sfe22

43 ms·

181.
by sfe22 5y ago
More bureaucracy probably
182.
by sfe22 5y ago
Maybe this would not have happened had nato not tried to expand to ukraine
183.
by sfe22 5y ago
And nato was created to control and prevent the influence/expansion of USSR. Russia is not that threat anymore, so no major reason for nato to exist at all, let alone expand in Ukraine.
184.
by sfe22 5y ago
Cant you keep the space above freezing? Just not as warm as people would prefer
185.
by sfe22 5y ago
Who decides what are individual rights? Would they be held up if 95% disagree with it? I mean it might work idk, it would just not be a democracy.
186.
by sfe22 5y ago
Unfortunately I don’t agree. If 95% Americans want to steal my assets, something is wrong with the them (or me), and I should have probably seen it coming and leave. Why would I want to live in such extreme society anymore. If I was used to
187.
by sfe22 5y ago
Sounds like a reason to justify tyranny to me. What do you mean mob rule. In a (true) democratic society just a small group can change something the majority disagrees with because they got together? The majority is also together in the sam
188.
by sfe22 5y ago
The emperor can also be your representative, and so is Putin to russians, and the slightly more complex US system. The slider is democracy to tyranny, just because we dont yet have democracy in most or all countries doesn't change anyt
189.
by sfe22 5y ago
So CA is too democratic in your opinion? It should slide more towards tyranny?
190.
by sfe22 5y ago
Government is the glorious monopoly, no other monopoly is glorious. What if government wants to invest in housing? Ban it too? How about if they label it as low cost?
191.
by sfe22 5y ago
Can the glorious monopoly invest in homes or they get an exception?
192.
by sfe22 5y ago
It will not have a native feel I guess, so it will feel a bit off to both android and iOS users
193.
by sfe22 5y ago
Why not take the last step and go full on commie? The countries should ban home ownership unless there is 0 homeless people, same food production, cars, iPhones, healthcare and more, all taken care by your favorite glorious monopoly.
194.
by sfe22 5y ago
Maybe people get it since “good” guys with big legal guns show up for it, and enslave or shoot you if you don’t come up with it, for your own good of course.
195.
by sfe22 5y ago
I believe freedoms can be restricted to everyone in a region by a monopoly (government) if a very large group of people in a place vote for it. Not 50%, it would take higher percentage than that. And this way you can create basic laws, agai
196.
by sfe22 5y ago
A Canadian organization, not the Canadian monopoly.
197.
by sfe22 5y ago
In a free market it will be unlikely to have many poor people, as they will see the reality and settle where they are truly productive. Parents care about their children (even if you don’t think so) and reliable education will be offered to
198.
by sfe22 5y ago
If government is dependent on smokers smoking a lot to fund its activities, what happens if some smokers decide to quit? The government has vested interest to keep number of smokers high.
199.
by sfe22 5y ago
Banning by a monopoly dude. Maybe I trust a Canadian organization to regulate baby formulas better, a german one for diapers and no regulation for my hairdresser.
200.
by sfe22 5y ago
I made two points since i know many add exceptions for some parties when defining theft. Care to reply to the second point?
201.
by sfe22 5y ago
If people in a region need protection services I am sure they will figure out a way to pay for it. Otherwise said service may not be really that important. If you worry about not getting 100% of people to pay without coercion and threatenin
202.
by sfe22 5y ago
First problem with taxing is that it takes money without consent and with force, aka theft. But that aside, do you want to get your favorite monopoly hooked on and addicted to the money taken from people’s activities that are harming themse
203.
by sfe22 5y ago
No, we should not let a monopoly like the government banning stuff. If some groups believe this censorship better for them (or people they care for) they are free to do so, and if they are a large group a market solution will be offered to
204.
by sfe22 5y ago
If we have a monopoly deciding, we may never know. That is why I specifically said a monopoly like government. If some people subscribe to this idea, good for them. If they are a large group, the market will offer them a solution and we wil
205.
by sfe22 5y ago
But who decides what is classified as addictive or not and what gets allowed and what censored? I certainly wouldn’t want a monopoly making the decision.
206.
by sfe22 5y ago
The problem is other stable coins are not transparent, and are very likely not fully funded so they can collapse any time. USDC is by coinbase and a little more transparent, thus less likely to collapse in case of mass withdrawal.
207.
by sfe22 5y ago
Cant be ad revenue, it would be stupid. But going into a pot Spotify style is also evil and not fair.
208.
by sfe22 5y ago
You can target ads in US at $1 CPM?
209.
by sfe22 5y ago
Other payments processors charge 30c + 3%, so it would be interesting to see how it would work here for smaller payments
210.
by sfe22 5y ago
Looks like I need a new word to describe a system where everyone rules, rather than certain people or organization, since both democracy and direct democracy are apparently taken to describe systems where all people don’t actually rule. May

More ›