Ben No.3

So apparently Hungary outlawed homelessness. Well, they outlawed „habitual residence in a public space“. It’s a constitutional change, also, since the supreme court blocked it otherwise. https://www.google.de/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/10/15/europe/hungary-criminalizes-homelessness-intl/index.html

The, in my humble opinion, best vantage point regarding WWI I’ve heard of is it being long existening violence merely re-imported into Europe. The colonies were ravaged by conflict for a long time already, and so it is easy to view WWI through this lense, as peripheral violence being brought back to the centre.

For being the fourth reich, our politicians seem pretty inept at maintaining a unified majority, no?

with the help of a friend and a few hours, I/we actually understood a page of Hegel. We felt so smart

I have a feeling it will all be fine after the Bavarian elections. Anyway, since this term was a mess to begin with, I feel lucky that the re-elections didn’t happen BEFORE today

Awwww. Thanks guys.

Well I can vote now :D

How was it? interesting. Quite striking.

Visited Buchenwald today, as part of a class trip to Weimar, a small town in former eastern Germany

But institutions with many bright minds attract even more bright minds, no? Or institutions with lots of money can afford brighter minds. Either way, it does seem to me that it’d make a difference

How can we know it? Can we?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm In summary: The French victory parade in Paris during WWII was made to be a “white mens parade” (of a “white mens war”) by de Gaulle, acting upon the explicit wish of Eisenhower’s chief of staff to ensure this. This covered up the fact that, of course, many (most, in fact) French soldiers in fact came from the colonies and weren’t quite white.

The owners of a school or any business can place whatever rules they like in their property.I'm against public schools, but that's separate matter. actually, having public schools is very beneficial for maintaining your dominance over the plebs. Cause now you can tell the children they also had the chance to go to school, just they weren’t smart enough to make it, thus having them believe the ****ty situation they were born into is their fault. If you don’t have public schools, they might actually notice something is not quite right when they can’t pay the school fees. Edit: or am I missing something and you use „public school“ like the British do, confusingly meaning „private school“?

eh, I’ve seen religion change people to the better... they at least say they changed because of religion, I say they change regardless or maybe even though. But if I ask them to be critical, it’s only fair to ask the same of me. So perhaps they’re right

that’s not what they’re saying... if I understood correctly, all they say is that these beliefs are shared by right extremists. A necessary, but not sufficient indicator

Pff. And those people have the audacity to call The Donald juvenile and petty? We will attack you personally for your politics. What's next kidnapping his kid? No wonder left loves muslims. The terrorist bone is strong in both. we went from pettiness to kidnapping to terrorism within three sentences here. No wonder the conservatives love fascists. The hyperexaggerated doctrine bone is strong in both.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/ http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/napolitano.apology/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/ not a single report mentions libertarians, with or without capital L. I don’t think a, frankly, rather harmless bunch of Friedman-Nerds are cool enough to join the right-extremists-gang. About that thing with state over fed, I doubt it’s a sole characteristic of right-wing extremists... were the feds going by that, they’d find it hard to differentiate between the KKK, the Republicans and left-wingers. It seems to me rather that this was now included, amongst other factors, as a further possible characteristic

can we have a source that Obama specifically targeted libertarians; rather than libertarian being, more or less coincidentally, disproportionately affected due to often falling under other categories? For example, assuming what you’re saying is correct, a large number of libertarians might be gun owners; so targeting gun owners would also mean many libertarians were targeted without specifically targeting libertarians

I’m merely using it as an analogy of sorts; to illustrate a point.

“And since you have a right to free speech there is no reason to not allow excercising this anonymously.” so why not in public? Not like every masked person wants to stab someone; and not like you can’t deal harm to people over the internet either.

We have similar law, but it's targeting soccer hooligans. It prevents them from anonymously devastating property. following that line of thought, why have internet anonymity? Everyone being traceable by everyone would certainly better the tone on the internet

Even though I do believe the law is specifically targeting Muslim women, lets for a moment pretend it isn’t. Why should I be stopped from wearing a mask in public? Anonymity is greatly beneficial in many situations... case and point: this very thread would probably be very different if we weren’t all benefiting from varying degrees of anonymity.

@injurai It is my understanding that a modest inflation is actually a goal? At least that’s how we treat it in Europe. The notion is that debts become easier and easier to pay over time, thus allowing credits to be taken, investments to be made and businesses to be created. If I am running a bakery, I can buy ingredients for $8 and tomorrow sell my bread for $9. That’s inflation pushing business for you. Currently, we try to push inflation to 2%, though some recommend up to 4%. Course, what archiving 2% inflation means has changed over time... it used to mean acting against inflation to a certain degree; whereas now it means pushing inflation. So, whereas it used to mean a rising interest rate, it now means an ever shrinking one. Saving large amounts of money seems (to me) like a more dangerous idea though. Wouldn’t that mean running risk of a deflation? And those are truly stifling, as far as I understand. In my bakery, I’d be buying ingredients for $8 but could only sell my bread for $7. It’s easy to see where the danger lies, I believe. Since you talked about wealth redistribution... and a look at the following: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/KSUbos3-5yK8JT5hvaWG1g3QnLuNtCN4TZY47BjQr0qrvluE0743bGdwJZRTmorr3-GK2-til0bdG4xgx6LsleZ4laBR5k7L5YtbQyAq-9AkINKH5tsGSrfjXvTfI5gGJQ As you can see, extreme situations like WWII and the 29 crash, returns grow much more than gdp. What this means is that a larger portion of the wealth creates annually goes to those who already own capital (via returns) rather to those who actually work (via growth). You can see that the difference was rather stable after the war until the 70s, and we can observe a relatively stable divergence; after, it continues to grow more extreme. And indeed, this holds true for inequality as well: Average hourly wages First one starts significantly earlier, don’t allow that to confuse you.

Of course that is true, not sure about USA, I don't think there is many state controled companies. Nazis just put that nationalism to another whole level, they didn't put national interest above global in their own country, they also thought that every other nation is inferior and have to be "corrected', that is why they put shame on that word. Today healthy nationalism have to be called patriotism otherwise you get associated with nazis in seconds. But its a word play really perhaps so. But if (close to) every nation can be called socialist, then the word does loose its usefulness a bit, doesn’t it? Same with nationalist, for that matter. And I might perhaps add something: I believe the Nazis were more focused on race than nationality in the stricter sense.

How much of the means of production have to be state owned and to what degree have national interest to be put first? As it stands, I can’t really think of any country that is NOT “national” and “socialist” to some degree, by those definitions