New Members and Strong Growth For The Freedom Front Plus

[Brian_G]

All I've done is point out a formula that has worked every time, to the degree it is implemented.

You're the one making cynical predictions.... ignoring the historical reality, and preempting human being's free will

.

That's rather dishonest, Lex.

Firstly, the formula is largely new, so "every time" doesn't much apply.
If what you mean is a formula of standing up against the elite, or adopting more public-involved politics, then sure, but that's only a cornerstone of what you teach.

p.s. To be clear, you're in the arena of saying how mankind will act (to a bad situation he finds himself).
I'm in the arena of saying he has a choice over how he acts(that those tiny few, which he already doesn't trust, constantly lose sleep in their attempt to distract us from).

It sounds to me like you're batting for the wrong side, Brian_G.

See above
And once again, despite us both backing this need to stand up somewhat, you dishonestly make it look like I'm not.

If you'd rather stay neutral, you are going about it in a rather odd manner.... by shouting down those who still have some energy and willingness to point out the obvious solutions. As unusual as that may sound, nobody has the luxury of not doing their own research. You're not any more special/worthy of an exemption, than I am.

Not studying Mises to the nth degree is NOT not doing one's own research.
But true re the rest, only those who don't learn what their hearts lead them to will do less well.

Start with how the middle-class came to exist. Or if you want to opt-out then do that, instead of trying to those of us with something to offer.

"those of us with something to offer"
If it can't be made to work with enough of an outcome, why not move out into wider potential directions of worth? It's then not denying the roots of your beliefs, it's expanding on their potential.

Practically - how is your not voting going to contribute to the known WC's current needs?

 

[lexity]

Not studying Mises to the nth degree is NOT not doing one's own research.

To be fair, I don't think it matters who I quote or reference.

Not to anyone who has his mind made up before practicing audi alteram partem.

I've quoted the World Bank's own data, as compiled by Heritage economic index, of all people, that shows which formula works to produce higher standards of living for everyone.

Doesn't seem to make the slightest difference. It's like water off a ducks back.

And rather than force-feed you, I'd rather give the cynics a wide berth, and simply move on.

 

[Brian_G]

To be fair, I don't think it matters who I quote or reference.

Not to anyone who has his mind made up before practicing audi alteram partem.

Largely giving you the benefit of the doubt for 6+ years means nothing? Oh dear...

I've quoted the World Bank's data, as compiled by Heritage economic index, of all people, that shows which formula works to produce higher standards of living for everyone.

If it can't be made practical (enough), then is it worth continuing leaning on the dream? Such concepts will work best when their time comes, why not mostly focus on what works best now?

(And see above edits)
Later..

Doesn't seem to make the slightest difference. It's like water off a ducks back.

And rather than force-feed you, I'd rather give the cynics a wide berth, and simply move on.

 

[quovadis]

#statist-sock-smoking-kills

I know a couple of ancaps who do as you describe. But they would never call it freedom.

Really? Lol, back in reality, taxes are simply an unavoidable cost of doing business. For the paranoid, call it “paying to avoid state aggression.”

 

[Stonemason]

View attachment 1908908

Critical point to make.
The argument that you're wasting your vote if you don't vote for the biggest party is utter bull**t.... I still have family members who say the same thing and it drives me nuts....

It is actually true. You do waste you vote if you vote for smaller parties.
Proportional Representation does not guarantee that every vote counts, it only means that it averages out the votes.
Take a spreadsheet and do the sums for yourself. Pay particular attention to the quota as defined by the law and what happens to votes falling outside the quota. You will see in smaller towns a high percentage of votes are discarded because they fall outside the quota while in bigger cities a high number of votes are thrown away for the same reason.
High support parties have less wastage than smaller parties - and the FF+ is a very small party with less than 2 percent support.
Wasting votes on small parties force coalitions which we have all seen is an absolute mess in South Africa.

 

[RaptorSA]

It is actually true. You do waste you vote if you vote for smaller parties.
Proportional Representation does not guarantee that every vote counts, it only means that it averages out the votes.
Take a spreadsheet and do the sums for yourself. Pay particular attention to the quota as defined by the law and what happens to votes falling outside the quota. You will see in smaller towns a high percentage of votes are discarded because they fall outside the quota while in bigger cities a high number of votes are thrown away for the same reason.
High support parties have less wastage than smaller parties - and the FF+ is a very small party with less than 2 percent support.
Wasting votes on small parties force coalitions which we have all seen is an absolute mess in South Africa.

Thing is, I never want to live in a two party system like the US.
Going down a route by attempting to make your vote count maximally all but guarantees that.

 

[lexity]

Really? Lol, back in reality, taxes are simply an unavoidable cost of doing business. For the paranoid, call it “paying to avoid state aggression.”

That's hilarious.

Sounds a bit like paying the mob to not burn down your nightclub, and raising the price of entry to meet 'industry standard' ticket pricing.

In other words being cut-in, finacially, to the corruption and aggression.

Next thing you know you're telling me - an outsider - that 'taxes(protection money) are simply an unavoidable cost of doing business'.

 

[quovadis]

That's hilarious.

Sounds a bit like paying the mob to not burn down your nightclub, and raising the price of entry to meet 'industry standard' ticket pricing.

In other words being cut-in, finacially, to the corruption and aggression.

Next thing you know you're telling me - an outsider - that 'taxes(protection money) are simply an unavoidable cost of doing business'.

You need some more AC friends because it’s actually a thing but regardless perhaps figure out humor and sarcasm.

 

[lexity]

All I've done is point out a formula that has worked every time, to the degree it is implemented.

You're the one making cynical predictions.... ignoring the historical reality, and preempting human being's free will

.

That's rather dishonest, Lex.

Firstly, the formula is largely new, so "every time" doesn't much apply.

Maybe it's new to you, Brian_G, but as you have admitted, you choose not to apply your independent reading, and critical thinking capacity to the information you receive.

If Ivy-league economics professors chant 'market failure,' you collapse before them again in a heap, and then immediately start peddling their Malthusian BS, when you by now should know better.

 

[Brian_G]

Maybe it's new to you, Brian_G, but as you have admitted, you choose not to apply your independent reading, and critical thinking capacity to the information you receive.

If Ivy-league economics professors chant 'market failure,' you collapse before them again in a heap, and then immediately start peddling their Malthusian BS, when you by now should know better.

I've no doubt you have a far wider understanding of economics than most of us. Your (modern) politics however, well, let's just say ......

And who will survive better?
Me - I'm a realist too. You may save a few bucks here and there though.

Have a kinder day, Lex.

 

[lexity]

Wasting votes on small parties force coalitions which we have all seen is an absolute mess in South Africa.

The trouble, as previously stated, is the absence of moral boundaries when it comes to voting.

To illustrated my point if there are 100 tiny parties who together make up a majority, they could be united morally against the Marxist-leanings and policy of the RET factions (That policy has a real chance of making it in some way, shape or form into law. Such as the threat from proposed elimination of protection of self-determinism, property rights, and what remains of freedom of association(employment equity/BEE), NHI, BELA).

That union, then, has been defeated by waiving the moral constraint argument.

The 'wasted vote' argument is downstream of the moral argument.

If you don't share/agree to abide by a particular moral core, you shouldn't share a legal code/jurisdiction with the people around you, who hold an incompatible moral core.

To skip this step is the beginning of the end. Unfortunately, SAns who believe in Democracy that is limited by a bill of rights - as opposed to an absolute majority - have (so far) squandered the advantage handed to them by earlier historical champions of liberty.

One glaring but politically incorrect example is that each vote holds equal sway/weight. That's not a meritocracy, of course. So it rewards an entitlement mentality and, as we know, whatever you reward in society you get more of not less.

Here we are, drowning in a sea of entitlement-minded little brats who are holding onto their legal privilege and are likely to become violent if you try to correct the situation without diligent and careful forethought.

p.s. this entitlement-minded problem is not unique to SA, ofc. It can be seen in the swamp that is Washington DC, and Brussels, Paris, London and elsewhere. It has grown into a very real problem - as you said... 'a mess' - for humanity itself.

Both Apartheid and post-1994 Affirmative Action/DEI have failed for the same reason: skipping the first step They both went straight to 'How best to spend wealth acquired without the consent of the owners,' instead of separating on the basis of genuine differences, first i.e. a people's moral code.

 

[Brian_G]

To illustrated my point if there are 100 tiny parties who together make up a majority, they could be united morally against the Marxist-leanings and policy of the RET factions (That policy has a real chance of making it in some way, shape or form into law. Such as the threat from proposed elimination of protection of self-determinism, property rights, and what remains of freedom of association(employment equity/BEE), NHI, BELA).

If,
Hardly the time to be gambling, especially with very long odds. But yes, that would be a real win.

p.s. this entitlement-minded problem is not unique to SA, ofc. It can be seen in the swamp that is Washington DC, and Brussels, Paris, London and elsewhere. It has grown into a very real problem - as you said... 'a mess' - for humanity itself.

At least we still have a real potential out. Maybe the US too, who knows what strange Mr. Trump will do well or not next, or what may follow his term in office.

Both Apartheid and post-1994 Affirmative Action/DEI have failed for the same reason: skipping the first step They both went straight to 'How best to spend wealth acquired without the consent of the owners,' instead of separating on the basis of genuine differences, first i.e. a people's moral code.

My usual general concern is, as absolute power corrupts absolutely, how do you get the non-corrupt to office, and then keep them non-corrupted...

I'll leave it there.

 

[lexity]

I'm a realist too.

We differ though, in that you only consider current reality.

You seem to think reality will always be stacked in favor of evil-doers. That's why you don't acknowledge prior victories in liberty, and why you don't pay attention to how they came about.

This is a very negative, self-defeating outlook.

 

[Brian_G]

We differ though, in that you only consider current reality.

You seem to think reality will always be stacked in favor of evil-doers. That's why you don't acknowledge prior victories in liberty, and why you don't pay attention to how they came about.

This is a very negative, self-defeating outlook.

No, not really. But I do work for the moment too, not just the future.

What I do know is that mankind is endlessly going off track until a new wise soul comes into play again. Victories in liberty are great, and I've never denied their methods.

 

[lexity]

My usual general concern is, as absolute power corrupts absolutely, how do you get the non-corrupt to office, and then keep them non-corrupted...

That's why I raised the point about the moral argument, with Stonemason.

If you start out with a 'limited, nightwatchman State' of 10% power, where you agree to tolerate some corruption, it acts as a reward to more of the weak, those with as yet unrealized, serious potential evil-doings.

That then becomes 20%.

You now are less prepared to stop this snowball than you were at 10%. With that, you go to 20% and then 30% and so on.... at each stage you buy the excuse that it's because mankind's evil nature(cue Thomas Malthus' anti human outlook) that this problem needs even more of your support, until your social/moral collapse translates into yet another economic collapse.

 

[Brian_G]

That's why I raised the point about the moral argument, with Stonemason.

If you start out with a 'limited, nightwatchman State' of 10% power, where you agree to tolerate some corruption, it acts as a reward to more of the weak, those with as yet unrealized, serious potential evil-doings.

That then becomes 20%.

You now are less prepared to stop this snowball than you were at 10%. With that, you go to 20% and then 30% and so on.... at each stage you buy the excuse that it's because mankind's evil nature(cue Thomas Malthus' anti human outlook) that this problem needs even more of your support, until your social/moral collapse translates into yet another economic collapse.

All true.

At the same time if you don't grab the opportunities available in an extreme age like this, as tainted as they are, you'll simply go extinct.


Catch 22. I don't have all the answers, nor do you. None of us actually.
Just have to do our best...

 

[lexity]

At the same time if you don't grab the opportunities available in an extreme age like this, as tainted as they are, you'll simply go extinct.

Again.... "what opportunities are available" is information that may not simply fall out of the mouths of experts-by-decree.

It may involve your due diligence i.e. willingness to self-educate.

Brian_G: not in our lifetimes, mate.

Like I said, it's really not for me to force-feed anyone, so let's leave it there for the moment.