Replacing Obamacare

The major problem with the American healthcare system is that it has no prices, making it a completely non market system.  It also has a massive redistribution from whites to nonwhites, which wealth redistribution system disrupts the provision of healthcare.  What tends to happen is a hospital treats a hundred illegal immigrants for morbid obesity, and they do not pay their bills, and then it treats one white male, and he does pay his bill – which is set high enough so that the one person who pays covers the hundred people who do not pay.

The best system is Singapore, which has a socialist healthcare system for the poor, and the most Ayn Randian hard core capitalist healthcare system in the world for everyone else.  Which system provides healthcare at a fraction of the cost of everyone else’s system and for the most part healthcare of substantially better quality.

If you are poor and sick, or sufficiently healthy that the quality of your healthcare does not matter much to you, you go to a government owned hospital, consult with a government employed doctor, buy government owned medicines from a government owned pharmacy.  Otherwise, you just pay for it as if you were hiring a plumber to make modifications to your bathroom. The major government intervention in the private sector is making pricing information accurate and available.  Private healthcare practitioners are free to dump people who will not or cannot pay on the socialist sector, or just not let them through the front door if they fail a credit check.

So the explicitly socialist system takes care of the pity cases, and the explicitly capitalist system takes care of everyone else.  So everyone else gets the benefits of capitalism, and only the poor or the healthy suffer the consequences of socialism.

268 Responses to “Replacing Obamacare”

  1. Reactionary Oriental Libertarians says:

    Jim I never thought I’d say this but you need to be more right-wing.

    The taxpayer should not be cucked to pay for anyone’s health care. All of the deserving poor will be able to save or borrow enough money to pay for private health care. Keep a program like this and it will expand over time until it becomes the present disaster.

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      Oops I typed an extra s

    • jim says:

      Singapore plan is doable without cancelling democracy.

      Of course, what we really need to do is cancel democracy. But, given democracy, Singapore plan is the least bad option.

      • peppermint says:

        (1) open enrollment to Medicare
        (2) legalize practicing medicine without a license. R to push for non-accredited doctors at govt facilities and D to push for govt facility tests harder than any military doctor test.

        At this point, either of those sound pretty okay to pretty much everyobe

      • torpedo says:

        > Singapore plan is doable without cancelling democracy.

        No, it isn’t. The Singapore plan only works because there is no democracy in Singapore, and it wasn’t democracy that put it into operation.

        We do not already have singaporean health care because we have democracy, and we will not be moving towards singaporean health care as long as we have democracy.

        As soon as you asked Mrs. Democracy, she’d tap into the most Ayn Randian hard core capitalist healthcare system to redistribute funds to the socialist death panels.

        Democracy is an intrinsically egalitarian, socialist process, and you can not utilize it to move from a more socialist state to a less socialist state. You can not move uphill, the sign is always zero or negative. You can vote for more socialism, but you can not vote yourself out of socialism.

        Therefore the Singapore plan isn’t doable without cancelling democracy.

        • jim says:

          As soon as you asked Mrs. Democracy, she’d tap into the most Ayn Randian hard core capitalist healthcare system to redistribute funds to the socialist death panels.

          Resulting in a non market system, for markets can only work if prices are well known – and the first thing democracy does is make healthcare unreasonably expensive for the ever diminishing number of people who can actually pay for it until everyone is forced into the socialist system, so that people in the socialist system will not be discriminated against – but the socialist system always sucks.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            If the US became Singapore I don’t see why they couldn’t just go for the full free-market solution. Singapore’s health care system is the way it is because LKY is still a bit of a leftist.

            • Steel T Post says:

              Full Free Market lets GM arbitrage labor and environmental costs between US and Mexico. Trump ran against the last 30 years of libertarian Full Free Market Solution disaster. Trump is using political power to force private companies to bring back or keep jobs in the US. Does that make Trump a bit of a leftist?

              • Cavalier says:

                All of Trump’s stated policies are frothing-at-the-mouth leftist in any year before perhaps 30BT [before Trump], but that doesn’t mean your argument isn’t the shittiest strawman I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                Lmao you’re insane if you think the last 30 years have been anything close to libertarian. Libertarianism died in 1929 with the start of the New Deal at the latest.

                • peppermint says:

                  The grain of truth is that the jewspapers and jewsmagazines were telling Whites 30 and 50 years ago that the Japanese were scary good at business due to nationalistic business strategies but Whites are only allowed to compete on a strictly colorblind basis and Whites should take pride in their free society.

                  Lolbergtarianism was an evil minded Jew hoax just like the contemporaneous philosophies like cuckstainty and secular humanism and neoconservatism.

                  Neoreaction was initially supposed to convince Whites to allow Jews to openly rule over them in exchange for less nigger violence as seen in Chicago this week, and today’s “alt-lite” is basically reformed neoconservatism which will permit the Jews to remain marrano until the heat is off.

                  Revilo Oliver talk about Lolbergtarianism in a commentary on a jewsmagazine article ca.40 years ago, but I’ve lost the reference, so feel free to believe you came up with it yourself in order to get away with countersignaling affirmative action while calling for increased acceptance of faggotry, drug use, divorce, and immigration.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  “Free Trade” with every turd world country and communist china was promoted by libertarian policy wonks as promoting libertarian ideals; you’d admit that if you were anything close to honest.

                  Me insane? I’m amused how LoLbertarians medicalize disagreement more fervently than the KGB ever did. I think I finally discovered why…

                  “This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right.” -Marxism of the Right (The American Conservative, March 2005)

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Sorry Peppermint, I admit that all libertarians like Locke and the founding fathers were actually Jews in disguise. Didn’t you know Thomas Jefferson was an Israeli citizen? Also the Roman destruction of the temple was a hoax, the Jews blew it up themselves.

                  If you think that without leftism whites won’t be able to compete with Japan when Japanese companies are losing market share at the moment due to their own left singularity and not being able to fire anyone your assessment of whites is not much higher than BLM.
                  Also, I or any other consistent libertarian do not accept gay marriage, increase in divorce or left-wing strategic immigration so that’s a misnomer.

                  Steel T Post, US government taxes 40%+ of income, has a regulatory code that’s tens of thousands of pages and constantly screws up the economy with the Fed, feminism, affirmative action and a Ferguson here or there. From this you conclude the US is 1) libertarian and 2) is losing to free trade. Give me a break.

                  Without China US manufacturing would have shut down long ago due to the red tape that Washington’s pouring out. If your theory is right, how come the U.S. did very well in the late 1800s back when it was actually libertarian and government taxed just 7% of income?

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “Neoreaction was initially supposed to convince Whites to allow Jews to openly rule over them in exchange for less nigger violence as seen in Chicago this week, and today’s “alt-lite” is basically reformed neoconservatism which will permit the Jews to remain marrano until the heat is off.”

                  Not entirely inaccurate, and also not entirely accurate. A meritocratic aristocracy would be disproportionately Jewish, but still mostly non-Jewish. What is wrong with allying with Jews, a superior people, to contain the inferior peoples, and establish functional laws? You present it like exclusive Jewish government, which would be unacceptably dangerous.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  It’s not my theory on the last 30 years of free trade, I just read Paul Craig Roberts. The fellow that President Reagan appointed as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy. The fellow who drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy, including tighter monetary policy to restrain inflation and lower marginal tax rates to incentivize work and investment. Associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. Regular columnist at LewRockwell.

                  Sorry, not gonna give you a break.

                  “In the past, we have supported free trade policies. But if the case for free trade is undermined by changes in the global economy, our policies should reflect the new realities.” -Second Thoughts on Free Trade, 2004 NYT OpEd

                  He has plenty of reasons why in his books and available on his website. LoLbertarians consider it heresy, but who cares about losers anyway? Some of us would rather become tired of winning, and then win some more. Bigly!

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  You failed to address any of my points. Any government taxing 40% of your income is not and can not be libertarian or even called Sane. I don’t know where you got this notion that inflation, taxation, excessive regulation, affirmative action and riots doesn’t wreck the economy but cheap Chinese toys do.

                  Try importing some sugar in the US if you think we have free trade. US has 12,000 tariffs. Stop trying to cuck the consumer more. Why is Hong Kong richer than America with close to zero unemployment while having a 0% tariff? http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-tariffs-2010-9

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Trump’s Medical Savings Account plan, paralleling that of Singapore’s, is “cucking the consumer?” kek! Thanks for that LoLbertarian “point.” Are you too young to know what cuck actually means?

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  You clearly did not read my post properly if you didn’t realize I was referring to tariffs cucking the consumer. Then again you think a nation with 12,000 tariffs practices free trade.

                  I clearly stated above I favor full free market health care which is far to the right of Trump’s plan or that of Singapore. Stop disingenuously changing the topic. We were talking about tariffs, not health care.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Speaking of Singapore what’s Singapore’s tariff rate again? I’ll give you a hint. It starts with Z and ends with O. But no, clearly we need to listen to Paul Craig Roberts isntead.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Why does every single libertarian, when he’s losing an argument, accuse his betters of being unable to read?

                  LoLbertarian: “Stop disingenuously changing the topic. We were talking about tariffs, not health care.”

                  Weird, the topic here is “Replacing Obamacare.” Which is health care.

                  I think you’re projecting your inability to read on to me. What do you think of that hypothesis? ANSWER THE QUESTION!

                  *snort*

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I have never seen anyone give a convincing argument for tariffs on any alt-right comment section, only mockery of the opponents of tariffs. Mockery is fine after victory, but mockery is not a substitute for victory.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “I have never seen anyone give a convincing argument for tariffs on any alt-right comment section”

                  Used properly, tariffs protect domestic industries and stick other countries with some of the cost of operating the federal government. Before the Civil War and income taxes, tariffs funded most of the government.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  That’s a claim, not an argument. Why should I believe that tariffs benefit domestic industries, at least more than they harm domestic consumers and unprotected industries?

                  If the US tariffing China benefits the US, does New York tariffing LA benefit New York? If so, does it benefit LA? Should New York and LA “appropriately” tariff each other?

                  If the government is a capable arbiter of such “appropriate” tariffs, doesn’t this then imply there should be complete state control of trade?

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Yeah sure, Cromwell, if a government can lay tariffs, that means totalitarian control of trade. For example, the United States’ “complete state control of trade” in the 1800’s.

                  Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

                  Funny how LoLbertarians praise the 1800’s as the highest example of free market — which happened when tariffs funded the largest percentage of government, thereby implying “”complete state control of trade.” kek!

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I said the logic underlying tariffs for promotion of certain industries was the same as that underlying GOSPLAN, or at least it is not obvious to me why they are different, not that implementing one policy meant implementing the other.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Certain industries do need protected by the government of a nation. It’s rather difficult to go to war when all your shipbuilding yards and steel mills have been outsourced overseas.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  There might be a strategic imperative to retain certain industries but that is a different argument, and most production in developed countries is not militarily significant.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “the logic underlying tariffs for promotion of certain industries was the same as that underlying GOSPLAN”

                  The logic underlying the central planning of the commies was “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. The logic underlying tariffs is “American industry is vital to America’s national vigor, and without tariffs everything that can be outsourced to worker-ants in China for 10c an hour, will be”.

                  “doesn’t this then imply there should be complete state control of trade?”

                  If a country doesn’t have complete _sovereign_ control of what enters and exits its borders, it isn’t a country, or won’t be for very long. Das Trümpenfuhrer made this point rather well.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Another way of putting it is this: “Who matters more, the American worker, or the American consumer?”

                  Production, or consumption?

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Sorry, Cromwell, bringing up defense considerations is not a different argument, being that the argument is tariffs. Brush off fail.

                  Remember what the Constitution says regarding the purpose of tariffs? “…the common Defence AND general Welfare of the United States…”

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “The logic underlying the central planning of the commies was “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.”

                  Rubbish. The USSR was extremely class stratified. The rationale for state planning was that the state made better decisions than the market. If Americans in the market make bad decisions when trading with Japan, probably New Yorkers in the market make bad decisions when trading with LA, and probably Manhattanites make bad decisions when trading with Brooklynites, and soon you have the state in charge of all trades.

                  Or if not, why not? What is special about trade between countries?

                  The logic underlying the central planning of the commies was “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. The logic underlying tariffs is “American industry is vital to America’s national vigor, and without tariffs everything that can be outsourced to worker-ants in China for 10c an hour, will be”.

                  “The logic underlying tariffs is “American industry is vital to America’s national vigor, and without tariffs everything that can be outsourced to worker-ants in China for 10c an hour, will be”.”

                  Which is a mood association, not an argument. If I make a machine that can produce for 10c/hour what current workers produce for $20/hour, I am called Henry Ford. If I outsource to Chinamen for the same saving, I am a bloodsucker on the health of the nation. Why?

                  Now I well understand if possession of the machine is necessary for security reasons – perhaps the machine makes bombs that would be dropped on Chinamen – but that isn’t the case for most of the consumer crap America (or any other country, I’m not American) buys.

                  “If a country doesn’t have complete _sovereign_ control of what enters and exits its borders, it isn’t a country, or won’t be for very long. Das Trümpenfuhrer made this point rather well.”

                  The US has the ability to shut its borders to goods in some approximation, just as it has the ability to nationalise all private property in some approximation. We are discussing whether it is a good idea.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “Sorry, Cromwell, bringing up defense considerations is not a different argument, being that the argument is tariffs. Brush off fail.

                  “Remember what the Constitution says regarding the purpose of tariffs? “…the common Defence AND general Welfare of the United States…”

                  Defence considerations only justify tariffs in a handful of industries, at most. If that is what we are talking about, I concede the point. If we are talking about tariffs imposed on most or all imports, with the goal of making imports of anything that could reasonably be produced in the US negligible (I guess you don’t want to ban champagne or Aston Martin imports), then I do not.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Talking about good ideas, I think it’s a good idea for libertarians to drop the laughable hyperbole that Constitutional Tariffs (Article 1, Section 8) are equivalent to a Soviet Gosplan. But you won’t tone it down, and you’ll keep losing in the marketplace of ideas and losing election after election worse than Hillary did. Oh well, that’s actually a good thing while we actually come up with a viable alternative to Obamacare.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I’m not a US citizen, so don’t care about your constitution, and am not very surprised that my chances of winning a US election are low.

                  You might be confused, and think you are on National Review or something. I don’t recognise the handle at least. This blog is for discussion of ideas, not posturing party loyalty.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  This blog’s topic at hand is replacing Obamacare. That’s an American problem, in case you were unaware or confused, Cromwell.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  That has nothing to do with whether tariffs are beneficial or not.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “The rationale for state planning was that the state made better decisions than the market.” is the same thing as “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The idea was that the wealth distribution was unfair and should be more fair, hence ultrademocracy imported from America, hence the soviets, hence no private property, hence the liquidation of the kulaks. Everything in Soviet Russia was done in the name of the workers, comrade. That the results were astonishingly bad for the workers is to the surprise of no one.

                  “NY, LA strawman”

                  The USA is a sovereign entity. China is a sovereign entity. Russia is a sovereign entity. The other 190-something independent countries are putatively sovereign entities. Neither NY nor LA are sovereign entities in fact or theory. Nor are the “states”, made plainly evident by the plaintive pleas for the return of “states’ rights”. States, sovereign, self-governing, and self-defending entities, don’t need “rights”.

                  “What is special about trade between countries?”

                  Sovereignty.

                  “If I am not Henry Ford but a bloodsucker on the health of the nation, why?”

                  Henry Ford revolutionized industry for America, transportation for Americans, created an entire employment category for god-knows-how-many American workers, and went on to reinvest his accumulated wealth in the well-being of America. He enriched America, and he tried to do good with the Ford Foundation, though we know that institution was subverted in short order.

                  The man who takes an established process and ships it overseas does none of those things. He is exporting dollars, technology, and American jobs, and pocketing the difference. China has shiny gleaming megacities today because since Nixon we have sold off and sold out a big chunk of our country and given it to them.

                  Put simply: tariffs are beneficial because it is better for us to produce our own things that to import them, because by importing things from our enemies we enrich them and impoverish ourselves. It’s a pretty sweet deal for Federal Reserve & Co., though.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Sovereignty is ability to exercise some power, not a requirement to do so against one’s better judgement. Sovereignty also requires the ability to nationalise the economy, but if it then requires actually nationalising the economy then the US needs GOSPLAN in order to be sovereign. You reject this conclusion. You claim to reject that conclusion.

                  China has gleaming cities because its cities were built in the past 15 years, whereas US cities are grimy because it takes more than 15 years to commission a new building in a US city. This is a result of regulation; tariffs are irrelevant.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  The claims alt leftists in this thread are making are insane. If tariffs are such a great idea why are Victorian England, Hong Kong and Singapore, all of which had close to zero tariffs, far better than the US which has 12,000 tariffs? If tariffs on goods between China and US are good then so is tariffs on goods between NY and LA.

                  Similarly, banning outsourcing, which is manufacturers’ response to high taxes, regulations, unions and affirmative action, is pure insanity and will produce a manufacturing sector with Mexican efficiency and probably labour force given affirmative action laws. If you want to bring back manufacturing, get rid of high taxes, regulations, unions and affirmative action. Every other solution is leftist cuckery of the consumer.

                  Libertarians need to be more right wing on gender and race per Jim, but you guys seriously need to learn some economics and stop parroting New Deal leftism. Right now you guys are Bernie Sanders relative to Mises Institute Libertarianism.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Funny how dimwits who yap on about Mises seem to never have read what he wrote. But do bang on about how “freedom of migration throughout the world” is, um, hardcore right wing. kek!

                  “Without the reestablishment of freedom of migration throughout the world, there can be no lasting peace.” -Ludwig von Mises
                  http://fee.org/articles/immigration-controls-are-socialist/

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Mises supported freedom of migration with no welfare, affirmative action or other leftist cuckery like what 19th century America had. Maybe he was wrong since old America would surely have gone leftist slower without importing ancestors to dimwits like yourself.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  (((Mises))) the globalist supported freedom of migration; that’s cuckery, in any context.

                  “However, for Mises, cultural considerations are mainly an aside. In general, he saw conflicts over immigration as being driven mostly by protectionism rather than insurmountable differences in human beings or cultures (1935).”
                  http://mises.org/library/mises-protectionism-and-immigration

                  Funny how those southern boys in Auburn are in thrall to an International Jew’s globalism.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  19th century America had free immigration and it worked fine because anyone who came here had to sink or swim since welfare and affirmative action did not exist. Most people swam.

                  Only thing I would fix is to get rid of democracy because importing dimwit white nationalists like yourself who supported progressives’ cucking of Aryan capitalists and America’s libertarian traditions (pre-1960s leftism) is what lead us into this disaster in the first place.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  1800’s America didn’t have free immigration. The Naturalization Law of 1790 (1 Stat. 103) limited it to “free white persons of good character.” The Page Act of 1875 prohibited those deemed “undesirable,” specifically, Asians like you. Etc., etc. Give’er another try, boy.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Because we all know about the problems caused by Asian immigrants. Oh wait?… Anyways banning one race after 3/4 the century has passed is still pretty close to open borders.

                  Guess who supported banning Asian immigrants? Leftists.
                  From wikipedia: “Denis Kearney (1847–1907) was a California labor leader….he frequently gave long and caustic speeches that focused on four general topics: contempt for the press, for capitalists, for politicians, and for Chinese immigrants. ”

                  Guess who supported getting in Asian immigrants? Ex-Confederates.
                  https://abagond.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/chinese-americans-in-the-deep-south-after-1882/

                  Pretty clear whose side you’re on.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “The Naturalization Law of 1790 (1 Stat. 103) limited it to “free white persons of good character.””

                  Nonwhites were clearly permitted to immigrate. Plenty of Hispanics and Chinese (pre 1882) in America in 1800s. Citizenship is another matter. Nonwhites not voting isn’t a bad idea. In fact no one should vote except an NRx aristocracy.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Pretty clear whose side I’m on? Do tell, gook.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Manufacturing _is_ the middle class. If you want a middle class, you have to have manufacturing, you have to _make things._ If you want to export _making things,_ you abolish the middle class, which is exactly what our rulers have done, and what is happening as a result—not accidentally, mind you, but intentionally. (By the way, if you want to abolish the high traditions of war, you abolish the aristocracy.)

                  I suppose it’s just a coincidence that at the exact same time that the American economy of REAL STUFF is collapsing, that the Chinese economy of REAL STUFF is booming. It’s just a coincidence that as the American middle class shrivels up and dies, a new Chinese middle class springs into existence. Just a coincidence.

                  If I were king, I would say that if it’s sold in America, it has to be made in America. BMWs can be sold in America, but they have to be designed and made in America. Intel chips can be sold in America, but they have to be designed and made in America. European countries could become American states if they wanted, and we would proceed forth with the new and improved Worldwide Manifest Destiny of making the world great as England once made America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand great.

                  Tariffs are a way of saying that our people’s labor is more important and more valuable than foreigners’ labor. It’s called protectionism because it _protects._

                  Entire industries offshore themselves because it’s cheaper to employ third-world labor monkeys than it is real humans. If you let them get away with it, they will. Trump did it as a businessman because it was the smart business decision. He promises to stop it as a Presiführer because he knows that it hurts the _country._

                  Asians are a problem as every nonwhite racial group is a problem: they degrade our national identity, dissolve our national cohesiveness, and taint our gene pool. Nonwhites want to live in white spaces because they accrue benefits from being around white people; it follow that we are supporting freeloaders in some form or fashion. If nonwhites weren’t defective (equilibria) humans, especially relatively (relatively) capable nonwhites like the Chinese, they wouldn’t have any desire to live amongst white people. For that matter, it isn’t just restricted to nonwhites; white people from outside the Hajnal line are a problem as well, just a problem whose severity is dwarfed by the Moslem problem, the African problem, the Indian problem, the Jewish problem, and the Hispanic problem. Did I forget anyone? oh yes, the (rootless international cosmopolitian) Brahmin problem, the greatest of all.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Tariffs are a way of saying that our people’s labor is more important and more valuable than foreigners’ labor. It’s called protectionism because it _protects._”

                  Guess North Korea and Tokugawa Japan must have the highest wages ever then and Hong Kong and Singapore the lowest…oh wait.

                  “Manufacturing is the Middle Class.”

                  Correct. The solution is to go back to laissez faire and get rid of high taxes, regulations, affirmative action and unions. Keep those four things and your new tariff protected manufacturing base will have a Mexican efficiency or even work force while America’s consumers get cucked as the CPI triples.

                  US South, where unions are not privileged, is substantially more competitive in terms of manufacturing than elsewhere. Wages are not the only thing in manufacturing costs. 19th century US had close to the highest wages in the world at the time and was still competitive.

                  “Asians are a problem as every nonwhite racial group is a problem”

                  White nationalists’ hatred of people like me and love of Trigglypuff because of her melanin is why it’s fundamentally stupid. Take a leaf from your Victorian English ancestors and learn how to rule over nonwhites in your lands without being cucked or going Nazi.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “Best Korea, pre-White man Japan”

                  NEAsian countries are prosperous because we invent lots of cool new technologies and ship them over there, where they are copied, sometimes improved, and often, depending on the technology, executed into existence as well as, or sometimes better than, our increasingly degenerate countries. Hence why Japan has bullet trains far surpassing our miserable excuse for transportation, cities surpassing ours, and now China is following rapidly behind. And you squinty-eyed rice people are better-adapted to living at very high population densities, so there’s that.

                  The prime utility of North Korea is that it is a pristine example of what NEAsians are capable of when a) they are largely cut off from White man technological advancements, and b) completely cut off from White man trade. The Japanese are noticeably superior to the Koreans, and there is no reason to think that Japan would not still be Tokugawa Japan, less exposure to the White man. Some create culture, some maintain culture, some destroy culture. Asians are maintainers.

                  What I mean when I say that Asians “degrade our national identity, dissolve our national cohesion” is precisely that you are not really on our side. Your freeloader status in whitey land is questioned, and your first response is to accuse me of HATE. HATE? Really? You think accusing me of HATE is going to work on me, me of all people, and in of all places this deep dark corner of the Internet? Your disloyalty is the primary reason you have to go back, not your genetics, though your genetics are a close second.

                  As for Trigglypuff, under my reign she would remain, not having a foreign homeland to go back to, and would be well-cared for and comfortable, as much so as an abomination can be, but her bloodline wouldn’t make it into the next generation.

                  And, you may not be familiar with the blue-eyes devil’s history, but in the late 19th century, England was entirely English, the rapidly expanding borders of America were entirely American, except for the former Rebel regions, Germany was entirely German, Paris was still recognizable as a French city, and so on and so forth. I’ll take a leaf from my English ancestors gladly. I would love to make the world great as England once made America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand great. Though I rather think you don’t have in mind England’s successes, but its failures, such as India, large parts of Africa, large parts of the Middle East, and other places. It was colonialism, after all, which began the utterly disastrous population explosion that now culminates in 2 billion Africans just 20 years from now, the greatest ecological catastrophe since before the last ice age. If my ancestors could have imagined that those Stone Age primitives would multiply by a factor of 20 in just 2 short centuries and soon outnumber their own posterity in their own countries, they would have behaved very differently indeed.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Best Korea, pre-White man Japan”

                  North Koreans eat their dead relatives occasionally and their girls dream about selling themselves to Chinese peasants for less than US$500. Japan has a super high suicide rate, 30% of Japanese men live in their mom’s basements and are kissless virgins, a vast proportion can’t get a job because of US imposed labour laws. China is pretty good but still significantly worse than Victorian England or 19th century US.

                  If your goal is to turn the US into North Korea, then all the nonwhites will leave and be very happy to do so. Along with every white with a brain. Anyways just more proof for the IQ study I’ve been posting a lot.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Some create culture, some maintain culture, some destroy culture. Asians are maintainers.”

                  Whites also invented leftism, which has a pretty good chance of wiping out every race with above 100 IQ over the next century. I’d consider it even.

                  “degrade our national identity, dissolve our national cohesion”

                  What cohesion do you have with white leftists? War to cuck the south, Progressive movement, New Deal were all launched by white leftists against other whites. Race improves cohesion but it’s not the only thing.

                  “Though I rather think you don’t have in mind England’s successes, but its failures”

                  It’s pretty obvious your program of tariffs and ethnic cleansing involves massive cucking of white elites in favour of people like Trigglypuff and UAW auto workers demanding 3 hour lunch breaks. Which is exactly what lead to the Cathedral’s victory in the first place. Leftists in the 19th century US opposed Chinese immigration while ex Confederates supported it. Even abolitionism got a lot of its support from people who didn’t want to compete with southerners. If you guys had stuck to libertarianism, we wouldn’t be in this mess today.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Whites also invented leftism…”

                  Read the description of 10th century Baghdad in Fate of Empires.

                  “When I first read these contemporary
                  descriptions of tenth-century Baghdad, I
                  could scarcely believe my eyes. I told myself
                  that this must be a joke! The descriptions
                  might have been taken out of The Times
                  today. The resemblance of all the details was
                  especially breathtaking—the break-up of the
                  empire, the abandonment of sexual morality,
                  the ‘pop’ singers with their guitars, the entry
                  of women into the professions, the five-day
                  week. I would not venture to attempt an
                  explanation! There are so many mysteries
                  about human life which are far beyond our
                  comprehension.”

                • pdimov says:

                  “people like Trigglypuff”

                  People like Trigglypuff are spoiled children. Irrelevant for our purposes.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Read the description of 10th century Baghdad in Fate of Empires.”

                  Arabs had degeneracy in one city that was quickly suppressed by Persian and Turkish mercenaries. Current Anglo Empire exports leftism across the globe to ensure everyone has welfare state, below replacement and dysgenic fertility and affirmative action.

                  “People like Trigglypuff are spoiled children. ”

                  Point I am making is race increases cohesion ceteris paribus, but there are a lot of other factors. If you guys said what you said here in front of at least 50% of whites, they would report you to the government.

                  The reason I like libetarianism is because it is a natural order based on the market and family. Everyone’s interests are aligned through contracts and marriage, and it fits well with the fact that people have concentric circles of loyalty.

                  Leftism, by contrast, posits a unity that does not exist, and white nationalism is no different. Fundamentally, white nationalism is basically redistribution from a large number of whites, perhaps the majority, to benefit the worst parts of the white race. From a rational perspective there is absolutely no reason a white family should not have a Hispanic maid or cheaper electronics so someone like Trigglypuff can have a job making handcrafted toys. It can be a tool to fight leftism, but it cannot be the base of a sustainable order.

                • jim says:

                  I doubt that our current degeneracy will last much longer than Baghdad’s degeneracy. Degenerate societies get conquered by patriarchal cultures, or simply disappear through failure to reproduce.

                  But degeneracy and leftism show up over and over again throughout history.

                  Like entropy, it is chronic and natural, it just keeps being cleaned up by conquest and annihilation.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Fundamentally, white nationalism is basically redistribution…”

                  Fundamentally, white nationalism is the idea that you should stay in your own country.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Current Anglo Empire exports leftism across the globe…”

                  The amusing part is that those are the same people who came up with classical liberalism and libertarianism.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “I doubt that our current degeneracy will last much longer than Baghdad’s degeneracy. Degenerate societies get conquered by patriarchal cultures, or simply disappear through failure to reproduce.”

                  Jim you are far too optimistic. Baghdad did not have 8000 nukes. If there is an attempt to overthrow the left the right better win quickly and make sure all the nuke subs are accounted for.

                  “The amusing part is that those are the same people who came up with classical liberalism and libertarianism.”

                  When they were classical liberal they were the greatest empire that ever existed in extent, power and liberty. Hence why I advocate going back to that situation.

                  “Fundamentally, white nationalism is the idea that you should stay in your own country.”

                  Again, you are thinking democratically. As our exchange on the Belgian Congo shows, peace and prosperity primarily results from policies, since 9% taxation was sufficient to keep order in a country where 99% of the population were lowest IQ and most violent blacks. If you have a sane, effective and minimal government what’s wrong with a productive brown subject? If you don’t, then you need to get one before the left singularity comes.

                  White nationalism in the sense that white nations would normally have a white majority and government due to high fertility and native status is true and common sense. White nationalism in the sense you should tax elite whites to subsidize Trigglypuff and Applachia whites who live on food stamps while excluding someone like Einstein and Lee Ka Shing from living and contributing to the nation is what I’m arguing against.

                • jim says:

                  Baghdad did not have 8000 nukes.

                  America does not have 8000 nukes. When the generation that built those nukes retired or died, maintenance stopped. Nobody knows what proportion of our nukes are still functional, but we do know it is far less than the official numbers.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “America does not have 8000 nukes. When the generation that built those nukes retired or died, maintenance stopped.”

                  Submarine mounted nukes?

                • pdimov says:

                  “If you have a sane, effective and minimal government what’s wrong with a productive brown subject?”

                  Nothing at all. Feel free to invite a few million into your own country. No white nationalist will mind.

                  “White nationalism in the sense that white nations would normally have a white majority and government due to high fertility and native status is true and common sense.”

                  How about white nations having a white majority and government due to not letting nonwhites in en masse? Seems easier and less prone to accidents.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Nothing at all. Feel free to invite a few million into your own country. No white nationalist will mind.”

                  Quite a few whites and browns in HK and Singapore. Quite a few white expatriates in China. Not a problem with efficient law enforcement despite them spreading Cathedral ideology.

                  “How about white nations having a white majority and government due to not letting nonwhites in en masse? Seems easier and less prone to accidents.”

                  As I said repeatedly, letting in browns now, is insanity. Even Asians to some extent due to their voting patterns. However, in a system like 1776, assuming they cannot vote and the state is efficient, I do not see them being any more of a threat than HK’s Flipinos or Egyptians under Lord Cromer.

                  A 100% white state is less prone to accidents, but the effect is pretty minor considering America went insane back when it was the most white. Better to focus on suppressing leftism of any colour.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Also achieving a 100% white state tends to promote leftism due to promoting the belief that all whites are equal. Why do you think ex confederates supported letting chinese in back in 1800s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Labor_in_the_Southern_United_States) while leftists were opposed? Search “Dennis Kearney”

                  If you guys take over but don’t get rid of the idea of equality, leftism is going to come back with a vengeance.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Quite a few white expatriates in China.”

                  May I ask to what the “Oriental” part of you handle refers? Where are you from?

                  “In practice, naturalizing as a Chinese national is rare. During the Fifth National Population Census (2000), only 941 naturalized citizens not belonging to any of China’s recognized 56 indigenous ethnic groups (which includes Koreans, Vietnamese, and Russians)[13] were counted in China’s mainland.[14] As of 2010, the total number naturalised Chinese was only 1,448 (that is to say, 507 people were naturalised between 2000 and 2010).[15]”

                  They should have naturalized 40 more. Then again, maybe they did in 2011, to round up the number.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “May I ask to what the “Oriental” part of you handle refers? Where are you from?”

                  I am ethnic Chinese. Don’t want to disclose too many details but I have worked and lived extensively in various parts of North America, China and HK in past.

                  “They should have naturalized 40 more. Then again, maybe they did in 2011, to round up the number.”

                  Dude go to any Shanghai or HK night club. At least 20 percent of the people there are white. Thousands of online Chinese language posts by Chinese betas raging against white male miscegnation with ethnic Chinese females in Shanghai or HK.

                  Notice how I said EXPATRIATES. I am totally fine with nonwhites not having citizenship in white countries as long as they have legal protection. East Asians should be guests in white countries, whites should be guests in East Asian countries. But guests should not be banned if they behave themselves and contribute value to the host society.

                • jim says:

                  Notice how I said EXPATRIATES. I am totally fine with nonwhites not having citizenship in white countries as long as they have legal protection. East Asians should be guests in white countries, whites should be guests in East Asian countries. But guests should not be banned if they behave themselves and contribute value to the host society.

                  Agreed. Similarly, Jews. Every productive and valuable person who complies with the host country laws and customs and can pay his own freight should be allowed in a country and allowed to own stuff – but not allowed to participate in government of that country nor in quasi governmental institutions. Whites should not be allowed to vote in Japan, nor Japanese to vote in the US. Allowing them to do so undermines social cohesion in the ruling elite. Dubai is better off with the government staffed by loyal low IQ arabs than disloyal high IQ expatriates.

                • pdimov says:

                  People always behave themselves when they know they can be kicked out at a moment’s notice. That’s of course not very “muh rights” libertarian, but it does work.

                  I wonder. Can whites own property in China? Buy a house? If not, we’re very far from libertarianism.

                • pdimov says:

                  “People always behave themselves…”

                  … to the best of their ability, which in some cases admittedly isn’t much.

                • pdimov says:

                  Vancouver is the canonical example of what happens when you allow the Chinese to buy out your city. It’s far from a Detroit-level disaster, but it’s no longer Canadian-level white either.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Pdimov, I can tell from your comments you have never visited or gone to China.

                  White privilege does not exist in North America but arguably in China due to leftism. Maoism completely obliterated the prestige of traditional Chinese culture, most Chinese literally worship everything White. My HK ex girlfriend thinks every major white city must be bigger and more beautiful than HK despite the latter having 20 story buildings in the suburbs.

                  Although on average I find white girls to be more sexual than Chinese girls, Chinese girls’ behavior when encountering white males is appallingly bad and proves everything Jim said on this blog. Even my rich Brahmin Cathedral Chinese friends who sympathize with the Dalai Lama are disgusted at their behavior. Jim’s theory that white males are cucked in Scandinavia is the same for China, except with whites playing the roles of Muslims.

                  Similarly, whites receive substantially better legal protection from Chinese police than Chinese citizens and white investors are subject to way less extortion to avoid “international incidents.”

                  You guys think China is some sort of ethnostate. It’s just a more right wing version of the Cathedral. Muslims = Blacks, Tibetans = Hispanics, Whites = Jews. End of story.

                  Final link for entertainment purposes: https://www.chinasmack.com/foreign-men-boast-about-sexual-conquests-in-china-reactions

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Vancouver is the canonical example of what happens when you allow the Chinese to buy out your city.”

                  Vancouver is a great city to live in. Housing prices are high due to zoning laws. If Vancouver is your poster boy for how subversive the Chinese are you are mighty short for poster boys.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  ” That’s of course not very “muh rights” libertarian, but it does work.

                  I wonder. Can whites own property in China? Buy a house? If not, we’re very far from libertarianism.”

                  Keeping those who would destroy libertarianism out of the state and if necessary out of the country does not in any way contradict libertarianism.

                  If you were capable of reading Chinese, I have 1000 links complaining about white corporations owning a disproportionate % of the Chinese economy. Whites in China are significantly more subversive of the existing order and badly behaved in terms of miscegnation than Chinese in white countries.

                • jim says:

                  Whites in China are significantly more subversive of the existing order and badly behaved in terms of miscegnation than Chinese in white countries.

                  Depends on what you mean by the existing order and what you classify as bad behavior. Seems to me that Chinese in white countries are more prog that whites in China.

                  And as for miscegenation, its always women that call the shots, topping from the bottom, women that do the choosing. The reason that the law should give women very little power, is that nature gives them far too much.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Whites in China are significantly more subversive of the existing order and badly behaved in terms of miscegnation than Chinese in white countries.”

                  Oh I’m not disputing that. This is not a contest. Keep whites out.

                  The link was amusing.

                  I actually visited Beijing, decades ago. Things were kind of different then. No private ownership of cars, for instance. Don’t know much of modern China, except that Shanghai is not entirely representative of it.

                  To answer my own question, yes foreigners can buy a house in China.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Chinese in white countries are more prog that whites in China.”

                  HK student movement is Chinese Christians backed by whites. Whites I met in China uniformly support replacing existing regime with a democracy. I’m not in favour of the regime but any democratic replacement would surely be worse, more left-wing and lead to immediate ethnic cleansing of Chinese in Xinjiang and Tibet.

                  My pro Cathedral mainland Chinese friends want to deport Lou Jing and restrict whites from miscegnating so I would say they are not that prog. My Chinese (and white) friends in North America generally agree with me in politics. Then again I only talk politics with a very restricted circle and am very convincing so there is sample size bias.

                  “Keep whites out of China”

                  My position on this is consistent. Whites have contributed on net to China, and every white who is not an active subversive or welfare recipient should be let in. Chinese would suffer substantial economic harm if whites are expelled. Similarly, whites and browns in HK, Chinese in white countries, and browns in white countries assuming 1776 is restored.

                • jim says:

                  My pro Cathedral mainland Chinese friends want to deport Lou Jing and restrict whites from miscegnating

                  Are that prog.

                  Restricting whites males from fucking Chinese women will not work. Have to restrict Chinese women from fucking anyone except husbands.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  *most browns

                • Cavalier says:

                  “Maoism completely obliterated the prestige of traditional Chinese culture, most Chinese literally worship everything White. My HK ex girlfriend thinks every major white city must be bigger and more beautiful than HK despite the latter having 20 story buildings in the suburbs.”

                  “Chinese girls’ behavior when encountering white males is appallingly bad”

                  “Similarly, whites receive substantially better legal protection from Chinese police than Chinese citizens and white investors are subject to way less extortion to avoid “international incidents.””

                  WTF I love China now

                  “The reason that the law should give women very little power, is that nature gives them far too much.”

                  “Have to restrict Chinese women from fucking anyone except husbands.”

                  I disagree. “””Reactionary Libertarian’s””” account of China sounds awesome.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Restricting whites males from fucking Chinese women will not work. Have to restrict Chinese women from fucking anyone except husbands.”

                  I agree with your position Jim and would prefer either something like the Ming dynasty or libertarianism interpreted rationally to keep non independent females under fathers’ guardianship. However, I would not consider this position particularly prog. Prog position is to accept and encourage race mixing, which is what the Chinese government was trying to do by promoting Lou Jing. Popular opinion was overwhelmingly against it.

                  However, # of elite Chinese who cuck out by having sympathies with the Dalai Lama or thinking western feminism is pretty good is alarmingly high so I do not think China will be able to be right wing of the Cathedral for very long. Their worship of whites means that they will follow white countries for better or worse.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “Every productive and valuable person who complies with the host country laws and customs and can pay his own freight should be allowed in a country and allowed to own stuff”

                  By the way, Jim, this is insanity surpassing even our present “””legal””” immigration policy. “EVERY productive and valuable person”? Good lord, that’s stark raving mad. Unlike importing human sludge from the Third World, your new country will still function after you execute this policy, it just won’t resemble your previous country in the slightest.

                  Count me out. I happen to think it the duty of the state to defend the interests of _its own_ people, not import unlimited quantities of foreigners, no matter how capable they be.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Count me out. I happen to think it the duty of the state to defend the interests of _its own_ people, not import unlimited quantities of foreigners, no matter how capable they be.”

                  I’m with Cavalier. “Every productive and valuable person who complies with the host country laws and customs and can pay his own freight should be allowed in a country and allowed to own stuff” is not a policy suitable for a country, it’s a policy characteristic of an empire. All productive subjects are welcome and it’s all fun and games until the collapse.

                • jim says:

                  Every productive and valuable person who complies with the host country laws and customs and can pay his own freight should be allowed in a country and allowed to own stuff” is not a policy suitable for a country, it’s a policy characteristic of an empire.

                  This proposal involves purging the Jews from government, academia, and banking, and you think it is ethno suicide.

                  You are hard to please.

                  Empire works, provided that the ruling class of the ruling ethnicity of the imperial nationality has adequate fertility. Russia has been an empire for a thousand years, and Russians are still white.

                  When you call this proposal suicide, you are imagining the current situation where whites are failing to reproduce. But failure to reproduce is suicide regardless of whether you let in talented foreigners or not.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “it’s a policy characteristic of an empire. All productive subjects are welcome and it’s all fun and games until the collapse.”

                  LOL white nationalists arguing against the British Empire and 19th century America.

                  What’s wrong with having an empire? My consistent position is that libertarian empires run by a single, smart ethnicity are great. If you’re worried about collapse, then prevent collapse. In fact, an obsession with achieving pure whiteness is a great way to promote equality and leftism, which leads to collapse.

                  In fact, whites and Chinese are composed of numerous different races. In a world where HBD was commonly accepted, white unity would be just as viable as multiculturalism. Taiwanese left right now get most of their voters from brownish Chinese (whites won’t be able to tell the difference).

                  If you don’t prevent collapse, you’re screwed pure white or not. Remember there are 8000 nukes in America. I wouldn’t want to be in New York when the Anglo left singularity hits its peak.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  An empire ruled by a single smart ethnicity can be very good, but such an empire well-governed is going to promote the growth of that single smart ethnicity. Eventually what was an aristocracy becomes the bulk of the population. Then you have a nationstate. This is arguably where countries like England and Scotland came from, and by extension the US when it was still a British country.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Eventually what was an aristocracy becomes the bulk of the population.”

                  Lower classes can afford to breed now while before 1800 they could not, so replacement is no longer possible.

                  Average IQ will probably be barely maintained in a laissez faire society while any degree of leftism drops it by killing elite fertility. Until genetic modifications are invented we cannot hope for IQ increase, only maintenance of existing levels, which are dropping catastrophically.

                • pdimov says:

                  “What’s wrong with having an empire?”

                  Nothing in principle.

                  “My consistent position is that libertarian empires run by a single, smart ethnicity are great.”

                  History says that the single smart ethnicity running things eventually loses at least one of those three attributes.

                  “If you’re worried about collapse, then prevent collapse.”

                  Using which one simple trick?

                  “In fact, an obsession with achieving pure whiteness is a great way to promote equality and leftism, which leads to collapse.”

                  Does it? Do homogeneous white ethnostates collapse on their own?

                • jim says:

                  “My consistent position is that libertarian empires run by a single, smart ethnicity are great.”

                  History says that the single smart ethnicity running things eventually loses at least one of those three attributes.

                  “If you’re worried about collapse, then prevent collapse.”

                  Using which one simple trick?

                  Keep ruling class fertility high by keeping the ruling class patriarchal – eighteenth century English patriarchy.

                  Because late eighteenth century Australia was willing to enforce the rule that a wife had to speak respectfully to her husband, it never had to enforce the rule that a wife had to be sexually available to her husband.

                • jim says:

                  Do homogeneous white ethnostates collapse on their own?

                  If you are decadent and failing to reproduce, you are collapsing.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “This proposal involves purging the Jews from government, academia, and banking, and you think it is ethno suicide.”

                  The Know-Nothings were right.

                  To be clear, it takes Englishmen to make England. “White” Russians or Eastern Europeans are never going to reproduce England.

                • Cavalier says:

                  Anglo leftism precedes Jewish influence. Sub-replacement fertility does not. That doesn’t mean that the Jews caused sub-replacement fertility, and of course they afflicted themselves more than most other groups, but it is nevertheless a rather striking cohencidence.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Do homogeneous white ethnostates collapse on their own?”

                  Remember our discussion on Swedish fertility and economy in late 1960s, Pdimov?

                  US leftists achieved substantial power in 1800s by appealing to WNism to cuck white elites. See the debate over Chinese Exclusion Act. Rightists as represented by ex confederate planters opposed it, leftists like Denis Kearney supported it.

                  Also see the struggle between Populist Democrats (leftists) and Bourbon Democrats (libertarians). Populists’ ideas about equality of all whites as opposed to planter rule resulted in ousting of Cleveland as President and loss of libertarian control of the Democratic party in 1896.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “banking”

                  Jim, explain? I think a better approach is to fully separate state and banking, Austrian style solution. Government should run their monetary transactions through own system, see Martin Van Buren’s independent treasury.

                • jim says:

                  It is always profitable to engage in term transformation, to borrow short and lend long.

                  And then one day it rains on everyone, and everyone who has loaned short wants to withdraw their money at the same time, and the money is not there, because the bank has loaned long.

                  And then the bankers run around with their hair on fire, and truthfully say the economy is going to collapse unless they get bailed out. And they do get bailed out.

                  So anyone who wants to deposit money with an organization that borrows short and lends long looks for an implicit or explicit loan guarantee from a state.

                  I think the best solution is Dubai. The King of Dubai does not give banks an explicit guarantee, but charges them a special tax as a user fee because people think the Dubai banks have an implicit guarantee, and he also limits the amount of term transformation they can do. If the maturity mismatch gets too severe he tells them to cut it out.

                  The libertarian solution would work, if you had debtors prison for the owners of failing banks, or were willing to confiscate all the assets of the owners and sell them into slavery, and if people believed the government had the will to let them fail, but people are not going to believe the government has the will to let them fail, even if the government swears on a stack of bibles that it will let bad banks fail.

                • pdimov says:

                  “You are hard to please.”

                  I don’t make the rules. Gnon is what it is.

                  The easiest way to have a single, smart ethnicity running things is to only have a single, smart ethnicity.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “The libertarian solution would work, if you had debtors prison for the owners of failing banks, or were willing to confiscate all the assets of the owners and sell them into slavery, and if people believed the government had the will to let them fail,”

                  I’m totally fine with that. Similarly, women giving birth in dark alleys. I love how you talk about 18th century all the time and then talk about how people are too tendered hearted for the efficient solution to work.

                  Canadian banking system pre 1930s worked without government guarantees and central banking. Of course this can’t be done until gold is restored and fiat money is abolished.

                  https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WorkingPaper-2.pdf

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “The easiest way to have a single, smart ethnicity running things is to only have a single, smart ethnicity.”

                  Salami slicer. Once nonwhites are gone white ethnics will fight each other. English, Irish and Russians are not equal. English from East Anglia and North England are not equal. Cathedral has already gotten brownish Chinese to fight against pure Chinese in Taiwan despite no white being able to tell difference. This is a recipe for left singularities.

                  Need to have institutions that align incentives in ways other than having a common ancestor 1000 years ago.

      • vxxc2014 says:

        It’s who’s running the “democracy”. Jim is right it’s not going anywhere and we need to make peace with that. The government is Anti-American and Anti-White, Anti-Western, Anti-Christian, Anti-European. OF COURSE it’s system punishes them. If we have a government that means us harm of course their programs are harmful.

        People mean harm not systems.

        Any system not run by people that don’t mean us harm is an improvement over what we’ve got.

    • jacobsson says:

      Lose your job and get seriously sick. Bills for serious medical problems will wipe out most savings. What’s right wing about letting people die in the streets? Right wing acknowledges hierarchy and finds solutions around it. Right wing doesn’t mean every man for himself.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        See: https://mises.org/library/welfare-welfare-state

        America in late 1800s had a great free-market health care system that worked before the left screwed it up. Setting up state health care inevitably leads to the disaster we have now.

        • vxxc2014 says:

          Only if you believe in systems causing harm instead of people.

          If the people who run the systems weren’t led by those who hate us leading those who sullenly resent us they’d have corrected the problems just as there were pre-war, during WW2 and post war corrections and indeed dropping of failed programs of The New Deal all along the way until the mid 1960s.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Well obviously bad people put in the screwed up system we have know but getting non-Jewish bureaucrats to run things is not going to help. I think you overestimate how much bureaucrats of any race care about their subjects.

          I agree with Jim that a lot of leftists are Jews but leftism was not started by Jews. Jews did not enter the elite in large numbers until 1950s and US government was doing all kinds of crazy things before then like handing one third of the planet to the Soviets. New Deal’s failed programs and regulations were never discontinued. A huge part of the housing crisis came from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were created by New Deal.

  2. Augustina says:

    Singapore is full of thin Asians, not obese Mexicans and Blacks.

  3. Alan J. Perrick says:

    No, the healthcare of the poor should be done, if it is to be done at all, through voluntary donations not coercive taxation.

    • Steel T Post says:

      Taxation isn’t any more coercive than an employer requiring you to pay for a uniform, for the same reason libertarians excuse employers from accusations of coercion, that is, if you’re allowed to leave your employment, then anything an employer demands of you is voluntary.

      This isn’t North Korea; you’re as free to leave the US (or any western nation) as you are to leave an employer’s control of your life. Thus—by libertarians’ own standard of coercion in the workplace—all taxation by a nation in which you’re free to leave is thereby deemed voluntary.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        You have to leave the employer’s property because he owns it. Does the US government own all of the US? That’s what you’re implying. The founders didn’t think so considering they set up an explicitly limited government for defined purposes which the current government far exceeds..

        • Steel T Post says:

          Yeah, that’s right, I’m “implying” that the United States government is sovereign (i.e., ultimate control) over United States territory. It’s called “Eminent Domain” in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. You should ask the Indians about that. And you should consider why the US Government prohibited direct land sales from Indians to settlers; they had to go through official government channels instead, just to ward off “sovereign citizen” claims like you’d like pull.

          And here’s a start on Founders’ concept of property that you missed.

          “Private property is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing, its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or as payment for a just Debt.” -Benjamin Franklin

          Oh, if this Founder had his way, we’d have a Progressive Property Tax.

          “Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” -Thomas Jefferson (to James Madison, 1785)

          Is that the same guy that promoted publicly funded schools? I don’t think LoLbertarians have the slightest clue as to what the Founders thought.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Nobody took Benjamin Franklin seriously. He was promoting paper money all the time and America didn’t get this disease until 1933 under Roosevelt the Terrible.

            Jefferson supported low state subsidies for private schools, which is FAR more libertarian than what we have now. He didn’t even support compulsory attendance laws. On taxes, the first thing he did when he took power is abolish ALL Federal internal taxes. Until the civil war only US taxes were tariffs and overall federal revenues were less than 2% of the economy compared to 20+% today. How’s that for libertarianism?

            Other Libertarian positions Jefferson supported
            – Gold standard
            – Not having a central bank
            – Not having state regulation of industry (main reason for American Revolution was British attempts to set up regulations for iron industry, sugar industry, etc).
            – Keeping drugs and prostitution legal (opium etc was legal, most US cities had Red light districts til WWI)

            Dude you clearly have zero knowledge of American history. The founders were not completely libertarian but to argue they weren’t 10x as libertarian as now is like arguing South Korea is more socialist than North Korea and Egypt was black. Go read some actual history and economics so you can stop being a leftist of the 1960s.

            • Steel T Post says:

              The only property before government is what you can carry on your back. There is no real property (in land) unless there is government. Property is the nation’s, until you’re granted a right of ownership to some. Just like this guy says:

              “A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant.” -Thomas Jefferson, 1812

              Never actually read him before, have you?

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                “Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant.”

                So he is arguing for a government to be established so there are common rules to decide how vacant land becomes private property over time and to avoid disputes over who owns what. And you get from this….government owns all land? You serious?

                Arguing for a government to decide on common rules on how to turn vacant land into private property is very different from reserving government ownership of all land. If the founders had supported government owning all land they would have not abolished the British quitrent system, where every land holder had to pay rent to the crown or the proprietor the crown sold the rights too, or tried to sell off vacant land at a cheap price.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Anyways you haven’t responded to my main point which is that Jefferson and the founders in general clearly had views that would be considered radical libertarian now like having no welfare state, the gold standard and keeping drugs and prostitution legal. I addressed your points, you should address mine.

                  Even if Jefferson thought vacant land should be state owned, which is the most generous interpretation I can give you per above, he clearly did favored letting the land stay private property once it was granted. The conditions of the grant would be constitutional government, which we do not have and have not had since 1933 at least, 1860 at earliest.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  LoLbertarian property theory is different from the Founders’ ideas. Now you’re foundering in welfare … drugs … gold standard … prostitution …. FFS, why not TEH ROADS?

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            They prohibited land sales from Indians to settlers because Indians were not exactly known for following contracts and this lead to violence a lot. Eminent domain was only supposed to be used very rarely.

            The whole point of the Constitution was to set up a government with limited powers that did not have absolute control over the country. Ever heard of “enumerated powers”? No point fighting the American Revolution if the founders agreed that all property was ultimately government’s.

            • Steel T Post says:

              Franklin signed the Declaration of Independence. He also signed the Constitution. But dontchaknow “nobody took him seriously.” kek! Thus concludes another LoLbertarian history lesson. And how desperately they avoid addressing what the founders actually thought about property theory, e.g.:

              “It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society.” -Thomas Jefferson (to Isaac McPherson, 1813)

              Next time you argue with me, bring something other than your libertarian coloring books, ok?

        • vxxc2014 says:

          “Does the US government own all of the US.”

          YES.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            You must be at the wrong blog. Maybe you’re looking to go here? https://www.marxists.org/

            • Steel T Post says:

              This sort of halfwit hyperbole is why LoLbertarians are a national joke. Go on, do your rant about all Americans but those few simpletons who agree with your inane economic theories being “Statists.” Go on, call me one!

              “The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.” –Thomas Jefferson

              Aren’t I just *precious* now? Gonna call him a Marxist or LoLsplain it to us? 🙂

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                LandHOLDERs, not landleasers. Implying these people own their property, not the government. Looks like you have problems understanding not just my posts but your own.

                Stop being bitter that I pointed out you assumed a country with 12,000 tariffs is practicing free trade and didn’t know that Jefferson and the founders supported gold standard, 5% taxes, no state education (only low subsidies), and legal drugs and prostitution. If you can’t accept that the US was founded to implement libertarianism go to Somalia or something.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Correct, you hold or own a title to property. (Leasing is another matter.) Property over which the government is sovereign, which is why you pay taxes to the government. And the taxes are worth it, because, as Jefferson pointed out, there is no real property (land) rights without government.

                  Somalia? You’re quite familiar, huh? I know why too; it’s the LoLbertarian paradise!

                  • Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It | Mises Daily (2006) mises.org/daily/2066
                  • The Anarchy Advantage in Somalia | Reason (2006) reason.com/blog/2006/12/27/the-anarchy-advantage-in-somal

                  *snort*

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  As I pointed out in my previous post, Jefferson said government should decide common standards by which vacant land was turned into private property, not own it. Maybe if you stop snorting whatever you are snorting at the end of each of your posts you’d be able to read this.

                  If he thought government owned all land he would say something like “government has the power to dispose of and regulate private property as it wishes.” which he does not and which violates the whole point of enumerated powers doctrine, which is that government cannot do whatever is not in the constitution. Your interpretation is the left-wing, New Deal one that created the current disastrous situation in America.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Your interpretation is the left-wing…”

                  You need to read your Moldbug.

                  http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.bg/2007/05/magic-of-symmetric-sovereignty.html

                  Libertarianism is not right-wing. Odd but true.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  And like a Leftist, he’s devolved now into his LIEbertarian mode. FFS, where did get “government has the power to dispose of and regulate private property as it wishes” from the Jefferson quotes on property theory? Do you work for CNN?

                  I notice you didn’t mention Somalia. Thanks for digging that hole, and letting me dropkick your adz you into it. kek!

                  We’ve had one of your fanatical LoLbertarian ilk come into our farm community and make a bunch of trouble. He didn’t realize just how important government is with managing water and drainage rights, and kicked up a fuss about “MUH RITES” when the county needed to dig up a tile on a corner of his 3 acre dude ranch. So it delayed the digging, because we’re nice folks around stupid children that don’t know water flows downhill, and why we pay property tax assessments to keep it flowing the way the county plans. Then we got a heavy rain and the LoLbertarian was blocking drainage to keep his side dry. Farmer with newly sprouted corn drowning unblocked the blocked drainage. LoLbertarian goes into “MUH RITES” mode again with his LoLbertarian popgun. Sheriff came out and set the LoLbertard straight on property drainage rights. Later, still pleading “MUH RITES” he was harassing the big tile replacement crew. Local boys less official than the Sheriff took care of his dumbass with a little chat about hog protein supplementation. He quickly sold and moved. Good riddance. Probably writes for Reason now, from LoLbertarian paradise Somalia. He’s gonna straighin’ us all out, I reckon.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Pdimov, I read that Moldbug article but I agree with Jim. http://blog.jim.com/war/the-illusion-of-government/ Government is an illusion, formalizing it would make it collapse.

                  Whatever you think about the sustainability of the pre-New Deal constitutional republic it was definitely 100x more right wing and orderly than any government we have now, or any government by white nationalists who think Sweden without Muslims was fine, as Steel T Post amply demonstrates on this thread.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Concerned about Muslims in Sweden? Good to see you abandoning your LoLbertarian principles! I figured you’d come to your senses, gook.

                  “Libertarians should support open borders, with possible exceptions for the exclusion of convicted criminals and people carrying disease.”
                  http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-argument-open-borders

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Sweden without muslims *was* fine. The problem is that it didn’t *stay* fine.

                  In the end, it all comes down to a simple question: sustainability.

                • pdimov says:

                  We’ve no idea whether Sweden was sustainable or not. Stamping out racism, fascism and anti-Semitism wasn’t something Sweden decided to do on her own, it was imposed.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Whatever you think about the sustainability of the pre-New Deal constitutional republic it was definitely 100x more right wing and orderly than any government we have now…”

                  OK, so?

                  The form of government is a function of the population. You can’t just copy an earlier form of government and expect things to magically revert to their earlier state, because the population is different. Just like you can’t impose your own preferred form of government on a foreign population and expect it to stick.

                  This is not because government is illusory or optional.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “The form of government is a function of the population.”

                  You’re thinking democratically. It’s a function of elites and government structure. Chinese imposed Confucianism on Vietnamese with whips. Belgians imposed French administrative state on Blacks with whips. Southerners imposed anglo culture on blacks with whips.

                  “We’ve no idea whether Sweden was sustainable or not. ”

                  Why is Singapore not like Sweden? Sweden went multicultural because its leftist rulers wanted to. Its leftist rulers wanted to because without Muslim votes and intimidation they couldn’t sustain their system. If you ban Muslims they will create a native class fulfilling same function. Whites are not invulnerable gods. look at Appalachia and British yobs.

                  Swedish economy was already stagnant and fertility below replacement by late 1960s. Continuing the system without immigration would have resulted in collapse. White and East Asian populations are like oil fields, you can still screw up with them as Venezuela proves.

                  The problem was already insoluble by New Deal. Once the welfare state is established everything bad that happened after was already baked in. Only a monarchy like Singapore can have a welfare state without infinite expansion.

                • pdimov says:

                  “You’re thinking democratically.”

                  No, I’m thinking “without external force”. “X imposed Y on Z with whips” does not contradict it. Remove the whips, Y vanishes.

                  “Why is Singapore not like Sweden?”

                  Because (a) it’s not populated by Swedes and (b) it didn’t have anti-racism, anti-fascism and anti-anti-Semitism imposed on it after WW2.

                  “Swedish economy was already stagnant and fertility below replacement by late 1960s. Continuing the system without immigration would have resulted in collapse.”

                  Nonsense.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Remove the whips, Y vanishes.”

                  Why remove the Whips?

                  “Because (a) it’s not populated by Swedes and (b) it didn’t have anti-racism, anti-fascism and anti-anti-Semitism imposed on it after WW2.”

                  If Singapore can avoid leftism with 25% browns and 15% Muslims Sweden has no excuse. Swedish leftism wanted to be cucked and did. Nothing to do with American influence.

                  “nonsense”

                  Sweden TFR in 1969: 1.93
                  As for the economy.
                  ” 1950 Sweden was the fourth richest nation in the world….However, by 2000 Sweden sank to number fourteen….from 1950–2005, Sweden did not add one net private sector job.” Source: https://mises.org/library/how-modern-sweden-profits-success-its-free-market-history

                  You guys seem to think evolution stopped 5000 years ago. White IQ has dropped 14 points in 1 century.
                  https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/were-the-victorians-smarter-than-us.pdf

                • pdimov says:

                  “Why remove the Whips?”

                  Who is going to whip America into libertarianism?

                  “Nothing to do with American influence.”

                  Sure, nothing to do with it. Which is why Sweden was unspeakably racist before WW2. Louis Armstrong was described as a monkey in a mainstream newspaper.

                  “However, by 2000 Sweden sank to number fourteen…”

                  2000 is not 1960, and as a result of that, Sweden subsequently moved to the right (politically and economically) on its own.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Who is going to whip America into libertarianism?”

                  I’m arguing about what the whips should be used to achieve.

                  “Which is why Sweden was unspeakably racist before WW2.”

                  FDR deported Japanese to concentration camps. Regressives used to support eugenics for blacks. Leftists support whatever gets them jobs. Past positions do not predict future positions.

                  “2000 is not 1960, and as a result of that, Sweden subsequently moved to the right (politically and economically) on its own.”

                  TFR below replacement in 60s as you acknowledged and still below replacement. Increasing % of babies are brown as documented on Jim’s blog. Still poorer than US despite being more white. Pretty sure all of these trends are not sustainable.

                  https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states

                • pdimov says:

                  “I’m arguing about what the whips should be used to achieve.”

                  ROL: Jim says government is illusory, because Iraq.
                  PD: Government is a function of the population. Not illusory. You can’t roll back America to 1776, because the population is different.
                  ROL: You’re assuming democracy. China imposed this or that on Vientam.
                  PD: I’m assuming no external force, not democracy.
                  ROL: Why remove the external force?
                  PD: There is no external force forceful enough to affect America. Therefore the ‘no external force’ case applies.
                  ROL: I’m arguing what we could do with an external force.
                  PD: Fine, carry on.

                • pdimov says:

                  “TFR below replacement in 60s as you acknowledged and still below replacement.”

                  We went over that once before, didn’t we?

                  I’m pretty sure I can make a case that TFR drops below replacement everywhere within the American sphere of influence, and that this case will be at least as strong enough as whatever you are claiming.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Well Pdimov, that applies to your arguments as well. All governments are imposed by force. Imposing either libertarianism or white nationalism or whatever will require overthrowing the current government by force and instituting a new one. If either of us had a way to how to accomplish that we wouldn’t be on this blog. Since we don’t, the only thing we can do is figure out what the whips should be used for.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “I’m pretty sure I can make a case that TFR drops below replacement everywhere within the American sphere of influence”

                  All I am arguing is that Sweden is not sustainable, which I think I have proved conclusively. My only argument is a reaction must go back to at least pre New Deal, arguably pre civil war, to even have a chance of stability. My only quarrel with you guys is you are not being right wing enough.

                  Cathedral kills TFR but not to Swedish levels. Latin American countries still have above replacement TFR, just not 5-6. Sweden is like the teacher’s pet that decided to excel expectations.

                • pdimov says:

                  “All governments are imposed by force.”

                  You did manage to miss the word ‘external’. Well, my own fault I suppose, I only used it five times.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “You did manage to miss the word ‘external’. ”

                  A libertarian army capable of defeating the Cathedral doesn’t exist. A white nationalist army capable of defeating the Cathedral doesn’t exist. So I don’t see how I’m in a different position from you. There’s no way the Cathedral can be defeated through elections, if that’s what you’re thinking.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Sweden is like the teacher’s pet that decided to excel expectations.”

                  Sweden TFR 1.91 (2012). That’s nothing. OK, 1.85 (2015). Still nothing compared to Japan 1.41, Germany 1.38 (2012).

                  But but but immigrants! Not really. Germany has many more.

                  WW2 losers have the lowest fertility. What a cohencidence.

                  But Italy! OK, let’s look it up… 1.40. I rest my case.

                • pdimov says:

                  “So I don’t see how I’m in a different position from you.”

                  My point is that the government is a function of the population. You’re using America 1776 as an argument that libertarianism produces America 1776. But it’s the other way around. America 1776 produced libertarianism. If you could by magic impose 1776’s libertarian government and order on America 2016, the result will not be America 1776, but something else. Taking population A’s government and transplanting it into population B doesn’t work.

                • peppermint says:

                  Not surprised the last argument of the lolbergtarian is despair. Lolbergtarianism was designed by Jews to prevent Whites from taking national action, because that would tend to exclude Jews.

                  Nationalism and White rape gangs enforcing White sharia law are not only the way forward, but inevitable, your protestations that that’s immoral or impossible notwithstanding.

                  Maybe you can join forces with the other cuckservatives to join forces with the commies and muds to stop Whites from seizing our destiny on the grounds that Locke said something and Jefferson said something else.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “If you could by magic impose 1776’s libertarian government and order on America 2016, the result will not be America 1776, but something else.”

                  I think I’ve given several examples of an order being imposed by an elite on a low quality population. The American population in 1776 was superior to the one we have now, I agree. But assuming they can’t overthrow the government, which is easy due to modern military realities, why does it matter? If Belgians could run Congo well I’m sure modern America can be saved. Belgian Congo was not Belgium but compared to Congo now it was close enough.

                  “Nationalism and White rape gangs enforcing White sharia law are not only the way forward, but inevitable, your protestations that that’s immoral or impossible notwithstanding.”

                  I’m in contact with a few white nationalists and they couldn’t shoot straight to save their lives. Maybe my sample size is biased but I don’t see it.

                  I’m in favour of any military coup against the Cathedral assuming the coupists are sane and know how a functional society works. Not sure that’s the case with you guys here.

                • peppermint says:

                  So basically, unless I can explain the entire plan in terms you can understand, lolbergtarianism makes sense by default? I didn’t know science worked that way, but what the hell.

                  The way we take power is that the Left collapses because it’s a bunch of retards tied together by a failing media apparatus and constitutionally incapable of thinking one step ahead. Activist judges are the hardest problem we have to solve since that requires constitutional reform to put supreme administrative authority in the hands of the executive, because that’s a problem the Founders really did create for us, but the universities are right now dissolving themselves by default and NGOs will go away when the government funding and direction does.

                  In the resulting power vacuum, civic nationalists will either transition into White nationalists or enact anti-White policies which will be clearly seen and only enforceable though direct government fiat, and we will be in the position Hitler spent the first part of Mein Kampf complaining about.

                  It is impossible for socialists to take power. It is impossible for muds to take power. Cuckold nationalists could cuck us, or we can go straight 1488 immediately, or we can try a little nationalism and gradually go 1488, the most likely scenario.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “So basically, unless I can explain the entire plan in terms you can understand, lolbergtarianism makes sense by default? I didn’t know science worked that way, but what the hell.”

                  My arguments about libertarianism pertain purely to what should be done after a reaction happens to have a prosperous, free and left-free society. I have no idea how to engineer a reaction but not sure if you guys do either. But it’s important to ensure that if a reaction happens it will be able to stick, which involves libertarianism.

                  “The way we take power is that the Left collapses because it’s a bunch of retards tied together by a failing media apparatus and constitutionally incapable of thinking one step ahead. ”

                  Now we’re talking. Here’s the problems I see.
                  1. The Left is MUCH more ruthless than you guys think. If needed they would go full 1984 on the opposition to even have a 10% chance of retaining power.
                  2. The Left is pretty smart. Most people are still leftists.
                  2. The key path to winning is the military. Whoever has the undivided loyalty of the military will rule the country and impose their views with whips. Unfortunately the left right now has control of the army. Trump may change that but I’m not counting on it.

                • peppermint says:

                  The Left had lost the ability to consider and come up with a response at least by the time of the Trayvon affair, in which it staged a hilarious trial and lost instead of winning against the concept of neighborhood watch and gun rights.

                  Today they’re so incoherent they couldn’t stop Trump and immediately discredited their fake news rhetoric with bizarre anti-Russian nonsense, which they didn’t use to stage a coup.

                  Ruthlessness isn’t all they need to maintain power. They have a lot of “smart people” – with high IQs even. But they’ve already lost everyone who knows which way the wind is blowing and isn’t a mud or married to a mud.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “1. The Left is MUCH more ruthless than you guys think. If needed they would go full 1984 on the opposition to even have a 10% chance of retaining power.”

                  The police and the fighting parts of the military are all on the other side. The left doesn’t have much hard power which is why all their attacks are based on coordinating social movements to make their policies look inevitable and like they have mass support even when the numbers clearly show they don’t. Their major weapon is disemployment not actual violence, and there are lifestyles that are not very vulnerable to disemployment.

                • pdimov says:

                  “If Belgians could run Congo well I’m sure modern America can be saved.”

                  Belgian-run Congo does not in any way support the idea that modern America’s problems can be fixed by more libertarianism.

                • pdimov says:

                  The way we take power, outside America, is either

                  – we take power inside America, or
                  – we don’t take power inside America and as a result America’s ability to project power collapses.

                  The way we take power inside America is by waiting for the cuckservatives (who still think they live in America 1950) to die off.

                  The left is irrelevant. Conservatives (including non-reactionary libertarians) are the problem.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Belgian-run Congo does not in any way support the idea that modern America’s problems can be fixed by more libertarianism.”

                  We both know libertarianism worked wonders for 1776 America. You are arguing libertarianism will not work in 2016 America because the population quality has dropped compared to 1776.

                  I show you an example of a country with 65 IQ that was still able to practice capitalism and a much lower level of government intervention than modern times. Since the difference in population quality between Congo and 2016 America is extreme, I consider my case conclusively proven. If moderately interventionist capitalism works in a society with 65 IQ and massive violent tendencies, libertarianism will work in a society with 100 IQ and peaceful tendencies.

                  “Today they’re so incoherent they couldn’t stop Trump and immediately discredited their fake news rhetoric with bizarre anti-Russian nonsense, which they didn’t use to stage a coup.”

                  The left has historically survived far greater challenges than Trump. The reason they lost to Trump was because they thought they would win for sure, and spent most of their time virtue signaling against each other. The left is perfectly capable of “moderating” itself for a bit to draw in the more gullible opponents before slaughtering all of them, see New Economic Policy and 1980s New York Times running editorials to argue minimum wage should be abolished. How many trumpists would let their guard down once the establishment started courting them for real? I don’t see WNs willing to die for each other, which is what’s going to be needed if you’re taking on an opponent with the left’s ruthlessness.

                  “The police and the fighting parts of the military are all on the other side. ”

                  Ferguson and BLM riots does not support this theory. I remain convinced when push comes to shove the military will still follow the left.

                • pdimov says:

                  “You are arguing libertarianism will not work in 2016 America because the population quality has dropped compared to 1776.”

                  It’s not necessarily about quality. The population is different, the optimal government is different. 1776’s libertarianism was a consequence of the 1776 population. It wasn’t a cause.

                  Country A has low crime and few policemen. Country B has higher crime and more policemen per capita than A (big government! boo!) If you decrease the number of policemen in B to A levels, crime should decrease to match A. Right?

                  “I consider my case conclusively proven.”

                  You do? Good for you.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Pdimov, if you have an efficient law enforcement system like Victorian England crime will be close to zero by modern standards for all races. Government today mostly consists of services that produce negative value, like affirmative action, welfare and environmental regulations.

                  Out of curiosity I did some research on the Belgian Congo. I found this book “Colonialism in Africa 1870 – 1960” available on google books. On Page 197 I find data on total income of foreigners and Africans and state’s tax income in 1950 and 1958.

                  State’s tax income = 1.2
                  Total income of African and foreigners = 5.1 + 3.6 + 5.6 + 4.2 = 18.5
                  Deficit = Increase in debt in 1951 – Increase in state savings = 1.9 – 1.5 = 0.4

                  (1.2+0.4) / 18.5 = 8.7% of total income.
                  For reference. 1776 America = ~5%
                  1907 America = ~7%
                  Modern Singapore = ~20%
                  Modern America = ~45%

                  Therefore to govern a 99% black country at most you will need high single digit tax rates to provide perfect internal security. This can easily be reduced by half given America’s superior population. Half of 8.7% is pretty close to 1776 levels of government and would involve reducing government spending by 90%

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  *Replace all references to 1776 in my last post with c.1800. These are all estimates.

                • peppermint says:

                  The Left has survived bigger challenges than Trump, but not the Internet.

                  The Internet destroys the Judaeo-Left because it destroys their control over what their subordinates see thus causing signaling competitions leading to putting Zimmerman on trial.

                  Neo-reaction was another branch of Leftism, enforcing a system on Aryans designed to prevent them from noticing and doing anything about Jew domination, and one with less grounds to criticize the Jew than Lolbergtarianism, Communism, or Democracy.

                • pdimov says:

                  “This can easily be reduced by half given America’s superior population.”

                  Since everyone (worth talking about) is already armed, you could – after a period of… turmoil – achieve perfect internal security even at 0%.

                  But anyway. What are the top 5 actions you would take to fix America?

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  LOL at your 0% comment. Going ancap? I think it’s a good long-term goal but not achievable at present.

                  “But anyway. What are the top 5 actions you would take to fix America?”

                  1. Disestablish Cathedral. Legalize IQ tests. Get rid of all licenses except necessary licenses like taxis because roads are not priced yet, deport all prominent leftist professors to Alaska, shut down all liberal arts departments and give students a refund from endowment. Sell the rest to any private investor wanting to buy. Get rid of all restrictions on private schools and compulsory attendance laws with view to sell the high schools later.

                  2. Race – Get rid of all affirmative action and antidiscrimination laws. Use the military to attack the gangs using 1800s rules of engagement with death penalty for all gang members not surrendering. Fix the legal system so compensation has to be paid by criminal to victim until victim is just as well off, which would put them all under indentured labour. Privatize housing projects and get rid of section 8, welfare, all NAMs who can’t support themselves will be offered transport to rural Alabama to do some organic farming.
                  Finance the transport using organs of executed convicts.

                  3. Fertility. Ban child support and alimony. Interpret guardianship theory as I described earlier so females with no productive employment are under fathers’ authority. Make default marriage contract Jimist with divorce only on permission of husband or for grave abuse but with ability to negotiate prenup. Make abortion punishable by death for woman and abortionist.

                  4. Regulations – abolished all environmental regulations, zoning laws, pro-union laws, basically everything written since New Deal. Legalize drugs and prostitution. Watch as every suburb has beautiful 20 floor buildings like HK.

                  5. Taxes – abolish all taxes except a 10% flat income tax and maybe some sin taxes like on alcohol and tobacco. This includes stuff like capital gains tax, tariffs, payroll tax, obamacare taxes, etc.

                • jim says:

                  Dubai has zero tax on income and profits.

                  It has some sin taxes, a tax on rents and dining out, and various user fees – for example you pay for using the roads, and banks pay for the implicit guarantee they get from the King.

                • peppermint says:

                  Liberty is a consequence of men not feeling threatened by each other and homogeneity is a prerequisite. Homogeneity only exists after 600-900 years of having the gene pool.

                  If so, the US can’t expect liberty within the next few hundred years from the different White ethnicities. Cyber-Aryanism could reduce that time by declaring the Whites to be White and repairing their DNA. Aryanism already failed in the US because it considered Jews to be White and did not protect against them, but then succeeded because the Whites under siege from yids and other muds agreed to recognize each others’ Whiteness.

                  Other countries with one major ethnicity will soon have to consider what to do about the mixed breeds amongst them.

                • pdimov says:

                  Interesting take on libertarianism.

                  “except necessary licenses like taxis”

                  Huh.

                  “10% flat income tax”

                  Not right wing enough. Requires one to declare one’s income.

                  So, no border enforcement, no repealing birthright citizenship, no deportation of illegals?

                  No states’ rights?

                  No gold standard or balanced budget?

                  No changes to the system of government? That’s probably implied in the question, but still, needs to be specified.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Obviously my answer already implies that the government is changed to a monarchy or aristocracy that can act decisively. Can’t get this through a democracy.

                  Gold standard is not something I would fix right away. Too complicated. 5-10 years needed.

                  Illegals and birthright citizenship mute issues if welfare and voting are abolished.

                • pdimov says:

                  So, ethnic composition irrelevant, religion irrelevant.

                  “Obviously my answer already implies that the government is changed to a monarchy or aristocracy that can act decisively.”

                  There are three levels of government in America, federal, state, local. The federal level will be a monarchy, but what of the other two?

                  I’ve always found the “laboratories of democracy” idea of America 1776 interesting. It failed, of course, because encephalization.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Dubai has zero tax on income and profits.”

                  As I said, short-term program. Obviously long-term goal is to move towards a government that is like 2% of GDP and funded through poll taxes only, and then ancap.

                  “State and local governments”

                  At this point they are irrelevant. Abolish them. Re-decentralize later when things are fixed. Having a special economic zone to test ancap is not a bad idea.

                  “So, ethnic composition irrelevant, religion irrelevant.”

                  Noam Chomsky and his like will already be in Alaska. No interest in attacking pawnshops. My program already suppresses the NAMs.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  In the end the question is, how did those muslims get into Sweden in the first place?

                  If you find out how muslims got into Sweden, and put a stop too it, you will have captured a significant chunk of what would make an ideal society ideal with just one metric.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                Excluding welfare recipients and leftist militia recruits are an affirmation of libertarian principles. Posting stuff written by entryists don’t prove anything.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Concerned about Muslims in Sweden? Good to see you abandoning your LoLbertarian principles! I figured you’d come to your senses, gook.”

                  I’m not Vietnamese. You must be inferior to them if you are clamoring for tariffs to protect yourself against their competition. No wonder the Cathedral’s replacing the likes of you with Hispanics. What’s next in your constitutional interpretation? three-hour lunch breaks for are also part of the constitution?

                • Steel T Post says:

                  If shares of Toyota Motor drop when Trump merely tweets a few words, who do you think is superior, slope?

                • peppermint says:

                  》 You must be inferior to them if you are clamoring for tariffs to protect yourself against their competition.

                  Gooks have no right to American markets and if they start causing trouble we have a lot more napalm and agent orange

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “we have a lot more napalm and agent orange”

                  Your masters, the cathedral, have a lot of napalm and agent orange. You personally have jack shit. The chances of them using it against you is much higher than against me.

                  “Gooks have no right to American markets”

                  Do American consumers have a right to goods not produced by fat UAW auto workers demanding 5 hour lunch breaks? Your advocacy of cucking the Aryan elites in favour of white trash is how the Cathedral was able to win and drop your race’s IQ by 14 points and your fertility to toilet levels in just a century.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “drop your race’s IQ by 14 points…in just a century”

                  That might just be the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this blog.

      • Dave says:

        Steel, a US citizen or permanent resident is free to leave the US, but he must continue to file US tax returns. If you were born during a vacation to the USA and never again set foot in the country, you can be fined $10,000 for every year since age 18 that you didn’t file a US tax return.

        As a Canadian, you could work in Dubai and make millions of dollars tax-free, but a US citizen must pay tax no matter where he lives. Local taxes are deductible, so if you live in a higher-tax country you owe nothing to the US gov’t, but you still have to file. The only other country that taxes citizens outside its borders is Eritrea.

        • Steel T Post says:

          So? An employer might want a pencil or file back after you quit, or enforce a no-compete clause. Besides, minutiae like that doesn’t negate the broader comparison that if the coercion during employment is justified by being able to freely leave, that Libertarian economic standard should apply as a standard to other coercive situations.

          Are you going to do the LoLbertarian “Taxes are Theft” Rant about The Donald holding a gun to your head when Congress passes Trump’s planned Medical Savings Account system that is just like Singapore’s mandatory Medisave system? Or are you just being pedantic?

          • jim says:

            Medical savings accounts only coerce the improvident. And the improvident need coercion.

            • Steel T Post says:

              “NAP, it’s a decree, declared by autists!”

              (Don’t) Embrace the N.A.P.!
              Walt Bismarck
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcUZrDX5P7A

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                The irony here being that jim is proposing a populist, dysgenic measure. The improvident only need coercing if we care about their welfare, and want them to thrive and propagate. Which we do not, so our only possible motive is to satiate them for populist reasons.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  There are public health interests driving some level of government involvement in health care. If an indigent has TB, his neighbors are very interested in him getting a course of antibiotics or being instituted in a TB hospital. Not so many decades ago, there were several large TB hospitals in our state.

                  It’s not so much that anybody cared about TB patients thriving and propagating, but that middle and upper class parents didn’t want a TB carrier sitting on a park bench at the playground coughing TB germs on their children, which would prevent them from thriving and propagating.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The improvident were only ever allowed to share benches and playgrounds with the upper class because the government owns benches and playgrounds and the government mandated equal access. The US solution was to establish charitable hospitals to help the improvident. The libertarian solution would be for the upper class gated communities to exclude the improvident from their playgrounds, who can then die in ghettos that don’t have playgrounds.

                  Similarly the US has a problem that the improvident can turn up at Emergency and pass the bill to the upper class. The Singapore solution is to force the improvident to be provident. The libertarian solution is for Emergency to have bouncers like hotels have bouncers, with the snootiness of the bouncers increasing with the price of the service offered.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  70-80% of Singapore’s citizens utilize the public health system (according to wiki.) Are you suggesting that 70-80% of Singapore’s citizens are improvident?

                  The libertarian solution? That’s an oxymoron if there ever was one. Since when have you ever solved anything, except in the fevered fantasies of your mind? Libertarians consistently fail in the marketplace of ideas, and have got over 1% of the vote for president only once in the history of your attempts.

                  Trump? Now he’s got solutions.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I don’t think you understand what you are talking about.

                  The government provides a lot of services, but provides most of them at market prices. Most Singaporeans pay for these services with savings that the government forced them to make, and banned them from spending on anything other than healthcare.

                  In Great Britain circa 1750, doctors had bouncers. You could no more barge into a doctor’s surgery and demand he treat you, and bill someone else, than today you can barge into a lawyer’s practice and demand he write you a contract and bill someone else.

                  The history of the past 250-350 years has been one of the left creating weird and wonderful new problems, mostly by dismantling what is now called libertarianism, to which Trump is a welcome but mild palliative.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  I don’t think you understand, Cromwell. I stated those facts already about Singapore’s Medisave, which looks very similar to Trump’s Medical Savings Account plan on his website. Control+F will do you wonders.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  You asked if I thought 70-80% of Singaporeans are improvident, because they buy medical services from the government. Of course I am not saying that, and if you understood the Medisave system I do not understand why you would ask that question.

                  The Singapore system is to guarantee treatment to the improvident, paid for by forcing everyone to save for medical expenses, which is in principle only an imposition on the improvident.

                  My point is that this is to the left of the libertarian position, which would be to simply leave the improvident to die.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  If you understood the Medisave program, you’d realize that there are still subsidies from the Singapore government. Need any more help, Cromwell?

                • jim says:

                  I understand the Medisave program and it is simply not true that it is a government subsidy.

                  It is a forced savings scheme, which is only coercion for those who would prefer to save less.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The points I have made stand either way.

                • pdimov says:

                  “The libertarian solution would be for the upper class gated communities to exclude the improvident from their playgrounds, who can then die in ghettos that don’t have playgrounds.”

                  The libertarian solution, then, is to have thousands of white minicountries in a sea of brown.

                  Libertarianism is inefficient. It’s much better to have a single white country. Economy of scale.

                  “My point is that this is to the left of the libertarian position, which would be to simply leave the improvident to die.”

                  Also, impractical. Anyone not devoid of empathy dislikes seeing people dying around him. It’s basically a violation of NAP.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Perhaps but how do we get there? Those defending the US Constitution… the US Constitution turned nine White countries and four segregated countries into a sea of Browns. Every consolidation of federal power in the US; and parliamentary power in the UK, has been a disaster for not just liberty, but the White race, the upper class, technological progress, and civilisation itself.

                  Libertarianism isn’t the best that could possibly done; it is worse than an all-wise government. But there aren’t many all-wise governments out there. Libertarianism is a plausible moral formula that delivery 99% of what we want.

                  I don’t think the improvident dying in the streets is all that much worse than tolerating the existence of militia-ruled Brown ghettos. Probably the same solution will be employed: segregate them from civilised people, and suppress reporting of what is going on.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Jim, you’re mistaken; the Singapore government absolutely does subsidize health care spending, to the tune of “SG$7.1 billion in 2014/5.” Their Medisave program is not the only source of provider income. Read and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore#Government_funding

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Gotta love libertarians fulminating against the US Constitution for browning the nation. Meanwhile, in libertarian land…

                  Libertarianism = Anti-racism
                  http://fee.org/articles/libertarianism-anti-racism/

                • jim says:

                  The fallacy of libertarianism that it proposes to grant equal freedom to everyone, while the great majority of the population, women and browns, are not capable of exercising that freedom.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I think in a libertarian society there would be many people who are subject to other people: subject by contract rather than by fiat. Some of these relationships would be more or less voluntary (tithe contributions and obedience to Ordnung of a long-established church), others not so voluntary (indentured to the credit card company for repeated non-payment).

                  All your criticisms of real-world Libertarians are quite valid; the problem with real-world Libertarians is that they recoil from the consequences of belief in libertarianism, and prefer instead to believe in social democracy on a million points of exception, and they want social acceptance so they play up (usually past the point of honesty) the few actual agreements between libertarianism and social democracy.

                  But those failings are failings of social democracy, and of Libertarians for embracing social democracy, not of libertarianism.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  The N.A.P. is considered to be a defining principle of libertarianism, and can be effectively neutered by a couple lines of fine print in a shyster’s adhesion contract. Doesn’t make it much of a “Principle,” eh? Contract Slavery Forward!

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  If you think contracts are slavery then you already think that salaried employment is slavery, which puts you several miles to the left of Obama.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Which, in fact, you probably are.

                  As I have argued before, the Alt Right is not even right wing. It is the dying croak of the New Deal coalition.

                • pdimov says:

                  “If you think contracts are slavery then you already think that salaried employment is slavery…”

                  That’s not at all the same thing. A salaried employee can quit. If you contract yourself into slavery, you can’t quit.

                  Rothbard by the way doesn’t allow you to sell yourself into slavery, because in his framework you don’t own your own life. He also doesn’t allow you to kill yourself (or hire someone to kill you), for the same reason.

                  This was a surprise to me. I’ve always thought that under libertarian doctrine you own yourself fair and square. Turns out, you don’t.

                  Not that it matters. In actual libertarian practice – if such a thing’s possible – NAP will be the equivalent of today’s Constitution, with a Sanhedrin/Supreme Court that interprets whether this or that violates NAP, with the predictable Talmudic/Commerce Clausal results.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  And Rothbard’s argument why you can’t sell yourself into slavery makes zero sense.

                  It’s the same damn thing: Rothbard realised that if you consistently enforce contracts, a lot of stupid and improvident people will end up as slaves. Rothbard then made an unprincipled exception to force the social democrat-approved answer. I say, let stupid and improvident people be slaves.

                  The vast majority of people need some external direction in their lives. That is what a boss is in a salaried employment relationship. Others, who are more independent, can work as co-founders at someone else’s start up, and a handful can be entrepreneurs themselves. But most need a boss, some need a master, and, in some races, perhaps most need a master.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Legitimate contracts aren’t slavery, Cromwell. The harebrained one in which you propose to “subject” (your word) people to your absolute rule is effectively slavery. Learn the difference, if you don’t want to come across like a wannabe Gulag Boss.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  There is no difference between the two, other than your gag reflex. And your gag reflex is wrong.

                  People who consistently max out credit cards with no plan to repay them are not the sort of people who should be wandering the streets on their own initiative, or voting.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Libertarianism isn’t the best that could possibly done; it is worse than an all-wise government.”

                  No, it’s worse than a reasonably competent government, and roughly on par with a half-competent government. It’s better than an incompetent government and in fact when the government is sufficiently incompetent, libertarianism emerges on its own unless prevented by tyranny.

                  It all of course depends on the population. In a sufficiently white country anything works, in a sufficiently black country nothing works, in between it depends. A population that can coordinate itself well enough will do well under libertarianism, a population that is prone to parasitism will do better under libertarianism.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Communism doesn’t work in White countries, and libertarianism works fairly well in Black countries (look at the state of Blacks in 1920s America vs the state of Blacks in Africa today), the problem with Black countries being that Blacks cannot create libertarianism in the first place. Libertarianism is a particular and fragile form of order, not an absence of order.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Cromwell faps to Walter Block’s hot LoLbertarian scene about whipping a “voluntary” contract slave.

                  “He’d like more than anything else to boss me around, and then whip me every time I displeased him … Slave-master Rafe would never shell out the cold cash if, after he paid, I could haul him into court on assault and battery charges when he whipped me.”

                  Voluntary Slave Contracts
                  By Walter Block
                  http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html

                  Maybe you could enslave MILFs to pay-off their maternity care bills or something, if you’re not into Walter’s gay scene. BDSMcare!

                • pdimov says:

                  “Communism doesn’t work in White countries…”

                  Yeah, there are limits.

                  “… and libertarianism works fairly well in Black countries (look at the state of Blacks in 1920s America…”

                  America has never been a black country. Detroit is probably closest to what America would have been were it entirely black.

                  “Libertarianism is a particular and fragile form of order, not an absence of order.”

                  Libertarianism is not a form of order at all. It’s a promise that order will magically emerge. In certain cases and areas order does magically emerge, in others it doesn’t.

                  The reason high trust countries outperform low trust countries is that people in the former can afford to be improvident outside their core competencies. It’s more efficient, due to economies of scale and specialization, to offload non-essential providence to an external provider. Subject to obvious constraints of course – you don’t want to end up with a culture of pervasive improvidence.

                • peppermint says:

                  As always, we’re arguing about what libertarianism means, just like communism. Libertarianism either means laws that everyone follows or no government. Communism either means to each according to needs or no government.

                  To each according to needs is assumed to be the result of market functioning under some theorem or other in libertarianism while laws everyone follows is assumed to spontaneously occur under communism.

                  Death to 20th century ideologies.

                  We will have a government to define and arbitrate the laws. Since there is no such thing as a self-executing law the executive must be the highest court or the highest court will be unaccountable.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “To each according to needs is assumed to be the result of market functioning under some theorem or other in libertarianism while laws everyone follows is assumed to spontaneously occur under communism.”

                  That isn’t what I have said at all. I have said that libertarianism is a good system for deciding who should die for being too useless to live, who should be allowed to continue to live as a slave, and who should be a serf, and in what degree.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “The reason high trust countries outperform low trust countries is that people in the former can afford to be improvident outside their core competencies. It’s more efficient, due to economies of scale and specialization, to offload non-essential providence to an external provider. Subject to obvious constraints of course – you don’t want to end up with a culture of pervasive improvidence.”

                  It isn’t. This is a flaw in our programming. We are designed to help relatives survive the harsh northern winter, since you can easily fail to survive the harsh northern winter for reasons not strongly related to your general competence. Today, with year-round welfare, the improvident are mostly irredeemable parasites.

                  If we are to have a government, it should tax charitable donations, and it should tax healthcare, and maybe even ban charity and healthcare. Suppressing charity is a public good. But since a government will not only never do that, but aggressively do the opposite, best to chuck the government.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Cromwell, you’d make a better primitivist than a libertarian. You’re correct, the cold, snowy north (and wolves with whom we co-evolved) forged White people’s unique characteristics, and we are living in a context of tropical exuberance for which we are ill-adapted biologically/culturally. Have you ever read Kirkpatrick Sale? Before you get all bent out of shape about his Luddism and other friends in low places, Lew Rockwell has published articles of his for the last seven years, so he’s been credentialed with True Libertarian® bona fides.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “The fallacy of libertarianism that it proposes to grant equal freedom to everyone, while the great majority of the population, women and browns, are not capable of exercising that freedom.”

                  Libertarianism is order through financial contracts. Browns are capable of handling freedom, see Egypt under Cromer. Enforce contract laws on women and get rid of state education so they’re under the father’s contract and most of them will be married permanently under a contract that’s in effect unbreakable. Most women won’t compete in the labour market without affirmative action.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Thanks for providing ample evidence that LoLbertarians are globalists at heart, slant-eye.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Is steel post a sock of Corvinus? Same combination of arrogant taunting and utter stupidity.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Enforce contract laws on women…”

                  I don’t see how enforcing a contract on someone who did not enter into said contract can be described as libertarian.

                  At this point, you’re using the word just because it sounds nice, with no connection to its meaning.

                • jim says:

                  What makes you think that he refers to contracts women have not agreed to?

                  The problem is that women cannot make binding contracts – when they agree to a contract it is not, in practice, enforced. In particular, and especially, women cannot contract to binding marriage.

                  Libertarians assume that women are moral agents fully equal to men, so it is reasonable to allow women to freely make contracts and for judges to enforce those contracts. This, however, is an error. It is unfair to women to allow them to make binding contracts without adult male supervision, and they should not be bound by such contracts, any more than children should be. The law enforces contracts on men, but not on women, because it furtively and unofficially notices this disturbing reality – that women are emotionally children, living only in the present, and solipsistically unaware of the wider world. The law does not in actual practice treat women as adults, while at the same time denying them adult supervision.

                • pdimov says:

                  “What makes you think that he refers to contracts women have not agreed to?”

                  He says “so they’re under the father’s contract”.

                  “Libertarians assume that women are moral agents fully equal to men…”

                  Yes, exactly. Once you drop that, you can’t really call yourself libertarian any more.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “I don’t see how enforcing a contract on someone who did not enter into said contract can be described as libertarian.”

                  Search “Guardianship theory”. Per Rothbard, the libertarian theory of children is that they are already subject to their parents’ authority until they can become independent because parents are trustees for their bodies since children are incapacitated from a libertarian perspective.

                  Simply define “independence” as ability to get productive employment and sustain own lifestyle without receiving income from parents. Without affirmative action and state education this excludes majority of females. The females that can reach this standard either have agency in which case we don’t need to worry or are prostitutes in which case they are performing a valuable social service.

                  Also, make default marriage contract Jimist. No divorce except for severe male abuse or if male wants out. Punishment for adultery. No child support / alimony upon divorce if child goes to woman. If beta husbands are pussy enough to agree to a prenup to change these terms they don’t deserve sympathy.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  “In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children.” (((Murray Rothbard)))

                  Sales in the back room at Comet Ping Pong, a fun, kid-friendly neighborhood pizza restaurant. John Podesta, auctioneer.

                • peppermint says:

                  Oh you 20th century faggots, children don’t have rights or are incapacitated or whatever. Children are their parents in a very meaningful sense and their parents absolutely have the biological need to control them until they’re ready to be parents themselves.

                  20th century ideologies are predicated on the souls theory of humanity (humanity is, of course, a social construct). The 21st century will recognize the biological theory of the Arran race.

                  Since 20th century ideologies have nothing to say about man and woman and reproduction, 20th century ideologues are faggots. Since 20th century ideologies have nothing to say about kin and enemies and relatedness, 20th century ideologues are cuckolds.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Sales in the back room at Comet Ping Pong, a fun, kid-friendly neighborhood pizza restaurant. John Podesta, auctioneer.”

                  If your parents had sold you to a family which knew how to teach reading comprehension you’d realize Rothbard was talking about child guardianships and trying to troll. He explicitly states guardianship will be revoked upon abuse which is the case now as well. He just wants to formalize it.

                  A free market in guardianship rights is just unregulated adoption, which the Romans had to. Ever heard of Scipio Aemilianus? Of course you wouldn’t know since you’re busy trying to argue Jefferson supported four hour lunch breaks for fat UAW auto workers. If Jefferson knew you’d twist his words this much he’d whip you harder than any of his slaves.

                  “Children are their parents in a very meaningful sense and their parents absolutely have the biological need to control them until they’re ready to be parents themselves.”

                  Which is exactly what I argued. Your Aryan race is going to become Arab soon considering you managed to drop your race’s IQ by 14 points with just a century of leftism. Another century like this and you’ll be wiggers even without race replacement. https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/were-the-victorians-smarter-than-us.pdf

                • peppermint says:

                  Haha, “market in guardianship rights” why the hell would anyone buy a child except to commit boggable offenses?

                  Parenting is non-transferable and if the law doesn’t know that the law is written by dumbass philosophers.

                  Orphaned children can be given to old people without descendants because quite frankly no one cares about either category.

                  Death to 20th century sterile death-worshiping philosophical retards, death to the Jews.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “why the hell would anyone buy a child except to commit boggable offenses?”

                  Plenty of reasons. Infertility. Charity. Wanting an intelligent heir. Why did the Romans have it? Ever heard of Scipio Aemillianus? Or were you too busy learning about the Jews instead of your Aryan forefathers?

                  Right now adoption is a state monopoly. You have to pay the adoption agency a giant fee. I advocate making it a direct market so there is an incentive to have more kids and those who adopt don’t face shortages. But evidently you prefer Aryan babies be aborted rather than adopted by worthy Aryan couples.

                  http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/abortion-adoption-supply-and-demand/68818/
                  “Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption”

              • Dave says:

                “NAP, it’s a decree, declared by autists!”

                Great song. The surest sign that the author is autistic is that he needed a woman to sing a few lines and couldn’t find one.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                *punishment for female adultery

                • Steel T Post says:

                  How about you slopes run your society like you want to, and we Great White Northerners will run our society like we want to. Problem?

                  “While collectivist societies emphasize genealogy and degree of genetic relatedness in marriage, individualist societies tend to emphasize personal attraction, e.g., romantic love, common interests.[54] John Money has noted the relatively greater tendency of Northern European groups toward romantic love as the basis of marriage.[55] Frank Salter has suggested that Northern European groups have a number of individualistic adaptations related to sexual behavior, including a greater tendency toward romantic love and genetic rather than social control mechanisms to prevent cuckoldry.[56] At the psychological level, the evolutionary basis of individualism involves mechanisms like romantic love in which adaptive behavior is intrinsically rewarding[57] rather than imposed by family strategizing or coerced, as in collectivist cultures. It is the difference between individual courtship between freely consenting and more or less equal partners, versus institutions like the purdah of Near Eastern civilization where the woman is sequestered and controlled by her male relatives until an arranged marriage is concluded.”

                  What Makes Western Culture Unique?
                  Kevin MacDonald
                  http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WesternOrigins.htm

                • peppermint says:

                  In other words, individualistic societies haven’t been invaded in 750-900 years so each individual has a billion grandparents and are around a few million people meaning everyone is basically from the same gene pool, so within each gradation of genetic quality, individuals seek out life partners that they can work with effectively to raise children with, while societies that are multi-ethnic put much more emphasis on ethnicity of the spouse and thus the children.

                  Biology: 2
                  Philosophy: 0

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “we Great White Northerners will run our society like we want to. ”

                  Your way of running things has resulted in a government that stops you from reproducing and takes your money to fund NAMs that want to ethnically cleanse you. Good job.

                  White nationalism, known as nationalism in 1800s America, was part of first wave leftism and basically demanded capitalism and America’s libertarian traditions be cucked in favour of getting UAW auto workers four hour lunch breaks. The ass rape the Cathedral is giving you now is karma for cucking your elites in favour of progressives in the first place. The biggest mistake that 19th century libertarians made was giving people like you the vote.

                  “Biology: 2”

                  https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/were-the-victorians-smarter-than-us.pdf
                  White IQ has dropped 14 points in one century. Keep doing what you’re doing and you’ll be Congolese in no time. You’ve literally dropped IQ faster than in mainland China where Mao killed off the traditional elite.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Also stop blaming the Jews. War to cuck the south, regressive era and New Deal were all pure Anglo leftism. At most, the Jews made the Cathedral more efficient.

                • peppermint says:

                  Lolbergtarianism is a 20th century ideology and prior to ideologies taking hold and destroying the great civilizations they had a primitive nationalism.

                  Evidently oriental in your nickname means filthy rat kike. No one else would simultaneously make fun of Whites for being cucked and tell Whites that it’s morally necessary for them to be cucked.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Evidently oriental in your nickname means filthy rat kike. ”

                  Wanna see a dick pic? No wonder you guys worship Milo. Jews are not a problem if you aren’t cucked. The biggest left wing party in Singapore was founded by a Jew. My people still dealt with it.

                  “No one else would simultaneously make fun of Whites for being cucked and tell Whites that it’s morally necessary for them to be cucked.”

                  White nationalism in the sense that Whites should rule white lands is common sense and obviously true. White nationalism in the sense that all whites are equal and white elites should be cucked by white trash is cuckoldry and exactly what you guys are arguing here. I support getting rid of all cuckery and going back to the founders so I can be ruled by worthy liberty loving white aristocrats.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Lolbergtarianism is a 20th century ideology”

                  Ever heard of Locke, Jefferson and the Classical Liberals? The fact that you WNs don’t even know your history as well as I do shows that study saying white IQ declined by 14 points in last century is for sure correct.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Ever heard of Locke, Jefferson and the Classical Liberals? Yep. They’re not LoLbertarians, even thought the LoLbertarisns try to assign them, or at least some cherry-picked passages, to their movement. LoLbertarians carefully avoid the fact that it was John Locke who originated the labor theory of value. What’s fun is how they struggle to weasel out of that. And what is it of Jefferson that LoLbertarians cherry-pick? Certainly not the Embargo Act. Nor his support of public funded education. How about that Louisiana Purchase? Let’s not forget he was a ¡STATIST!

                  “The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.” -Thomas Jefferson (to James Madison, 1785)

                  No, the actual “Libertarian” movement is an outgrowth of Marxism, who has the exact same goal, the Withering of the State.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  Oh, if you’re going to bring up IQ, just realize that Asian IQ is 5 points under Whites. Bhutan, 78 IQ; Philippines, 86 IQ, Indonesia, 89 IQ. Ouch! Nice try trolling there, LoLbertarian zipperhead.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Certainly not the Embargo Act. Nor his support of public funded education. How about that Louisiana Purchase? Let’s not forget he was a ¡STATIST!”

                  Yes, the one thing Jefferson did which he repealed and is regarded as a huge mistake is somehow representative of his personal views instead of volume upon volume of his writings. Nothing unlibertarian about peaceful territorial expansion.

                  Still haven’t refuted my point about Jefferson’s support for gold standard, taxes as 5% of income, no state regulation of industry (US revolution abolished British mercantilism) and support for keeping drugs / prostitution legal as they were in America until the cathedral consolidated its rule in the 1930s. Go satisfy your masochist desires else where, I’ve already whipped you enough.

                  “Asian IQ is 5 points under Whites.”

                  Philippines and Bhutan are browns, not Asians. If you’re trying to prove white superiority you’re not going to do it by comparing your IQ with my maid, even though she’s probably smarter. Why didn’t you mention HK IQ is 108, highest in the world?

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Public funded education”

                  Subsidies to a few primary schools for the poor is FAR Right of what we have now. Jefferson didn’t even support compulsory attendance laws.

                  It’s also insane that you’re defending public education, but I guess you probably think having your kids learn how adopting black Muslim babies and not having their own is the greatest thing in the world.

                • peppermint says:

                  By your motte and bailey interpretation, everyone is a libertarian. So let’s come up for a new word for the nationality-denying anti-governmental 20th century ideology that demanded free trade (initial US govt was funded largely by tariffs) and open borders (borders weren’t opened until 1960s).

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “So let’s come up for a new word for the nationality-denying anti-governmental 20th century ideology that demanded free trade (initial US govt was funded largely by tariffs) and open borders (borders weren’t opened until 1960s).”

                  Jefferson supported tariffs for revenue only aka free trade. You guys support tariffs to cuck the Aryan consumers and capitalists. Pretty different and his tariffs are way lower. Initial US federal government could be funded by tariffs because it was 2% of GDP. Tariffs are not a particularly efficient form of taxation, poll tax would be better.

                  Open borders NOW is pure insanity since leftists are importing welfare recipients and race warriors. Nobody that’s not an entryist in the libertarian movement supports open borders now. To quote Murray Rothbard on immigration:

                  “Previously, it had been easy to dismiss as unrealistic Jean Raspail’s anti-immigration novel The Camp of the Saints….As cultural and welfare-state problems have intensified, it became impossible to dismiss Raspail’s concerns any longer…the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors.”

                  However, US had open borders in 1800s with the exception they banned the Chinese in 1882 (a move supported by leftists and opposed by ex confederates, see earlier comments) and it worked fine because there was no welfare or affirmative action which meant any immigrant had to sink or swim, and usually swam. You’re pretty anti white if you think a white population with 3.5 kids per woman would collapse if a few East Asians or Hispanics showed up.

                • pdimov says:

                  “taxes as 5% of income”

                  Today I learned that supporting income tax is libertarian.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  I obviously meant % of national income aka GDP. Stop deliberately misinterpreting.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  I think one of my posts isn’t going through. This one is a replacement for it.

                  Jim’s post on “Death of Libertarianism” reflects my views quite accurately except that I think death penalty should not be used for crimes other than murder since criminal needs to compensate victim until he is just as well off as before and blacks pre 1960s were better off than under slavery. I would only add what he calls libertarianism, is actually entryism. No smart libertarian takes those guys seriously.

                • Steel T Post says:

                  You’re right, I haven’t ANSWERED THE QUESTION about Jefferson’s “gold standard” policy making him a LoLbertarian because it’s so absolutely retarded of a strategy to pull Jefferson into the LoLbertarian tribe of halfwits.

                  Both Saddam Hussein and Omar Gadhafi supported a Gold Dinar standard. HAHAHA! Who knew those guys were LoLbertarians too? Thanks, LoLbertarian, for showing us that LoLbertarians do actually have their economic martyrs: Hussein and Gadhafi.

                  This level of stupidity isn’t surprising from someone who claims SE Asians aren’t Asians. Too funny!

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Steel T Post are you a Jew pretending to be a white nationalist to embarrass them? Otherwise, you must be retarded to think Arab socialists support gold standard. Both countries had double digit inflation worse than America which is impossible under gold standard.

                  Libya: up to 30% inflation: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/libya/inflation-cpi

                  Iraq: “From 1994 to 2001, Iraq’s weighted average annual rate of inflation was 80.4 percent; for 2001-2002, the rate ranged from 60 percent to 70 percent.”

                  http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/03/the-road-to-economic-prosperity-for-a-post-saddam-iraq

  4. arqiduka says:

    A proper solution indeed, if you are confident in your polity’s ability to withstand the huge leftie pressure that will inevitably emerge once the chasm between the private and public systems grows large enough. I see a similar dynamic with higher education in my own country and the agitation against private unis is just insane.

  5. Richard Lionhart says:

    The Affordable Health Care Act, Obamacare, is going to be repealed. Come January, 20th Donald Trump will be president and the Republican party will control both houses of congress. Unless Mr. Trump and the Republican party want to take the politically risky course of withdrawing health coverage from tens of million of Americans they will have to replace Obamacare with alternative health care coverage. My plan is summarized below.

    1) The federal government would finance eligible health care expenses for most Americans (see Medicaid considerations below).
    2)Once financed health care payments amount to ten percent of an individual or couple’s adjusted gross income the excess would be added to the balance (catastrophic provision).
    3)At age 65 (Medicare eligibility) or at the time of death the remaining balance would be paid by the program.

    Financing of Eligible Health Care Expenses

    Every American would receive a Health Care credit card which could be used for eligible health care expenses and/or health care insurance premiums (as well as deductibles and co-payments for eligible health insurance plans). Note that participation in this plan is entirely voluntary. If you don’t want the benefits of the plan feel free to make other arrangements for paying your health care expenses.

    Once a balance is incurred Americans could pay it in full or have it financed by the government. The government would charge an interest rate based on its own cost of borrowing plus the cost of capping payments under the catastrophic provision.

    Example: A thirty five year old, who in the first year of the plan’s operation incurs $100,000 in Heath Care credit card expenses, would (assuming a 7% interest rate) need to pay approximately $660 per month but only if his adjusted gross income was $79,000 or greater. Otherwise, monthly payments would be capped at ten percent of adjusted gross income divided by 12. So, if the thirty five year old’s adjusted gross income was $40,000, payments for that year would be capped at approximately $333.00 per month.

    Medicaid Considerations

    Choices would have to be made as to how treat Medicaid recipients under this plan. One possibility would be to exclude Medicaid recipients from further use of the credit card. A second possibility would be for the state to make payments on each recipient’s behalf with a catastrophic cap consistent with federal/state cost sharing.

    Benefits of Plan

    1)Participation is voluntary. If you object on ideological or other considerations don’t use the credit card or if you do pay the balance in full each month.
    2)Wealthier Americans based on a higher cap and therefore greater finance charges would help pay for the health care of those lower down on the ladder but again only to the extent that they chose to participate in the program.
    3)Financing of medical expenses they actually incurred would be more palatable to younger healthier Americans than health care insurance premiums.
    4)The plan could be made either revenue neutral or health care could be subsidized by adjusting the interest rate.
    5)Coverage can be made universal and affordable.

  6. viking says:

    one thing I notice is whites dont like to watch suffering, they probably find it a stupid needless in light of their can do. Insurance is a capitalist tool that can provide a reasonable risk spread. but nigger types are violent unhealthy and worse stupid and that increases astronomically, and AIACC so whatever the rich have today the poor have a basic human right to by the end of today.and of course theres all the red tape from trying to patch it together. it needs to be completely rebuilt all, but it cant be rebuilt for same reason all other stupid shit its racist. This is the great lesson in an all white high iq nation even fucking socialism can be non morbid but in a nigger infected nation the most benign things kill you.
    Personally Im kind of a Randian social darwinist and would be fine with zero social services, but I think its unrealistic whites likes them some risk managment and they hates them some watching suffering so let the market provide insurance for whatever they want but its got to be real maths so private corps.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      That sounds right. The problem is healthcare doesn’t fix health problems self-inflicted by stupidity. A morbidly obese person may consume a huge dollar value of healthcare services but will still be much less healthy than someone who is not morbidly obese and not consuming any healthcare.

      You have to be able to say no, and if you aren’t willing to witness the suffering, you must be able to say no to the overeating, which means slavery or something very much like it.

  7. Samson J. says:

    It always seems to me, a Canadian, that the main problem and absurdity with healthcare in the US is that it’s tied to your job.(!) But I don’t pretend even to begin to understand the system down there.

    • Jamie_NYC says:

      You are right, and this is an accidental historical legacy of WW II. The other issue is the cost of healthcare as % of GDP. My preference would be for faster innovation, lowering the costs not the first priority.

      • Samson J. says:

        Yeah, it’s just… you hear the discussion about cost… about public vs. Private… but you – or at least I – simply don’t hear talk about how crazy it is that a family loses its health coverage when dad switches/loses jobs. It’s a huge elephant in the room… I’m not an apologist for our Canadian system but I can’t believe you guys live that way.

        • pdimov says:

          I’ve read that this was a result of FDR’s wage controls, when healthcare benefits didn’t count toward the cap, so the switch to employer-paid was economically necessary and then just carried on because it worked well enough.

          “I can’t believe you guys live that way.”

          The general rule is that everything works in a white country.

    • peppermint says:

      (1) do-evilers ban practicing medicine without a license. stupid party defers licensing to the Doctor’s Guild rather than creating a government administered test.

      (2) do-evilers create medicare and medicaid, programs to give healthcare to niggers (and oldfags and poorfags). stupid party ensures that these programs can be used to fund outright fraud and leftist speculation by paying “private sector” providers.

      (3) costs of healthcare are out of control. government provides tax incentives for employers to give healthcare as part of the compensation package – through HMOs.

      (4) government realizes that poor and young Whites aren’t paying in, fines them

  8. Art says:

    Jim,
    You open the post stating that one of the major problems of American healthcare system is “massive redistribution from whites to nonwhites”.
    Then you present straightforward economic arguments that hold true regardless of race and ethnicity.
    Seems to me in this case the reference to race only obscures the issue at hand.
    Are you now targeting the audience that will not understand the argument but will find the opening line appealing?

    • jim says:

      Observed reality is that American hospitals pretty much assume that whites will pay for everything, and non whites just will not pay for anything so they don’t seriously bother to try and make them pay their bills. Even poor whites get pursued to pay absurd and extortionate hospital bills, because those pursuing know the race of their targets, but their income. This kind of racism is not just legal, it is almost compulsory.

      The intent was a transfer from rich to poor, and institutional design was a transfer from the provident to the feckless, but as implemented in actual practice, it is primarily race reparations and racial retribution.

    • peppermint says:

      Redistribution is the definition of socialism, but only the Jews could tell people to do redistribution to take care of everyone in their nation but then redistribute from everyone in their nation to everyone in several competing nations, including the Jews.

      Jim’s opening statement was that the lack of price signals are the biggest obstacle to cost cutting.

      These problems are unrelated which is why Jim gives two unrelated solutions. Meanwhile I only want to see any socialist healthcare if it explicitly excludes niggers.

      • Steel T Post says:

        Ask an honest doctor or other health care worker about blacks and ending life support. A white family will quickly realize that their 98 year old stroked grammy is totally vegetative, has no hope of anything, and quickly pull the plug. Blacks? There’s a decent chance the reaction will be WHITEY PLAYING GOD TRYING TO KILL MY GRAMMY! I know I sound racyciss, but even the journals say so.

        “…blacks being more likely than whites to prefer life-prolonging treatments.” –The Influence of Physician Race, Age, and Gender on Physician Attitudes Toward Advance Care Directives and Preferences for End-Of-Life Decision-Making (Journal of the American Geriatric Society, May 1999)

  9. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    I feel like a key prophylactic for ameliorating the healthcare problem is much the same as one for ameliorating the retired old people problem.

    Eg, reinstation and utilization of the extended family.

    In harder times, military aged men and fertile aged women would both be working the land to eat, and care of the children was more the grandparents domain. That was the role they provided, and in turn were subsidized and provided for.

    For healthcare, let us consider first how insurance is a mechanism for distributing risk across a larger body (which that body ends up paying a premium for). Freeriding and malingering are one of the central difficulties of any health care system, and the problem of preventing them is largely a problem of information. If healthcare ‘insurance’ was done rather in turns of the ‘family plans’, ie, the collective of an extended family, the above problems are mitigated by the personal information and personal relationship each principle agent has with each other.

    Ie, a malingerer isn’t defecting from some abstract game theoretic edifice he can hardly conceive of, but drawing harm from his own flesh and blood. Who, in turn, can also enforce their own social consequences for such behavior (ideally, with legal validation, as well, just as in partriarchy).

  10. Dave says:

    Just found this gem on Slashdot:

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/01/05/0143248/department-of-labor-sues-google-over-compensation-data

    So any company that accepts government contracts must hand over a current list of all employees with their salary, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc., so the Department of Labor can fish for discrimination lawsuits.

    And we wonder why the IRS limps along with 1960s mainframe technology, the Obamacare website crashed on day one, and the F-35 cost a trillion dollars and still can’t fly.

    • jim says:

      I am entertained that Google is being forced to obey laws it so enthusiastically supported – and even more delighted because it has transparently and massively broken those laws, which are completely incompatible with running a successful, or even barely functional, Silicon Valley software company.

      • pdimov says:

        Displaying enthusiastic support for these laws is the price you pay for these laws not being used to destroy you. No company the size of Google can afford not to display enthusiastic support. When Google was still small, there was no social justice there.

        Look at what Intel is forced to do. Intel is the only remaining right-wing hi-tech company according to political donations. And for that offense it has to employ will.i.am and jump through other hoops.

        So no, this is not justified payback. Google didn’t go SJW on its own volition.

        • Dave says:

          Big companies are not as powerless as you think; there’s just too much that government cannot do by itself. Even Roosevelt admitted that he couldn’t defeat Hitler without their support. (“goodbye Doctor New-Deal, hello Doctor Win-the-War”)

          If it weren’t in thrall to SJW insanity, Google would let the government cancel its contracts, and the government would then shut down because all its Chromebooks stopped working. They’ll start working again when Google gets a new contract without the diversity clause.

  11. Steel T Post says:

    Perhaps Trump has looked at Singapore’s system. He’s proposing Heath Savings Accounts on his website. Singapore has Medisave, a mandatory health savings account that can be pooled within an extended family. If you don’t hold the minimum medical savings required in your account, then you pay into Medishield insurance until you do.

    Singapore’s system is on a progressive scale of subsidy according to income, with the poorest paying the least. But nobody pays zero, which keeps even the poor from over-utilizing and abusing the system. That kind of incentivizing needs copied too.

    70-80% of Singapores population participates in the public health care system, so it’s not necessarily Gult’s Gulch there.

    • jim says:

      70-80% of Singapores population participates in the public health care system, so it’s not necessarily Gult’s Gulch there.

      “Participates” means “sometimes shows up at a government health facility” – it is not an accurate measure of actual participation.

      Most people pay full price most of the time, which means the consumer is King, which means it really is Galt’s Gulch.

      In Singapore three quarters of health care provision is privately supplied and privately paid for, but in any interaction with the health care system you are likely to encounter a mix of public and private provision, commonly a private doctor treats you while you lie in a government hospital bed. However, chances are you are paying full price for the government hospital bed, which makes it effectively a bed rented by the public sector to your private doctor.

      So the actual proportion of prices and services that are free market and paid for out of pocket is difficult to define, and difficult to actually measure, but are substantially larger than the three quarters that is explicitly private sector.

      Some private services are government subsidized, some government services are privately paid for, but the bottom line is that the great majority of services are privately supplied, and privately paid for, and that sector is Galt’s Gulch – except for government intervention to obtain price transparency and truth in advertising.

      • Steel T Post says:

        You say “most people pay full price most of the time,” and that might sound scary to many. It’s not. Prices will be way cheaper.

        Shoot, it’s getting cheaper to fly a 747 to Tokyo, get an MRI, get the MRI read, then fly home, than it is to pay the copay/coinsurance for an MRI here in the States. (And you avoid risking a bill that would bankrupt you after the insurance company fucks things up, the state insurance commission won’t enforce the law on the insurance company, and the bill collectors come after you to pay the full amount. Sorry about that coding error, brah.)

        Karl Denninger has calculated, the price of a hospital birth in (adjusted for inflation) in 1950, compared to today’s copay/coinsurance for one today. It was cheaper back in the day just to pay cash before the banksters and “insurance” companies and non-competition laws rocketed prices to the stratosphere.

Leave a Reply