"This Is Why There Are No Jobs In America", by Porter Stansberry

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


This is pure ideology.

The founding fathers wanted taxes. The constitution was written in part to force states to pay taxes for the greater good. No one, none, of the founding fathers believed in a system wherein all Americans wouldn't be, to some degree, forced to pay taxes for things they didn't like.

Any system wherein a government makes even one person do something they don't want to do will be considered immoral by your standards. There is NO system out here able to govern thousands that will be able to cope with your ridiculous belief system.

You are in essence, as ideologically rigid as an fanatic.

If the entire world was as inflexible and dogmatic it would collapse in about 5 minutes.

The name of the game, when you're talking billions of individuals, is compromise. I do things I don't want to do, that help you; you do things you don't want to do to help me.

It's not perfect, but perfect doesn't exist.

Society in every form involves coercion. in fact, being alive is coercive. Want to live? You have to eat. Did you agree to that? Guess what, if you don't eat, you die... biology is literally threatening you with death every single day.

Bet bet? Suicide. Ultimate control... end the cycle of coercion and violence today.

There is NO society that will ever exist wherein no one is ever forced to do things against there will. That's a false option.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

Remind me to murder people, as I had no hand in formulating laws against murder...

So you do find whatever your government tells you is legal to be moral and whatever they tell you is illegal to be immoral! I knew it...

Comparing harming nobody and not wanting your property to be stolen to murder...

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

The founding fathers wanted taxes. The constitution was written in part to force states to pay taxes for the greater good. No one, none, of the founding fathers believed in a system wherein all Americans wouldn't be, to some degree, forced to pay taxes for things they didn't like.

The founding fathers were not some sort of Gods who lay down the be-all and end-all of a moral code for the rest of humanity to forever rely on. I don't know why you keep bringing them up.

Any system wherein a government makes even one person do something they don't want to do will be considered immoral by your standards. There is NO system out here able to govern thousands that will be able to cope with your ridiculous belief system.

I do not wish to be heavily governed. I am capable of determining my own moral code and am not fearful of letting others do the same.

The name of the game, when you're talking billions of individuals, is compromise. I do things I don't want to do, that help you; you do things you don't want to do to help me.

I guess the difference between you and me is that I actually enjoy helping others and do so voluntarily. Would it be moral for me to threaten you with violence if you did not give to all the same charities I give to?

being alive is coercive. Want to live? You have to eat. Did you agree to that? Guess what, if you don't eat, you die... biology is literally threatening you with death every single day.

I agree, but it still doesn't make violence against innocents within a society any more moral.

There is NO society that will ever exist wherein no one is ever forced to do things against there will. That's a false option.

Judging by historical trends, societies seem to be getting increasingly liberal and civilized. Perhaps not in our lifetime, but one day people will likely be only forced to do things against their will to prevent them from harming others.

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


The founding father lay out the principles of America. If you can't get with them you can't get with America. It's not for you.

You claim that you want to be able to live in a system that allows you to follow your extremist views, but that system would necessarily step on other people's toes. In other words, in a society as large as ours, you can't expect to change systems so dramatically without a hell of a lot of coercion (in your words:violence).

So, you're trapped.

I enjoy helping others (though thanks for once again finding the most dickish way of stating your position). The difference between you an dI is that you see any compromise as violence. Taxes from me to pay for something I don't agree without isn't violence. Very few people would see it like that. It's compromise. When I want taxes to pay for something (education) I know others may disagree... but they may in turn want it to pay for something I disagree with (e.g. drug war).

There's no solution wherein I get what I want (universal high quality healthcare and education) where you get what you want, and vice versa. You get what you want, it's by using violence against me. Using your definition.

So you agree your own body is using the threat of violence against you, in order to keep you living? AND you think your views are rational?

You are an extremist.Extreme systems are always gonna force the majority into behaviour they are against... you're system would be extremely violent... hugely so...but again, this contradiction exists because your beliefs are irrational and confused. Your goal would be to use violence to enslave people into a system to prevent violence.

Pot, meet kettle.

As for you defining a system where in society forces everyone into a kind of Mad Max world, wherein there's no social safety net, no public healthcare and no free education as "liberal"... that's about as crazy a belief as I've ever seen.

As for force being used to prevent people from harming others... what do you think forcing the poor out of education, or forcing the poor to receive substandard healthcare is...? It's coercion. It's force. If I am forced to work a # job to pay for expensive medicine for my child with a birth defect, because I got a substandard education, because my parents were poor (my father died of cancer when I was young... so single mother) ... then that's coercion.

The opposite of that is a society wherein we assure a basic standard of living, which increases wealth for the majority. We create a healthcare system which provides a basic standard for everyone, allowing everyone a chance to pursue their dreams...

And guess what, we do that by forcing everyone to pay a fair amount of taxes... and if collectively agree that our politicians are wasting our money, we replace them.

The ONLY fair system, on a macro level is majority rule... there's NO system that can make everyone happy on a micro level... all systems will use violence to enforce their mandate.

This is interesting input, from everyone, to read. I am american but have been living in another country for 20 years.
I'm out of touch with many changes that have occured in my motherland since then! Like if this is happening regularly-

if you ever try to stiff me – or cheat me on any of my fees or rules – I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.

I find it surprising that no one is really discussing that as a sign of a problem! Wow! Are you all so used to that it isn't shocking anymore? Or- was that a LIE?

I started a business in the country I am in, and once it got going well, I chose to sell it. So I am more familiar with the laws and regulations where I am (a capitalist economy here). But we pay much more than you as entrepreneurs- for example, for each employee, we must pay the exact same amount we pay them, to the state. It's all about double what you guys pay, if this guy is telling the truth. But for some weird reason, there is still entrepreneurs, trying their hand at a business, every year! I wonder why that is?

If they fail, they won't end up on the street, of course, so there is less risk. That money they paid is paid back to them in financial support and medical coverage (along with pressure to get another job again, a little irritating, but not life threatening).

Also, most entrepreneurs here don't start out trying to open a corporation, with various factories. They start small. A small business, and grow slowly, as their profits allow. I wonder- how does that business, started by the little guy, go directly into being a multinational corporation with factories in other lands??? If these taxes and charges are killing them, how did they get that far??

And I just came back from visiting my family in the US for a month- the lifestyle being "expensive" is rather strange to me. The lifestyle includes each family member from age three and up with their own iphone, an ipad from age 15, the dog has it's own stairs to get up to the bed and weekly toileting appointments at $90 a pop... the idea of living without a car is unacceptable, as is not having some sort of drink in your hands at all times (and their daily coffee costs $7). And then they say it is we just can't keep up with the cost of living!

And jobs... Maybe it really depends upon the area in question. I found lots of jobs available there, but many of them were manual type of work. I talked to business owners that said they were desperate to fill these positions, but nobody wanted them! The kids said it was beneath them, consdiering they had spent four years in college learning Latin American history or something. I wondered why they wasted their time there instead of going to a technical school at 16? Oh yeah... that is shameful.. just like having a dog that sleeps on the floor, or a phone that has no internet access, or no drink in your hand.

I seriously wonder if the consumers themselves, the people, could ever consider themselves as part of why this system is failing them? They are supposed to be running it, in a sense. Do they buy crap they don't need? Do they buy things made in sweatshops in other countries? Do they take huge loans to send their kids to out to useless years of partying at a university?
If they do, I don't understand how they complain.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

You claim that you want to be able to live in a system that allows you to follow your extremist views, but that system would necessarily step on other people's toes.

How would trusting everyone to follow their own moral judgement, so long as they do not harm others, step on people's toes?

In other words, in a society as large as ours, you can't expect to change systems so dramatically without a hell of a lot of coercion (in your words:violence).

It would be impossible to use coercion to change to a system of non-coercion...

So, you're trapped.

We've established that I'm not attempting to bring about any change. I'm happy living in one of the freest societies in human history, but that does not change my predictions about the future or my opinion on the morality of initiating violence against innocents.

I enjoy helping others (though thanks for once again finding the most dickish way of stating your position).

Try reading your own posts before you cast stones from your glass house (and yes, it was you who started with the immaturities).

The difference between you an dI is that you see any compromise as violence.

I only see violence as violence, it's pretty clear cut. Sugar-coating it by labeling it "compromise" does nothing to remove the violence.

Taxes from me to pay for something I don't agree without isn't violence.

Unless you enjoy spending your money on things you don't agree with or want, the motivation for you to do so has come from the threat of violence, whether you care to admit it or not.

When I want taxes to pay for something (education) I know others may disagree... but they may in turn want it to pay for something I disagree with (e.g. drug war).

So who is winning here? You are both less satisfied than if you both just paid for the things you wanted and didn't pay for the things you don't want.

There's no solution wherein I get what I want (universal high quality healthcare and education) where you get what you want, and vice versa. You get what you want, it's by using violence against me. Using your definition.

Actually, for you to get what you want is the only desire which requires violence. I'm entirely opposed to violently enforcing my beliefs on others.

So you agree your own body is using the threat of violence against you, in order to keep you living? AND you think your views are rational?

I don't think morals can be entirely rationalized, but I suspect most people would agree that initiating violence against innocents is immoral.

you're system would be extremely violent... hugely so...

Do explain how it would be more violent than the current system.

As for you defining a system where in society forces everyone into a kind of Mad Max world, wherein there's no social safety net, no public healthcare and no free education as "liberal"... that's about as crazy a belief as I've ever seen.

The social safety net, healthcare, education, etc is provided voluntarily by people who are not living under the constant threat of violence (which would perhaps increase the levels of compassion within the society).

As for force being used to prevent people from harming others... what do you think forcing the poor out of education, or forcing the poor to receive substandard healthcare is...? It's coercion. It's force.

Read what I wrote previously about the economics of education. There is no coercion or force involved if someone can't afford to buy a product or service.... That is really grasping at straws.

If I am forced to work a # job to pay for expensive medicine for my child with a birth defect, because I got a substandard education, because my parents were poor (my father died of cancer when I was young... so single mother) ... then that's coercion.

Self-coercion is not immoral...

I'm sure there would be many people willing to VOLUNTARILY help someone in this situation. Threatening people with violence to steal their money, because you lost some of life's lotteries and didn't make anything more of yourself along the way, is immoral. You keep on bringing up the poor and education. Student loans allow even a poor person to invest in their education and repay the debt once they move into a decently paying job.

And guess what, we do that by forcing everyone to pay a fair amount of taxes... and if collectively agree that our politicians are wasting our money, we replace them.

With different politicians who waste just as much money.

The ONLY fair system, on a macro level is majority rule...

Something about two wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for lunch...

reply to post by DrinkYourDrug


And now the delusional comes full circle...

You have never even asked how this extremist system would affect others, only just assumed it'd all be grand...

You also state something flatly incorrect:

It would be impossible to use coercion to change to a system of non-coercion...

So, when your system takes away my medicare? What's that?

If your system forces me to make choices I don't want to make, what is that if not coercion?

And again, when you find your system is just an impossible pipe dream you go back to the only real position you can have: I don't do anything to try and change the world and I don't believe it's gonna change, except maybe in some random future way. Good one.

As for, "immaturities"... I have no problem mocking your delusions... and the very confused and internally unsound ideology you espouse... it should be challenged... it's crazy-pants... That being said, I also have a hard time believing you're so concerned about ideological purity when you casually debase others...

Again you state compromise, taxes, et al, all the things that pay for and allow society to function are violence... it's so reductionist as to be a joke... but sadly, you're all to serious...

Again I say to you, there is NO SYSTEM, even yours, that would function without coercion. All systems, when you reduce compromise to violence, are inherently violent. 6 million (or billion) people can not always be completely selfish. That's not society and certainly not one anyone but a few reductionist ideologue would chose to want to live in... because it's absurd.

Unless you enjoy spending your money on things you don't agree with or want, the motivation for you to do so has come from the threat of violence, whether you care to admit it or not.

You've stated a lot of stupid crap, but that's about the stupidest (so far). It actually completely undercuts your understanding of "self-interest".

If I go to work, to make enough money to start a business, to be happy, I am not doing so at the threat of violence. I am doing so because I choose to. I will necessarily have to compromise my happiness, do things I don't want to do, to achieve my goals... I am however willing to suffer a bit to be happier, on total.

The same goes for spending money. I don't WANT to spend money on lots of things, but do because, on balance they benefit me. I am not doing this out of threats of violence, but because I am mature enough to not be idealogical.

I am starting to think you're about 15 years old.

I think this conversation is a waste of our time.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

And now the delusional comes full circle...

Indeed. I recall this debate began with you denying the fact that the threat of violence is a large part of the taxation system.

So, when your system takes away my medicare? What's that?

If by "takes away" medicare you mean medicare becomes funded by voluntary donations for those who can't afford to pay for what they use, rather than funded by the violent theft, then that sounds like a reduction in coercion to me...

If your system forces me to make choices I don't want to make, what is that if not coercion?

So you justify groups of thugs carrying out threats of violence on your behalf, because it makes your decision making easier?

And again, when you find your system is just an impossible pipe dream you go back to the only real position you can have: I don't do anything to try and change the world and I don't believe it's gonna change, except maybe in some random future way. Good one.

And yet violence against innocents still hasn't become any more moral! For a long time it has also been common sense to assume the drug war isn't going to change, and that a single person can't change the world, but that STILL doesn't make it any more moral. I'm sure witches being burned at the stake felt as though they couldn't change society and couldn't see it changing in the foreseeable future (you know where this is going).

As for, "immaturities"... I have no problem mocking your delusions...

So don't have a cry about it when I rebut one of your points "in the most dickish way possible." It seems you're are quite emotionally invested in your beliefs with regards to taxation and thus unable to debate opposing ideas which threaten your belief system with civility. It also seems you are able to make very few rational arguments in favor of your stance and are forced to fill your posts with insults and (poorly executed) mockery.

it should be challenged...

I agree. But so should everything, including the current way of doing things. That is how societies move forwards. Only insecure societies (or people) discourage challenging of the status quo.

Again you state compromise, taxes, et al, all the things that pay for and allow society to function are violence... it's so reductionist as to be a joke... but sadly, you're all to serious...

It is a fact that taxes require violence. Is this supposed to be some sort of elephant in the room that members of society are not supposed to talk about?

Again I say to you, there is NO SYSTEM, even yours, that would function without coercion. All systems, when you reduce compromise to violence, are inherently violent. 6 million (or billion) people can not always be completely selfish. That's not society and certainly not one anyone but a few reductionist ideologue would chose to want to live in... because it's absurd.

I help others for selfish reasons - it makes me feel good, due to the nature of the typical human brain. Not all of us are as fearful as you in trusting other people to make their own moral decisions.

If I go to work, to make enough money to start a business, to be happy, I am not doing so at the threat of violence.

Of course nobody is forcing you to go to work. You are only paying taxes under the threat of violence. Why are you unable to admit that to yourself?

The same goes for spending money. I don't WANT to spend money on lots of things, but do because, on balance they benefit me. I am not doing this out of threats of violence

Of course you don't need to be threatened to purchase things. Vendors are only collecting sales taxes under the threat of violence. Your beliefs really don't allow you to see this? It's a pretty basic concept.

I am starting to think you're about 15 years old.

The irony.

I think this conversation is a waste of our time.

Perhaps your time, but I have enjoyed the debate and having my opinions challenged. I also admit to being somewhat amused by your constant insults.

Porter Stansberry just came out with a new video on why there are no new jobs in 2012. Great watch! It's short and sweet.

Their are no jobs in America, because Americans are pretty lazy...

THE GOVERNMENT IS TO lazy to think of creative ways to make money,so they just tax the shiznit outta companies..

Americans, cannot find jobs because they want lazy jobs.. I work in a very productive field I am one of the last Americans, I can look you in the eye and say I am one of the LAST, Americans who WORK, for the country.. I work along side Mexicans by the way, who are taking the jobs the lazy Americans who do not want or want to WORK at, at this point now thou even if the lazy American, wanted the job, the Mexican will out work him for less, in order to understand this, you need to travel to Mexico, live a little, gonna need a job First to do that.. Need to see the conditions, when I traveled to Mexico, I saw mexicans working barefoot and in rags, in America, working conditions are great!!

You see it is the laziness of America, that makes the progressive mentallity to complain about not getting a job sitting on his couch, library, card board box, etc, instead of spending every moment of his or her LIFE, WORKING to get a job..

Winners don't make excuses.... That is what we have losers for..

reply to post by NOTurTypical


This is a bit true but also a bit skewed view, the state does many functions that are required for society to function the problem is that is tends to get too big and control details that it has no place in, this goes for all type of political systems, the more complex and control the state has the more responsibility it calls into it self as it grows into a money pit without no end in sight...

Some parts that is not mentioned in the story is about national security (internal and external), police departments, fireman, external representations (embassies) etc and providing a social structure that may include education, healthcare and social security (if a state is functioning optimally it can provide all of this functions without being much of a burden the problem is when it fails to do the right balance or loses track of its responsibilities).