Message from @Revan
Discord ID: 476260842657153024
indeed
That's a really long day
Maybe I was born two days ago
Do we not die every night?
it only feels long because your memories of the passage of time
Wake up as someone new
you could have been born a second ago
Is the color I see as blue the same as what you would perceive as orange through my eyes?
Nobody knows how our minds actually work
My blue is better than yours
That's all that matters
I'm so sorry to hear that your crimson isn't as good as mine though
i need glasses, so either way the shape is more blurry for me
But if nothing is real, then what are glasses?
What if everyone's favorite color is the same
they are invisible to mirrors
We just call them different names
It turns out everybody in the world just percieves the same shade of gray as different colors and they all happened upon it as their favorite?
no, since we aren't sure if our colors are the same and I like my blue and you like your red
but your red is the same as my blue
then ya
im still trying to understand jaden. you only know for sure what you can see with your own eyes. but you cant see your eyes with your eyes so you cant confirm they are real. so how can we trust our mirror reflection with our eyes if we cant confirm that our eyes are real?
we would have to trust our eyes with the reflection before we can confirm that they are real to begin with
its not a strong foundation of logical deduction
jaden could just be a rigorous logician.
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).