Trump supporter in a lynch-the-journalists tee, November 2016

[Haystack]

@tlwest

@Haystack

I understand where you’re coming from with respect to the psychology of it. I just don’t agree that social change (as opposed to neoliberal economic policies) has actually harmed anyone.

How odd. If we take happiness out of the equation, then aren’t we taking the Libertarian point of view that the State should only be promoting economic growth and physical security - happiness is not a concern for government?

Whose happiness are we talking about? The gay couples who can’t marry, or the Christians who are uncomfortable acknowledging the existence of homosexuality? How happy can you be in a society that limits your freedoms in order to cater to the social prejudices of others?

@tlwest

@Haystack

The only thing they’re losing is privilege

Indeed, but the bulk of the developed world would go to war to protect it’s economic privilege rather than see the average household earn a world-wide average income. Would you call it harm that if suddenly had to share our unearned bounty with the rest of the world and our income dropped to average $10K?

Most of the world would see it as justice and egalitarianism. But wouldn’t you see it as harm?

It’s not a zero-sum game. We all benefit when everyone is able to contribute according to their ability. It’s a bigger pie, so it doesn’t matter that your slice is the same as everyone else’s.

[kentkb]

I call him “Dolt 45”.

[tlwest]

@anon15383236

I agree that much of the bounty is unearned, but your reductio ad absurdum suggests to me that you think you’re a player in a zero sum game. I think this game has a different sum.

@Haystack

It’s not a zero-sum game. We all benefit when everyone is able to contribute according to their ability. It’s a bigger pie, so it doesn’t matter that your slice is the same as everyone else’s.

I completely agree, this is not a zero sum game, which is why I espouse the policies I do.

However, there is a huge difference between a policy that had a net benefit and one in which no-one is harmed.

I’m not a politician and I don’t have to pretend that the policies I support harm no-one or only those who “deserve it”. Once again, I will say that if you cannot enumerate who your preferred policies are harming, you’re probably not looking at them close enough.

After all, how can you do a cost-benefit analysis if you refuse to admit that there are costs?

I support higher taxes (on all of us) which makes it harder for all of us, higher immigration (with the expected impact on low skill citizens), more diversity (which reduces shared social context). I support the Canadian health-care system (which indeed means health-care rationing a.k.a. “death-panels”). I support environmental regulations (which put thousands out of work). I support a healthy minimum wage (which permanently unemploys those without skills and talents to earn that wage).

Why? Because the benefits of each massively outweigh the costs. But I also acknowledge the costs. No zero-sum. But no magical “each individual is better off”.

[anon29631895]

@Wanderfound

@Haystack

and it’s worth remembering where our food comes from.

Underpaid, exploited Mexican farmhands without citizenship papers.

These folks are always thanking the source of their food…

[LearnedCoward]

Donald Trump is an anagram of Dolt Ran Dump, as well as Lord Damp Nut.

[nimelennar]

@cameronh1403

don’t worry, the Swedes are good at rebuilding.

If they included better instructions, they wouldn’t have to be. It’d stay together the first time.

[cameronh1403]

True that. I’ve put together enough Ikea things to know that sometimes the instructions are a little unclear.