To be "left" or be a "lefitist" is to live a lie.
You believe other people should pay for your stuff. You believe by the fact you were born you are entitled to certain things. And more recently you are brought up to have such an inflated ego of yourself, you expect other humans to act against their own best interests.
For example, men don't like fat chicks.
The fact that that statement right now is getting "Ooo! You shouldn't have said that! That's not nice!" kind of reaction only proves my point.
Is it true?
Is it politically incorrect?
Doesn't matter, it's true. The truth should render its political correctness moot. The problem is society, driven primarily by the left, has made it taboo to speak simple truths such as "men don't like fat chicks."
Regardless, however, look at to what extents and lengths leftists (in this case, ugly feminists) go to ignore this reality AND force their unreality (where presumably we're supposed to like fat chicks) on other people. Not only are feminists pushing "fat acceptance programs," there is no end to the lecturing and ridiculing of men who dare to speak this simple truth. You are shallow, you are hollow, you are sick and wrong for liking skinny girls with long legs. Misogynist!
Another example, wealth. Say you're born into wealth or you earn your own wealth.
With wealth you have economic security, financial security, health, and a more enjoyable life. EVERYBODY should aspire to be wealthy. It's so commonsensical it needs no defense.
But again, look at to the lengths and extents the left goes to criminalize wealth. You're greedy, you benefited unfairly, you oppressed people, blah blah blah.
Ultimately all the efforts and propaganda that goes into villainzing what is only human nature can fall under one single category or "weapon" of the left.
The left uses shame and "shaming language" for one reason and one reason only - they are factually wrong, so they must "shame" what is "right" or what is real. Since the left lives in a world that is not based in reality or the reality principle, they have to "change reality" and the best way to do that is to convince or outright brainwash people into thinking the opposite of what is true and the opposite of what is in their best interests.
Therefore men, no matter what their genetic programming, should like an obese sow for her personality, her triple masters in social work, and here 14 cats.
Rich people should just forfeit their money because money and wealth is (somehow) "bad" or they are somehow "greedy."
And no matter how utterly craptatstic a child's performance is in school or sports, "B+'s for everyone" and "participation trophies for all!" There are no losers, only winners!
But there is another sort of shame coming over the horizon and I already predicted it. Matter of fact I didn't think it would strike so early, but then again I tend to be a lightning rod for the left. The new shame the left WILL BE aggressively pursuing in the near future is shaming people who "go Galt."
I was sitting at my local neighborhood bar. The bartender and I were talking and he knew I just published my new book "Enjoy the Decline" 2 days previous. He was asking how sales were and I said great. A couple stools down was a woman. She asked what it was about. I hesitated to answer because I didn't want a political discussion, I just wanted to enjoy my coffee. So I said,
"It's about how to lead a minimalist lifestyle, make as little as possible, work as little as possible, pay as little in taxes as possible, and enjoy life."
She overhead the title and then asked, "Well why enjoy the DECLINE?" Are we declining?"
I said, "yes."
It was here I realized there was no avoiding it.
"Because of all the debt we've racked up as a nation and all the taxes we're going to have to pay. There's no reason to work hard any more when it's just going to be taxed away."
I could tell I irked her, she either didn't believe there was a debt problem or just didn't like my republican sounding tone.
"So your solution is to work as little as possible?"
And then came the shaming language,
"So you think that will solve the country's problems? Doing nothing? Don't you think you owe society something? Didn't people pay for your schooling? What kind of adult blah blah blah..."
She went on, but I didn't care start a political debate. Besides, I knew where it would go. More illogical shaming as to why I should prostitute myself out to pay for other people's stuff. "Advice" from a fully indoctrinated and hopelessly unrecoverable middle aged woman about how I should somehow forfeit a higher percentage of my finite and dwindling life paying for other people's crap. Her age, her status, and her experience were irrelevant. Her logic was hopelessly corrupted and no amount of reasoning or explanation would pierce the brainwashing she received in grad school or from watching Oprah.
The larger point is that more of this is coming. As the "enlightened electorate" decides to ignore reality and go down the path of socialism they will once again face the annoying reality that it is against human nature to pay for other people's stuff. And since it is their stuff that is threatened, they will have to go into overdrive to "shame" people for not wanting to become slaves. Like the ramblings of the middle aged woman, it will not be sensical, it will not be logical, and it will theme on people who decide to work less and "go Galt" as being greedy or selfish. It will be amorphous and intangible, assuming you somehow have a societal obligation to the country and "community" to work harder for the "larger good." That there is something more important than the individual and only the most selfish and evil of people refuse to acknowledge the superiority of this commune. It will also parallel (akin to feminist shaming language) is that you are not a "real man" or you are not "manning up" and owning up to your responsibilities you have to society. In reality it is nothing more than shaming language and lies to get you to operate against your best interests.
I'd like to say most people have the intellectual capacity and independence to identify such BS or at least stand up to it. Alas, the fact some many adult-children swallowed whole the global warming BS and now pursue "going green" as a religion (while mocking Christianity at the same time) only confirms a majority of them will actually believe they owe it to society to slave away for other people. Just promise me a favor. When the middle aged woman who's hopelessly brainwashed starts to lecture you for daring to only work 4 hours a day, do not be a fool and fall for it. Shamelessly Enjoy the Decline instead.
I'm older than you, so maybe I remember a different America. Lots of people used to be willing to help pay for the support of those in need, but it was voluntary. Having to do it because of the threat of violence is a very different situation.
Charity has great virtue, welfare has none.
Much like "you're selfish!" is a pejorative in the minds of the collectivists but a compliment to the enlightened, perhaps soon "you have no shame!" should be answered with, "why, thank you!" :)
Speaking as an Objectivist, the whole point of "going Galt" is to make the people who voted for this shit face the reality that its function depends on the willing self-immolation of the intended victims: the productive.
You cannot force a mind. You cannot force a man to think. And thus the only way to ensure that you've gotten the maximum performance his mind can offer is to offer him a world in which his remuneration increases as his effort does. But that is a world in which the income tax, if we had one at all, would be flat and capped at 10% or less. No loopholes, no exemptions, just 10% from everyone and that's it.
That's if we had an income tax. Instead, put a tax on contracts, say 0.25% of the value of any contracts such as sales or otherwise, as a kind of insurance premium in case the state is asked to actually enforce the terms of the contract. Given the expected economic growth level in such a world, I imagine it would probably generate a return (in real value terms) more than large enough to pay for the military, the courts, the prisons, and the remaining legitimate functions of the state, with money to spare.
Men are motivated by their family (= KIDS) to provide a better future for them.
Modern society has eliminated men from the family (no-fault divorce etc..), so men are refusing to work.
That would have been my answer - although, she would have probably blown a fuse upon hearing that ;-)
I wonder if I found a man who hates Oprah as much as I do.
Honestly, I think Oprah "The Secret!" Winfrey has done more to make American women stupid than anyone else in the past 30 years.
I kind of like the sound of "galt-shaming". It has a good ring to it. Something to bludgeon liberals with when it's trench-fighting time.
Well put, Cap'n, in an informal conversational way. You too White Knight; we share the same philosophy.
People unfailing compliment for my "sacrifices" and enduring commitment to public service when they find out I put in well over 30 years as a professional soldier.
They mean well, but I don't like them to leave without knowing that I did for me.
I decided to defend myself, my values and including those people and things in my life that I especially value -- and get paid well for it. Besides, I enjoyed soldiering.
I say it was clear to me early in life that socialism, its variants, and chief proponents, Russia and China, were a major threat to the West and all that that entailed.
"No sacrifice," I politely tell them, "but I'm glad you see the value in having a professional volunteer military, a legitimate function of government. Thanks for your thanks."
(I leave out the part about my penchant for sniffing the fumes from spent brass.)
I went Galt over the last three years, selling off and closing down my lawn care business. Now it is just me, my truck and mower. Four years ago I paid over thirty thousand in federal income tax, this year it is going to be 2500. I downsized my house and upsized my bass boat. Life is good.
Aaron, Aaron, Aaron, you hopeless square! Think of Bertrand Russell (a great womaniser by the way), who when accosted by religious fundamentalists would turn the conversation into a discussion of the fate of the Ten Lost Tribes. I did similarly once myself, in a conversation with a worthy Pennsylvanian (no academic thank God) who asked whether I had accepted Jesus as my personal Saviour. I remarked that as an Episcopalian I tended to leave inspiration to the Holy Ghost - channels, you know. He replied that it was all much the same thing, and the conversation turned to more interesting topics. With your female, a useful line might have been, "why work? the Government doesn't need taxes - it borrows all it needs from the Federal Reserve" etc. etc. "Work is just to preserve morale - it really isn't necessary." Then for the truly devilish, one might say, "yes, that's why I voted for Obama - no one needs to work under Obama, he'll support everyone! That awful Romney had such crazy ideas of balancing the budget." The chances are good, though, that the conversation will head off before it reaches Presidential politics with you explaining what the Federal Reserve is and what it does.
A little fib is not a mortal sin, Aaron, even if your father said it was.
Man up and marry those sluts, Cappy!
It used to be that a man was considered a loser if he didn't get married. I think that trend is changing and we're on the cusp of that change. Now a man who gets married is a loser. I'm talking about people's perception of marriage here. Like a drunk putting his whole life on "black". Or playing Russian Roulette with three bullets loaded. Lose and you lose your wife, your kids, your house and be stuck with so much child support and alimony you won't have enough money to start another family. And "winning" doesn't guarantee happiness either. There's an expression out there, "it's cheaper to keep her."
Communists have a crush on Davis Aurini and his book.
See if you can understand any of his incoherent rants. This is why "Bolsheviks" will never be taken seriously even by the most socialist of governments today. This should cheer you up.
The left has so many damn inconsistencies. They want to tax the hell out of the rich, but yet when someone like you decides to Go Galt and realize that it's far better not to work so you won't have to pay for other people's stuff, they get all angry because you're doing nothing. I'm seeing a double standard. Maybe they should shut their mouths, work, and try to pay the taxes themselves and see if their opinion changes.
Aaron ... I hope your whole philosophy is not based on the idea that the debt needs to be paid off. It obviously doesn't. The US economy is accelerating as we speak. Bernanke is actually doing a good job -- pouring in more monetary base to make up for the collapse in M3. Tax rates are annoying but, well, they've been worse.
Like your stuff though ....
Here's something to shame 'liberals' with:
"How dare you?" What gives you the right to take my time, my earnings, a piece of my life for the community? Huh?
"What's this community, society thing you're yapping about? Society is nothing more than an arbitrary grouping of individual people all with different needs, hopes, desires?
"What gives you the right to rob me for your pet cause or concern? C'mon, answer that for me, please.
"You want to look after the rubbies and derelicts sittin' on the grates on Government Street, be my welcome guest, but use your own fricken' money or take up a collection. Just get your mitts out of my pockets. Shame on you!"
I guess it didn't occur to the useful idiot that the other way to balance the equation, was for her to simply consume less?
Aaron just one thing.You speak of high taxes and how it will affect us and how much will be taken away... but many years ago from the 40's to the 70;s we had relatively high taxes ESPECIALLY if we made over the equivalent of today's 250 k.
Just look at this graph:
You think the gov't is foing to take away too much? It took away a ton during our glory years of the 40's to early 70's. Its come to a point where we historically owe the least amount of taxes in history...
Or a I missing something?
Yes, inflation for one thing. The second thing written by Peter Schiff in the WSJ is that so few people in those days made the money that would be taxed at the 91% tax rate, it had no effect. I think something like 283 paid the tax. It was a "headline" number, but effective taxes weren't that high.
But what's more, here lists the difference in corporate tax rates and capital gains tax.
Captain, what was going on back then? and as you have sensibly put it through data the taxation during these times and the boom does not seem to add up.
All that seems to make sense was that tax planning and loopholes made taxes lower.
I have nothing against going Galt. I might have to do it myself later. There is, however, an alternative.
Creative asset protection and use of corporations. Combined with off-shoring, it can make a potent combination. You can have your cake and eat it, too. Especially if you have dual citizenship.
Life is good.
And no, I don't think I "owe" society. I'm a citizen, not a subject.
“EVERYBODY should aspire to be wealthy. . .”
Here comes the confession, I’m a liberal, studying the enemy. . . (hears arrows whistling over his head)
I will say that I’m now 31 years old and the pursuit of wealth nearly destroyed me. There was a once upon a time I too aspired to be wealthy. However, I have come to the realization it was never in the cards, and that I wasted away my youth in the mere attempts to do so. Why? The key to wealth is influence – nobody treats someone in their 20’s seriously enough to command any influence. I sacrificed an unbelievable amount of hours towards corporate America wanting to believe in capitalism, even though I knew deep down in my heart this was a futile cause. The way I saw it at the time was if I was wrong and the conservatives were right – great I’m rich. If I was right and the conservatives were wrong - great I’m right. Goodness, I hate being right, hard work truly doesn’t pay. . .
Then I went through an early mid-life crisis at age 28; and came to the realization if money as a motivation is a door that’s slammed shut – I would have to pursue others things. I’ve accepted that I’ll most likely never achieve any excellence in the “career” aspect of my life. It began with me letting out all my frustrations at the gym by working out a crazy 6 hours straight without rest. . .
I also learned through experience that baby boomer managers will perceive me as young, stupid, lazy, and entitled whether I work 100 hours a week or 20 hours a week. So why work 100 hours a week? There’s no incentive. I’ve accepted the fact that I’ll most likely be doing jobs that a trained monkey could do for the rest of my life – so I have decided to accept its advantages. Mainly because the job is so easy, I can dick around watching videos, making outlandish jokes, read this blog, etc. and still hit most of the performance targets.
Aaron, I will go on to say that the “everyone should aspire to be wealthy” philosophy is what’s causing alarming rates of suicide amongst young men. The conservative philosophy that the rich are viewed as demi-gods; while everyone else is viewed as worthless rabble is an unhealthy way to run society.
I agree with much of your economic analysis of where the country is heading, but the truth of the matter is I can’t bring myself to care anymore. Destined to be a poor working man I neither pay nor benefit from government taxation.
So that’s why I’m a liberal, because adopting a conservative work ethic in this corporate environment will just drive a young man bat-shit crazy and perhaps even suicidal. . . Besides, I’ve been met with nothing but contempt from most conservatives because I’m stuck working at a call center, so I hate them. I’m sure most of you disagree. . .
Paul, for years my reply is "Thank you, it is nice to be recognized for my accomplishments!" It leaves them confused and usually speechless.
Kgaard: "Aaron ... I hope your whole philosophy is not based on the idea that the debt needs to be paid off. It obviously doesn't. The US economy is accelerating as we speak. Bernanke is actually doing a good job -- pouring in more monetary base to make up for the collapse in M3. Tax rates are annoying but, well, they've been worse."
The federal deficit will be $22 trillion by 2024. Medicare and Social Security, if no fundamental changes are made, will be at least $40 trillion in the hole over the next 75 years. That estimate is very low, however, because things like the doctor fix (cutting payment for Medicare patients to doctors by 30%) are not politically palatable. Looking at how the Greeks and French respond to the suggestion that retirement ages should be raised, I suppose that option is off the table here as well in the States. Now, if one couples these bleak numbers with local, state, and personal debt; increasing government regulation; anemic, at best, economic growth; and an aging population (10,000 baby boomers are reaching age 65 daily), I don't know why you're so sanguine. The entitlement state, instead of going through a systematic dismantling, will soon crumble because of Democrat stupidity. We're racing to dystopia.
"Politically incorrect" = TRUE
"Politically correct" = FALSE
for more capitalist views but with an open mind to socialism head to http://capitalistcognition.blogspot.co.uk/ it's a new blog trying to explain how capitalism works and socialism doesn't/wont/can't
I want to testify .....
I had a shop with two employees. I spent much of my time making sure they had work. I also worked hard … it was a labor intensive shop. One day I calculated time, money, taxation, over head, work-load. I realized the I spent more effort paying others than myself. So, I closed left my two guys the shop for a small price and went Galt. That was 1995.
I just retired after the past 17 years working essentially part time in my comfy home based shop. I made the same money but for half the time and effort. My over head was extremely low.
I retired last year on my own dime. I support other Galters. Lots of home based people working and partially off the tax grid. Better service, lower prices. When you take away all the middle men, life is simpler and much better.
I also support a few bloggers like you and others who are simpatico with my values. We are at war and you guys are more or less officers. Your queues do not go unnoticed by the many who are paying attention.
Love your blog.
I would have described the book in more female-friendly terms. I would have said its about "down-shifting" one's life and seeking peace of mind. Really, the minimalist life style is essentially the same as down-shifting, with the latter term used by financial planning websites.
Describing the book in such a low-key manner would have made it much more difficult for the lady to be critical and would have made her look like a total horse's ass in doing so.
"So your solution is to work as little as possible?..."So you think that will solve the country's problems? Doing nothing? Don't you think you owe society something? Didn't people pay for your schooling? What kind of adult blah blah blah..."
But she would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER say that to a black person who has been on lifelong welfare. Nope. Never.
Erasmus: "...Lose and you lose your wife, your kids, your house and be stuck with so much child support and alimony you won't have enough money to start another family. And "winning" doesn't guarantee happiness either..."
I've read somewhere that "for men, modern marriage is like playing 'musical electric-chairs' -- even if he 'wins', he loses."
A Happy Bicycle:
In the words of John Fogerty, "Sometimes I fear life is like a rodeo - the trick is to ride, and make it to the bell."
With my marriage, career, and retirement, I fear the only winning I will do is by dying before one or the other implodes.
Kinda bored with the whole "men don't like fat chicks" BS fallacy.
Sure, lots of men prefer thin chicks.
However, there's a hell of a lot of men who prefer cute fat chicks.
And a significant bunch of blokes who only dig cute fate chicks. I'm one - thin chicks do nothing for me.
BBW porn is the second most popular category after "Big Boobs". That desire for fat chicks sustains a whole subculture of meet-ups / discos / dating sites etc. etc. in the West.
There are entire frickken countries and cultures where fat women are the most desired women and are held up as paragons of beauty.
To the point that the young women and girls of those cultures either deliberately gain and/or are force-fattened to be more attractive to their men. E.g. Mauritania.
That^ is the market telling you: you're wrong, to the tune of multi-millions of people and $$$.
F'sure speak for yourself, maybe even the majority - but don't do that BS manosphere eqivalent to: "as a woman, I *this* so I know ALL women *this*"...
You just damage your own credibility every time you do it.
Roosh and Heartiste come out with that crap all the time too, I wouldn't even bother correcting them as they just live in their own little bubble of "what I want is universal".
As an economist you're meant to deal with reality as is, not your subjective interpretation.
When some Leftard calls you anything, anything at all, be that 'selfish' or 'greedy' or 'uncaring' et al, your only response should be:
They're never going to see you in any sort of positive light without removing their heads from their butts, which at this point would take three D-9 dozers and 100' of anchor chain. So stop caring what they think. Let them wonder and stew over why you're so proud to own their accusations; it might just lead, in the fullness of time, to independent thought.
(Oh, and I gotta second The First Joe. Fat's where it's at!)
Post a Comment