Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 766 posts

Re: undefined

#351

Post by dreta »

dcposch wrote: post #334
dreta wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can argue whether Trump is an authoritarian or not, but what we can't argue about is that Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms. Democrats can call it "common sense" whatever, but that's what it is.

> Clinton openly stated during the election she wants to take away your right to bare arms I'm pretty sure going sleeveless will still be legal in a Clinton presidency. Spelling aside, it's still incorrect. Nobody is proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Basic gun control-- for example, requiring a criminal background check with no gun show loophole-- is not the same thing as taking away your right to own a gun.

There's no such thing as the "gun show loophole". It's a myth. There already are background checks. I can tell you've never even tried to own a gun.

Re: undefined

#352

Post by forgetsusername »

matt4077 wrote: post #299
Radim wrote: post #170

Everything has to be such a spectacle, so black-and-white and binary in the US. The forum discussions, here and elsewhere, give outside observers this impression: |=============================X=| Candidate X: some minor flaws, but overall a great option |=X=============================| Candidate Y: the new Hitler, world falls apart if elected For reference, here is how many people in (not only) Europe view this "gr…

The Clinton-is-dishonest narrative is a completely American fiction, created four of five years ago in some strategy meeting and popularized by repetition. There's nothing there. Republicans spent thousands of hours in Benghazi and came up empty handed. Worst thing she apparently did was setting up a private mail server, as did her predecessors, Republicans included. Europeans see Trump as an actual danger to peace a…

You know you sound exactly like the parent comment was describing, right?

Re: undefined

#353

Post by anotherhacker »

DominikR wrote: post #341
madaxe_again wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, he could from a family like mine - my Omi is Austrian, along with a slew of cousins. Dinner table conversation still turns to how things would have been better had herr Hitler won. My uncle has to leave the room he so vociferously objects to his mother and his children. So, that collective memory swings both ways. Maybe Thiel lacks education in history and pines for a glorious fictitious past, which is a…

Hitler was a Socialist, not a right wing politician. That's what you Austrians/Germans get wrong. Hitler enacted a 70% income tax for the highest incomes, implemented a full welfare state, free childcare, free schools, free everything to force propaganda down their throats. He was an arts student (probably he would have done well with SJW's of today), a vegetarian, anti smoking, pro animal rights, anti religion etc.…

Hitler was a Fascist / Authoritarian, not a Socialist.

This confusion about Socialist vs Fascism is common because - as you point out - they enact similar policies, e.g. high taxes.

There are numerous differences between the two. The biggest has to do with the relationship between the state and the individual:

In a Fascist / Authoritarian regime, the individual is subordinated to the state. E.g. "The state knows what's best for me. I'll do whatever they tell me to do." That's why Nazi = "National Socialism..."

In a Socialist government, the state is subordinated to the individual. This is also sometimes referred to as "active state liberalism". E.g. "The state exists to ensure we all live a happy life that enables us to pursue our own interests." France is a good example of this.

These are in contrast to what is called "classic" or "minimal state" liberalism. A liberal will say "The state exists to make sure that no one oppresses me, but it's not the state's responsibility to take care of me". This is the original version that comes from Locke, Mills, F. A. Hayek...

Re: undefined

#354

Post by douche »

Tempest1981 wrote: post #270
douche wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your last point holds a lotof the key. I'm technically coastal, but where I come from is more Rust Belt in character. Things used to be good, maybe not great, but a lot of people made a living doing honest work and supported strong communities a generation ago. People in those areas today look around and see a gutted, graying, opiod-dependent third-world wasteland where they used to thrive. Things are not bet…

Has Trump provided a credible plan to help these people?

I'm not sure whether what he has proposed would actually be beneficial. But he's one of the few that hasn't told these people to go pound sand, and taken positions on issues that they see as impacting their livelihoods, like immigration, outsourcing, free trade, and tariffs that might possibly help them, rather than exacerbate their problems.

Re: undefined

#356

Post by DominikR »

anotherhacker wrote: post #353
DominikR wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hitler was a Socialist, not a right wing politician. That's what you Austrians/Germans get wrong. Hitler enacted a 70% income tax for the highest incomes, implemented a full welfare state, free childcare, free schools, free everything to force propaganda down their throats. He was an arts student (probably he would have done well with SJW's of today), a vegetarian, anti smoking, pro animal rights, anti religion etc.…

Hitler was a Fascist / Authoritarian, not a Socialist. This confusion about Socialist vs Fascism is common because - as you point out - they enact similar policies, e.g. high taxes. There are numerous differences between the two. The biggest has to do with the relationship between the state and the individual: In a Fascist / Authoritarian regime, the individual is subordinated to the state. E.g. "The state knows what…

Why is it then that Socialist governments which are supposedly subordinated to the individual all seem to end up in having re education camps, Gulags, forced labour or concentration camps to crack down on dissenters.

Why can't they let individual dissenting opinions exist beside their own hive mind ideology.

Why do Socialist governments always try to get control over education to indoctrinate the next generation instead of allowing parents to raise their children however they see fit.

Why do Socialists always attack people who are successful for merely being successful. (back then: filthy Jewish bankers, today: filthy bankers)

No, I do not buy it that in Socialism the government is subordinated to the individual, my family actually lived in such a shit system and I've seen it as a child myself. You can maybe convince gullible youth and students in the West who frequent overrated Universities that this is true but not me.

Edit: And last but not least: Hitler himself frequently said and wrote that he is a Socialist. Not an International Socialist like the Soviet Union but a National Socialist.

Re: undefined

#357

Post by mrcarrot »

DominikR wrote: post #336
_tpzm wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He is a libertarian I just find this impossible to reconcile with his support for Trump, the most authoritarian presidential candidate in a very long time and possibly ever. I think many of his supporters would actually agree with that description, they like that about him, and they absolutely do not describe themselves as libertarian. They describe themselves as "conservatives" who want a "strong" president to "ta…

He does not explicitly appeal to or endorse white identity politics. Where's the proof for your outrageous statement? And what exactly is wrong with wanting to "take back your country"? He's talking about enforcing existing laws like having borders.

He may not explicitly endorse them, but his dog-whistling is certainly resonating with a particular crowd[1].

[1]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hat...

Re: undefined

#358

Post by kom107 »

jraedisch wrote: post #306
AvenueIngres wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thiel has bachelor and JD degrees in Philosophy and Law from Stanford. I think it is a little bit preposterous to assume he holds his current views about Trump simply because he is too uneducated to think otherwise. >Maybe Thiel lacks education in history and pines for a glorious fictitious past, which is a core tenet of the trump campaign. And fascism. Maybe you are the one confusing narratives built around each can…

Could you elaborate on the great stagnation problem? It could also be about mitigating undesirable effects of technological progress and economical change. Stagnation might just be another word for humans needing time to adjust.

I think this is a large part of the problem. I believe that the standard quantitative models used for productivity are no longer accurate. They are somewhat precise, but do not correctly reflect value that is produced.

Re: undefined

#359

Post by Keverw »

I feel more people support Trump than we know. Probably many billionaires, but don't announce it because the people who listen to two minute sound bites in between their cartoons and reality tv will call them "racist" and the other ist words.

I just don't get how business people can support democrats when republicans are supposed to be more business friendly(for smaller gov, less regulations from what I've heard).

I think big powerful rich people supporting Hillary is just a PR Stunt, and they secretly don't want her to win. Just a hunch I have. I just don't understand how they can fulfill their fiduciary duties to their shareholders when voting for a party wanting more rules and regulations.

Correct me if I'm viewing this wrong, I've just never understood how Silicon Vally is mainly democrat, but focused on entrepreneurship and innovation. Sounds like it should be a republican area then?

Re: undefined

#360

Post by vidarh »

DominikR wrote: post #341
madaxe_again wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, he could from a family like mine - my Omi is Austrian, along with a slew of cousins. Dinner table conversation still turns to how things would have been better had herr Hitler won. My uncle has to leave the room he so vociferously objects to his mother and his children. So, that collective memory swings both ways. Maybe Thiel lacks education in history and pines for a glorious fictitious past, which is a…

Hitler was a Socialist, not a right wing politician. That's what you Austrians/Germans get wrong. Hitler enacted a 70% income tax for the highest incomes, implemented a full welfare state, free childcare, free schools, free everything to force propaganda down their throats. He was an arts student (probably he would have done well with SJW's of today), a vegetarian, anti smoking, pro animal rights, anti religion etc.…

In the early days of the NSDAP it was a populist party that spanned the politican spectrum. Hitler was part of the wing that expelled most of the left wing of the party from the NSDAP as he consolidated his powers because he abhorred their ideas. Later, the Night of the Long Knives was used to drive the party even further right, by murdering and arresting the leadership of the SA, which at that point made up the "left wing" of the NSDAP.

> Hitler enacted a 70% income tax for the highest incomes

Which made him more moderate in terms of marginal taxes than the US under any number of Republican administations. Are you arguing that the pre-Reagan Republic administrations were left wing too?

> implemented a full welfare state, free childcare, free schools

The first comprehensive welfare systems in Germany were pushed through by the very conservative Bismarck in the late 1870's, under the joint argument of support of Christian morality and to stop the socialists from being able to obtain support for structural changes. Welfare systems in Europe stopped being indicative of left vs. right by the end of the 19th century.

> The right wing wants to get rid of all mandatory welfare and government influence on our lives in order to make it impossible for authoritarians like Hitler to hijack the system.

Right libertarians want this. Right libertarianism didn't exist in Hitlers day. Left libertarianism did (it dates back to the 1870's), but the right wing of Hitlers day were generally supporters of a strong state.

Remember "right" in the left vs. right stems from who supported the French monarchy: the original right wing were monarchists; the classical liberals and libertarians of the time were firmly seated on the left.

As for wanting to get rid of mandatory welfare and government influence: the aforementioned Bismarck - nicknamed the "iron chancellor" - a leading figure of the European right wing of his time, and loyal monarchist, someone who had dozens of German left wing newspapers closed and outlawed and the leaders of dozens of German socialist groups arrested, was as mentioned also the politician who brought us the first welfare state.

Post reply on HN