Theory Got Crushed by a Chad-lite in a Political Argument, Inside the Mind of a Chad

[Intellectual]

A few weeks ago I had an argument with a Chad-lite at a local debate society about politics. I felt I started off strong but the Chad quickly started derailing the conversation. I thought he was stupid at first, but his mindset was brilliant when I examine with hindsight. We were speaking about the best ways to structure a society assuming we were the President/Prime-Minister of a nation state. I was arguing from an ideal perspective, how I would like society to run. I was reiterating a lot of Milton Friedman's arguments, talking about how it would be optimal to do away with all farm subsidies, supply management, and inefficient regulations. I was arguing that we should abolish social security by giving every citizen a present-value bond equal to the value they are currently owed, and then abolishing the SS payroll tax. I was speaking about mass infrastructure changes. The Chad didn't care, he seemed only concerned with the practical implementation of said policies. With everything I said, he'd autistically repeat the same line, "that my friend, that is politics!"

>"But here's why my system is better!" I'd utter

>"Ok, cool, but how would you pass that through the legislature when the farm lobby has X % lobbying power" the Chad would respond.

>"It would be hard to implement but ideally it would be good" I'd say

>"That, my friend, is politics" Chad responded with a smirk.

>"B-but if we abolish social security, people will have more of their paycheck to invest in their own retirement through their own means" I said.

>"Cool, good luck pursaiding the public that when every media outlet in the country will frame that as 'anon wants to take your pension away'".

>"That's because people are stupid and don't understand..."

>"That my friend, that is politics!"

I kept telling him I don't give a fuck the liklihood of these policies getting approved by some cucked legislative assembly, but the Chad wasn't letting me have it. "If it's not practical, I'm not interested", and "that my friend, that is politics!"

I thought the Chadlite was low IQ but come to think about it, he's high IQ. He's looking at politics from a practical standpoint, he wants to be a politician. He wants power. I'm being an autistic abstractcel, he's being a Chad who wants to dominate shit. I really thought about reconsidering how I should view the world with that discussion.

Perhaps the Chad minset is more healthy in this regard, I should view everything from a practical point of view, like I'm playing a game of Chess, what's the best move on the board? I know it won't get me laid but it may help in other regards, thoughts???

 

[fang]

There's nothing more practical in the policy world than TND

 

[wereq]

Milton Friedman's arguments

Even from a theoretical perspective the libertarian free-market approach that this kike presents is flawed because humans are evil and they tend to exploit their freedoms. Remove regulations and you get mass exploitation, slavery, pollution, etc. Libertarians assume that humans are rational law-abiding actors of decency and good faith, and that couldn't be further from the truth. Truth is that human nature is deeply flawed, very dark and brutal. It needs constant vigilance, supervision and regulation. In the end, all politics in essence is about human nature.

 

[tulasdanslos]

It is my impression that most self-identified incels are autistic and don't seek power from my experience being in the forum for five years. I think we just don't get things in addition to being ugly, it's what your conclusion drove me to say after reading your thread.

 

[Intellectual]

Even from a theoretical perspective the libertarian free-market approach that this kike presents is flawed because humans are evil and they tend to exploit their freedoms. Remove regulations and you get mass exploitation, slavery, pollution, etc. Libertarians assume that humans are rational law-abiding actors of decency and good faith, and that couldn't be further from the truth. Truth is that human nature is deeply flawed, very dark and brutal. It needs constant vigilance, supervision and regulation. In the end, all politics in essence is about human nature.

How would one exploit their freedoms? Can you give me an example of this happening or what you mean by that? Things that violate other people's rights would still be against the law.

>slavery

Slavery would be illegal

>pollution

Pollution would still be taxed under a Friedmanian system as it imposes an externality, Friedman argued for a carbon tax.

>Libertarians assume that humans are rational law-abiding actors of decency and good faith, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

No we don't, we believe that in a free market, rational law-abiding actors will be naturally rewarded because that's the only real way to acquire wealth. Criminals, lazy people, poor decision makers will all suffer the consequences of your their actions. If someone is a drug addict, their health and finances will suffer. If someone commits crime, they'll go to jail. The only way to succeed in a libertarian world would be to produce wealth.

 

[Lonelyus]

A few weeks ago I had an argument with a Chad-lite at a local debate society about politics. I felt I started off strong but the Chad quickly started derailing the conversation. I thought he was stupid at first, but his mindset was brilliant when I examine with hindsight. We were speaking about the best ways to structure a society assuming we were the President/Prime-Minister of a nation state. I was arguing from an ideal perspective, how I would like society to run. I was reiterating a lot of Milton Friedman's arguments, talking about how it would be optimal to do away with all farm subsidies, supply management, and inefficient regulations. I was arguing that we should abolish social security by giving every citizen a present-value bond equal to the value they are currently owed, and then abolishing the SS payroll tax. I was speaking about mass infrastructure changes. The Chad didn't care, he seemed only concerned with the practical implementation of said policies. With everything I said, he'd autistically repeat the same line, "that my friend, that is politics!"

>"But here's why my system is better!" I'd utter

>"Ok, cool, but how would you pass that through the legislature when the farm lobby has X % lobbying power" the Chad would respond.

>"It would be hard to implement but ideally it would be good" I'd say

>"That, my friend, is politics" Chad responded with a smirk.

>"B-but if we abolish social security, people will have more of their paycheck to invest in their own retirement through their own means" I said.

>"Cool, good luck pursaiding the public that when every media outlet in the country will frame that as 'anon wants to take your pension away'".

>"That's because people are stupid and don't understand..."

>"That my friend, that is politics!"

I kept telling him I don't give a fuck the liklihood of these policies getting approved by some cucked legislative assembly, but the Chad wasn't letting me have it. "If it's not practical, I'm not interested", and "that my friend, that is politics!"

I thought the Chadlite was low IQ but come to think about it, he's high IQ. He's looking at politics from a practical standpoint, he wants to be a politician. He wants power. I'm being an autistic abstractcel, he's being a Chad who wants to dominate shit. I really thought about reconsidering how I should view the world with that discussion.

Perhaps the Chad minset is more healthy in this regard, I should view everything from a practical point of view, like I'm playing a game of Chess, what's the best move on the board? I know it won't get me laid but it may help in other regards, thoughts???

You got chads?

 

[Verxis]

There's nothing more practical in the policy world than TND

That, my friend, that is politics.

 

[Intellectual]

You got chads?

He's an autistically obsessed political Chadlite who I met at a local debate club.

 

[wereq]

The

How would one exploit their freedoms? Can you give me an example of this happening or what you mean by that?

The same way women have exploited and abused their freedoms and rights to establish control over men.

Slavery would be illegal

The workaround would we easy. Pay meager wages which are disproportionately low for amount and quality of labor. That's close enough to slavery.

Pollution would still be taxed under a Friedmanian system as it imposes an externality, Friedman argued for a carbon tax.

A company could still have a profit margin enough to not be affected by this tax.

No we don't, we believe that in a free market, rational law-abiding actors will be naturally rewarded because that's the only real way to acquire wealth.

The problem is vice. It draws people in. They can feign rationality while using logic loopholes to workaround the outlines of rules to their advantage. If there are rules, people will find a way to break them.
We have observed that in the post-war years, malicious actors have taken advantage of openness of relatively libertarian societies to spread poisonous doctrines like feminism and sexual hedonism which have undermined the very rational-libertarian framework that gave freedom to these actors. They spread their propaganda slowly and insidiously at such a covert sluggish speed that it evaded the alarm bells of otherwise rational actors. The fundamental issue is that libertarianism is a weak and fragile system without any (or enough) centralization which allows enemies to easily infiltrate its infrastructure, and take over.

 

[wereq]

Criminals, lazy people, poor decision makers will all suffer the consequences of your their actions. If someone is a drug addict, their health and finances will suffer. If someone commits crime, they'll go to jail. The only way to succeed in a libertarian world would be to produce wealth.

Except, that's just too theoretical. Do niggers suffer the consquences of their criminality in blue inner city shitholes? Do women suffer the consequences for being parasitic whores? NO! Why? Because mass consensus achieved through brainwashing is on their side. The human mind isn't fundamentally rational and therefore cannot be treated as such. Our subconscious dominates, our emotions and instincts dominate, not rationality. Reason is merely used as a tool for justification.

 

[Intellectual]

The same way women have exploited and abused their freedoms and rights to establish control over men.

I don't see how that would happen in a free market. Market mechanisms self-correct automatically with inefficiency. The sexual market place is fundmentally different due to its zero-sum nature. There is one man for every woman, if foids are more picky, the entire scale is shifted in their favor. In a free market of goods, more foids would be produced to compensate for the shortfall of supply.

The workaround would we easy. Pay meager wages which are disproportionately low for amount and quality of labor. That's close enough to slavery.

If companies are paying low wages, there is two inevitable results

1) Prices decrease, in which case workers would have just as much purchasing power, because albeit they have low wages, they can easily afford what they need as prices are low

2) Companies make excess profits, as they keep prices high but maintain low wages.

If option 2) happens, there would be opportunities for whomever would like to enter that industry and either bid wages up via stealing workers, or bid prices down by offering a lower price. If businesses are making excess profit, then that creates room for competition to enter.

A company could still have a profit margin enough to not be affected by this tax.

See point above, any company that's making profit is an opportunity for competition to enter and reap said profit.

The problem is vice. It draws people in. They can feign rationality while using logic loopholes to workaround the outlines of rules to their advantage. If there are rules, people will find a way to break them.
We have observed that in the post-war years, malicious actors have taken advantage of openness of relatively libertarian societies to spread poisonous doctrines like feminism and sexual hedonism which have undermined the very rational-libertarian framework that gave freedom to these actors. They spread their propaganda slowly and insidiously at such a covert sluggish speed that it evaded the alarm bells of otherwise rational actors. The fundamental issue is that libertarianism is a weak and fragile system without any (or enough) centralization which allows enemies to easily infiltrate its infrastructure, and take over.

This is actually a really good point, and although it goes against my nature. I think some censorship would be required to maintain national order. I would like to enforce social conservatism. Perhaps the system we had under FDR was the best, the FCC regulated the film industry and had to pre-approve every script, anything too degenerate was forbidden from airing.

 

[wereq]

2) Companies make excess profits, as they keep prices high but maintain low wages.

If option 2) happens, there would be opportunities for whomever would like to enter that industry and either bid wages up via stealing workers, or bid prices down by offering a lower price. If businesses are making excess profit, then that creates room for competition to enter.

Monopolies exist and new companies can't always compete with bigger more established firms. Also, there's no guarantee that even with multiple companies in the scene, that employees will stand to gain better wages.

 

[SomaliInScandi]

The best looking Chads in the world are Socialists from Scandinavia

 

[suicidecase]

Chad always wins

 

[Caesercel]

Lol what garbage. If you follow that line of reasoning to its conclusion then politics is nothing but power seeking for one's own personal benefit. It promotes and rewards deception. And that's how you get those ideals passed in law.

 

[FakeFakecel]

dnr

 

[Intellectual]

Monopolies exist and new companies can't always compete with bigger more established firms. Also, there's no guarantee that even with multiple companies in the scene, that employees will stand to gain better wages.

I'm yet to find a single example of a monopoly existing in the United States, besides government corporations. The only way an exclusive monopoly can exist is if the government sanctions it.

 

[Intellectual]

The best looking Chads in the world are Socialists from Scandinavia

Scandinavians aren't that attractive. The average Swede looks like a massive soyboy Dork.

 

[mmm]

Scandinavians aren't that attractive. The average Swede looks like a massive soyboy Dork.

I disagree. Swedes/North Europeans are probably some of the best looking people.
Video related:



Which ethnicity/nationality do you think is actually good looking?

 

[Govid_Dorious]

There's nothing more practical in the policy world than TND

of course

 

[PLA1092]

I don't see how that would happen in a free market. Market mechanisms self-correct automatically with inefficiency. The sexual market place is fundmentally different due to its zero-sum nature. There is one man for every woman, if foids are more picky, the entire scale is shifted in their favor. In a free market of goods, more foids would be produced to compensate for the shortfall of supply.



If companies are paying low wages, there is two inevitable results

1) Prices decrease, in which case workers would have just as much purchasing power, because albeit they have low wages, they can easily afford what they need as prices are low

2) Companies make excess profits, as they keep prices high but maintain low wages.

If option 2) happens, there would be opportunities for whomever would like to enter that industry and either bid wages up via stealing workers, or bid prices down by offering a lower price. If businesses are making excess profit, then that creates room for competition to enter.



See point above, any company that's making profit is an opportunity for competition to enter and reap said profit.


This is actually a really good point, and although it goes against my nature. I think some censorship would be required to maintain national order. I would like to enforce social conservatism. Perhaps the system we had under FDR was the best, the FCC regulated the film industry and had to pre-approve every script, anything too degenerate was forbidden from airing.

Scandinavians aren't that attractive. The average Swede looks like a massive soyboy Dork.

I'm yet to find a single example of a monopoly existing in the United States, besides government corporations. The only way an exclusive monopoly can exist is if the government sanctions it.

I don't see how that would happen in a free market. Market mechanisms self-correct automatically with inefficiency. The sexual market place is fundmentally different due to its zero-sum nature. There is one man for every woman, if foids are more picky, the entire scale is shifted in their favor. In a free market of goods, more foids would be produced to compensate for the shortfall of supply.



If companies are paying low wages, there is two inevitable results

1) Prices decrease, in which case workers would have just as much purchasing power, because albeit they have low wages, they can easily afford what they need as prices are low

2) Companies make excess profits, as they keep prices high but maintain low wages.

If option 2) happens, there would be opportunities for whomever would like to enter that industry and either bid wages up via stealing workers, or bid prices down by offering a lower price. If businesses are making excess profit, then that creates room for competition to enter.



See point above, any company that's making profit is an opportunity for competition to enter and reap said profit.


This is actually a really good point, and although it goes against my nature. I think some censorship would be required to maintain national order. I would like to enforce social conservatism. Perhaps the system we had under FDR was the best, the FCC regulated the film industry and had to pre-approve every script, anything too degenerate was forbidden from airing.

That, my friend, is politics.

 

[Intellectual]

I disagree. Swedes/North Europeans are probably some of the best looking people.
Video related:



Which ethnicity/nationality do you think is actually good looking?

Personally I'd say Eastern European. I've seen too many interviews in Sweden and Norway (not with models) that reveal very funny looking and weird looking people. Greta Thunberg comes to mind.

 

[Intellectual]

That, my friend, is politics.

LMAO

 

[Intellectual]

Based GrAY

Not really, Blackcels are our friend.

 

[DayOfTheRodger]

The issue is that he's right

 

[Intellau_Celistic]

Read this:

Ralph Nader

Consumer Advocate

nader.org

I can't listen to his podcast or visit much anymore, though.

 

[sneedapolis]

and that, my friend, is politics.

 

[Intellectual]

Read this:

Ralph Nader

Consumer Advocate

nader.org

I can't listen to his podcast or visit much anymore, though.

I opened it and it's a link to other articles, what specifically?

I should note I really don't like Ralph Nader, in fact he's someone I truly hate more than anything.

 

[Chudpreet]

There's nothing more practical in the policy world than TND

 

[Chudpreet]

The best looking Chads in the world are Socialists from Scandinavia

There are no leftist Chads, even Hasan Piker who left wingers revere as their “woke bae” has a monkey looking face and is saved by his massive height and frame

 

[Chudpreet]

Personally I'd say Eastern European. I've seen too many interviews in Sweden and Norway (not with models) that reveal very funny looking and weird looking people. Greta Thunberg comes to mind.

Eastern Europe is nowhere near close to having as high of a percentage of Chads as countries like The Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, etc

 

[eldercelder]

Even from a theoretical perspective the libertarian free-market approach that this kike presents is flawed because humans are evil and they tend to exploit their freedoms. Remove regulations and you get mass exploitation, slavery, pollution, etc. Libertarians assume that humans are rational law-abiding actors of decency and good faith, and that couldn't be further from the truth. Truth is that human nature is deeply flawed, very dark and brutal. It needs constant vigilance, supervision and regulation. In the end, all politics in essence is about human nature.

Yes. I'd be all for libertarianism if more people could handle it, but they can't. And that's precisely why it can't work.

Like saying, "You and I aren't thieves. It would be nice to have the customer simply put their money in the register for us. If you and I were to do it, we'd be honest. But we can't have a system where everyone is held to our standards, because most people aren't going to abide by it. You'll be robbed within the first half hour"

 

[Intellectual]

There are no leftist Chads, even Hasan Piker who left wingers revere as their “woke bae” has a monkey looking face and is saved by his massive height and frame

Cope, Hasan Piker is a genetic specimen, he has an incredible face.

 

[Intellectual]

Yes. I'd be all for libertarianism if more people could handle it, but they can't. And that's precisely why it can't work.

Like saying, "You and I aren't thieves. It would be nice to have the customer simply put their money in the register for us. If you and I were to do it, we'd be honest. But we can't have a system where everyone is held to our standards, because most people aren't going to abide by it. You'll be robbed within the first half hour"

How would someone exploit a libertarian society?

>They're criminals
They'd still go to jail if they infringe on anothers' rights

>They're lazy
They will be paid accordingly

>They're selfish
Ok, they can be as selfish as they'd like with their own money.

 

[eldercelder]

I thought the Chadlite was low IQ but come to think about it, he's high IQ. He's looking at politics from a practical standpoint, he wants to be a politician. He wants power.

I think he's being a realist. Not living in mental masturbation fantasy cope land. Before getting offended, understand that's a way of making you think rather than get hung up on the whole "I have these brilliant ideas" loop. You're not factoring in the whole equation, but I think you're starting to see it.

>"B-but if we abolish social security, people will have more of their paycheck to invest in their own retirement through their own means" I said.

>"Cool, good luck pursaiding the public that when every media outlet in the country will frame that as 'anon wants to take your pension away'".

TWO things are going on here: He's correct, you're not factoring in public reaction to your ideas. From a purely analytical perspective (forgetting public opinion for a moment), is this even a good and practical idea to begin with just because YOU have fantasies?

You're failing to take into account mass appeal, which is exactly what politics is (as Chadlite has correctly schooled you on)

You're also assuming your Ivory Tower fantasies will have the benefits you assume they will. Reminds me of the whole, "We will be welcomed as liberators bringing precious democracy" to cultures and lands where it will never take. "The people will have more freedom and be happier." Just because YOU think something sounds good in theory doesn't mean it has real-world application.

 

[Intellectual]

I think he's being a realist. Not living in mental masturbation fantasy cope land. Before getting offended, understand that's a way of making you think rather than get hung up on the whole "I have these brilliant ideas" loop. You're not factoring in the whole equation, but I think you're starting to see it.



TWO things are going on here: He's correct, you're not factoring in public reaction to your ideas. From a purely analytical perspective (forgetting public opinion for a moment), is this even a good and practical idea to begin with just because YOU have fantasies?

You're failing to take into account mass appeal, which is exactly what politics is (as Chadlite has correctly schooled you on)

You're also assuming your Ivory Tower fantasies will have the benefits you assume they will. Reminds me of the whole, "We will be welcomed as liberators bringing precious democracy" to cultures and lands where it will never take. "The people will have more freedom and be happier." Just because YOU think something sounds good in theory doesn't mean it has real-world application.

I fully agree, but it just makes me angry. I KNOW FOR A FACT my social security idea is a good thing. People would be far far better off without social security by every metric, but they can't think beyond the horizon even a little bit.

 

[eldercelder]

How would someone exploit a libertarian society?

>They're criminals
They'd still go to jail if they infringe on anothers' rights

>They're lazy
They will be paid accordingly

>They're selfish
Ok, they can be as selfish as they'd like with their own money.

I didn't say anything about exploitation. I'm saying it couldn't work.

As far as a legal system is concerned, I can't fathom any less corruption in a libertarian society than what we have now. Crimes would still be punished, but innocents would go to jail and well-loved people would get a slap on the wrist. If anything, it would be like it is now on steroids.

Laziness has nothing to do with anything. A bossman can pay his pretty secretary lots of money to do very little, and pay a hard-wroking man peanuts. But that's like it is now (minus minimum wage laws, at least there's a base pay, a default protection).

Nothing to do with how people spend their money. Not even sure what this has to do with anything.

EDIT: By the way, what is your social security idea?

 

[Intellectual]

I didn't say anything about exploitation. I'm saying it couldn't work.

As far as a legal system is concerned, I can't fathom any less corruption in a libertarian society than what we have now. Crimes would still be punished, but innocents would go to jail and well-loved people would get a slap on the wrist. If anything, it would be like it is now on steroids.

Laziness has nothing to do with anything. A bossman can pay his pretty secretary lots of money to do very little, and pay a hard-wroking man peanuts. But that's like it is now (minus minimum wage laws, at least there's a base pay, a default protection).

Nothing to do with how people spend their money. Not even sure what this has to do with anything.

How would innocents go to jail and well loved people would get a slap on the risk?

The courts would ensure equal treatment and if they didn't, the Supreme Court and DOJ would clamp down on it, as they already do.

 

[eldercelder]

How would innocents go to jail and well loved people would get a slap on the risk?

The courts would ensure equal treatment and if they didn't, the Supreme Court and DOJ would clamp down on it, as they already do.

Easily. Courts are run by PEOPLE. People aren't going to change their nature just because we're supposedly living in a libertarian society. Even today, basic concepts like freedom of speech are hard for most people to fathom, despite supposedly being protected on paper.

By the way, what's your idea on Social Security?

 

[Intellectual]

Easily. Courts are run by PEOPLE. People aren't going to change their nature just because we're supposedly living in a libertarian society. Even today, basic concepts like freedom of speech are hard for most people to fathom, despite supposedly being protected on paper.

By the way, what's your idea on Social Security?

A libertarian society with a small subset of laws that are heavily enforced would be as close to objectivity as possible. It's when there's more laws than anyone can count that it becomes complex and up to interpretation.

>what's your idea on social security

Totally abolish the program after giving everyone a government T-bond worth the present value of everything they've put into it. After that is given out, no one has to pay into it anymore, and no one receives anything.

I consider the Social Security payroll deduction a human rights violation. I'm 100% for tax if it's going towards justifiable purposes, like intelligence, national defense, large scale infrastructure, scientific advancement, but not social security.

 

[eldercelder]

A libertarian society with a small subset of laws that are heavily enforced would be as close to objectivity as possible. It's when there's more laws than anyone can count that it becomes complex and up to interpretation.

I'm with you in spirit. Don't think humanity can handle this. Any law is up for interpretation. How they're enforced and ruled upon is up to those in POWER, regardless of how many laws we have or don't have. Yes, it would be nice if the people in power had a libertarian mindset, no guarantee that's how people will think if the system is put in place.

Totally abolish the program after giving everyone a government T-bond worth the present value of everything they've put into it. After that is given out, no one has to pay into it anymore, and no one receives anything.

So someone nearing retirement age has put a lot more into it than someone who's only been working a few years. This sounds like your idea to close it out, doesn't explain why this would be a good idea.

 

[Intellectual]

I'm with you in spirit. Don't think humanity can handle this. Any law is up for interpretation. How they're enforced and ruled upon is up to those in POWER, regardless of how many laws we have or don't have. Yes, it would be nice if the people in power had a libertarian mindset, no guarantee that's how people will think if the system is put in place.



So someone nearing retirement age has put a lot more into it than someone who's only been working a few years. This sounds like your idea to close it out, doesn't explain why this would be a good idea.

Yeah that's the point, someone who's near retirement age gets a lot more, but they've paid into the system a lot more. I am 23, I've worked for one year, I'd only get a few hundred $$$'s out of it, but that would still be in my interest, because for the rest of my life I'd never have to pay into the program, and I'd take home more of my paycheck which I could use to build up my own passive income streams.

 

[eldercelder]

Yeah that's the point, someone who's near retirement age gets a lot more, but they've paid into the system a lot more. I am 23, I've worked for one year, I'd only get a few hundred $$$'s out of it, but that would still be in my interest, because for the rest of my life I'd never have to pay into the program, and I'd take home more of my paycheck which I could use to build up my own passive income streams.

Most people would simply blow the little extra money the way they still blow their current paychecks. But that's on them? Fine. More importantly, you're not factoring in people who pay for it and become truly disabled before retirement age. That pension is a nice little something. Like, if you get crippled and maimed in your 30s and can no longer work, you're disability payment will be based on how much you put into it and paid to you in perpetuity (or until retirement age). Without it, you're ultra fucked.

But at 23 you're not thinking about what's it's like to get old, be old. You've only been in the working world for a year. It's not all about ABILITY, you've yet to experience the social bullshit that comes with working.

 

[Intellectual]

Most people would simply blow the little extra money the way they still blow their current paychecks. But that's on them? Fine. More importantly, you're not factoring in people who pay for it and become truly disabled before retirement age. That pension is a nice little something. Like, if you get crippled and maimed in your 30s and can no longer work, you're disability payment will be based on how much you put into it and paid to you in perpetuity (or until retirement age). Without it, you're ultra fucked.

I'd have a welfare program for disabled people separately, it shouldn't be based on how much you contribute to it, it should be based on when you've become disabled. If a 24 year old worker gets disabled, he should get the same payments as a 55 year old disabled person.

But at 23 you're not thinking about what's it's like to get old, be old. You've only been in the working world for a year. It's not all about ABILITY, you've yet to experience the social bullshit that comes with working.

So wouldn't it be far better if i didn't have to give over 6% of my paycheck to SS, so I could use that money to invest in businesses that make me incredibly rich? I'd rather be rich when I'm old than not, either way, abolishing SS benefits me both now and when I'm old.

 

[eldercelder]

I'd have a welfare program for disabled people separately, it shouldn't be based on how much you contribute to it, it should be based on when you've become disabled. If a 24 year old worker gets disabled, he should get the same payments as a 55 year old disabled person.

Well, how are you going to pay for that? People who are disabled but without having contributed get the lesser welfare program of Social Security Insurance (SSI), as opposed to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) that's been paid into via work history. Either way, it's funded by taxpayers.

And yes, in any welfare program, there are people who pay into it and die before reaping the benefits, and people who become disabled early and get to collect disability for a long time. You're not explaining where the money for your all-get-the-same-pay welfare program comes from. Okay, instead of contributing to Social Security, we'll take the same monies to fund your welfare program. You're still not gonna see that cash.

23 with one year of work is very naïve. Don't be offended. Think about this more long-term. You haven't factored in other life things.

 

[Intellectual]

Well, how are you going to pay for that? People who are disabled but without having contributed get the lesser welfare program of Social Security Insurance (SSI), as opposed to Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) that's been paid into via work history. Either way, it's funded by taxpayers.

I don't think you understand, SSI and SSDI would be totally abolished, it would just be replaced by government spending of equal amounts. I would have a tax payer funded program to help people who are disabled.

And yes, in any welfare program, there are people who pay into it and die before reaping the benefits, and people who become disabled early and get to collect disability for a long time. You're not explaining where the money for your all-get-the-same-pay welfare program comes from. Okay, instead of contributing to Social Security, we'll take the same monies to fund your welfare program. You're still not gonna see that cash.

I would pay a lot less in taxes if it was exclusively used to pay for disabled people, as opposed to disabled people AND every retired boomer in the country.

23 with one year of work is very naïve. Don't be offended. Think about this more long-term. You haven't factored in other life things.

Ok so tell me what I'm missing then? Give me a scenario where social security is good.

 

[eldercelder]

I don't think you understand, SSI and SSDI would be totally abolished, it would just be replaced by government spending of equal amounts. I would have a tax payer funded program to help people who are disabled.

I would pay a lot less in taxes if it was exclusively used to pay for disabled people, as opposed to disabled people AND every retired boomer in the country.

Ok so tell me what I'm missing then? Give me a scenario where social security is good.

You don't understand you'd have to have your welfare program in place before abolishing SSI/SSDI. Which would have to be funded in advance. Unless you take all current SS monies and say they go to the special disability fund now.

You also don't understand SS is a gamble of sorts. You can die before retirement age. If you live to be 100, people who died before retirement age contributed to your monthly stipend. Either way, there's a magic age to get to, some will make it, some won't. And if you're too old to work, you're essentially disabled anyway. Your system requires every worked to pay to upkeep every disabled person, which is comparable to SSI, but doesn't factor in how much you work/how much you earn, which will determine your payment when you're old (can't work, effectively disabled).

You'd actually pay the same or more in taxes if every disabled person was getting the same set rate. That's essentially what SSI is. You're welfare program is essentially SSI.

A scenario where SS is good: You work for 10 years. You make good money. Or not. Maybe you're hassled and forced out of many jobs even if you're a good worker (as many incels are) simply for being ugly/weird/unpopular. But you're paying into SS. You then have some major disabling incident. At 33, you'll never work again. Instead of a base SSI, because of your work history, you may be entitled to more with SSDI. And this will continue until you reach retirement age, at which point you hit the regular SS payment. And this becomes your income. You're now a crippled fuck who can't even read a screen or newspaper to know how to invest his money, much less work. But you have income based on prior efforts.

 

[Intellectual]

You don't understand you'd have to have your welfare program in place before abolishing SSI/SSDI. Which would have to be funded in advance. Unless you take all current SS monies and say they go to the special disability fund now.

You also don't understand SS is a gamble of sorts. You can die before retirement age. If you live to be 100, people who died before retirement age contributed to your monthly stipend. Either way, there's a magic age to get to, some will make it, some won't. And if you're too old to work, you're essentially disabled anyway. Your system requires every worked to pay to upkeep every disabled person, which is comparable to SSI, but doesn't factor in how much you work/how much you earn, which will determine your payment when you're old (can't work, effectively disabled).

You'd actually pay the same or more in taxes if every disabled person was getting the same set rate. That's essentially what SSI is. You're welfare program is essentially SSI.

A scenario where SS is good: You work for 10 years. You make good money. Or not. Maybe you're hassled and forced out of many jobs even if you're a good worker (as many incels are) simply for being ugly/weird/unpopular. But you're paying into SS. You then have some major disabling incident. At 33, you'll never work again. Instead of a base SSI, because of your work history, you may be entitled to more with SSDI. And this will continue until you reach retirement age, at which point you hit the regular SS payment. And this becomes your income. You're now a crippled fuck who can't even read a screen or newspaper to know how to invest his money, much less work. But you have income based on prior efforts.

Ok, lets put it this way.

I don't want to pay into a system that's going to be paying me the money back when im 65, I'd rather invest my own money when I'm 65.

And if you're too old to work, you had your entire life to save up and invest and build wealth.

 

[Simulacrasimulation]

A few weeks ago I had an argument with a Chad-lite at a local debate society about politics. I felt I started off strong but the Chad quickly started derailing the conversation. I thought he was stupid at first, but his mindset was brilliant when I examine with hindsight. We were speaking about the best ways to structure a society assuming we were the President/Prime-Minister of a nation state. I was arguing from an ideal perspective, how I would like society to run. I was reiterating a lot of Milton Friedman's arguments, talking about how it would be optimal to do away with all farm subsidies, supply management, and inefficient regulations. I was arguing that we should abolish social security by giving every citizen a present-value bond equal to the value they are currently owed, and then abolishing the SS payroll tax. I was speaking about mass infrastructure changes. The Chad didn't care, he seemed only concerned with the practical implementation of said policies. With everything I said, he'd autistically repeat the same line, "that my friend, that is politics!"

>"But here's why my system is better!" I'd utter

>"Ok, cool, but how would you pass that through the legislature when the farm lobby has X % lobbying power" the Chad would respond.

>"It would be hard to implement but ideally it would be good" I'd say

>"That, my friend, is politics" Chad responded with a smirk.

>"B-but if we abolish social security, people will have more of their paycheck to invest in their own retirement through their own means" I said.

>"Cool, good luck pursaiding the public that when every media outlet in the country will frame that as 'anon wants to take your pension away'".

>"That's because people are stupid and don't understand..."

>"That my friend, that is politics!"

I kept telling him I don't give a fuck the liklihood of these policies getting approved by some cucked legislative assembly, but the Chad wasn't letting me have it. "If it's not practical, I'm not interested", and "that my friend, that is politics!"

I thought the Chadlite was low IQ but come to think about it, he's high IQ. He's looking at politics from a practical standpoint, he wants to be a politician. He wants power. I'm being an autistic abstractcel, he's being a Chad who wants to dominate shit. I really thought about reconsidering how I should view the world with that discussion.

Perhaps the Chad minset is more healthy in this regard, I should view everything from a practical point of view, like I'm playing a game of Chess, what's the best move on the board? I know it won't get me laid but it may help in other regards, thoughts???

The problem with this chad mindset is HE WONT CHANGE ANYTHING AND ACTUALLY GOES WITH THE STATUS QUO, if he reduces every argument to NOTHING CAN EVER CHANGE BRO BECAUSE MUH SELF INTEREST AND MUH CORRUPTION, THEN THE SAME SYSTEM OF CORRUPTION AND SELF INTEREST WILL BE ALLOWED TO THRIVE UNDER CHAD, HE LITERALLY HAS ALREADY SOLD OUT FOR POWER.

You are an idealist yes, BUT THIS IS FAR BETTER TO TRY AND CHANGE SOMETHING YOU KNOW FOR SURE AINT RIGHT, THAN GIVE UP ALL YOUR MORALS AND ROLL WITH A SYSTEM YOU KNOW FOR SURE IS WRONG, BUT CANT BE BOTHERED OR CANT CONCIEVE OF HOW TO CHANGE IT.

All his argument boils down to is, you might be right bro, but its just REALLY DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT ANYTHING IN POLITICS.
THIS MAY BE SO, BUT IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON NOT TO TRY.

This is like saying to Roger Bannister before the 4 minute mile, Bro NO ONE HAS BROKEN 4 MINUTES AND ITS REALLY HARD AND IT HURTS TO RUN THAT FAST BRO , "AND THAT'S ATHLETICS".

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBUT BANNISTER RAN A SUB 4 MINUTE MILE, ABSOLUTELY ANNHILIATING THIS PATHETIC LOW EFFORT VIEW.

ITS THE SAME THING WITH POLITICS.

 

[Intellectual]

The problem with this chad mindset is HE WONT CHANGE ANYTHING AND ACTUALLY GOES WITH THE STATUS QUO, if he reduces every argument to NOTHING CAN EVER CHANGE BRO BECAUSE MUH SELF INTEREST AND MUH CORRUPTION, THEN THE SAME SYSTEM OF CORRUPTION AND SELF INTEREST WILL BE ALLOWED TO THRIVE UNDER CHAD, HE LITERALLY HAS ALREADY SOLD OUT FOR POWER.

You are an idealist yes, BUT THIS IS FAR BETTER TO TRY AND CHANGE SOMETHING YOU KNOW FOR SURE AINT RIGHT, THAN GIVE UP ALL YOUR MORALS AND ROLL WITH A SYSTEM YOU KNOW FOR SURE IS WRONG, BUT CANT BE BOTHERED OR CANT CONCIEVE OF HOW TO CHANGE IT.

All his argument boils down to is, you might be right bro, but its just REALLY DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT ANYTHING IN POLITICS.
THIS MAY BE SO, BUT IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON NOT TO TRY.

This is like saying to Roger Bannister before the 4 minute mile, Bro NO ONE HAS BROKEN 4 MINUTES AND ITS REALLY HARD AND IT HURTS TO RUN THAT FAST BRO , "AND THAT'S ATHLETICS".

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBUT BANNISTER RAN A SUB 4 MINUTE MILE, ABSOLUTELY ANNHILIATING THIS PATHETIC LOW EFFORT VIEW.

ITS THE SAME THING WITH POLITICS.

You're right, and Hitler felt the same way. Someone called him an idealist and he said "you sir, are an idiot".