thats kind of a tangent

globalism is just a word that describes a plan for an unelected, corporate world government, to my understanding

not to be confused with globalization (like the internet phenomenon, other natural market phenomena, etc)

ah, i see what you mean about the super international corporations not necessarily caring as much about national regulations, yeah i agree

cus if it gets too regulated, they can just up and move out

which is still a capital/value loss for that nation, not to mention brain-drain

why we still need low regulations to entice them to come and set up shop 😉 and thus their wealth also spreads among the national communities in which they operate too.... its a win-win situation

i think a corporation could potentially have so much domination within a country that you cant actually win against them

an international one, it has no reason to care about your people beyond money, it can play hokepoki with you until your economy collapses for all it cares

not if there isnt cronyism going on between them and the gov tho.... bcuz the one tool that th gov has (and that is claims to use legitimately) is the barrel of a gun, governments can tax its people

so yeah, thatd definitely be a threat once fascism starts to grow in the form of state/corporate powers merging

eh fascism doesent work with international corporations

that is fascism after all, the merging of state/corporate power ... its quasi-private/public

i understand how fascism works

one leg in both worlds .... quite the formidable leviathon could grow out of that

you know for most of human history we were fascist

well that is w hat theyre are trying to set up , an unelected world-government based on corporate fascism

nah fascism doesent work with international

sure, i agree with that that ... its all over in symbolism in the House of Reps, and presidents statues, etc

it wouldent really be fascism at that point, similar but not exactly

Lincoln resting is arms on the fascio bundle of rods..... Washington statue with bundle of rods under his cloak

straight up fascio bundle of rods complete with axe plastered on the House of Representives wall .... all in plain sight

well when i say for most of our human history weve been fascist i mean, for most of human history those who own the land which the grain is grown on are also those who rule

yeah, basically its technocracy

i dont inherently think its a bad thing, though if an international entity that has no holdings to the native people of a nation is the one who owns the land and rules the people then i think that can be a VERY bad thing

ya, feudalism and the roman empire, etc... sure has been the "default" way of governing for more of human history for sure

ya, i see your point.... i mean .... i could be a really good benevolent dictator for life 😌

i mean there have been benevolent dictators throughout history

most of the time it wasent so hard because your neighber was a dick to so really rulers were more assholes to everyone but their own people

Hoppe talks about how monarchies were better off than democracies because they had more of an incentive to keep a stable economy and not plunder it ASAP like temporary politicans do

in a monarchy the head of state has full power and full responcibility, in a democracy everyone has responcibility and some power when things go according to plan

was talking with missdanger about this too

things dont go according to plan a lot in a democracy

ya much too volatile of a climate.... much to easy to screw up a delicate economic ecosystem

personally id like to try a better democracy before i rule it out but i cant help but think that monarchys are tried and true. though i wonder if they can even work now or if were just all doomed anyway

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhKKzmsUEAAts3I.jpg:large

thats another thing with democracy, you can set up a good one and yet it has its own tools to make it worse and the people think its eachothers fault

in a monarchy everyone knows who's fault it is

right and even in a democracy.. people can vote away the democracy!

so kind of self-defeating potentially

ppl can just vote in a brutal socialist dictatorship

or national socialist dictatorship as was the case of hitler

i actually like some socialist ideas, but obviously im not a socialist, i think without a economic heirarchy theres no way to have a successful society or economy for that matter

ya hierarchy is natural.... even when you think about it from a self-owner ship perspective

my socialist ideas usually try to favor the working class when it can avoid that unionist bullshit you sometimes get and the other ideas tend to just try to get bussiness to be more withholden to their employees

usually also trying to get employees invested in the bussiness

theres just no way to have a non-hierarchical society IMO ..... bcus say in the communist vision... theres always goign to be a certain CLASS of people who are going to go around enforcing THEIR systems onto others

well yeah its human nature, even if you managed to get enough people who legitamently want to have a anarchic nation, nothing stops the outsiders from coming in and taking that away from you

ya thats all well and okay by me.... theres plenty of ways to voluntarily level the playing field and help close the gap in disparities

ya, there will always be external statist forces trying to infiltrate and subvert this system, for sure

theres a really good 3-part documentary interview that i bet youd like a lot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNkDiBOO4H0&list=PLmmQ8peduhsorsovh6EjmEQEIPNkUVdUs

i think people get a bit to worried when its suggested that maybe there is a limit to how much a person can grow in an economy, to think that maybe there should be limitations to the heirarchy to prevent to much power going to one person even if its just money, because eventually money is power

i just dont wanna destroy it all together

yeah i just dont think it will be all snowballish effect in a true free market economy, bcus ultra rich ppl are human beings too and are irrational too, they will make dumb choices just like everyone else and squander their resources too, there will always be ebb and flow

there is a limit..... because you can only generate wealth from creating it in the first place

ppl get rich off a fraction of the wealth/value that they helped to produce

i dont think it will be a snowball effect either, because theres already glacers and icebergs in the marketplace to begin with. you wont see one take over all others, youll simply see them acrete as much as they possibly can as they always do

ya, but to get back to the whole globalism vs fascism thing... i think this technocracy ideology really encapsulates the agenda more accurately

sure, ill watch the videos later like a podcast when im doing something. right now i dont really have the time 😛

and the pentacles of power and wealth will also be much more numerous rather than concentrated in a more free market environment.. i think the real danger comes out of exploiting state power because it has the elephant in the room.... its has the gun, only the government can initiate use of force arbitrarily on people..... so when you have that plus excessive wealth... that is a recipe for dystopia

all good, yeah of course, its super long after all

i always find it ironic how for so long weve had these memes about how the world will be so bad if you had corporations take over governemnt. some of the most famous works of history are themed of that which are still mentioned today, yet when faced with the reality of it no one pays attention

ya ppl love their google, facebook, apple, samsung, etc

the whole water/USPS thing was in the <#463054787336732683> thread, btw lol

so... Fb, twitter and other soc media platforms are private companies. Do I owe my acc or twitter does? What about government accounts? I never went trough faq, gdpr etc... if someone knows the fast answer yes please

in technicality you dont own the rights to your account

it belongs to whatever service you made your account on

so... if you post a video there ... your own creation... is theirs not yours

?

typically in the terms you give them free copyright rights to the video to do as please but you still own the video

exactly

you are entitled to your own content

but you agreed to the tos that the company can use your content at any time without your consent

hm ok

it should be treated almost the same as bank acc in my opinion

preety much

but there is no garuntee if the company goes under

just watched @Timcast video on 2nd channel, Is "Healthcare is a Human Right?". Tim is right because you dont have a "right" *to somebody else's labor!*

human rights are best thought of as in the "negative" that is somebody else doesn't have the right to try and prohibit you from seeking healthcare (think "shall not be infringed"). on the other hand, "positive" rights are more coercive that require somebody else's labor to provide something to you and require the act of compelling by force of human action on some level or another

our entire US bill of rights are based on NEGATIVE rights ... that is the govt SHALL NOT do this and and that to you.... get it? they are meant to protect your natural rights from being infringed upon by others

/\

That video actually opened up my perspective on it

Hell, I think even Crowder could agree with that without changing any meaningful position.

To say something is a Human Right is to say that it is something the government cannot deny you.

In that regard, the implications of 'Healthcare' being a human right is right next to the right to self-defense in importance and truthfulness.

You have the right to seek the healthcare you need. The Government should not stop you from looking out for your own best interest in terms of health.

The real difference that needs to be emphasized in the debate is, 'Who is responsible for that right?'

Who is responsible for making good on rights?

Because if the Government has to supply someone healthcare, they should also supply them with means of self-defense.

Both exist for the preservation of one's self.

right, just like the right to self-defense can be considered a "human right" too .... ppl dont really tend to think of "the right to" healthcare, education, housing, etc that way though, as they think they are entitled to have those services provided to them, but just remember that bottom line... *nobody has an inherent right to somebody else's labor*

Mmhmm!

I never gave much though on human rights topic, at most thought something like the housing is stupid to demand but that's about it. This makes quite sense to me.

if health care is a human right then it actually says national heath services cannot be mandatory

the government cant force you to take their healthcare

you have a right to decide your healthcare

This is what I absolutely agree with, too.

It strikes me as covert linguistic warfare.

holy shit