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

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

if healthcare is a human right

unfortunately, that is also the route we are going in California for example with mandatory [forced] vaccinations, etc bcuz that is really just a healthcare procedure. "you have a right to decide your healthcare" .... agreed. and the more choices, the better!

then people havea right to choose what they see as the right healthcare

and thus

anti vaxxers are protected

Oh, shit.

I swear tim raising a kid on nothing but essential oils and tofu is healthy

lol

ZQ, drink patchouli.

Well, we have vaccines mandatory here for the public safety. As people who don't vaccinate are potentional health risk to others.

what if my healthcare is that others pay for my entertainment, else i get depressed?

We've had some of that in Canadad too

At least the basic ones that is

kids were suspended by the thousands recently for not being vaccinated

caused a real stink

i see it this way: healthcare is not a human right, but it IS a human right to receive necessary medical treatment

That

kay

naw, i totally disagree with that. mandatory vaccines are a wreckless policy. im not going to get into a debate about this, but there is NO "consensus" about the safety of vaccines are they currently exist.

https://healthfreedomidaho.org/vaccine-court-has-paid-37-billion-in-damages-to-families

no, but they have saved more than they cost

Vaccinations have nearly eradicated certain diseases.

ppl get sick just from taking the vaccines themselves, and they even SPREAD the newly inoculated strain to others

You don't hear of anyone coming down with Polio anymore.

any medication has it's risk, vaccines as well

Should people be allowed to make bad choices for themselves?

if those choices don't affect others

I have never had a serious bout of the flu. I have also never taken a flu shot.

i say yes

if Im vaccinated I dont care if you get polio

I mean

it sucks

but i wont get it

so that risk should not be forced onto others... that is just wreckless! you have a RIGHT to say no!

you don't have the right to put other people in danger!

and that is exactly what you are doing by not getting vaccinated

They're not in danger if they're vaccinated.

i dont get flue shots any more... i was friends w/ a girl who took them ALL THE TIME ... and guess what she was SICK virtually all the time .... she got so regularly sick that should would have to go to the ER from seasonal flues

That's Tim's point.

If we make a Measles vaccine publicly available to those who want to take it

my sister almost DIED when she was a toddler bcuz of the 110+ degree fever that eruputed after she was vaccinated

and some portion of the population decide not to participate in the vaccination program

plus it does not make any logical sense ..... if you really believe in the efficacy of vaccines.... they why worry about unvaccinated ppl!

Being vaccinated doesn't mean you can't get ever ill again, it's just building your immune system to fight it so you are less suspectible to it.. or am I wrong ?

we know that there is a percentage that will die from vaccines

The refusal to take that vaccination doesn't endanger anyone but that group

but the collectivists think its worth i

it

they are a threat to people who can't be immunised

this sounds like an unreasonably high degree of incidents for such a small sample size