Message from @scaryred24

Discord ID: 465191390675075072


2018-07-07 06:33:34 UTC  

i think people get a bit to worried when its suggested that maybe there is a limit to how much a person can grow in an economy, to think that maybe there should be limitations to the heirarchy to prevent to much power going to one person even if its just money, because eventually money is power

2018-07-07 06:33:56 UTC  

i just dont wanna destroy it all together

2018-07-07 06:35:23 UTC  

yeah i just dont think it will be all snowballish effect in a true free market economy, bcus ultra rich ppl are human beings too and are irrational too, they will make dumb choices just like everyone else and squander their resources too, there will always be ebb and flow

2018-07-07 06:36:11 UTC  

there is a limit..... because you can only generate wealth from creating it in the first place

2018-07-07 06:36:40 UTC  

ppl get rich off a fraction of the wealth/value that they helped to produce

2018-07-07 06:36:59 UTC  

i dont think it will be a snowball effect either, because theres already glacers and icebergs in the marketplace to begin with. you wont see one take over all others, youll simply see them acrete as much as they possibly can as they always do

2018-07-07 06:38:16 UTC  

ya, but to get back to the whole globalism vs fascism thing... i think this technocracy ideology really encapsulates the agenda more accurately

2018-07-07 06:38:52 UTC  

sure, ill watch the videos later like a podcast when im doing something. right now i dont really have the time 😛

2018-07-07 06:41:08 UTC  

and the pentacles of power and wealth will also be much more numerous rather than concentrated in a more free market environment.. i think the real danger comes out of exploiting state power because it has the elephant in the room.... its has the gun, only the government can initiate use of force arbitrarily on people..... so when you have that plus excessive wealth... that is a recipe for dystopia

2018-07-07 06:41:35 UTC  

all good, yeah of course, its super long after all

2018-07-07 06:44:14 UTC  

i always find it ironic how for so long weve had these memes about how the world will be so bad if you had corporations take over governemnt. some of the most famous works of history are themed of that which are still mentioned today, yet when faced with the reality of it no one pays attention

2018-07-07 06:45:47 UTC  

ya ppl love their google, facebook, apple, samsung, etc

2018-07-07 06:50:24 UTC  

the whole water/USPS thing was in the <#463054787336732683> thread, btw lol

2018-07-07 16:20:07 UTC  

so... Fb, twitter and other soc media platforms are private companies. Do I owe my acc or twitter does? What about government accounts? I never went trough faq, gdpr etc... if someone knows the fast answer yes please

2018-07-07 16:20:41 UTC  

in technicality you dont own the rights to your account

2018-07-07 16:20:55 UTC  

it belongs to whatever service you made your account on

2018-07-07 16:21:42 UTC  

so... if you post a video there ... your own creation... is theirs not yours

2018-07-07 16:21:43 UTC  

?

2018-07-07 16:23:21 UTC  

typically in the terms you give them free copyright rights to the video to do as please but you still own the video

2018-07-07 16:24:23 UTC  

exactly

2018-07-07 16:24:30 UTC  

you are entitled to your own content

2018-07-07 16:24:56 UTC  

but you agreed to the tos that the company can use your content at any time without your consent

2018-07-07 16:25:51 UTC  

hm ok

2018-07-07 16:26:25 UTC  

it should be treated almost the same as bank acc in my opinion

2018-07-07 16:26:57 UTC  

preety much

2018-07-07 16:27:15 UTC  

but there is no garuntee if the company goes under

2018-07-07 20:29:38 UTC  

just watched @Timcast video on 2nd channel, Is "Healthcare is a Human Right?". Tim is right because you dont have a "right" *to somebody else's labor!*

2018-07-07 20:33:25 UTC  

human rights are best thought of as in the "negative" that is somebody else doesn't have the right to try and prohibit you from seeking healthcare (think "shall not be infringed"). on the other hand, "positive" rights are more coercive that require somebody else's labor to provide something to you and require the act of compelling by force of human action on some level or another

2018-07-07 20:34:10 UTC  

our entire US bill of rights are based on NEGATIVE rights ... that is the govt SHALL NOT do this and and that to you.... get it? they are meant to protect your natural rights from being infringed upon by others

2018-07-07 20:37:02 UTC  

/\

2018-07-07 20:40:14 UTC  

That video actually opened up my perspective on it

2018-07-07 20:40:53 UTC  

Hell, I think even Crowder could agree with that without changing any meaningful position.

2018-07-07 20:41:37 UTC  

To say something is a Human Right is to say that it is something the government cannot deny you.

2018-07-07 20:42:21 UTC  

In that regard, the implications of 'Healthcare' being a human right is right next to the right to self-defense in importance and truthfulness.

2018-07-07 20:43:23 UTC  

You have the right to seek the healthcare you need. The Government should not stop you from looking out for your own best interest in terms of health.

2018-07-07 20:44:22 UTC  

The real difference that needs to be emphasized in the debate is, 'Who is responsible for that right?'

2018-07-07 20:44:45 UTC  

Who is responsible for making good on rights?

2018-07-07 20:45:27 UTC  

Because if the Government has to supply someone healthcare, they should also supply them with means of self-defense.

2018-07-07 20:45:54 UTC  

Both exist for the preservation of one's self.

2018-07-07 20:47:08 UTC  

right, just like the right to self-defense can be considered a "human right" too .... ppl dont really tend to think of "the right to" healthcare, education, housing, etc that way though, as they think they are entitled to have those services provided to them, but just remember that bottom line... *nobody has an inherent right to somebody else's labor*

2018-07-07 20:48:09 UTC  

Mmhmm!