!agree

it was apparent after the first debate. If anyone was actually watching those debates they woulda known with ease

Trump's victory was apparent after that first debate.

That is the truth, but the truth of the matter is how you speak is what matters not what you speak. The sophistry and large vocabulary alienates those that don't have that large vocabulary. The common man is what you need to speak to for elections, not just the educated. There are a bunch of factors to it really. Demeanor, slogans and campaigning, and so much more.

And in each category Trump had the win in the bag

Going to bed in a moment, but I wanted to ask, how controversial is thinking money is free speech lol

Just finished writing an argument for it, so rip lol.

@Fitzydog I would say that there should be no limits.

@Drunklama It was late at night when I wrote my statement, but what I meant was money is free speech and therefore shouldn't be taken out of politics. And to explain further I have three arguments, 2 more fundamental, and one pragmatic, in order to support my position.

1: So long as government has the ability to regulate and control the market, businesses will try and get a hold of politicians and political power in order to control the market themselves. So the issue is not money in politics, but rather that the government has the ability to control markets. Take away that ability and businesses have no real reason to influence politics besides what the individuals that own those businesses are interested in. Since governments do have the ability, however, we find that businesses are forced to play politics so that their competitors do not get the power to control the market, and instead, they get the power to control the market.

2. A more pragmatic position: By getting money out of politics, we the people have one less mean by which we can help influence politics and political discourse in our favor. This puts us at a heavy disadvantage against large organizations that can provide services and products in return for some political power. Unlike the common citizen, they have services and products to provide that the politician may desire.

3. Money is free speech because for example: I purchase goods from X rather than Y because I prefer X's product or service and therefore think X should succeed while I dislike Y's product or service and think they should fail. Similarly, using money as a means to support a politician X acts the same way, stating that X is liked.

On that note, to retort, I don't think there should be a limitation as limiting the politician's bank account makes no difference. Taking contributions from anyone at any amount is acceptable. There is an argument for a conflict of interest, but I think that if you combine both money and vote, using money to support politicians you like, and then voting those that you support in, there should be no issue on the matter. Anyone can give whatever it is they like, money isn't what people are after when in power, it's the power. If a politician goes against your interest for whatever reason, don't support that politician. If they take money and are flippy-floppy because of it, then they aren't a politician you should support from the start as they don't truly hold your position in mind.

I think what I'm getting at is. Money in politics is not the issue, but rather the voter is the issue and their misuse and misconduct of their vote. Whenever you regulate, people will never learn and stay apathetic. It's a form of tough love and people just have to learn that their vote matters and they must vote as it is their duty to do so. By regulating monetary contributions two things will occur: Those that don't truly support your interests cannot be discovered as their true character is no longer revealed. Secondly, only large organizations will prevail rather than the people. In regards to campaigning in particular, volunteer work would then become paramount. Who would volunteer? The private citizen is most likely not the case, but rather those organizations and corporations that want that politician in who have the resources to expend.

That's something I never understood about people. They always go for expensive goods in order to show off or some other nonsense, and then later on wonder why can't they afford nice things. It's because you spent all your money in order to show off on that other thing. It's a very interesting phenomena. Rich people on the other hand, those that make their money on their own, tend to wear the same clothes every day(meaning that they have multiple shirts that are the same and pants that are the same) and have goods that are on the much cheaper end of the spectrum

Rich people care less of what others think of them(still its important to be seen in positive light especially in a working environment,) and care more about what is going to get them ahead. Also they just tend to be better with handling their own money, which is why they spend less of it and are able to accumulate more of it. If the working and middle class persons rid some of their bad habits, they could find quite the increase of their wealth. Drugs, alcohol, excessive shopping, buying goods to show off, and the like. Just general good management would go a long way. Do note I'm not saying they'll become wealthy, just find a significant increase in their wealth.

Could very well be so, but it's more of a faux power than a real power. It's like showing off poisonous colors without really being poisonous lol.

@AiarUther For the most part, yes, monopolies are a government creation. Monopolies in of themselves are not inherently evil, but most monopolies that come to mind are evil. What is the differentiation between an evil monopoly and a good monopoly? Simply by the means in which the monopoly is created. Most monopolies are created out of fraud and force, via regulations and such, these are evil monopolies. A good monopoly on the other hand is a monopoly that is created from natural means, meaning, natural market forces. A good monopoly comes to being because it provides the best quality product or service in its particular market and its competition cannot provide better. Also in the case of evil monopolies competition is barred from entry, while for a good monopoly competition can attempt to enter and defeat the monopoly if it so pleased.

Well I would agree with your definition for the most part, however, not necessarily majority, but rather overwhelming majority is probably a better way to put it. 51% market share does not make a monopoly is why I would state overwhelming, but that's mere semantics. As to artificially setting prices, every company does this, it just depends on the consumer as to whether or not they wish to adhere to that artificially set price.

And yes, that is indeed the case. It almost never happens unless through force or coercion by government and the like.

yes, if they arise naturally

no they don't, oligarchies don't arise much at all naturally. In the flooring industry it very much is an oligarchy and then we had Beaulieu come in and wreck the place. Their branch here went under recently and fell into the hands of another competitor. There's 2 major flooring manufacturers, Mohawk and Shaw. They kind of run it together and then butt heads.

Eh, they can, if consumers like the product and think the new price is still worth it, but usually in most cases, consumers stop purchasing goods when prices are raised too high. It's a matter of balancing supply/demand/price.

And of course competition enters to make prices lower

I agree wholeheartedly.

I'm almost an Ancap, minus the an

lol

Which was that again?

ah, well that's what I'm closest too, Libertarian, although not a Libertarian per se. I think government more as a mediator rather than a regulator.

I think that's how I'd put it.

I think government is a necessity, again as a mediator. Need a sort of "Leviathan" to ensure everyone follows their contractual obligations. I'm using the term leviathan loosely to mean some sort of ruler or arbiter or body.

Basically the way I think it ought to be is government is contracted by the people(like the Constitution) and is afforded the rights that the people all agreed upon in the contract. It has to be explicitly stated of course, and that is the role of government, that explicit statement within the contract and only those explicit statements.

Yes, exactly lol.

yep, and that is the necessity of government. To be the mediator

And to administer justice

that's more like settling outside of court.

when two parties mediate it through some third party privately.

I don't think I like that idea. It can lead to the administration of justice to be sporadic and unequal. All should be treated equally under the eyes of the law.

Which is why private courts could not work as each private court would have its own way of administering justice

In one court, someone could be fined heavily for a minor infraction, while in another simply warned

I think the law should be administered equally and with indifference.

I suppose if it is voluntary by both parties there would be one less issue, however, practically, I dont think it could work. A private court entails another legal system under the main legal system. I think I should head for bed lol, maybe if I think on it in the morning it would make more sense to me. 4am lol need sleep

goodnight

On the contrary most socialists need to be enlightened as they don't understand what socialism truly entails. You'd be surprised how many Socialists aren't really Socialist, but rather people that feel as though the status quo is of no benefit to them. The reality is, Socialism is for the weak, arrogant, and ignorant. In order to "convert" a Socialist, one would have to enlighten the ignorant, strengthen the weak, and break the arrogance.

I've never really listened to Jordan Peterson much except a few short interviews on louder with crowder and the one with Sargon

listening to a few of his interviews right now and I'm liking it

listening to him and russell brand at the moment

lol, I actually really like the guy

Was watching him when he used to do the Trews thing

I think my only problem with him is on economics lol, as he is a socialist if I recall

But on some other things I really like what he says

lol, na, there were some things particularly on spiritual matters that were of interest

its been a while since ive heard him speak

so I cant pinpoint exactly what I liked

it was more general ideas

He does talk in a very verbose manner

As much as I like verbose language, I prefer it in literature rather than when being spoken to in order to keep complex ideas simple

well same with writing when you are pointing towards a particular audience

not necessarily I don't think intellectuals mean to do so for the most part. I think it just happens naturally because they are fostered in an intellectual environment where their peers do so

so when they go out to others they do the same thing

not because they mean to do so, but because they've been reinforced to do so

well hes a comedian lol

His voice is pretty decent too

probably why I like him

lol, fair enough

Just a question why is there no reading/books channel?

Should have a text channel dedicated to books, probably throw some recommendations in there too.

but i wanted a book section to talk about books

.... rip

lol

I accept free shit, but that's because I don't mind taking advantage of the benefits people are willing to throw at me. Their loss is my gain. That's charity in a nutshell, giving an advantage to someone because you wish to, not because you are compelled to. I would've ate the cheese, only because it was offered to me. Also it's considered rude not to.

lol, whenever we visit family friends, I gotta make sure I take what food is offered, its rude otherwise.

plus the food is usually good, so win/win I suppose

fair enough, i think so too. Should feed guests. Being hospitable and a good host

yes both ways indeed. Receiving hospitality and giving it

on that note im heading to sleep

I'm still waiting for a book chat channel to appear lol. I just want to talk about books in order to get me to read more. Make me feel obligated lol

Anyone ever watch the movie Antz. A film of genius.

It's brilliant lol, so much to say about it and it says so much about politics and society.

Especially on individualism and collectivism

Z being an individualist and the colony representing the collective.

when is the next stream. I'm too invested in this story with Vee's cult lol