News Chinese authorities question MMA fighter Xu Xiaodong over Hong Kong protest comments

One leads to the other. The more the government steps in the more the people lose power, that's why the founding fathers said to keep federal government small but we haven't done that and are heading down a scary slope.

I'll tell you another way that the people lose power: a few become billionaires while the rest of us are nowhere near so wealthy. Those grotesquely wealthy few become effectively above the law via the power of that wealth, and are also able to use that money to "buy" the politicians of the government so that they truly serve only the interests of the very wealthy. That's a scary slope associated with capitalism that we've already gone down to a large extent in the United States, and it can still get worse.

The only way that the poorer people can gain any power for themselves is by acting collectively, as they are able to do if they have a truly representative form of government, which the U.S. is not, although we claim we want to be. Such a governent can use various means, such as progressive taxation (taxing the rich to a greater degree than the poor), to try to limit the degree of wealth/power disparity possible in the system.

The desired goal should not be equality of outcome, people should still be able to amass wealth via hard work, genius, risk, etc., but there are limits that should be in place regarding how extreme of a wealth disparity is allowed. This is analogous to allowing private citizens to own handguns, but having laws against private citizens owning surface-to-air rockets and rocket launchers that could bring down airliners. There is such a thing as too much power to be allowed in the hands of individual citizens. You wouldn't want your next-door neighbor to own a nuclear bomb, would you?

The power of too much wealth in an individual's hands is dangerous to all of the rest of us in a similar way as too much weapon power in an individual's hands.

The best systems try to find a sweet spot between the authoritarianism of wealthy people taking too much power away from everybody else, and government authoritarianism oppressing people. People who try to convince us that big government is the only source of danger, and that pure capitalism is best, tend to be parroting the views of the billionaires, who own mainstream media, and who don't have your best interests at heart.
 
Last edited:
Gotta maintain dat social credit score.

Vote for Bernie as the gateway to this.

and supplied by google. coming to a government near you soon.....

How can dumbphuqs think big govt will solve their problems? I can only assume they have been so sheltered their entire lies they unable to think for themselves.
 
I'll tell you another way that the people lose power: a few become billionaires while the rest of us are nowhere near so wealthy. Those grotesquely wealthy few become effectively above the law via the power of that wealth, and are also able to use that money to "buy" the politicians of the government so that they truly serve only the interests of the very wealthy. That's a scary slope associated with capitalism that we've already gone down to a large extent in the United States, and it can still get worse.

The only way that the poorer people can gain any power for themselves is by acting collectively, as they are able to do if they have a truly representative form of government, which the U.S. is not, although we claim we want to be. Such a governent can use various means, such as progressive taxation (taxing the rich to a greater degree than the poor), to try to limit the degree of wealth/power disparity possible in the system.

The desired goal should not be equality of outcome, people should still be able to amass wealth via hard work, genius, risk, etc., but there are limits that should be in place regarding how extreme of a wealth disparity is allowed. This is analogous to allowing private citizens to own handguns, but having laws against private citizens owning surface-to-air rockets and rocket launchers that could bring down airliners. There is such a thing as too much power to be allowed in the hands of individual citizens. You wouldn't want your next-door neighbor to own a nuclear bomb, would you?

The power of too much wealth in an individual's hands is dangerous to all of the rest of us in a similar way as too much weapon power in an individual's hands.

The best systems try to find a sweet spot between the authoritarianism of wealthy people taking too much power away from everybody else, and government authoritarianism oppressing people. People who try to convince us that big government is the only source of danger, and that pure capitalism is best, tend to be parroting the views of the billionaires, who own mainstream media, and who don't have your best interests at heart.

I'm certain the jealousy approach to politics is not the solution. It's petty, short sighted, and without thought. Just because an individual has amassed wealth beyond your capabilities does not mean you get to limit their ambitions. And no, discriminating against the wealthy in the form of taxes is surely not the solution. In fact, I would argue the real solution to taxes is equality; same flat tax for all that generate income. That includes the church, foundations, and all other exempt. Perhaps their opinions regarding politics will evolve once they pay for said opinions.
The US has the most representative government ever devised throughout human history. This is not to say it's perfect, as no form of govt could ever be, but it is the best. The problem lies in the lack of accountability for our politicians.
Acquired wealth has no baring on the correctness of govt. Please look to communist/socialist society s. There is always an abundance of prospects to gain power for their own benefit and or ideals.

There is no greater gift than personal freedom. Big govt limits the human spirit and crushes the individual. May I suggest a reading of the Federalist papers? It enlightens any who read them.
 
I'm certain the jealousy approach to politics is not the solution. It's petty, short sighted, and without thought.
You didn't pay proper attention to what I wrote.
Jealousy has nothing to do with it.
We're talking about the power to control your life.
That power can be centered in very wealthy individuals, not just in big government.
We need to protect ourselves from both.

It isn't a matter of jealousy to want government to represent general citizens rather than just those who can afford to buy off politicians; it's self-preservation.

There is no greater gift than personal freedom. Big govt limits the human spirit and crushes the individual.

Freedom for the wealthy to act as our overlords is not equivalent to you having personal freedom.

Those who rule by wealth want you to think that government hindering them is the same as government hindering you. That's the con that they're trying to get you to fall for. They want you to ignore the fact that rule by wealthy overlords also limits the human spirit and crushes the individual. Getting crushed by billionaires is no more palatable than getting crushed by big government. At least with representative government, if you think power is being used abusively you have the power of the vote and elections. You don't have that recourse when billionaires are abusive to you. How are you going to stand up to a billionaire?
 
Last edited:
You didn't pay proper attention to what I wrote.
Jealousy has nothing to do with it.
We're talking about the power to control your life.
That power can be centered in very wealthy individuals, not just in big government.
We need to protect ourselves from both.

It isn't a matter of jealousy to want government to represent general citizens rather than just those who can afford to buy off politicians; it's self-preservation.



Freedom for the wealthy to act as our overlords is not equivalent to you having personal freedom.

Those who rule by wealth want you to think that government hindering them is the same as government hindering you. That's the con that they're trying to get you to fall for. They want you to ignore the fact that rule by wealthy overlords also limits the human spirit and crushes the individual. Getting crushed by billionaires is no more palatable than getting crushed by big government. At least with representative government, if you think power is being used abusively you have the power of the vote and elections. You don't have that recourse when billionaires are abusive to you. How are you going to stand up to a billionaire?


The wealthy are not our enemy (generally speaking, I'd certainly go for confiscation, impounding, etc say for a soros but that is a personal vengeance for someone corrupting our society). Typically it is not a billionaire, it's the industry lobbyists. I give you the politicians do not represent their constituents, and therein lies the problem. The politicians need to be held accountable.
 
Typically it is not a billionaire, it's the industry lobbyists.

Billionaires fund those lobbyists or control the industries that fund those lobbyists. That's who most of those lobbyists work for, directly or indirectly. Haven't you put that together yet?
 
I'll tell you another way that the people lose power: a few become billionaires while the rest of us are nowhere near so wealthy. Those grotesquely wealthy few become effectively above the law via the power of that wealth, and are also able to use that money to "buy" the politicians of the government so that they truly serve only the interests of the very wealthy. That's a scary slope associated with capitalism that we've already gone down to a large extent in the United States, and it can still get worse.

The only way that the poorer people can gain any power for themselves is by acting collectively, as they are able to do if they have a truly representative form of government, which the U.S. is not, although we claim we want to be. Such a governent can use various means, such as progressive taxation (taxing the rich to a greater degree than the poor), to try to limit the degree of wealth/power disparity possible in the system.

The desired goal should not be equality of outcome, people should still be able to amass wealth via hard work, genius, risk, etc., but there are limits that should be in place regarding how extreme of a wealth disparity is allowed. This is analogous to allowing private citizens to own handguns, but having laws against private citizens owning surface-to-air rockets and rocket launchers that could bring down airliners. There is such a thing as too much power to be allowed in the hands of individual citizens. You wouldn't want your next-door neighbor to own a nuclear bomb, would you?

The power of too much wealth in an individual's hands is dangerous to all of the rest of us in a similar way as too much weapon power in an individual's hands.

The best systems try to find a sweet spot between the authoritarianism of wealthy people taking too much power away from everybody else, and government authoritarianism oppressing people. People who try to convince us that big government is the only source of danger, and that pure capitalism is best, tend to be parroting the views of the billionaires, who own mainstream media, and who don't have your best interests at heart.

Anyone can win the Powerball or Mega Millions.
 
Billionaires fund those lobbyists or control the industries that fund those lobbyists. That's who most of those lobbyists work for, directly or indirectly. Haven't you put that together yet?

OK.
Who sends the politicians to DC?
Once in DC, whose signature goes on the bills?

Now, whose responsibility is it to oversee these cretins?
 
China is a scary place to live, the government owns you.

I was watching a vid about game hackers where a Chinese hacker is found out and agrees to live chat. The guy said he literally had never spoken to someone outside his country before and that he can't escape his environment. It's pretty sad.
 

They don't have those opportunities for the common man. Some slob in some hick province in China can't just go buy some lottery tickets with his breakfast at a diner and then be worth nine figures the following day. That happened in West Virginia when I was in college.

In a communist system, only the rulers themselves are allowed to have any money. Their lackeys can have comfortable lives. It's same everywhere. It's how the "socialist" Castro's, Kim Jong-un and his family become billionaires. It's how "socialist hero" Hugo Chavez left billions and billions to his family.
 
Last edited:
I think in the long run, Social-Democracy (Spain, Greece, Argentina, Bernie, AOC....) is even worse than real socialism, because in many cases, real socialism (USSR, Venezuela, Estonia, China), you know is not sustainable in the long run, the country falls apart for itself after total venezuelization, and people have a chance to get back in the proper track (China reformed the economical issue in a good way but not the political). But social democracy like the Argentinian, kills the country little by little, one small step at a time. And can keep like this forever. The country gets shitty slowly and there is no way to improve it once most of the voters receive government subsidies.

So maybe real socialism is better in the long run than social democracy. Both systems are shit. But the real thing is like shock therapy
This is absurd.
People need to stop using countries like Soviet USSR, China, and Venezuela as examples of the type of system progressives are looking for. It's just so lazy and wrong in so many ways.

You oddly didnt mention the success stories...Canada, a lot of Europe, and countries like Japan and South Korea have elements of "socialism", and they're doing just fine. Theyre doing BETTER than America in a lot of ways. Making these blanket statements, and then using the worst examples doesn't prove anything. Like any system, HOW it is implemented will determine its success.
The US system would have similarities to other countries, but it would ultimately be a system that uniquely fit America.

And talk about "the long run", capitalism is not sustainable. At all. "The market" doesn't give a shit about people, it cares about profit and consumption. Which is why we have an ever growing gap between rich and poor.
The world's populations are rising. Countries like China and India are catching up...we can't all be consuming like the United States does. It is so beyond obvious unsustainable.
 
You oddly didnt mention the success stories...Canada, a lot of Europe, and countries like Japan and South Korea have elements of "socialism", and they're doing just fine. Theyre doing BETTER than America in a lot of ways. Making these blanket statements, and then using the worst examples doesn't prove anything. Like any system, HOW it is implemented will determine its success.
The US system would have similarities to other countries, but it would ultimately be a system that uniquely fit America.

https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking Canada and Northern Europe are well above the list in the index of economic freedom. In Sweden for example, they have high taxes for individuals but low taxes for enterprise. In Sweden, Norway, Switzerland Denmark... There is no minimum wage, they don't punish the big fortunes, they sold many of the strategic means of production (so, tecnically not socialism) and they can fire any employee almost without reason and with very few penalties for that. They are better than the US because they are more market oriented. Not because they are socialist paradise. Sweden, New Zealand, Ireland were big ass states in big recession less than 30 years ago. They made the governemnt smaller, gave economic freedom to the population and attracted foreign investment instead of punishing it (like Greece, Spain, Portugal, Argentina...) and now are doing quite alright. Japan has like 30 years of lazy economic growt because of their lefty economic policies.

And talk about "the long run", capitalism is not sustainable. At all. "The market" doesn't give a shit about people, it cares about profit and consumption. Which is why we have an ever growing gap between rich and poor.

Who told you that "the government" is us, and "the market" is 6 guys in suits and is not the other way around??

WE ARE THE MARKET.

I don't give a fuck between the gap between the rich and the poor. I just care about the poor people stop being poor. And capitalism is the only sustainable way mankind has created for letting people get out of poverty. 200 years ago 90% of the world population (at that time like 1 billon people) was under extreme poverty. Right now less than 10% of the world population is under extreme poverty and we have now like 7 billon people. And that's because capitalism. China is a middle income country right now because Deng Xiaoping implemented free market policies, atracted foreign investment, made legal again private property and let people profit from their work. They are growing just because this reason. No because Mao gave free shit to everyone before the economic opening in 1979.
 
Wtf do 99% of these posts have to do with the fighter listed in the thread title?

-OP
 
Theyre living under a stalinst regime. Of course. People in our country want us to be more like china. No thanks. Fucking commies...
 
Back
Top