Why Women Support Socialism

[Anonymous 7]

He mentions mgtow at 18:00.

Women rely on big daddy government instead of men now for resources.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

Yep. Men are becoming increasingly unreliable revenue sources.

Men lose jobs, get sick, etc. Daddy G is there every month.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[Anonymous 11]

I now fully understand why only landowners used to be able to vote. Thanks!

A voter must have skin in the game otherwise it’s too easy for scum politicians run wild. Pure democracy where women can vote is cultural suicide.

[RedpillPrimateParticipant 1026]

This is why I hate governments that allow people to vote on s~~~. Eventually, women will be allowed to vote and all hell breaks loose.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

Alexis de Tocqueville said in 1780 is. ” the American democracy will survive until the government learns it can bribe the people with their own money”.

Paraphrased

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Jan Sobieski wrote:

Yep. Men are becoming increasingly unreliable revenue sources.

Men lose jobs, get sick, etc. Daddy G is there every month.

Great point Jan. Why have one man work for you when you can have every man work for you. The banks do, pooling loans into one big investment. If there is 100 loans in the pool, 5 might go bad, but all 100 won’t. It spreads out the risk and insures that you will make some money.

Much safer investment for the hive.

Order the good wine

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

1) they value safety and security over opportunity
2) they never lived in a run-down socialist country
3) they’re hardwired to obey authority, the bigger authority – the better

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[FrankOneParticipant 1427]

Maybe your vote should be directly proportional to how much tax you paid (income, property, sales). No tax paid? NO VOTE! Or, paid less than a threshold, say, $10,000 per annum, and NO VOTE.

How about no one gets to vote to approve deficit spending or bond issues unless they’ve paid $250,000 in lifetime taxes?

I also believe that companies that pay income and property taxes should get to vote.

The taxpayers who took it up the rectum long hard and deep, are the true stakeholders with skin in the game.

Young people, men and women, are indoctrinated in State schools. Women are more liberal than men, this is true. But the State is self-perpetuating and we can only expect it to grow.

[Jan SobieskiParticipant 28791]

FrankOne, makes an awesome point.

Love is just alimony waiting to happen. Visit mgtow.com.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Women like socialism for the same reason we have nations, citizens and taxation now rather than kingdoms, subjects and feudalism… it’s easier and more predictable to take a small amount from a lot of weak men to provide for yourself than it is to negotiate for a large amount from a single, powerful man.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Supporting socialism is easier than earning your own keep. Or it would be if socialism could actually work. But it can’t. So socialists can add stupidity to their laziness and greed.

FrankOne wrote:

Maybe your vote should be directly proportional to how much tax you paid (income, property, sales).

That’s too easy to game. Taxes are paid in dollars, or yen, or pounds, or whatever, and dollars are just a number, and numbers can be fiddled with. Meanwhile a man is a real thing, which makes one man, one vote harder to manipulate.

No tax paid? NO VOTE! Or, paid less than a threshold, say, $10,000 per annum, and NO VOTE.

Where do you set the threshold? Who gets to set it? It’s still too easy to fiddle, especially with our ridiculously byzantine tax codes. Also one man’s penny is not the same as another man’s dollar. A man earning his keep at only $30k a year might be paying 40% of his gross in taxes, fees, surcharges, and so on where a man living off a trust fund might pay a much greater total amount that’s still only 20% of his gross income. So which one has worked harder to earn his vote?

Instead of basing it off the tax code, make simple dependence a metric. A man who pays no taxes but consumes none either is an unbiased voter. But anyone dependent on welfare, or food stamps, or other taxpayer funded largess has a clear conflict of interest at the ballot box and should be precluded from voting. Anyone who cannot be bothered to earn her own keep is not demonstrating any personal responsibility and so is unlikely to vote responsibly.

I also believe that companies that pay income and property taxes should get to vote.

Companies can’t vote, because companies aren’t real things. All you’re doing there is giving the people who claim to speak for those companies multiple unearned votes.

One MAN.

ONE vote.

[RusskyParticipant 13503]

Company is paperwork, not a person. People love to personify inanimate objects for ease of reference and analysis, and the kleptocrats have been using this trick for centuries. Giving a voice to a company is idiocy.
Money is not free speech regardless of what supreme court had to say about it. IMO this was one of the worst rulings ever that essentially legalized bribery in the highest echelons of power and normalized it as business-as-usual.
I am a big proponent of replacement of all taxation of profit and earned income with sales taxes, except for tariffs directed at keeping strategic production at home. Income tax is the most backwards idea ever.
Voting should not be based on monetary values of any kind. Given the rise of technology, I’d be curious to see if more direct democracy would be beneficial to improve government and curbing big government and big business

proud carrier of the 'why?' chromosome

[Jim01Participant 6678]

Anonymous wrote:

I now fully understand why only landowners used to be able to vote. Thanks!

A voter must have skin in the game otherwise it’s too easy for scum politicians run wild. Pure democracy where women can vote is cultural suicide.

I’ve come to that conclusion recently as well. Women vote for toxic politics that leave countries in a mess as we are seeing across all of the West at the moment

There is a book called Starship Troopers (I think the film is very loosely based on it), that is about how you only get to vote if you volunteer for military service. Haven’t read it and is one of those books I have been meaning to pick up for ages but that sounds better than what women do voting with their emotions. If you have an active stake in it then you care for it and considering women are loyal to no one it seems like a good idea as none of them would ever sign up – or the few that do would give a s~~~

[RoyDalParticipant]

I don’t expect some woman to pay attention to facts that do not agree with her world view, but on the off chance that one would, here is a lesson from current events.

Venezuela: A modern socialist catastrophe
http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/2016/04/venezuela-a-modern-socialist-catastrophe/

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Anonymous wrote:

A voter must have skin in the game otherwise it’s too easy for scum politicians to run wild. Pure democracy where women can vote is cultural suicide.

An excellent observation.

[bigboy83Participant 11312]

Because of all that c~~~ currency, governments all around the world are collapsing.

Shit Tested, Cunt Approved.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

bigboy83 wrote:

Because of all that c~~~ currency, governments all around the world are collapsing.

Men gave them that power and men, if they weren’t such pussy begging simps, could take away.

You don’t blame the tiger for being a tiger or the shark for being a shark so how can you blame the woman for being a woman? It’s us men who are to blame for the s~~~ sandwich we’re gonna have to eat on this.

[vargpajParticipant 244]

There is a book called Starship Troopers (I think the film is very loosely based on it), that is about how you only get to vote if you volunteer for military service.

this also came to my mind when reading this thread! the novel is by robert a. heinlein if anyone is interested.

[Anonymous 3]

Stargazer wrote:

bigboy83 wrote:

Because of all that c~~~ currency, governments all around the world are collapsing.

Men gave them that power and men, if they weren’t such pussy begging simps, could take away.

You don’t blame the tiger for being a tiger or the shark for being a shark so how can you blame the woman for being a woman? It’s us men who are to blame for the s~~~ sandwich we’re gonna have to eat on this.

Well said. Women’s nature has always been the same, and men of the past knew it, and so put restraints on them to build society.

Once a society becomes affluent, and survival is no longer a concern, those constraints tend to be lifted and society begins to crumble. It’s a cycle that has been repeated often, and any thorough review of history shows it.

[GrumpyParticipant]

The Citizen, Taxpayer, Client scheme as laid out by Mr. Heinlein makes perfect sense to me (on old concept, that he, IMHO, articulated best for the 20th century).

Client – no right to vote, no public office, cannot own real property or business. restricted movement, and 100% responsibility of the “state”, and must abide by what the “state” has determined what is best for them (100% obligation to the state).
May elect to become a taxpayer, then a citizen through taxation and military service.

Taxpayer- pays taxes, has the right to vote, hold limited public offices, own operate business, enjoys freedom of mobility, has a say in “state” fiscal policy.
May elect to become a citizen via military service, remain a taxpayer, or revert to “client”- voluntary surrender of all assets.

Citizen – earned individually, not hereditary. Automatically pays taxes, has right to vote, may hold public office at all levels, has freedom of mobility, rights and responsibilities of ownership of property/business. has all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, taxpayer

However, I know I am totally biased in my opinion based on my personal experiences. Currently we have too many people that are not paying taxes in the various nations, who are in fact clients of each “state”, demanding rights and privileges of “global” citizens without the responsibilities of a citizen on any level.
So any move towards a “state” as such, would result in extreme violence. Solely to the concept of “some pigs are more equal than others”

Then again, what the f~~~ do I know?

There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it

[Author]

Posts