@Elmo this guys going places

@ʀeaper you haven't cited examples of me Calling for death or assault or anything

Yet maintain the straw man of me doing so

Why would people be discouraged from those types of business relationships otherwise

Every time someone explains to you how to nonviolently participate in better forms of operation
it seems to go over your head

Why can't you grasp the concept that people want to get better pay better benefits and an actual relevant say in their workplace?
There's this thing called your rational self-interest try looking into it

@ʀeaper

They would still occur it would vary greatly even if that's the trend

People would still take crappy deals when they are presented with better options?

If we assume that people are rational actors this makes no sense

.
Making people take crappy deals when they have the ability to go after better deals requires Force the same Force currently used to protect capitalism and keep its life support online

<:Bakard:612150766609629194> <:Kermit:612151522033401856> <:550907996163670017:612171562069655552> <:601236595521093672:614732818597150720> <:591129245288497183:614732768148062229>

People could find themselves in positions where they need to accept crappy deals to support themselves

Which is why it's important to offer better deals so they can escape

But then you look at that and somehow interpret it as executing people for no apparent reason

@ʀeaper

Why do you think that process is automatic

Or that you have any control over the type of deals that are generated

@ʀeaper why do you think the process of people leaving crappy deals for better ones isn't automatic?

If we assume that people are rational actors and act in their self interest they would take the better deals when offered

It's not like the economy rewards company loyalty

I don't have to have any control over if he types of deals granted just look at the waiting lists to get into, where your standard business models have problems with being understaffed

The only force or control the economy would be offering more opportunities for people to escape

Via starting another Co-op or commune

This is of course assumes that local landlords and capitalists do not Call In state Force shut it down

It will eventually shift to a market similar to that but I don't have much confidence with desperate workers making calm rational decisions

Maybe in the past when the demand for unskilled labour was higher

So in conclusion the reason communism can't win is because people have been whipped and punished by the status quo (also known as capitalism) in order to keep them in a desperate scatterbrain state

Which prevents them from jumping ship to their local communes and coops

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s0YjL9rZyR0

Apparently, neither pure Communism nor pure Capitalist democracies can win.

China is rising in prosperity. It is currently an authoritarian government.

The British empire rose in prosperity. It was an autocracy.

The Japanese empire rose in prosperity. It was an autocracy.

.... Russia also Rose in prosperity quite quickly and I can assume what your opinion on that is

.

The seems to come to an uncomfortable logical conclusion

Yes. That uncomfortable logical conclusion is that one person's ideology, or even a community's ideology, has no correlation with success.

This can be unsettling, because it may imply that there is no free will.

Then again, I have once read a comic in which the guy is told to lift one leg, and he does, and he is told that "That is free will", and then he is told to lift up the other leg but he can't, so he is told "That is predestination."

The conclusion is that people believe that they have free will and believe they can choose to satisfy inner desires, but it is also possible that people really don't have any free will, and other forces are controlling the human (the molecules inside the body, nociceptors, emotions, etc.).

@Member Name

Not exactly the conclusion I was seeing

Big powerful governments were at least objectively in some sense improving their people's lives so the conclusion look like trying to improve people's lives under a Anarchy system is going to be a massive bitch and a half


So I do have to question you on what's the big deal with free will like you don't actually have it you can't express every little thought or whim that you wants to without restrictions

Be them physical social biological scientific other

You're a bag of chemicals tumbling down the stream of time acting on whatever stimulus happens to bump you along the way

@SHEPARD D☭G @Deleted User we need to continue the speech topic here, ill post my responses here

if there is no difference between me speaking and you reading something i wrote, there is something wrong with you, but yes banning any speech isnt right, and both of you i hope at least are smart enough to know the difference between audio and written, but then again, maybe not

<:Kermit:612151522033401856>

OK let's make them completely different

Since there sooooo different let's ban books about mushrooms but not the audio book

Or TV shows about them<:577504126301241356:614732663122690059>


Now let's consider them equally

Banning the same book show etc all count as censorship

I'm sure this is a mere misunderstanding. Its only a distinction due to government, the same arguments apply to both.

Mostly semantics.

Yeah

thinking about it in the right hands such distinction is basically useless because the Venn diagram is basically a circle between the two

in the wrong hands such distinction can be used in a manner similar to the Liberals new cry about how the Second Amendment doesn't cover AR-15s because they only had muskets

Liberals: The constitution should be a living breathing document, that adapts to the times.
Also Liberals: 2a DoEsN't ApPlY tO aR-15's, It'S oNlY fOr MuSkEtS!!

<:Bakard:612150766609629194>

Recorded and written is press, spoken word is speech, this is grade school level, you could look at the legal differences if you want, with as much research as you do

If it only applies to printed works then things such as radio and television or podcasts would not be covered under the First Amendment

Perhaps we should get to the more critical question of what value is there in making this distinction between vocal exclusively and printed exclusively

Unless one is trying to censor one type of speech and get it wrapped up in some sort of mental gymnastics of justification there is little value in making such distinctions