Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "David Pakman Show" channel.

  1. "Yes, any school of thought can suggest and implement free healthcare, " You still don't get it: Great ideas don't emerge from "schools" unless you're looking for a reason to credit the "school" for illogical reasons. Consensus on great ideas emerges from critical thinking and good faith consensus building. Socialism has its own dogmas. All "isms" are known by dogmas. The only dogma of critical thinking is that relying on unchallenged dogmas is illogical. "...however, it is an inherently socialist idea, that is to say, it falls under the definition of socialist policy." No, it's not inherently socialist. Socialism in history was always about people disenfranchised from the ruling class, number one, and then number two was "machines" will replace unskilled labor and therefore these power disparities need to be resolved. We have solved ALL of the original grievance of the pre-Marxist socialists here in the USA without even once alluding to socialist "school of thought." Medicine wasn't even a respected field of science when Marx published his manifesto. You simply do NOT know what you're talking about. Socialism is inherently about "solving power disparities." You only have two choices from there: Equal application of the law (AKA "the rule of law") or equality of outcome where the altruistic ruling class appeases its constituents with wealth redistribution and related programs. The USA created the first rule of law republic. Therefore all of the socialist's grievances were solved as soon as labor law became hegemonic and citizens were all granted equal voting rights. Public schools try to bridge the gap with "equality of opportunity" programs that parasitic Marxists try to leverage and transform in to parasitic "equality of outcome" guarantees. IOW, it's a cult of "common sense" parasitism. Free medicine demands emerged (mostly in Europe after the USA already started sending massive aid) after WWI and WWII when we already had built massive "mobilization" efforts for various "wartime" justifications. "The US does not have free healthcare, keep denying it if you want, it does not make it any less true." Yes it does. You can not be denied care for urgent medical needs and you can not be forced to pay if you are unable. Period. That is the law of the land and has been for decades. Your Utopian expectations will never be met. Ever. If you say that the Europeans have it right then move there and shut up. Because European socialism is still highly dependent on free market capitalism.
    1
  2. You keep moving the goalposts.
    1
  3. Left wing is supposed to be representing the disenfranchised. Nationalist leftists are tribalists with collectivist victim narratives, posing as disenfranchised. Using stories to present as "disenfranchised" by class or class identity suggests the belief in an intractable "class" war. Nationalist leftists see the relevant "warring classes" as occurring between rival tribes and nations. Internationalists are more focused on "the rich" against "the poor." Nonetheless, anyone posing as "disenfranchised" in a zero-sum political or economic paradigm is innately leftist. It's also possible for established leftists, like Communists, to pose as "victims of capitalism" (rich people) while gaining power and then pivot to "victims of international capital" (more explicit conspiracies about "bankers" and so forth) as they become fascists that try to appeal to their base in spite of their obvious growing power. It also shifts focus away from their blatant incompetence as rulers that can solve any of the problems that they initially complained about.
    1
  4. Communism is the prophecy that "labor" will become redundant because of "machines" (now "robots") and that that will be the basis for an "end of history" state of civilization that no longer has class conflict and so forth. Political Marxism is ANY political idea that counts on this "arc of history" idea of "machines make work redundant" and usually include nation against nation and faction against faction "class war" to control "capital" hence control of all "machines" and hence total control over the "inevitable" unified world government.
    1
  5. They're both regressive too! Both are dogmatic blowhards. Progressives posit that when they rule over any polity with enough power that their schemes are auto-magically better. Because they are the Altruistic Ubermensch. Unless you have a legitimate reason to increase "government" power over citizens, you are a regressive Progressive. Especially when you promote your schemes as "common sense" and support the idea that people only oppose your power because they're "reactionary" and stuff. IOW, most Progressives are inherently dishonest. Doctrinaire Progressivism is about multi-generational Gaslighting to "solve the problem of multi-generational religious Gaslighting" in Western societies." Richard Dawkins is a key Gaslighter in the pseudoscience realms and Maher does the same thing for "political comedy" something something.
    1
  6. Where did you get this...analysis? You're talking about the USA? Alt right is not conservatism in any respect. It's basically neoconservatism for a new, more nationalist generation that regrets the War on Terror.
    1
  7. The only successful "social democracy" was the USA until FDR turned it in to a "right wing authoritarian" blah blah blah. Oh, not right wing because we're so rich? Huh? The critical thinking skills have been destroyed among those trying to use childish arguments to sell the culture of "socialism" that really has no actual meaning other than "altruistic" civilization. We're already pretty darn altruistic. Now what do you want? You want to (dishonestly) revise recorded history and the entire English lexicon to what end?
    1
  8. This video makes no sense. Destroying individual rights in the name of collectivist Social Justice never works. Period. If you're trying to expand "socialism" to anything that sounds like a good idea from the history of civilization, that's just civilization, not socialism per se. Socialists were concerned about "social justice" in the light of the emerging Industrial Revolution(s). And then certain parasitic thought leaders put out blame-shifting stories and turned parasitism in to something like what Gramsci called new "common sense." It's basically a culture war and your intellectually dishonest arguments are why the war hasn't ended. Rule of law capitalism allows for "disparity." Truly sensible social programs are social programs, not doctrinaire "socialism." Social programs that work are based on rational proposals offered in good faith and humble recipients of assistance. Doctrinaire socialism is creating "rights" stories about how ancestors suffered under blah blah blah and "corporate fascism" is killing us all and so on and so for. No facts needed for Social Justice. The way that you can tell the difference is whether or not the taxpayers can make adjustments to the programs without the parasites screaming about "human rights" and so forth.
    1
  9. You people are always wrong. I wrote about this years ago. If you properly apply Fourteenth Amendment "incorporation" doctrine the Federal courts must protect people from any government action that goes against the rights of citizens. The Constitutional rights take priority over what people classify as "civil" rights like the right to have State or local commissions mediating in these little whinge fests. But the problem that you totalitarians have is that the CRA basically says that "public accommodations" can not "discriminate" gratuitously. Refusing to sell "ready stock" or provide "standard services" to anyone in a "public accommodation" (there are two classes of public accommodation, one from the CRA and the other from the Americans with Disabilities Act) and if you synthesize the CRA, the ADA, and 14th Amendment incorporation doctrine, nobody can force custom services. Pepole can "discriminate" most of the time and there is nothing that you can or should do about it. Only in a narrow area of "public" life is it if rational to try to "eradicate bigotry" and the law has already clearly defined that. The reason we're arguing these issues all over again is because of the SCOTUS "gay marriage" ruling so now normal, allowable "discrimination" is being examined again under the rubric of "now it's protected" or "new understanding" doctrine. You can not lawfully force bakers and photographers or any other custom goods and services to enter in to contracts that they wish to not enter in to. You have to first show X is a "public accommodation." Custom cakes (or any custom goods) are not "public accommodation." The bakers that offer the custom products usually have "ready stock" and "standard services" that are consistently offered to all in accordance with the Civil Rights Act. Are you going to sue a designer for refusing your work? How about a custom shoe maker? You have to prove first that they are offering standardized commercial contracts/transactions to everyone else already and then you can get around "religious" or other objections. I am sure nobody here has a problem with bakers refusing to make cakes honoring German Nazis or whatever. It is the EXACT same principle. Grow up.
    1
  10. And aside all of that, the ultimate "socialist" program is free schools until the kids reach the age of adulthood. We have that. So what are they crying about now? Oh, you want to control everything. Just because of stories...
    1
  11. Reality: Essence of socialism: "Hey, these machines are screwing us because we're poor and the "rich" can just buy machines instead of hiring us. We need to rethink property rights regimes." Socialism works to the extent that we honestly examine these issues and develop good faith solutions. Socialism fails when people figure out that they can use these historical victim narratives to create mendacious "rights" violations and turn to "altruistic" parasitism, like people that grow wealthy doing nothing all of their lives but "helping the disenfranchised." Their only specialty is selling victim class stories to the public and to the pandering politicians. The simple fact is that the US founders already anticipated legitimate "socialism" grievances while preserving the private property rights regimes by ensuring that courts and legislative bodies were available to deal with legitimate grievances. Only slavery in the USA distorts our perfect "labor" record. And that was caused by elitist Darwinist arguments, not a flaw in the Constitutional or "socialist" framework. All of the other grievances (among US citizens) can easily be knocked down one by one when looking at actual case evidence. Furthermore, promoting our "rights" paradigms around the world, accepting and embracing organic disparity as part of "diversity" that we value, helps all of the people in the world except for mendacious parasites and fascist regimes that cling to the inherently "socialist" monikers. Disparity does not equal disenfranchisement. Work does not equal oppression.
    1