Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 128

Thread: Social Welfare Programmes

  1. #61
    Eala Freia Fresena
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ocko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2020 @ 07:31 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Friese
    Ancestry
    Friesland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Montana Montana
    Location
    Glacier park
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    rightwing
    Religion
    none/pagan
    Posts
    2,926
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    74
    Thanked in
    72 Posts
    If bleeding-heart-liberals need social security for their black pet race then lets them have it, just keep people out of it who don't want participate and that scheme.

    bleeding-heart-liberals want to feel good with the money of other people.

    instead they should use their own money if they have a need to play saviour.

    In olden times a slave-holder was responsible for his slaves. Why would anybody else be responsible for them?
    weel nich will dieken dej mot wieken

  2. #62
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 02:31 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    54
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,576
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,799
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,432
    Thanked in
    686 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ampersand View Post
    Would you give me your definition of capitalism? It's no use arguing about different things. I'd define it as a system where the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit; as far as I remember Adam Smith didn't have anything to say about animals and plants.
    The simple natural laws of supply and demand and production and even profit can very easily be seen in nature. All living things reproduce, if you ever see a forest that has been destroyed by fire new plants grow very quickly other plants soon move in a choke or shade those out then trees slowly feed off the decayed plant material from the first plants. Profit is the seed they produce to generate even more plants. What Adam Smith was describing was a natural act committed by all living things. The same principles he explained are very much in nature and the cycle of life.
    I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing against the existence of private enterprise, only that making as much money as possible isn't the end goal of society. People are 10 times wealthier than they were 50 years ago, but they aren't any happier. The bulk of the racial problems in western countries are not caused by fuzzy humanitariansm, but by business seeking to maximise profit by importing cheap labour.
    Anyone that argues for taking from one person and giving to another is against private enterprise. My own theory is that the large corporations are more responsible for immigration than free enterprise. These large corps are not free enterprise as they buy favor of corrupt governments. Since all governments can be corrupted it is best to keep them small and held at the point of gun. All welfare or government entitlements are part of over large governments.

    I can't see any reason why a libertarian society would have a seemingly arbitrary racial restriction on free enterprise.
    Simple, because people prefer their own kind naturally, that is the way it was before all this cultural marxism and socialism was introduced. National socialism, or any other statist style of government does not hold any rights on racialism or preservationism.

    Again these large corporations are not free enterprise simply because they are involved in government and government is involved in them.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

  3. #63
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 06:03 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Australian
    Ancestry
    England/Scotland/Germany
    Country
    Australia Australia
    State
    South Australia South Australia
    Location
    Adelaide
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    student
    Politics
    NS
    Religion
    not sure
    Posts
    170
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SpearBrave
    The simple natural laws of supply and demand and production and even profit can very easily be seen in nature. All living things reproduce, if you ever see a forest that has been destroyed by fire new plants grow very quickly other plants soon move in a choke or shade those out then trees slowly feed off the decayed plant material from the first plants. Profit is the seed they produce to generate even more plants. What Adam Smith was describing was a natural act committed by all living things. The same principles he explained are very much in nature and the cycle of life.

    Anyone that argues for taking from one person and giving to another is against private enterprise.

    My own theory is that the large corporations are more responsible for immigration than free enterprise. These large corps are not free enterprise as they buy favor of corrupt governments. Since all governments can be corrupted it is best to keep them small and held at the point of gun. All welfare or government entitlements are part of over large governments.



    Simple, because people prefer their own kind naturally, that is the way it was before all this cultural marxism and socialism was introduced. National socialism, or any other statist style of government does not hold any rights on racialism or preservationism.

    Again these large corporations are not free enterprise simply because they are involved in government and government is involved in them.

    There is competition and a struggle for existence in nature, but I don't think trying to paste modern ideas of human society on to it is very useful. Most animals and plants are not social and human beings are. In those animals which are social there are inevitably demands made on the individual for the good of the group.

    By that definition of private enterprise everyone that has ever lived who wasn't a hermit in a cave is against private enterprise. No society has ever existed without some sort of obligation on the individual, whether it be through tax, mutual assistance, military service etc.

    What stops someone with enough money in a Libertarian society from buying favour? You argue that you are not a Utopian, but you seem to have a very idealistic view of human nature. Money is power, and it doesn't take a lot of government to relax immigration rules. In a country like America at least, sharing a border with Mexico, you'd need a fair bit of government to enforce any immigration restrictions at all. The existence of corporations is not a historical accident; they came about because people with money found them advantageous. Why would that not happen again in a Libertarian country?

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 31st, 2021 @ 12:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,039
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,695
    Thanked in
    1,448 Posts
    By ampersand: I don't think anyone in this thread is arguing against the existence of private enterprise, only that making as much money as possible isn't the end goal of society. People are 10 times wealthier than they were 50 years ago, but they aren't any happier. The bulk of the racial problems in western countries are not caused by fuzzy humanitariansm, but by business seeking to maximise profit by importing cheap labour.
    Ampersand, I think you've hit the bullseye with this piece

    Free Market Capitalism has spawned globalism in its quest to maximise profits and yet is still being advocated by some members who are seemingly unaware of this and who now begrudge giving their taxes to the very immigrants that their system has created Well, I'm afraid that this comes with the territory - sorry!

    Even the former Soviet Bloc countries, despite their economic model being far from perfect, did not sacrifice their own culture for the sake of it and once their failed experiment was over they at least still had their national identities intact! It also goes without saying that National Socialists would never have allowed things to reach this stage either but I realise that anything containing the 'S' word will be anathema to some Americans, who actually know very little about what it entails

  5. #65
    Senior Member
    SaxonPagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 31st, 2021 @ 12:02 AM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English, Anglo-Saxon
    Country
    England England
    Location
    South Coast
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Aries
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Self Employed
    Politics
    Free Speech / Anti-EU
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    5,039
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,695
    Thanked in
    1,448 Posts
    By SpearBrave: My own theory is that the large corporations are more responsible for immigration than free enterprise. These large corps are not free enterprise as they buy favor of corrupt governments. Since all governments can be corrupted it is best to keep them small and held at the point of gun.
    No!!! Large corporations come about as the result of free enterprise and if you argue that they should not be allowed to form (or limited in any way) then you are in effect stifling 'free enterprise'!

  6. #66
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 02:31 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    54
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,576
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,799
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,432
    Thanked in
    686 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Godwinson View Post
    No!!! Large corporations come about as the result of free enterprise and if you argue that they should not be allowed to form (or limited in any way) then you are in effect stifling 'free enterprise'!
    I will very much argue that, and no not in any limited form.

    If a corparation has intrest in a government than the government will protect it from compition and the same goes if a government has interest in a corparation. This is what is going on right now with some American companies.

    That is in no way stifling free enterprise. How can it be free if a government is involved?

    Plain and simple government has no business running business it only leads to corruption.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Fiona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Thursday, November 24th, 2011 @ 08:16 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain/germany
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Fashion
    Politics
    preservation
    Religion
    I'll believe it when I see it
    Posts
    222
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Huginn ok Muninn View Post
    This used to be the role of the church, so with your assistance you got a measure of guilt as well. They would also probably offer to help find you a job, which, along with the Christianity, would scare away a lot of people. Sadly, that wouldn't work in the U.S., where Mestizos are religious and at least are not afraid to work.
    The irony of this is that most people here, who care about race, are rabidly against welfare.

    I think welfare is a far greater threat to preservation in Europe than it is here. You are a lot softer on welfare there.

    Here, it's more non-race orientated neo-facism which is causing the problem.

    Then again, the type of people I am aquainted with would make you all vomit, so I guess i'm looking at things from a different aspect than the American White Nationalist.
    'you're all just visiting' -the good shepherd

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Fiona's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Thursday, November 24th, 2011 @ 08:16 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain/germany
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Fashion
    Politics
    preservation
    Religion
    I'll believe it when I see it
    Posts
    222
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I just actually read the last page.

    I think I can explain all this loyalty of Amercian WN's to the corporative system which is destroying us.

    While Nazi sympathy was stamped out in Europe, that has never happened here. As a consequence, most of the preservationists in Europe are younger people accessing the situation as they see it, and are forming their own views. They are erecting their own banners.

    The younger people flocking to preservation in the States are flocking to banners which have been pre-erected. The banners they are flocking to here is a bunch of old, old men who did well out of the capitlaist system they live in. They are indoctrinating the young into a type of preservation which emotionally and personally suits them.

    In other words, they are reactionaries.
    'you're all just visiting' -the good shepherd

  9. #69
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    2 Weeks Ago @ 02:31 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    54
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,576
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,799
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,432
    Thanked in
    686 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ampersand View Post
    There is competition and a struggle for existence in nature, but I don't think trying to paste modern ideas of human society on to it is very useful. Most animals and plants are not social and human beings are. In those animals which are social there are inevitably demands made on the individual for the good of the group.
    There are no modern ideas being pasted on a description. Actually all plants and animals are very social otherwise they would not reproduce the same species, genus, and variety.
    By that definition of private enterprise everyone that has ever lived who wasn't a hermit in a cave is against private enterprise. No society has ever existed without some sort of obligation on the individual, whether it be through tax, mutual assistance, military service etc.
    There is nothing wrong with personal choice to help out others in a community, or military to defend yourself and folk. However the idea of state forced welfare is very wrong as it creates sloth and actually makes the folk weak.
    What stops someone with enough money in a Libertarian society from buying favour? You argue that you are not a Utopian, but you seem to have a very idealistic view of human nature. Money is power, and it doesn't take a lot of government to relax immigration rules. In a country like America at least, sharing a border with Mexico, you'd need a fair bit of government to enforce any immigration restrictions at all. The existence of corporations is not a historical accident; they came about because people with money found them advantageous. Why would that not happen again in a Libertarian country?
    America used to defend its border until socialism started creeping in. You don't need a huge over sized government with all the socialism and welfare in place to secure a border.

    Sure money equals power all the more reason to have a small government that can be held accountable for corruption.

    I am most certainly not a Utopian, I just believe that Germanics should and can provide for themselves their daily needs much better than any government can. Socialism does not believe that at all, it is the idea that people need to be restricted and told what to do by a powerful government. People learn through failure, and I very much understand that failure happens, it is called realism. I also believe that too much government restriction and welfare restricts the person from becoming all that he can be.
    If man did not make the free choice to help his fellow man, than there would be no civilization. If Germanics did not make the choice to mate with other Germanics we would not exist as we do today. All of the choices are natural, yet bad things can happen, those that learn from these things become stronger those that don't fail.

    Socialism does not believe in the rights of man and degrades them through things like welfare. It believes the state knows what is best, history has proven that states don't know what is best otherwise we would not be in the shape we are currently in.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,502
    Thanked in
    692 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SpearBrave
    The simple natural laws of supply and demand and production and even profit can very easily be seen in nature. All living things reproduce, if you ever see a forest that has been destroyed by fire new plants grow very quickly other plants soon move in a choke or shade those out then trees slowly feed off the decayed plant material from the first plants. Profit is the seed they produce to generate even more plants. What Adam Smith was describing was a natural act committed by all living things. The same principles he explained are very much in nature and the cycle of life.
    Oh c'mon, money is an artificial creation by man, and capitalism is not that happy flower fantasy you try to make it here.

    Plants reuse only things that are already there, they transform it. Capitalism bases on an abstract product (money) which is required to believe in by its users to give it value in the first place, and that on top of that is able to produce more of itself out of thin air. Capitalism is the most unnatural process and system ever invented.


    Quote Originally Posted by SpearBrave
    Anyone that argues for taking from one person and giving to another is against private enterprise. My own theory is that the large corporations are more responsible for immigration than free enterprise. These large corps are not free enterprise as they buy favor of corrupt governments. Since all governments can be corrupted it is best to keep them small and held at the point of gun. All welfare or government entitlements are part of over large governments.
    Let's quote Adam Smith himself, shall we

    "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

    Moreover, in this passage Smith goes on to specify progressive, not flat, taxation:

    "The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

    Smith even specifically named taxes that he thought should be required by the state among them luxury goods taxes and tax on rent. He believed that tax laws should be as transparent as possible and that each individual should pay a "certain amount, and not arbitrary," in addition to paying this tax at the time "most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it". Smith goes on to state that:

    "Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty."


    "Additionally, Smith outlined the proper expenses of the government in The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Ch. I. Included in his requirements of a government is to enforce contracts and provide justice system, grant patents and copy rights, provide public goods such as infrastructure, provide national defense and regulate banking. It was the role of the government to provide goods "of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual" such as roads, bridges, canals, and harbours. He also encouraged invention and new ideas through his patent enforcement and support of infant industry monopolies. he supported public education and religious institutions as providing general benefit to the society."




    The State has a role, and this role is connected with expenses and large scale organising, harmonising activity for a common goal from which in turn the subjects of the state, ie its citizens, profit. The profit of infrastructure is a rather abstract profit too - and exceeds by far the individual contribution to it.

    How is the state supposed to fulfill this role and duty if it has no means to do so?


    The Libertarian Utopia with a "tiny government" that has no right to collect money (taxes) and is also not allowed to employ any means of production itself to earn money, cannot provide national defense nor any infrastructure. Through the dictate of private ownership also for an entirely public good like money, the state as the representative of the people is completely disempowered. It is reduced to a decorative fancy object with no power, no means, and is MADE dependent on - and therefore corruptible by - those who do possess the control over money, possess large amounts of money or means of production (for infrastructure f.e. that this private ownership is somehow expected to invest into and then to make it accessible for everyone). Their "gun" will always be more powerful than the gun of the small normal people on the street. A result by necessity of the design of a tiny govt with no means.


    And the Liberatarian Utopia also believes in the "goodness of people" and that "they do the right things when just left alone". Human behavior just doesnt work that way. Egoism, when left to its own devises and the freedom to do whatever it pleases, will always produce egoistic results, that can in some few instances also generate public benefit, but will more often than not `not´ be for the public benefit but for the benefit of a few alone and even AGAINST the public.


    And just imagine what would happen if a state's military, ie its supposed "national" defense, is in the hands of private owners, who have the means (wealth) generated from whatever kind of megacorp with pursuing their very own interests. They would send their army against each and every concurrence business, if they feel their monopol threatened. This sure would be the end of free enterprise, in fact, it would be the end of all enterprise other than the megacorp, and it would also be the end of any personal freedom. (Watch Soylent Green for details).

    The Libertarian Utopia also assumes that individual rights and freedoms would be natural. This is however not the case. Individual rights and freedoms are granted by the community, the society through common conventions. They are a result of a (rather abstract) societal contract. The state, as representative of this community and actually manifestation of these common conventions, is the only instance that can possibly protect these freedoms and rights against egoistic wants and desires by single members of this society, if egoism is the driving force behind pursuing interests of economy and allowed to be egoistic. The lawless "freedom of contract" is pure madness that is designed to write away rights and freedoms of those dependent (ie the employees) on those who offer work by holding means of production in their hands.

    Individual rights and freedoms can only exist in the societal community, within the sphere of common conventions. The state, as the abstraction level of society, is that instance that protects these common conventions for those who are members of it. A voluntary participation is therefore impossible. You are either part of the society and can then profit from its common conventions and enjoy the rights and freedoms it grants, or you are not, and then also dont have access to rights and freedoms nor other abstract benefits for its individuals.

    Duty and Right are two sides of the same coin. You cant grab the rights and run when asked to fulfill your duty that grants you the right in exchange. Society, community doesnt work that way. This is rampant individualism and damaging egoism that pursues its own advantage with no regards for the disadvantage it may cause for others, neglects its duties and has no respect for other's rights.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, April 25th, 2016, 10:42 PM
  2. This is Welfare!
    By SpearBrave in forum The United States
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, January 10th, 2011, 02:25 PM
  3. Cash Incentive Programmes Boost Black Pupils
    By Guntwachar in forum The United States
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Monday, May 19th, 2008, 05:49 PM
  4. Social Welfare Encoded In Nordic Genes?
    By Northern Paladin in forum Cultural & Linguistic Anthropology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 07:27 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •