Message from @Ghostler
Discord ID: 476437746999885835
@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
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
but both are authoritarian and socialist, and the extreme of both. and, more importantly, tried to keep the pendulum on their side
the pendulum wasn't swinging
well consider the democrats and republicans pendulum
this is what happens when you want to stop the pendulum from swinging.
fucking bot gonna take your damn balls
seriously
"?? <#463068752725016579> is in slowmode. You will be able to post there again in 0.1 second, alright?" like really?!
@JDM_WAAAT can you turn off censorship bot?