bit-anarchist

9 ms·

91.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
At the same time, I think you are ignoring how diverse people really are. There's no consensus to be had when dealing with mutual exclusives, no matter what method is chosen. Perhaps the solution is to lean further into fractionalizati
92.
by bit-anarchist 4mo ago
You can't have perpetual sustainability without perpetual growth. Also, capitalism doesn't need perpetual growth either (anymore than other system, that is). Independent and worker-owned media are still facets of capitalism, for s
93.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
I agree that corporations aren't just shorthands for their shareholders. That's why I think the qualifiers "towards a unified goal" and "under a binding normative instrument" are important. Specially the latter
94.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
1. Why only humans are people? Why not other species, even if they were as sentient as us? 2. What is murder? Why is killing justified in certain cases (e.g. self defense, death penalties, abortions, etc.) and not in others? 3. What is the
95.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
There are conflicts that always produce harm to one of the sides, regardless of legal system (these emerge from mutually exclusive situations). Thus, by your statements, there are only broken legal systems. Also, mentioning in the "Cit
96.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
> We don't know how much higher the drug usage would be if all drugs were legalized. Given what we know about the prohibition era and insights about the success in the fight against drug abuse, it's a pretty safe bet. > That
97.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
It's a bit reversed, labor unions are cooperatives, not the other way around, as cooperatives are more flexible in arrangement than unions. Don't disagree with the rest of the comment though. EDIT: also, I wouldn't consider c
98.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
Certainly not on the US, or any country where the criminalization is in full force.
99.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
I had the same logic as you previously, actually. But, eventually, I realized the terminology is not as misleading as it appears. Try defining what is "people". What is "natural people". Why do "natural people"
100.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
Is the piece of paper a collective of people? Does the piece of paper have agents to enact the decisions of its rulling body? You seem to be forgetting the primary reason why corporations have rights in this perspective. There's, objec
101.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
That's still not proof of victimhood. Only that's imprudent to consume drugs. Also, due to politization of the topic, part of the data is distorted to help sell the war on drugs, which had a much more destructive effect overall, a
102.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
Because the another personin question is one the constituents acting in behalf of the corporation itself. Perhaps it's closer to suicide, but still, it's not just "another person", but, in a sense, a part of the corporat
103.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
But they are.
104.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
The usage of the term "will" isn't unwarranted nor simply an anthropomorphization for the sake of it. Long story short, it's the recognition that both individuals and corps (through their agents , not to be confused by
105.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
> What is "the one that backs the law"? Depends on each jurisdiction. You'd have to look at which frameworks informed the laws that back each corporation. On the topic of corporate dissolution, I see less as killing and mo
106.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
That's a lot of statements, so I'll dissect them. > People can exercise their rights as people. Or, they can create legal fictions with no rights. How exactly do you think they can create these legal fictions? Through their rig
107.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
You have it backwards. As you acknowledged elsewhere, "juridical people" is an abstraction over a group of people. To be more precise, a collective acting towards a unified goal (with a set of norms binding them together). Even th
108.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
The one that backs the law, for instance. But, more broadly, corporations, specially ones ruled by shareholders/contracts, tend to have a will of their own, and "people" in ethics is more about will and desire than biology.
109.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
Taiwan is like Texas, if USA suffered a coup and the original ruling government took residence in Texas. In other words, not like today's Texas. Underpinning your comment is the notion that terrorities that once belonged to a nation sh
110.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
Where did the "therefore" come from? From OP's comment it didn't, that's for sure.
111.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
To the extent that is relevant to law and ethics, they are. Juridical people , as it goes.
112.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
For starters, Taiwan wasn't invaded nor occupied by the US. South Korea wasn't invaded by the US either, unless you want to say the Soviet Union invaded the North. Even so, that would be, at least, an innacurate description of the
113.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
I suppose they never specified the wager. But, given the topic is prediction markets and the topics of the bets, I thought it was implied that the wagers would be exclusively in money. With that in mind, is there any example of a law agains
114.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
It isn't misleading. It's plain wrong.
115.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
In other words, this is a law that still ought to be overturned by a better Supreme Court.
116.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
Just one thing: the government is a massive private entity and a middle man. The closest thing to the stated goal would be a contract between other insterested parties to pool resources for funding. The next one would be a local consumer co
117.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
Could you provide an example?
118.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
Drugs are very well known for being deregulated. How's the "War on Drugs" going?
119.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
I would add, however, the modern sentiment of the Taiwanese people is moving towards independence: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2023/09/02/... In fact, both the majority of
120.
by bit-anarchist 5mo ago
Capitalist property (by which, I presume you refer to private property) may be documented through written law and may be executed by a state, but the same can be said about law in general and its execution, and that didn't begin wi

More ›