It must posses an identity

@Existence is identity action precedes knowledge.

It must exist first @halfthink

Yes, action must exist in order to acquire knowledge.

Thats why metaphysics comes first

Existence Identity Consciousness

In what sense does something exist if no consciousness exists to perceive it, and what is perception if not an action, a means aimed at an end?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6677207/Girl-2-burned-lighter-human-bite-marks-body-dead-court-hears.html

why would anyone do something like that?

might be religion? Islam? does someone know if this could be cus of religion ?

Its prolly not a religious thing but mental illness at that point or lack of self control

http://exploreistaxationtheft.com/

Btw. I have a question. Does politics affect the economy more or the other way around

And which comes first?

in the distant past economy and politics had more cohesion when those who had the position of authority within the nation were also those who owned and oversaw the largest scope of logistics in agroculture and other industrys within the nation. your kings, emperors, roman senate, pharaohs, etc.

however even without such a connection, policys that revolve around regulating businesses, especially trade businesses has a very strong effect on economy though this is not to say all regulation is bad. taxes likewise effect economy as you can imagine

systems that try to remove the power of money away from the influince of government are systems that attempt to put politics first, weather or not they succeed. systems where the legitimacy of authority is through raw exertion of power, economy often comes first. however culture is a factor here, some people have been ruled by one authority so long that its actually began coding itself into their genes, china is the most distinct example of that

I see

Yea that makes sense

I think i know where to start now

I also suddenly understood nationalism alot more

what constitutes as human? and how far human rights spread

Economics came first, as economics is the whole of human interactions in which things are traded voluntarily @My Preferred Pronoun Is Sama

@Arch-Fiend "systems where the legitimacy of authority is through raw exertion of power, economy often comes first." i'll need a citation for this. the free and voluntary trade between consenting parts is antithetical to the raw exertion of power as exertion of power is involuntary and aggressive by definition.

I mean i was thinking what it really means to put america first

Putting the interests and desires of those within the confines of the nation-state USA above the interests and desires of those abroad

Yea but that comes into conflict with the free market more and more it feels like

I used to be a libertarian but i turned and never went back a few years ago suddenly

Only if you regulate what can come in and go out

@F.Pazuzu raw exertion of power is almost always in favor of economy because commonly valued wealth can easly be translated into a better war machine. however this is only with reguard to internal politics rather than external, a wealthy but low population group is going to have a hard time overcomeing a poor high population group. though high populations throughout most of human history have often been associated with strong economys. it was only at the point where technological progress began to become asymetrical on a global scale where high populations began to fall short of their economic impact, which was really only a short blip in anthropoligic history, though its a blip we are currently in.

🍿

Tbh "America first" can be as simple as cutting out systems that are overly generous to foreign countries and competitors

That wouod hurt the free market bad tho

It's not a free market

If the US ran a program where we imposed the same import restrictions as other countries put on our exports, there would be nothing in the US made in the PRC

there are a few instances in history where this is changed when unique circomstances present themselves, such as the case of the hun or mongal invasions where a high population of people with great individual power overcame powers around it who were technologically and economicly superior but highly centralized with a high dencity of noncombatitive populations that relied upon specialist citizines to defend them. though the mongal and hun also both attacked during times of extreme weakness in europe, china, and middle east

europe was suffering from the jihad, china was fragmented into 5 nations, 3 of which on its border with mongolia (they basicly betrayed all of china to let the mongols in to fight a war for unification for them but got double crossed) and the middle east was begining to suffer internal struggle between the caliphs. perfect time for the mongols who 99% of the time are simply tribal warriors who never get along with a population greater than 1000 people to suddenly unite an entire contanent of hundreds of thousands strong and have the largest military at the time with tactics that also favored soldier survival to basicly exhaust everyone around them into total collapse.

how does that correlate to economics being about the exertion of power?

but besiiiides that, money tends to dominate the monopoly of violence in human history

because the state uses violence to parasite off of those who produce

that problem is not production or the free exchange of goods between people, it's the state using violence to extort them to promote its own agenda

But without the state there can be no means of production