rule of two

what is this starwars

i like pool, he keeps going down the same lanes though.

you muricans and your elections

i refuse

gimme money

im here to take your jobs

there are so many human rights now

smh

where are all the human duties huh?

i condone his lifestyle

fortunate son is a great song

it def is

the end by the doors is also good

i skimmed that summary; didn't know people got off on the idea of being genocided

Corruption and competence have a hand in every enterprise. The way they make themselves known however varies exponentially.

america is a strange land

everyone not british

like pretty much

right or otherwise commonwealth

How do you feel about government subsidization of small enterprise to encourage competition @ETBrooD

To clarify my position; A diversity of ways to manage and structure human conduct is the end I think we should be striving for. I think countries are far too large, and that people should organize themselves on a far more local level.

I think a market economy is good because it allows people to organize their own businesses in a way that suits them.

I think the will of the people should be more important than the flow of capital, however.

That's not to say I want any sort of redistribution, because I am uncertain on that point. I don't think it's outside of the right of government to redistribute if it does so with the mandate of the governed. I don't think saying "there is a system it works" is necessarily always enough and you need to play with the tools that are there.

No, because in a republic each citizen holds one stock. That stock cannot be bought, and cannot be traded.

What do you mean by the will to steal?

I think there is a limit to what should be bought and sold. I think you shouldn't sell the land the statue of liberty stands on and elect a shopping mart simply because it isn't profitable.

I know, but it is a considerable one.

People aren't always reasonable, we aren't the homo economicus the rational actors in a free market.

We do stupid shit like get face tattoos.

Right, but I'm talking about more local governments.

Not privately owned land.

I think there is a case to be made for a centralized monopoly of force.

Because someone might buy it up just to tear it down and elect a shopping mart.

We should take care of our history.

I'm saying the monopoly of force should be in the hands of a democratically elected local authority, to enforce the rules of commerce so that they stay reasonable and in tune with the local zeitgeist.

It's not about competence, necessarily. You can have a competent dictator, but he won't necessarily serve the interests of the weakest in society. It's about building a culture where as many people as possible can thrive and that requires that a representative of the local population be present to hash out those concerns with the buying and selling part.

And if those parts refuse to co-operate with the local population, they should be the ones submitting.

It's a matter of community above all.

An outside economic actor should not be able to tear down a community with the force of his wallet. If the local community does not want a shopping mart in the city centrum i see no reason why anyone should be able to erect one.

I'm not saying, however. That there should be no limits to government force, but I think there should be limits to what corporations and actors in the marketplace can and cannot do.

I also think there should be protections, as many as possible, levvied towards the minority.

It's not only about those buildings, it's about the cultural heritage, and the monuments to our history.

Absolutely.

But every monopoly of force is not equal.

I mean, I make no difference between an old woman's home that have been in her family for generations and the arc'd triumph.

I think the consent of the governed; the majority should be represented when the community has contentions about a move.

No matter what that move is.

I agree that that is terrible, but it has nothing to do with my argument. I would argue that those were systems of organization that failed in upholding the will of the people, or perhaps the will of the people was with the iconoclasts who destroyed them and in that case I would be in the minority that wants history to be preserved.

The problem is that there is a clear contrast between anarchy and monopoly of force.

And a clear lifecycle for a human organization.

Meaning it grows exponentially until it is unable to.

If you dismantle government; business would take on the mantles of government and become like government.

Because there would be a vacuum.

As far as I am concerned, no moral philosophy that isn't concerned with practical application is of much use to anyone.

I mean why advocate a position that is impractical and not applicable to real-life?

Why not try to find out to what extent an idea is applicable and practical and advocate for that?

I mean always keep thinking, and I can spout non-sensical overblown straight out the top of my dome ideas as well. And in a discussion we can try to reach the reasonable middle-ground, and I can try to make a point with an overly ideal narrative.

But as far as my actual political position goes will always be the one I think would work the best when applied.

I was talking about my own, haha.

My point stands though.

I disagree with that.

But I do see where you are coming from.

Like poverty, I think the application of force is inherit to our species.

How would you define liberty?

I often use the word "human thriving" which is essentially when a human being feels he is in the right time, at the right place, doing the right things. I suppose my moral philosophy would be to attempt to maximize that.

Yes, I'm not ashamed of that.

I think people should have good lives and feel good about them.

I agree.

And I'm not really arguing for happiness.

I'm arguing for meaning, I suppose. Having something to work towards.

I think meaning in a sense is achieved through competence. Although I have no knowledge of any higher meaning, I think that it is up to us to find a meaning in the life around us and I think we do that better when we are part of a community.

How do you know what needs you need to fill when you do not know the needs of your local markets?

Life, as far as I am concerned, is about tending to the people around you.

I suppose I agree.

Yeah, I'm not a moral absolutist, although there are morals I think should be held in high regard I realize that it is folly to give powers to an authority and not expect it to be used against your cause.

I think the individual would suffer if he only worried about himself.

It's in his biology.

You won't find meaning in yourself only.

That is fair, but you should still find people to care about.

I would go as far as to say you *ought* to care about all people although I think it would be folly to enforce such upon you.

What do you value in life?

Oh so am I.

I think people are entirely self-serving by their very nature.

Yet I would attempt to do whatever in my power to help the people around me, because that is the only way I get my kicks.

A bit of a crass way to put it but it matters to me how I act and how I seem. I want to enbody an ideal.

I think teaching is very valuable.

Community does that better than instituions of learning.

Yet gives you no diploma

So is seemingly worthless in the modern economy

You need to want to learn, do the work.

But you also need a good teacher.

Teaching is a matter of passing on information through instinct and emotion. Some teachers work better with some students.

I agree.

Entirely true.

i have no chance to watch the video atm anyone willing to summarize it's contents?

Christianity is an interesting set of beliefs

It's interpreted in so many odd ways.

It's not that there aren't bad things about the British Empire, or that all brown people suck but there is a narrative that there was nothing good about the British Empire and that all brown people are peaceful which needs to be critiqued.