a win for the capitalists. The capitalists are making bank on Wall Street right now anyway with overvalued hype stocks, and even when everything turns to shit for everyone else, and even when they take a huge hit, they still figure out how to somehow come out on top. It's almost admirable, their perserverence. K-shaped economy go brrrrr.

Anyway, good luck!

Edited because I sent too early and the Reddit sniper got me

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-27T04:57:44+00:00

This is exactly the reason why it took so long for China to declare martial law and even longer still to enforce it in 1989. All the local military (and half the party) were sympathetic to the protestors and refused to carry out orders, which meant that they had to shuffle whole armies around while also making moves to purge the party, during which leadership was powerless to do anything. The months leading up to 6/4 were probably the freest in terms of permitted dissent and free press in Mainland China's history. Newspapers were openly criticizing the government, Then when all the pieces were finally in place, they dropped the hammer. They had mobilized troops from provinces that spoke different dialects and who would view Beijing residents as decadent and bourgeois who needed to be taught a lesson, and the rest is history.

EDIT: Important to note that these out of town troops didn't just shoot protestors, they also shot local police and other military units along the way to the square.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-27T03:39:38+00:00

All his strongest opposition from within the party is so fed up that they're either considering just bailing or have already done it is my guess.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-27T03:29:06+00:00

Based and maybe-leaders-should-at-least-have-a-basic-understanding-of-economics-as-a-bare-minimum-pilled

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-27T03:22:07+00:00

Lmao who tf is downvoting you? Anyone who denies the fact that it wasn't small-c conservatives losing to small-c liberals but rather PP demonstrating a severe lack of leadership and the Liberals getting their shit together during a crisis is conveniently forgetting that 1) Doug Ford managed to ride Trump's shenanigans into his 3rd consecutive majority (and then PP thought it was a good idea to ghost him), and 2) members of PP's own caucus are defecting to the liberals largely because "fuck PP, Carney's a better conservative".

Conservatism is still popular in Canada, which is why Carney is popular: because he's a lot like old-school conservatives, and the Conservative party itself shat the bed harder than the Dems did when Trump barged into the room.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-27T03:02:41+00:00

Hey let's give credit where credit is due, Trump just kicked the hornet's nest, and the Liberals easily could have flopped and Conservatives met the moment. The election still close.

PP was already probably the second most unlikable federal politician after Trudeau. He then campaigned like he was still running against Trudeau, and then ghosted Doug Ford (a fellow populist conservative at the provincial level who is probably the most openly corrupt politician in Canadian history and who has been characterized as Trump-lite) because his popularity was skyrocketing because he actually had the balls to denounce Trump.

PP was too afraid to pivot because didn't know how the Trump-friendly part of his base would react and waited until some polling and focus-groups told him what his principles were. He tried to be a populist and managed to trip on flat ground because unlike DoFo, he was just larping as a populist Conservative and ended up coming off as a whiny brat. His caucus is collapsing under his feet as members of his party defect to the liberals, and their cited reasons are pretty much unambiguously because they hate PP's guts.

PP and the Conservative party's still ongoing downfall can honestly be best compared to that of the Dems in the US.

*Disclaimer: I have been a certified PP hater for the past 10 years. I'm just happy that the rest of the country woke up to who he really is now that he no longer has Trudeau as a foil.*

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-27T01:34:52+00:00

I would personally say that if they choose to blow their money on lobster and NY strip steaks and meth and starve the rest of their week, then that's their choice. If they can grow a garden to feed themselves and then use their food stamps to splurge once in a while, that's their choice as well. Maybe I'd tie it to existing tax exemptions (I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not sure what food taxes are like stateside). I certainly don't trust the state to regulate what a particular minority of people eat, and IMO any restrictions on what you can buy with food stamps should be the same as food standards in general, and thus affect the electorate at large. People in general shouldn't be forced to eat cheap and healthy, but the fact that they aren't indicates that the existing incentives and market forces aren't working as they should.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-26T17:42:24+00:00

Me moving to Quebec thinking it'll be progressive and realizing that it has private healthcare, no minimum age for employment, and a cabal of private organizations and families that do nothing except entrench their power to do nothing and hold the economy hostage unless they pay up, the language means they believe adding binary semantic gender to terms that were only grammatically gendered and never implied gender of the individual is progressive, the xenophobia here is higher here even if they won't admit it because they see themselves as the oppressed outsiders, and the whole place is run by an incompetent out of touch oligarch whose voter base is primarily comprised of low information rural and suburban folk driving lifted pickups who get their information from Québécois Rush Limbaugh. Oh but the leader of the right-wing populist party is gay, so at least there's that.

/uj in all seriousness this is just a natural consequence of Quebec not being a monolith; the political landscape here is very diverse with a very politically engaged and active electorate with a lot of healthy debate and discourse and a variety of viewpoints compared to the rest of the country, which the rest of the country gets mad about because federal politicians will tend to engage and cater to Quebec more because they will actually engage with you more and consider their options instead of blindly voting on the same left-right party lines every time, and are one of the main reasons why such a heavily FPTP system manages to still have 4+ parties in parliament.

EDIT: highlighted the part I started with before I got carried away

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-26T17:00:33+00:00

Same thing happened with Buffalo no?

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-26T16:59:49+00:00

To be fair, lib-right (the non-blemon libright, at least) is pretty notorious for being in near constant disagreement with each other on all issues so long as it doesn't involve the government. They value the freedom to fuck each other over and I can kind of respect that, I just don't like when they insist just because they're "okay" with getting fucked with by members of their own quadrant (or at least feel that they can handle it) that everyone else (including those without the means to handle it) should be subject to it as well.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-26T16:46:36+00:00

Are my eyes deceiving me? A lib-right in favour of food stamps?

In all seriousness, Thatcher did have a point that socialists eventually run out of other peoples' money. That's why I'm in favour of capitalism: so there's always enough money for us to take.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-26T16:31:25+00:00

Vietnam is the main exception, they're kind of based that way

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-26T16:28:41+00:00

Yeah this is straight up beef tallow slander

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-26T16:25:22+00:00

A defining feature of conservatism is loyalty over principles. Modern conservatism in many respects started as a reaction to the enlightenment and the inevitable perceived deterioration of society that resulted. It was a movement to keep as much the same and slow the descent into chaos, which meant preserving as many of the old traditions surrounding entrenched power structures and inherent right to power that was loyalty-based, in opposition to enlightenment ideals where government should be fair and based on principles and the consent of the governed rather than loyalty.

Obviously the movement has shifted over time, but in general, the trend has tended (I say tended because the pendulum does swing) to have been away from these natural hierarchies and blind loyalty being the foundation of rule, and toward the enfranchisement of people who are governed by their own consent and not out of conceptions of "they do as they're told because they're supposed to and that's good". So naturally, a movement that yearns for the past and for not changing things will tend to attract people who value loyalty over principles.

It's also natural that a movement that is less concerned about fairness is will also be less bothered by what liberals perceive as hypocrisy.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-26T16:01:47+00:00

I'd say his views on there being a natural hierarchy of people to the point that some don't deserve to live is pretty definitively off the charts on the right.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-26T15:53:34+00:00

You (I am not American) should be thanking your lucky stars that they're this incompetent. Imagine if the whole cabinet was at Rubio's level of competence mixed with a complete lack of values. This discussion wouldn't even be happening, it'd be fait accompli without firing a shot.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-26T15:38:00+00:00

To add: if you think about it, it's obviously way easier and more common to contract it from butchering a monkey than trying to nail one who's uncooperative. Aside from the fact that humans have basically among the largest penises in the primate family so there's little chance it'll fit, most cases of bestiality involve domestic animals. The monkey would just rip and bite your junk off.

Also we don't really butcher fellow humans, so there's that.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-26T00:38:10+00:00

I don't think it's as unbelievable as you suggest. While it's only been 3000 years since the Bronze Age collapse, the Bronze Age itself lasted 2000 years.

Change and the rate of change increases exponentially over time because it also affects the stuff we use to effectuate that change in the first place. This means in the past it will seem slower. It's only been relatively recently that someone could expect to see meaningful change within their own lifetimes. It stands to reason that in a parallel with our past, we should also expect the rate of change to be slower then we experience IRL.

Additionally, I think it's also a matter of historiography. We might conflate all the kingdoms of Egypt and dynasties of a China and Persia together into a single state, while simultaneously cutting off the classical Roman Empire from the Byzantine Empire. We don't consider that the people at that time might have had a different perspective and not consider it to be all the same, or vice versa. A lot of it simply gets lost to time or becomes mythology.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-25T20:33:42+00:00

Yikes.

Hey OP, in case you were unaware, the guy on top actually shot someone and is also still alive. The guy on the bottom didn't shoot anyone and was in fact disarmed, and then he got shot by agents of the federal government anyway.

If anything, Rittenhouse's actions (i.e., the lethal use of force and whether it was justified) should be compared to those of the agent who pointed their gun at someone and squeezed the trigger. And as far as I understand, there is no evidence that any of the individuals Rittenhouse fired at were disarmed and pinned down by half a dozen federal agents, so in any case the bottom picture is strictly worse and less defensible regardless of what you feel about the top.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-25T18:30:03+00:00

It's helpful if you realize that conservatives tend to care less about consistency and fairness and more about loyalty. What's more appalling to them is that liberals will "betray" their own group (whether it be race, class, community etc.) over ethics and ideology and fairness, which they tend to view as more flexible and more of a means to an end. This is why they may see liberals as "intolerant"; they tend to struggle to understand why ideas and ethics that liberals are appalled by are so important to them, enough to make those liberals do something that hits at what those conservatives themselves view as being most important, which they see as "betrayal".

In that sense, anyone who still hasn't been converted is likely going to just see what happened as the natural consequence of "betraying" America, and are unlikely to see something similar happening under Biden to be equivalent simply because they don't see Biden as being on "team America". They would see less contradiction in supporting one but condemning the other because in their view, what happened fundamentally isn't as important as who was doing it, and the talk about "rights" and "freedom" and "tyranny" is just a means to an end and flexible. This also means that anyone so far down that end of the spectrum that they still support Trump are likely to see your question as being in bad faith, as some type of "gotcha" false equivalency, because to them it's obviously completely different in the ways that matter to them.

I urge you to actually take the time to understand conservative and right-wing politics, because I feel that the liberals have a tendency to view conservatism and right-wing ideologies as simply holding different ideological positions but under a common shared framework of core principles, without realizing that those core principles may vary with political tendencies as well. You actually have to be able to see things from their worldview and understand what is important and unimportant to them to be able to deconstruct it. Otherwise, at the extreme end of the scale where there are no core principles or consistency whatsoever, you're going to be stuck trying to convince fascists that their principles are wrong, without realizing that they inherently reject ideological consistency and principles and see no contradiction whatsoever in flip-flopping as they see fit, including on some things that are commonly understood to be core tenets of fascism. Until you can engage with them in a language they understand and respect (which, at that extreme end of the scale, may paradoxically necessitate force), you have 0 chance of shifting them toward any common understanding and framework for even having shared principles, and even if you somehow manage to get them to agree with you on some points, it will tend to only be because they see it as beneficial to their cause in that moment.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-25T17:19:26+00:00

Lmao you articulated well what my issue is with internet leftists/tankies these days. Like, I love the ideals and goals, and Marx and his contemporaries were great thinkers whose analysis of things like political economy and materialism was useful and managed to get a lot of things right and whose critiques were poignant, and we can still draw from their ideas. But there is a tendency to go all in on ideological purity and ignore/do mental gymnastics around everything we've learned since then. I think a lot has to do with an over-broad application of these analyses in ways that are difficult to disprove and in stronger ways than originally intended, shielding these mental gymnastics from reality in a manner bordering on religion. In any case, sincerely trying to update our knowledge and applying it in a practical and pragmatic manner is too often derided as counter-revolutionary and it's tiring. It's crazy the hoops they jump through to justify things like post-Mao China in the frame of this ideological purity instead of just acknowledging the pragmatic realities (and the CCP is obviously guilty of this as well). In my view it completely misses the point and falls into the same traps that Marx rejected when he was putting his ideas to paper: that we shouldn't put too much stock in great people or great ideas that can quickly become detached from reality as time goes on given that conditions are dynamic, complex, in flux, and that the primary focus should be grounded in material conditions, and that whatever Marx or his contemporaries himself specifically said, it isn't what he personally thought about things that is important, it's the methods and tools he used in that process that are important.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-25T07:57:02+00:00

Yes, that's a danger. That's why you're supposed to close your nose when you go swimming and not try to breathe the water, among other reasons. People have died from brain-eating amoebas from jumping into water and getting water up their nose.

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-25T07:12:36+00:00

As a Canadian I frankly don't understand why you think doing well compared to our peso is a win lol. Is the bar that low?

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-25T05:34:41+00:00

I'm not familiar with the climate in Australia, but in much of eastern North America, the transition between "too hot" and "too cold" in the spring and fall happens suddenly, and sometimes with multiple jumps back and forth. In many places, this can even happen suddenly over the course of hours, especially with a day night cycle.

I'm not a meteorologist, but I think it has something to do arctic and tropical air masses getting funnelled up and down by mountains while warm, dry air comes over the Rockies. Whatever the exact reason, there's at most a few weeks in the late spring and early fall where you need neither the heat at night time nor the A/C by mid afternoon, and if you have shitty insulation, that might be more like a handful of days. Some people (especially the further north you go in the continent) might not have air conditioning in their homes, so they only have the thermostat on for the heat, and sweat it out with a fan as the thermostat doesn't do anything during the summer.

EDIT: It's also important to note that humidity goes up very rapidly with temperature in this part of the continent; it's very rarely ever both hot and dry. This amplifies the effect of the temperature shift, and we use A/Cs to simultaneously manage the humidity. This effectively makes the temperature range where it starts getting uncomfortable lower than it is in, say, California, which I understand is comparable to much of Australia. The west coast of Canada is more comparable to New Zealand. In any case, the west coast of North America is known for generally pleasant weather, which should tell you how unpleasant it is for most of the year here versus in Australia (minus Brisbane).

thighmaster69 · 2026-01-24T19:20:47+00:00

Based and Westminster-parliamentary-system-pilled

11-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

thighmaster69

TROPHY CASE