Message from @LotheronPrime
Discord ID: 466304027131379723
existing economys that rely on renewible resources extraction rates are zerosum, if you find a new source of resources and have the ability to harvest it on your own dollor for a profit thats when its more than zero sum
Sure, but I can't remember a time when it's been zero sum in the modern age
Well, what I'm getting at is, if we've got no borders, if we just let anyone in - a deal that will likely only be one way
there's always been a new scientifc discovery
but you have to have a truly bombing potental for that or a dying population for immigration to be helpful to that
or a new business, etc
america is actually becoming more zero sum as time goes on
It essentially lets other nations raid our resources and send them home.
no borders means you aren't a country
Basically, yes.
But it's what's being legitimately argued for
I know
because more things are being owned, less things are being found in america
and I think it's wrong
I think anyone here thinks it's wrong.
when more is owned and less is found you find a plataeu in your economy
yeah but the debate isn't people here
the debate is, how can anyone think, in their right mind, that it's a sane idea
As I outlined, it's redistribution of wealth.
Basically, I propose that the socialists who are pushing for an elimination of borders view the United States as a whole as the bourgeoisie class
Exactly.
And equality can't be achieved while a 1% group exists unchecked.
It's absolutely mental, but these ARE commies we're talking about...
i don't think socialist really realize how poor the world is.
I think that's fair, as well.
if they did, they would realize that not even all the wealth of the US could raise the world even .1% higher on the economic ladder
it would mean that those same socialist would need to become mountains poorer than the poorest person in the US, as dictated by their ideology.
along with everyone else
It's as if they imagine a nation as an inflatable pool, and the economy as the water in that pool. If they remove the 'borders' of the pool, the water should fill up the space around it, right?
no borders + socialism = everyone made worse off, or no change.
Except it all gets lost in the grass.
the problem with socialism is that it is designed to block economic progress.
because being well off is viewed as a problem
unless everyone is as well off as you
unchecked captalistic hierarchies are a bad thing
unchecked socialism is a bad thing
the answer is somewhere in the middle
Circular hierarchies are best hierarchies.
Granade problem with socialism is that ita against human nature
It would only work in truly altruistic society