bit-anarchist

10 ms·

61.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
And who would be the owners? Give names.
62.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
I read it. In my second reading, I found nothing that contradict the first point, and that address the second point. If you found otherwise, could you cite the relevant sections?
63.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
You might be confusing a couple of things. Nazis couldn't care less about the "west". In fact, in the Nazi world view, Jews already controlled most of western contries. They were, first and foremost, "aryan" suprema
64.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
No they aren't the same. Jews, as a race, were seen as subhuman and antisocial, sufficient justifications in Nazi world view to exterminate. Cultural Bolshevism was, at best, an attempt to link anything seen as degenerate to jews to fu
65.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
Cultural Bolshevism wasn't the justification to the mass murder the Nazis committed. The genocide was motivated due to Nazis' own racial theories. The rest were killed due to strict authoritarianism of the ideology. At best, it wa
66.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
I tried to show that that Coca Cola is an "exception" that proves the rule. With medications, people are really after the formula. If there's something preventing access to the source materials, like in Coca Cola, going after
67.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
..and democracy. The problem is never democracy itself, it's the autocrats, or extremists, or social media, and solution is more regulations on private life and more mentions of the paradox of intolerance.
68.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
Aspects of reality that are shared by all possible subjects.
69.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
> So morals only matter depending on how easy a decision is to make and how it won't affect you personally? I see you cut the first part, only to follow with a "only" qualitative. That's not an honest nor moral thing
70.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
That presumes that it's their responsibility to hold them accountable or, at least, that the other option is free. Given that you haven't shown either of those, and the statements point to the contrary, it's fair to say they
71.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
What facade of reponsability? Their responsibility was not being complicit in the crime and they accomplished just that. It's not their responsibility to prosecute their employer, specially if it comes with significant risks to their l
72.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
Having morals doesn't mean you must self-sacrifice. If you have no obligations, you have no obligations .
73.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
We also used to say that solar and wind were fundamentally flawed: solar panels had an exotic manufacturing process, energy storage was limited and expensive, they are fundamentally tied to specific environmental conditions which may not ho
74.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
First, whether something is meaningful or not, depends on the subject. Independence here isn't about whether your mind exists in a parallel world - devoid of external inputs - it's whether your input is required for an action to h
75.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
Because the alternative to a market (a system where people make choices with the stuff they own) is a system where people are dictated to use stuff they don't own. The divine right of kings touched on a lot of things, like governance,
76.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
Not op, but my answer would be yes. The very need for psychiatrists is, in a sense, an example for that. This is a case of companies trying to do their best to convince you to engage with them, because, otherwise, you likely wouldn't.
77.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
I don't think Coca Cola is a good counterpoint due to a couple of reasons: 1) there was a recent attempt to find the formula [1], but the primary reason that was infeasible is that, allegedly by the ingredient list, they use coca extra
78.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
Civil engineering and power equipment companies also profit from other plants. In fact, there are specialized power companies for wind and solar. If private energy companies won't invest, then either don't invest public funding, o
79.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
> We know they do because before the government took over the job, the nascent medicine industry would sell you literal poison. We also know that some reports of poisoned industries in the past were exaggerated (and politically capitaliz
80.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
I'm not convinced about trade secrets being the capitalistic route here, specially since, as pointed out somewhere else, the current system is basically like trade-secrets already, which suggest inverted causality. In a pure free marke
81.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
What lobbyists? Concrete powder companies? Other governmental companies? Keep in mind similar things have been said about solar and wind previously.
82.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
That's either the crime of extortion (which is more broad than corruption) or failing to comply with official duties, which will likely result in firing. When I spoke of the crime of corruption, as expanded in a sibling comment, I was
83.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
I'm not fond of that definition for a couple of reasons: 1. praxeologically, all individuals act for personal gain, which is subjective in nature; 2. most private corporations don't have a well-defined governance (aside from the o
84.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
I'm not fond of Brittanica's definition of corruption [ https://www.britannica.com/topic/bribery ]. Improper and usually unlawful conduct intended to secure a benefit for oneself or another. It might as
85.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
Brazillian law, for instance, defines the crimes of passive and active corruption: The Penal Code, in Article 317, defines the crime of passive corruption as "soliciting or receiving, for oneself or for others, directly or indirect
86.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
> Whether they are extremely useful or just some tool that has its uses depends a lot on your lifestyle. The "useful" then didn't refer to the individual value judgments of all individuals, but the presence of material aff
87.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
My bad, then. If I may suggest something, give a small acknowledgement and avoid words such as "cancer", which is pretty loaded. Still, people (as in most individuals in the economy) can't simply be stopped, even less so to p
88.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
> My point is that the tool which was meant to augment one particular aspect of life, has metastasized into being a cancer on many other aspects of our lives, and that has downstream consequences on society as a whole. This is true of al
89.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
For social systems, yes. That said, in long run, there's both a tendency for most growth to fall and for basically nothing to be sustainable.
90.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
The property of preserving/sustaining itself.

More ›