by the way do you think insanity is a trained skill?

@NativeInterface would ancap be totally against tax on goods?

indirect taxes that is

yeah, it's against any 3rd party who interjects and demand fees and expect compliance without consent

if i can't do it, the state can't do it

if i cant tax your goods, the state cant tax my goods

because equal rights

The key point being compliance. If it's voluntery, then yes.

If it's voluntary it is called insurance

Or is a type of insurance

I can agree with that. Whatever vehicle voluntary travels in gets us to the same point

Anyways. If there are more workers than needed in a society, then the employers, assuming there are no regulations or close to none, are going to exploit that (human nature) . However, I think the inverse is also true, if there aren't enough workers to go around the workers are gonna exploit that. Employers are always working to make things more efficient and at least long term, reduce the number or workers necessary as a consiquence (spelling?) so even if we would make it so that there is a job for everyone and no more or less (let's assume for the sake of argument that everyone are equally good for each job) that equilibrium will sooner or later be thrown out of balance so arguing for such a society is unnecessary

What can be done about that to remove exploitation from either side completely and that is sustainable (to come with new regulations for each little thing is not sustainable imo, you're welcome to try and change my mind)

I am aware that it might be necessary to create other problems in order to reach that, but I am not interested in that atm. Just if there is any way to reach the relationship between worker and employer that I mentioned.

A related problem is how long should an employer be aloud to "force" a worker to work. As long as there are more people without a job the employers are going to reduce wages so workers will have to work longer (assuming no regulations are in place) in order to afford to live (the minimum wage debate).

attempting to remove extremes is always going to be a receipy for deseaster

life is constantly in flux and the amount of force required to maintain an strict status quo is usually frowned upon. it is better to make a society in which all people in it have the power to pull the pendulum back in their direction

this way when things start to get too close to one extreme or the other, the opposite side will be able to galvanize and pull things back towards them

thus things will fluctuate around the desired balance point, and most of the time be within some acceptable deviation for most people in the system.

I concur

Generational Pendulums

One for every issue no matter how minor

Sometimes they sync up

Sometimes the gay bot stops me from speaking

lmaoi

so when mao has pendulum hitler should be able to pull it back, so that everyone can commit genocide their own way

everyone wins

actually, both of them are socialist

yeah but nazis were anti communists, right?

true... although on what issues idk

fighting over who gets to genocide the jews perhaps

The Oakland Raiders are anti Pittsburgh Steelers, and vice versa.

They're not both anti-football.

its kind of my point that both sides are similar, but they are still opponents, so you could end up with a pendulum swinging between two flavors of insanity

but both are authoritarian and socialist, and the extreme of both. and, more importantly, tried to keep the pendulum on their side

the pendulum wasn't swinging

well consider the democrats and republicans pendulum

this is what happens when you want to stop the pendulum from swinging.

fucking bot gonna take your damn balls

seriously

"?? <#463068752725016579> is in slowmode. You will be able to post there again in 0.1 second, alright?" like really?!

@JDM_WAAAT can you turn off censorship bot?

it's not a censorship bot, don't bother me with this shit.

Type what you want to say in one message. It's not complicated.

@NativeInterface correct me if i'm wrong, but free market capitalism is basically based on this idea. If a company gets too greedy, competition will spring up to pull the pendulum back, preventing monopoly. Thus, things will ebb and flow back and forth, hopefully, the theory is, near a happy center.

i guess you could look at it that way, but i don't. a pendulum only moves in two directions so it represents a dichotomy, so i wouldn't use that metaphor.

but i get that you're arguing for the ebb and flow part of the pendulum, so i see what you're saying.

i just think false dichotomies and middle ground fallacies is the reason the u.s. is shit

it depends on the context of the pendulum i guess

the happy center of republicrats foreign politics of ponies and rainbows

does a pendulum only move in 2 directions?

i was thinking of a grandfather clock i guess

a pendulum is a weight at the end of a string fixed to a point. if left to swing, at least here on earth, it will slowly move around in a circle. Each time it swings back and forth, it is never quite hitting the same spot as before as the earth rotates under it.

i guess each democratic and republican president are less democratic and republican than the previous one. i don't know if political parties have any principles anymore.

or if they ever did

i don't think they ever did. some candidates tow party lines better than others, but trump ran as a republican... but is he a really a republican?

at first i got the impression he was more republican than mainstream republicans, but now i just think he's a flip-flopper

people who remain devote to a party may create false dichotomies, but if you think of the political spectrum as more of a sphere, republican and democrats are like saying the west and the east.... technically the west is east of the east as the east is east of the west. its a circle, keep travelling in one direction you will end up where you started without hitting an edge. unless you draw artificial lines

and you can still go up or down

horseshoe theory

you have 3 dimensions you can move in that we have narrowed down to 2 vague groups

in a sense you could say that, head east far enough from the west coast you will end up back at the west coast

could you give a political real life example of this?

I think it's more suitable to think of them as poles

Rather than heading right/left

depends on what you mean political example? I think the fact we have a bunch of candidates that are not just exact copies of their supposed parties, and outliers who just sometimes end up on the ballot as a random party that they don't fit nicely into as proof enough that the democrats are republican split is just a 2d cross section of 3d space

which creates, as you have accurately pointed out, a false dichotomy.

it has removed an entire axis

haha

I won't daddy.

Everything goes into separate lines.

Every issue can be condensed to a yes and a no with caveats between

it often takes awhile to draw that specific end

in math, to find the volume of an object, you take basically a near infinite number of 2D cross sections along one axis and basically add up all their areas. If you look at the swinging pendulum's path, it might look like it is following a sin wave oscillation at any given point along the axis of time. However, if you actually add up all these cross sections of time, it will fill the whole graph.

lol

youtube has competitors, but nobody knows about them, because everyone is hanging out on youtube.
i think youtube screwing up is a good thing, because the competitors needs some traffic, and people could use some more options.
to complain about youtube making people unable to speak is in my mind accepting their market dominance and wanting to maintain their dominance by keeping their policies acceptible.
why not just celebrate their failure and help boycott them?

That's what I've been wondering about, not the boycott, but why many want to get the government involved, declare them public utilities, instead of just use their failures to bolster the competition.

because they are dumb

why else

Can someone explain to me why workers unions get to charge people that are not members of the union? Where is the incentive for the union to represent the workers if they don‘t have to do their job and still get paid?

similar reason a doctor can't tell you how much an x-ray costs.

bullshit.

Well... i don‘t get charged for x-rays so i don‘t care - not american so i don‘t know what that reference means 😉

because the union gets to dictate terms, because they represent a collective of individuals.

IE like insurance companies

Hmm... but do they represent the individuals if they have no incentive to do that?

the reason Unions get to charge non-members

is cuz otherwise, you'd have people not sign up, but still benefit if the Union gets something positive for the workers

so you can't get freeloaders

but this way, yes its corruptable, cuz the union gets money no matter what

and they use that money for fancy things and campaign donations etc

Tim pool did talk about the union at one of the places he worked at.

Cant recall which but he di share those sentiments.

@GingaBomber yeah tim did a good job explaining the unions on vice were he used to work at

I believe this is the vid https://youtu.be/XVy5gCrm5UU

I thought sweden was far left when it came to unions but I had no idea that there are countries where non-union members have to pay.
As far as I know that is absolutely not the case in sweden

People that kind of brag that the union is unnecessary get a lot of critique from union members for freelancing, although half complain that they don't appreciate the past things the unions did, which imo is retarded because by that logic you must be a nazi if you use the autoban or like that it exists. Or think that the infrastructure in Germany is a good thing for trade or whatnot because the nazis got almost all of that started

unions are not bad, but they also have more power than they should

unions should not get to charge non-union members. If unions are necessary in any particular industry, people will join a union. if they have achieved their goal in balancing the power out, people will stop joining the union.

Why are unions necessary, and collective bargaining not enough?