Message from @Eccles
Discord ID: 620932721434165279
@ETBrooD, some of it is by design, others by merely becoming a subject of the designers influence or mere ignorance, going back to the subject of revisionism.
Oh yeah, like Coach Redpill
I am ideologically attached to markets because trading with other people is the best way for me to live as a human.
Cooperation, @jacovich stabs.
Not sure how one can be *ideologically* attached to markets
Means I see them as imperative.
Correct, @jacovich stabs, so you have fundamental questions of whether it is the case that government is merely to recognize ones rights, rather than be the grantor of said rights.
Man becomes God.
The government will de facto always become the grantor of rights..
Cooperation is great but it's not a way of life. People have personal missions too and trade is offering value for value. It's easy and effective.
Britain could save the West!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/10/nativist-populism-britain-parliament-brexit-europeans
The role of government is to secure the rights of man. It cannot "grant" them, that's just incoherent.
Doing gods work for you Poles. @Tonight at 11 - DOOM
@Weez, as in you do not believe the PRC has went far enough along the lines of fascism? I find it difficult to recognize them as Communists, as this point, but I'll still declare them as such in my rants. Is the PRC the first instance of observing Fascism arise from Communism, or was it all really the same anyway, ultimately pursuing the elimination of self-organization and spontaneous order by design?
"if a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy"
W T F ?
Can someone explain the logical progression behind this claim? I can't figure it out
That's because you've been manipulated by internet radicals @ETBrooD
@jacovich stabs, I also see them as an imperative, as they're required to remain free to ensure efficient allocation of scarce resources. Only a free-market can best decide, while remaining what I see as consistent with my moral values.
My God this is pertinacious mumbling of idealistic know it alls...
And here comes Eccles
Damn straight
To make it even worse
Where did the DUCC go?
He lives on, in your ❤ @Xaverius
aw
Guardian is cancer
Agreed, they’re a socialist nation - as it says in their constitution. I think the path China is on is fine, it’s proven to work. They’re soon to be the largest economy in the world, they have control over their population, they’re expanding their influence, they’re able to deal with ‘problem’ groups, etc. I don’t believe China is fascist yet though. @Jeremy
China isn't fascist. *boggle*
What China is, is winning. All else is kinda senseless rambling tbh
@Jeremy Hmm, I think that's looking at it from too "top-down" a view. Or perhaps too broad a view, at least for the purpose of explaining one's personal affinity for markets.
It's true, a free market is best for society but that's because it's good for individuals. Because the trader relationship between even two people is fundamentally benevolent.
free market is democracy via dollar
They can be winning -and- be fascist
- The imperialistic forces of the US capitalists must eventually fall before the righteousness of the people's revolution! Materialist History *dictates* we must win!
- First Secretary, the Americans are, like, 14 times richer then us...
- Nonsense Sergey, our people are rich in socialist fervor and anti-reactionary spirit!
This is you saying China is done for.
question being how
how what?
ffs, Jeremy is producing an essay
If fascism wins, we'll soon all be Fascist
if it is so, don be a fascist-phobe
@ETBrooD, the logical progression of that argument is to defend a change antithetical toward serving whatever formal norms and values of the nation. In the context of the U.S., I could see a Starbucks Marxist making that claim, in pursuit of whatever nonsense they're espousing. Our Republic has formal, democratic processes, though radical changes were never intended to come about without many years of reflective deliberations, which is one of the reasons why I advocate for stepping back toward Federalism, at the most repealing the 17th Amendment. It'd be an intention return to a mechanic meant to prevent expedient revisions.