yeah i can barely keep up with the general thread in the discussion there earlier heh

ive posted alittle here and there

true, so many overlapping discussions at once .... hard to follow who is responding to whom.... cannot imagine how crowded Sargon's channel must be

I joined when they where creating it, now that was an amazing shitshow

I'm guessing it's about as organized as this one was until recently

ima move to <#463054787336732683>

also i think that theres a few good reasons to have a federal postal service, for one in the us atleast its one of those few socialized services that competes with private bussiness just enough that private bussinesses always have a compatition but are never squashed under by the federal system. also one must ask, if theres no federal system, if you have your package lost by postal, is it theft? see the government cant steal from you but additionally the government must follow the same rules as corporations when they compete with eachother but that also means that corporations gain some of those benefits, thus neither fedex, ups, or the postal service can technically steal from you

wow, a lot to unpack from that statement lol. definitely disagree though 😉

I'm amazed that this debate that I accidentally started this morning is still going 12 hours later

for all sorts of reasons.... regular businesses get undercut by the govt services so too hard for them to compete... businesses dont hav ethe power to tax, only to persuade consumer to choose them, but the govt doesnt care bcuz it will tax regardless, and if its doing a poor job, well it will just tax more and cry and under funding, when in a normal functioning business, it would just go under if it cannot sustain itself economically, and that is a good thing, all in the name of correcting and recorrecting the best means of allocating resources, etc. but the govt does not have these sorts of input/output indicators, nor do they run on the same incentives as businesses, in fact gov services are incentivized to do a worse job because they will be rewarded with more money if they perform poorly, so the incentivce structure are completely backwards perverse in the govt structure

you should meet aussiearyan

Oh, I've met aussiearyan

i debated him once for 5 hours, went to sleep, he was still arguing with people when i woke up

a full 8 hour sleep

I tried to moderate a debate between him and somebody else once.

3 hours later I said "Sorry, but I've got to go. Try to be civil, everybody"

@Poptarts you argued my real life example with an rationality

in real life right now fedex and ups compete with the national post service and often outcompete it to the point at one time there was talk of the post service being dropped

of course the government can steal from you, thats the nature of their business and of taxation.... businesses are much more sensitive to bad reputation hurting their business, but gov is not effected by that bcuz they dont allow anyone to compete with the mailing letters anyways... so no competition to worry about

mail fraud?

sure, they can compete with parcel packages, etc. but makes no sense for the USPS to hold a legal monopoly over the simple little paper envelope letters to be mailed

my point is that the USPS has unfair businesses advantages that is not part of the level playing field that everyone else has to operate under, why it should be privatised to compete more faily just like the others

not to mention they have an enormous market share... just imagine how muc hmarket share will be freed up to allow many other UPS and Fed Ex type of businesses to enter the industry

i mean you say it does but it competes so poorly that its private competitors already beat it so badly it costs the government money rather than make the governemnt money

okay then, whats the point? sounds like youre kinda support my idea lol 😛

if it does a poor job at it, why force citizens to pay for it?

if you killed usps you wouldent see a 3rd competitor come up, youd just see the 2 at the top kill anything that got in their way to get stronger

DHL was a thing

kinda still is

naw, you dont know that. youre just presuming. of course many more competitors will spring up bcuz that is the nature of innovation and startups

sorry just popping in with some thoughts ocassionally

entrepreneurs always thinking of ways to offer better services at lower prices .... good for the consumer!

am i arguing with an ancap? xD

i dont really considermyself an ancap 😉

more objectivist leaning .... market liberal, classical liberal, etc

next youll tell me the government should completely deregulate bussiness to the point child labor is legal again

child labor was already on the decline before child labor laws came in due to rapid economic growth and modernization

but if a 12 y/o wants work experience or to apprentice, who are you to say no to that?

Academic Agent did a good video on child labor too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg_UuhHDcGI

that's stepping into the realm of child consent

work experience can potentially be much more valuable than a typical run of the mill education.... especially after 12 years of public indoctrination schooling .... they come out with no real world skills.... we should be encouraging children to explore skillsets and different technical disciplines that they enjoy

and boy oh boy is there a good reason for that not being a thing

i think apprenticeship should be consitered as something seporate from what child labor was when it was active because apprenticeship is also education in a skilled labor. the reason child labor was becoming less common was standard of living was increasing but thats not to say that the poor wouldent still be taken advantage of and large factions of the population would have contenued to have child labor.

Well, back in Medieval times, apprenticeships started somewhere around 8-12. It wasn't until factories in the late 1800s and early 1900s that people started to dislike the idea of child labor, and that was mostly because of extremely dangerous working conditions

i agree w/ most of that, such as the standard of living is what i mean to say earlier .... it just was no longer needed after we had already walked thru the fire and brimstone of the industrial revolution so to speak

In the same vein, people used to get married around ages 13-15 in most countries until about 200 years ago

for example.... farming families today are even prohibited from allowing their children to work on their farm... even if they want to! that is just absurd IMO

if child labor was never abolished its not a matter of "no longer needed" its a matter of some people will still be doing it to this day. besides the less compatention for providing financal survival you can get within the nuclear family the better in my opinion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUQpfalF-iM

what is wrong with that if someone chooses with their own volition to work say as a child-prodigy programmer at a startup?

some kids are super gifted/talented and shouldnt be held back from the workplace if thats what they want

they arnt always

https://www.plant-for-the-planet.org/en/home company started by a 9 year old

im just saying... you say that its a bad thing per say, but there are always situations where its pretty common sense and normal for them to be in the workplace.... however labor laws prohibit that from happening. how is that freedom?

hell that company that set up tana con was started by a 17 year old

i see that child labor as an institution leads to the potental for abuse

i mean china

like Gary Vaynerchuck.... are you all familiar with his story?

some ppl are just born to be work horses and thats what they enjoy doing and want to do... hustling and making them $$$

who is anyone to say no to that

yeah, Arch, i agree there are a lot of uncomfortable aspects to it.... especially in developing countries and emerging economies that are still needing to walk thru the fire and brimstone

but it's a harsh reality and sometimes a necessity for survival

thats an example of someone doing stuff within the constraints of the laws and regulations we already have as a child, i obviously have nothing against that because its after the institution of child labor was desolved but while the option for children to try and compete economicly is still open

well im sure we can all agree that no one, especially not children, should be forced into labor

but sometime sthe constraints of the law and regulations fly in the face of human nature and actually work against it sometimes, as just bcus something is legal or illegal does not make it moral or immoral

Yaron Brook talks about this sweat shop and child labor stuff really eloquently

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmeLXLYfCE

this is a really good channel btw, highly recommend to subbing to it https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZViJTyN0OXTTuPQ2mimNWw/videos

you gotta think about how much *worse* the children/families would be off if they werent working though

thats the point that Yaron Brook is making.... what theyre doing is an improvement over what they had beforehand ... they simply must walk thru the fire and brimstone before conditions improve in standards of living

this is a powerful video though... the one with Yaron Brook ... you have to consider what is the alternative of preventing people from working in those sorts of work conditions though... the alternative is even worse, otherwise they wouldnt be working there in the first place.... the point is that its a step up from where there were beforehand

so youre basically condemning them to even worse poverty, as Yaron Brook points out, by prohibiting them from working

human nature and society do not always have the same prioritys

sure society is constructed from the machinations of human nature which is social at its core buuuuuut the human is not perfectly evolved for sociaty and what society demands at times often goes against what the nature of even an average human desires

well im not sure how to respond to that .... i agree more or less except for the fact that there really is no singular "society" but is rather more of a nebular thing with pockets of societies and communities here and there all working together either directly or indirectly.... society... now THERE is a social construct! lol 😉

and sure a balance needs to be struck because if you let society dictate everything then youll eventually crush the individual but on the same token if society has no will in a community then youll have conflict where the option to take advantage of individuals who are trying to survive but need to do more than what the average person does

yeah its like the whole trees vs the forest thing..... the forest is just a concept... it doesnt really exist except in our imagination and idea of it because its just comprised of all the individual trees after all

but yeah, i hear what youre saying otherwise

personally i like the idea of regulation scaling for the fraction which a bussiness takes up an industry. smaller the bussiness the less consquental failing to uphold regulation while the larger the bussiness the more responciblity it has to uphold a standard for the trust people put into it and the more it should be expected to ensure its own survival (im not a fan of governemnt susidizing failing bussinesses)

not to mention we need to figure out of regulations atleast within the united states to deal with anything to supresses small bussiness unfairly

what youll find though is that often what tends to be regulations that if they were deregulated would benefit the large bussiness just as much as the small bussiness and not actually provide the small bussiness with a way to provide a competitive service. simply being small doesent always mean you can offer something that the big cant

ya small businesses and family owned businesses make up the majority of employment to begin with .... health of this nation depends on mainstreet survival essentially

do small bussinesses make up the majority of employment in the us?

im not sure about that

not the <25 employee ones, but i mean the relatively small-medium and family owned businesses

parent companys might be part of what it may see like that though, from my perspective though were not in the small bussiness utopia id prefer

yeah its super hard for small businesses to survive in the current climate, especially in cali and the cities with rapid minimum wage hikes... the barrier to entry is getting higher and higher due to smothering regulations, but the big companies /incumbants prefer heavy regulations bcuz they can afford it and it raises the barrier to entry thus stifles potential competition

i actually had a theory about regulations recently

there will always be ebb and flow among the big and small businesses though due to the Pareto Principle which observes that the square root of an organization's workforce produce about half of the output value

so if you were to graph it out.... a company would have to grow exponentially just in order to sustain a linear trend in value output

which is not sustainable

it doesent actually make much sense for a corporation to lobby for higher regulations, because sure you can supress smaller bussinesses with those regulations but at the same time if they didint exist they wouldent cost you much money either and as a huge corporation you can just take losses to outcompete small bussinesses to death to get the same result without playing chance that the government will do what you want. government is just a middle man for something bussiness can already do. so i was thinking to myself why we live in a badly regulated situation where big bussinesses arnt really effected but small ones are, and it came to me, globalism

so basically makes it a lot easier for smaller businesses to nip at the heels of the giants because they have an edge over them in efficiency

but if it didnt make sense for them to do it, they wouldnt do it, but they lobby like made for government privileges, rent seeking, and regulations, thats just the reality of it

international companys are the least effected by national bussiness regulations because they are international, what they really dont want is national compatition, because that would just see them slowly being barred from a nations resources where as far as national regulation is conserned they are so big and such a many armed octopus that regulation in one nation doesent really matter that much because they make up for it else where

taking heavy losses is not sustainable though..... as long as there is a free and open, level playing field and no legal monopolies, there will always be market competition driving ebb and flow

also.... "government is just a middle man for something bussiness can already do." not really bcuz businesses dont have the power to levy taxes, that is key

only the gov can tax, businesses have to sweet talk you for money

sure substitizing is an option but it doesent have much to do with regulation