Message from @ReadWhom
Discord ID: 476364904551415818
but your red is the same as my blue
That's what I was meaning to hint at
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).
attempting to remove extremes is always going to be a receipy for deseaster
life is constantly in flux and the amount of force required to maintain an strict status quo is usually frowned upon. it is better to make a society in which all people in it have the power to pull the pendulum back in their direction
this way when things start to get too close to one extreme or the other, the opposite side will be able to galvanize and pull things back towards them
thus things will fluctuate around the desired balance point, and most of the time be within some acceptable deviation for most people in the system.
I concur
Generational Pendulums
One for every issue no matter how minor
Sometimes they sync up
Sometimes the gay bot stops me from speaking
lmaoi
so when mao has pendulum hitler should be able to pull it back, so that everyone can commit genocide their own way
everyone wins
actually, both of them are socialist
yeah but nazis were anti communists, right?
true... although on what issues idk
fighting over who gets to genocide the jews perhaps
The Oakland Raiders are anti Pittsburgh Steelers, and vice versa.
They're not both anti-football.
its kind of my point that both sides are similar, but they are still opponents, so you could end up with a pendulum swinging between two flavors of insanity