Klashbash

Libertarian/Free thinker. The free market defeats state coercion both in ethics and results. Eager to be blocked by more nannystate parasites that hate reality.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

Your “Objectivist” label is interesting because you seem to not grasp what is capitalism entails. BlackRock’s not capitalism; it’s crony scum feasting on state regulations and subsidies. Winners in real markets earn it through value, not bribes; slash the nannystate, and BlackRock flounders like we would want of any parasite. Your “always ends up on top” cope? Unfortunately, it's not based on merit, because the government is backing "their boy" and playing umpire at the same time.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

@Ethan390507452 @Dusty4570 @RealLuthen @trequor_ @PanopticonBot Would you agree with your logic that transrace or transpecies should also be covered by taxpayer money?

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

@JackTFaller @RockChartrand @DelusionPosting Mental labor to take on the risk, vision and having the fortitude. 95% of starting businesses failing in three years is not something to be taken lightly.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

@AlZeidenfeld @RockChartrand I’d wager you would have to have a lot of conflicting beliefs if you weren’t. But tell me this, what is morally flawed or implausible with socialism since you so aren’t supportive of it?

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

@BlackDumpling @heisei_ramen No

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

The only thing that ultimately matters are results, otherwise you get grifters and virtue-signalers who take either credit and or money while the people still stuffer. That’s not a solution, merely ego grandstanding.

“Just blaming people for their own poverty.”

This is called the soft bigotry of low expectations. That the poor are an “other than” who are incapable of free will and need someone with a savior complex to spare them from their own consequences.

https://t.co/dVlQ68Wkna

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

That’s classic deflection. “It’s too complicated” to paraphrase when things go awry when your side constantly fumbles is a non-answer at best. At worst it’s just bad faith. Because you would never let the opposing side get away with that, and you know it.

The homeless crisis is a multitude of things but they add up perfectly fine: Politically connected NGOs living large, criminals, drug addicts, mentally ill, and parasites forever mooching off the government dole. It’s a rarity that those who truly need and deserve help stay in dire poverty in the U.S. Too many voluntary charities, churches, and opportunities to not be able to rise above your situation if you want to claw your way out.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

Actually it’s an amazing argument despite it being not exactly on topic nor mentioned. How goes California’s anti-poverty experiment the last few generations? I’ll wait. Because it took what you zealous Leftists advocate and went full throttle with it. What are the results? Are there more homeless now or less? Are things more expensive for the poor and middle class or less?

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

@Patrick87892410 @TaraBull Mostly right. Eating “boring food” is not hard for some since for them it’s eating to live rather than living to eat. I could eat the same rather plain meals day in and day out without getting bored for a hell of a long time.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

Come on dawg; let’s cut the philosophical fanfic and look at the market scoreboard you keep dodging.

Your opener straight up is still just circular cope: “If your notion of value wastes food and exploits the undeveloped, it doesn’t solve the calculation problem because it calculates the wrong thing.” That’s not a rebuttal. You’re ignoring the body count and dead stock.

Markets don’t “create” starvation; they flood the place with food. Let’s do a reality check:
• U.S.: Starvation near-zero (malnutrition tied to addiction/illness; not famine). Waste 30–40% because of abundance. Prices drive production. Obesity is the problem.
• Russia & China today: Undernourishment under 2.5%. Post-reform deaths are lighter but still significant footnotes vs command era.

Your 20th-century champions? Holodomor: 5–8+ million deaths. Great Leap Forward: 30–45 million deaths. Inevitable from no price signals backed with guns. You waved away gulags, Laogai, Curtains. U.S. has zero parallel.

Soviet footwear: Number quotas meant too many kids’ shoes, few adult sizes. Weight quotas equaled out to heavy useless soles. 800M–1B shoes per year, but people lined up for unusable crap. Prices fix it. Your system inevitably means waste and underproduction.

The air hypothetical is hilarious. Air is free until scarce. Poisoning to sell clean air is assault, and punished by courts.

Alternative: commissars lead to Chernobyl, dead rivers, and fundamentally no real accountability. Markets clean up via new products and innovative solutions when being successful and productive is not overly arbitrarily punished. Your “true value” will obviously come down bureaucrats guessing at gunpoint.

Value is subjective, discovered through voluntary trades; not planner idealism. As Mises pointed out: no prices = impossible rational allocation. Your “solution” is made-up guesses and liquidations when corpses pile up.

“Exploitation of the undeveloped”? Markets have pulled billions out of poverty. Command economies are in fact the real exploitation: forced collectivization, at gunpoint quotas, strictly enforced borders from within to trap people.

You haven’t refuted subjective value or why your utopia always produces mass graves. Markets aren’t perfect; they’re the worst except all others tried. Show me a working model without iron curtains and or graveyards. And without going through a reform that made markets economically freer (thus a capitalism boost helped to save them from themselves.) I’ll wait.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

@TheRealNewsGeek @_UserEx_ @CultureCrave @AmazonMGMStudio I think he may be judging cartoons overall and he would be right.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

There is a botched way of looking at it. How many modern historians can you name that think the Nazis could have achieved total victory of the Soviet Union? Basically impossible to pull off. Too short on manpower and oil. Basically, the Soviets had almost endless room to kneecap themselves and still win.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

@CowboyBaby66 @Handre Dawg, I hate to break it to you but Capitalism has an ethos. Takes two seconds to look up. Also, the “at least” argument is always bad if it produces horrific results.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

@jenkin75588 @Handre

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

The issue remains but in a different way that wasn’t covered in the original post: when number quotas were the guideline, some factories went to mainly producing children shoes regardless of need. And for adult shoes, it wouldn’t be out of the ordinary to only do 2-4 shoe sizes in order to bolster production speed. Metrics by weight would create loopholes such as manufacturing thick, heavy, and also rigid soles to make it easier to pass the arbitrary mandate. Citizens were lined up for hours because many times the shoe sizes available would be completely unusable.

The Soviets produced about 800 million to a billion shoes a year. Roughly three shoes for every citizen per year. The problem? The warehouses overflowed with unwanted, dead stock since the shoes didn’t fit or were severely uncomfortable. Again, just goes to show how price signals are required for any sort of efficiency and not the blinders of government manufacturing decrees.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

@Goebells_Bagels @Handre You must have skimmed over it. The main issue was an incredible gap in shoe sizes for what they produced versus what was required for the vast majority, therefore leading to significant foot issues or not even being able to walk in them at all.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

How many people starve to death yearly per capita in America despite the wasted food? How many for Russia and China? “Exchange value does not measure true value” but since value is subjective it is best to do it via voluntary trade & price signals (market supply and demand).

And about China & Russia’s industry in the 20th century, the boots example makes it clear that many goods became extravagant waste on a massive scale or underproduced because price signals were stripped from the equation.

Furthermore, the 20th century for them featured many human rights violations on a systematic scale that the U.S. has no real comparison with: Soviet Gulags and the Chinese Laogai, massive industrial penal camps, the Holodomar (USSR) & The Great Leap Forward (China) massive graves, the Iron Curtain & the Bamboo Curtain preventing leaving and the systemic abolition of civil freedoms in general.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

Louis C.K. & Jerry Seinfeld: Neither of these guys are "Left of center" champions. Seinfeld famously stopped playing college campuses years ago because progressives are too easily offended, and Louis C.K. did an entire legendary set mocking non-binary pronouns and woke teenagers.

Rodney Dangerfield: Dangerfield was an old-school, traditional comic whose material was about his wife, gambling, and getting "no respect." Claiming him as a Left-of-center political comic is downright bizarre.

The "Inside the House" delusion is peak comedy though. The modern Left absolutely does not laugh at itself from "inside the house"; they destroy anyone who steps out of line. The moment a Leftist comic tells a joke about trans politics, borders, or crime, they get exiled from the house completely.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

@sweetgeorge84 @greg16676935420 @chasedownleads

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

You have to flip through to the comics of yesteryear acting like they’re the showstoppers of current Leftist comedy. The fact that you had to dig up Eddie Murphy from the 80s and Richard Pryor from the grave just to dodge naming a single funny, modern Leftist comic tells me everything I need to know. Thanks for completely conceding the point.

It is pure intellectual dishonesty to claim those icons as a win for your modern political echo chamber. If Eddie or Richard walked on a stage today and delivered their raw, unfiltered 1980s sets, the modern progressive movement would be the very first ones trying to cancel them for being offensive.

Look at how your side treats Dave Chappelle today. He is the greatest living Black comedian, yet the modern Left has spent years trying to deplatform and cancel him simply because his punchlines target your sacred cows. You can't claim to possess the culture when your entire movement throws a tantrum every time a genius like Chappelle tells a joke you didn't approve first. You want the cultural prestige of Black comedy, but the second it refuses to conform to white, upper-class progressive speech codes, you try to destroy it. You don't love the culture; you just want to colonize and censor it.

Trying to claim Chris Rock is just as delusional. Rock literally describes himself as having a 'Republican wallet' and famously released an entire comedy sketch titled 'How to Not Get Your Ass Kicked by the Police’ telling people to stop resisting arrest because “if they have to come get you, they’re bringing an ass-kicking with them.”

It's the same story with your desperate rants about George Carlin. Carlin was an anti-authoritarian who despised language policing and enforced compliance, literally defining political correctness as 'fascism pretending to be manners.' If Carlin were alive today, his entire set would be dedicated to eviscerating the exact type of speech codes, cancel culture, and self-righteous woke compliance that your side champions.

You have to cherry-pick your way through the history archives because if you look at the actual, modern Leftist lineup, all you have are corporate network clones reading safe monologues. You have to hide behind dead icons or mislabel legacy comics because modern progressive comedy is completely dead.

I know it hurts your elitist soul to admit it, but the Hodgetwins pull millions of organic views and sell out live comedy tours to working-class people who don't need a permission slip from the self-appointed thought police to laugh.

[Klashbash @MeritMachine]

You… don’t care what it says? So you purposely argued in bad faith instead. And came up short for providing a recent Leftist comedian that’s funny. Way to prove OP’s point.

Here’s some conservative minority comedians that are funny: The Hodgetwins, Willie Barcena and Dennis Gaxiola. Let me guess: you don’t agree. Are just upset that their punchlines haven't been sanitized by the self-appointed thought police?

Bill Maher is one of the last remaining Liberal comedians. Not Leftist. And he’s actually funny because he’s not a politically correct pearl-clutcher.