LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Ostroeuropa]

Nazis weren't monsters, they were people.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Which is probably the point you're trying to make.

Monsters wouldn't have killed themselves so often over killing others.

Pointing out that even Nazis can't handle the atrocities and Nazism put into practice is another argument against it.

[Torrocca]

Well pardon me for not seeing eye-to-eye with the idea of humanizing members of death squads and Mr. Himmler of Nazi Germany.

They're humans and understanding that is important to understanding fascism and nazism and how it works. I've literally written a fic about basically this exact topic specifically to get past the boring portrayals of nazis and fascists as saturday morning cartoon villains. Pretending they were just monsters excuses the ideology of its most despicable aspects in that it corrupts and debases the adherent as well as victims. It's just a form of laziness and tribalism.

Ah yes, because fiction from either side represents the truth /s

There's also the milgram experiments and their importance in understanding Nazism.

The Milgram experiments were debunked a long while ago. There was a better study of a Wehrmacht military police unit (which more or less represented the usual demographics of a regular infantry unit) that found only one in five men would actively refuse to shoot civilians. Another one in five did it unquestioningly, and the remainder only did it because of "peer pressure," which I surmise to be a bullshit excuse to shoot people.

Nazis weren't monsters, they were people.

They were also monsters. This is a given fact going off history.

[West Leas Oros]

(Image)

Being on the compass is a spook. :^)

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

What about it?

It's for 9th graders

Better than the line, and better than not trying to quantify politics at all.

[West Leas Oros]

It's for 9th graders

Better than the line, and better than not trying to quantify politics at all.

But what if we added, a third dimension?

[Irou]

Better than the line, and better than not trying to quantify politics at all.

But what if we added, a third dimension?

10 dimensional political compass
Economics
Morals
Authoritarianism/Libertarianism
Mysticism
Nationalism/Internationalism
Might/Light
Paternal/Autonomist
Technocratic/Luditia
Collectivist/Individualist
Pragmatism/idealism

[West Leas Oros]

But what if we added, a third dimension?

10 dimensional political compass
Economics
Morals
Authoritarianism/Libertarianism
Mysticism
Nationalism/Internationalism
Might/Light
Paternal/Autonomist
Technocratic/Luditia
Collectivist/Individualist
Pragmatism/idealism

Hmm.. has potential.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

Nazis weren't monsters, they were people.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Which is probably the point you're trying to make.

Being a monster and being a person (at least by a technicality) are not mutually exclusive.

[Torrocca]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Which is probably the point you're trying to make.

Being a monster and being a person (at least by a technicality) are not mutually exclusive.

I'm pretty sure New Em and you are saying the same thing. :c

[West Leas Oros]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Which is probably the point you're trying to make.

Being a monster and being a person (at least by a technicality) are not mutually exclusive.

I always believed that deep down, anyone can change. But I’m optimistic like that.

[Great Minarchistan]

I personally think that the social market economy is better than collective or laissez-faire. The market is kinda necessary for individuals who want to develop their talents and dreams for the future. But we also need the state to make it fair

Fair as in welfare? Because social market economies heavily burn money on it.

[Souseiseki]

I personally think that the social market economy is better than collective or laissez-faire. The market is kinda necessary for individuals who want to develop their talents and dreams for the future. But we also need the state to make it fair

Fair as in welfare? Because social market economies heavily burn money on it.

fair as in negating the negative effects on society and the economy that arise from unrestrained market failures, concentration of wealth and uncompetitive practices

[Great Minarchistan]

fair as in negating the negative effects on society and the economy that arise from unrestrained market failures

Could you cite a few major ones?

concentration of wealth

Why is it inherently bad?

[Souseiseki]

fair as in negating the negative effects on society and the economy that arise from unrestrained market failures

Could you cite a few major ones?

it sounds like you're asking for specific big failures when i was talking about a general set of problems that arise from the market system

Why is it inherently bad?

i never said it was inherently bad. i said it was bad if unrestrained. i suppose my comma did not make that clear. people are free to concentrate some wealth as long as they aren't taking the piss.

[The Liberated Territories]

THIS JUST IN: ALYKAI TO DECLARE HOARDING WEALTH ILLEGAL, BANKS OF RICH PEOPLE RAIDED AND REDISTRIBUTED

[Kvatchdom]

Wealth hoarding by any person, party or group is bad for the economy in nearly every case. Money needs to move around.

[Souseiseki]

THIS JUST IN: ALYKAI TO DECLARE HOARDING WEALTH ILLEGAL, BANKS OF RICH PEOPLE RAIDED AND REDISTRIBUTED

but no seriously if you end up with a society where literal millionaires and billionaires are living lives of luxury while the poor are borderline starving and funneling half their wages to said millionaires/billionaires for the right to not live on the streets you fucked up super badly and need to apply some serious :thinking: to how you got to such a situation

[Great Minarchistan]

it sounds like you're asking for specific big failures when i was talking about a general set of problems that arise from the market system

As they are a general set of problems, it seems pretty easy to catch up big fishes, right?

i never said it was inherently bad. i said it was bad if unrestrained.

Even then, why is unrestrained wealth concentration inherently bad?

[Genivaria]

it sounds like you're asking for specific big failures when i was talking about a general set of problems that arise from the market system

As they are a general set of problems, it seems pretty easy to catch up big fishes, right?

i never said it was inherently bad. i said it was bad if unrestrained.

Even then, why is unrestrained wealth concentration inherently bad?

Because it leads to 1. Concentration of political power and 2. Eventually impoverishes everyone else.

[The Liberated Territories]

Wealth hoarding by any person, party or group is bad for the economy in nearly every case. Money needs to move around.

literally what is time preference

[Souseiseki]

As they are a general set of problems, it seems pretty easy to catch up big fishes, right?

i am not sure what this means.

Even then, why is unrestrained wealth concentration inherently bad?

it leads to economic stagnation and inequality, which in turns leads to lower quality of life and instability. government has to regularly bully people into spending money instead of having it cooped up in banks doing nothing.

[Great Minarchistan]

As they are a general set of problems, it seems pretty easy to catch up big fishes, right?


Even then, why is unrestrained wealth concentration inherently bad?

Because it leads to 1. Concentration of political power and 2. Eventually impoverishes everyone else.

Isn't social mobility the thing that matters though? Also, concentration of political power under a small government that does little meddling on the society doesn't seem to be harmful at all (implying this would happen anyways, since bigger government is where politicians get to milk votes from).

[The Liberated Territories]

As they are a general set of problems, it seems pretty easy to catch up big fishes, right?

i am not sure what this means.

Even then, why is unrestrained wealth concentration inherently bad?

it leads to economic stagnation and inequality, which in turns leads to lower quality of life and instability. government has to regularly bully people into spending money instead of having it cooped up in banks doing nothing.

Now you are falling victim to the "pie" fallacy. Hint: there is no pie. One person's accumulation of wealth in no way bothers you, because wealth is not a fixed share.

[Genivaria]

Because it leads to 1. Concentration of political power and 2. Eventually impoverishes everyone else.

Isn't social mobility the thing that matters though? Also, concentration of political power under a small government that does little meddling on the society doesn't seem to be harmful at all (implying this would happen anyways, since bigger government is where politicians get to milk votes from).

Isn't social mobility the thing that matters though?

Yes which an 'unrestrained wealth concentration' would conflict with.
Yes government should be small enough to give tax breaks to the rich and cut funding for public schools.

[Great Minarchistan]

i am not sure what this means.

Since they are a general set of failures, it's not that hard to find out notable examples of such failure, right?

it leads to economic stagnation and inequality

So does bigger government.

which in turns leads to lower quality of life and instability.

Social mobility anyone?

government has to regularly bully people into spending money instead of having it cooped up in banks doing nothing.

Savings rate is inversely related to investment, that is heavily related to employment. tl;dr: Bullying people into spending money crowds out investment, increasing unemployment as a consequence. Brilliant policies, amirite?