Message from @ARockRaider
Discord ID: 651287681027801119
well it's easy to get someone to agree to free stuff for them.
Yeah I mean to someone who doesn't know how wealth is created, or who needs to survive from day to day, "free stuff" surely sounds very good
One thing that desperately needs changing in the common perception is that wealth is a zero sum game
It's absolute not zero sum, and we can prove it by seeing how much wealthier capitalist-leaning nations have become over time.
that would be nice, but I don't think that would change most peoples thoughts on takeing more form a class they will never be in.
In fact all nations all over the world have become wealthier over time.
And that includes the people ate the bonttom
funny enough, it is basic math that says wealth grows.
we mine more form the ground every day, we find more use for the 'waste' every day.
Yep, efficiency has gone up a lot
speaking of, people need to chill with worrying about land fills.
right now i work hauling stuff into a land fill, they get something like 100 loads a day, most being full sized trucks.
you can't see the landfill unless you are above the tree line and even then, it would just look like a hill.
there is also next to no litter on the road leading up to it, it is all cought by the fence around the hill.
Unfortunately I've only ever learned one perspective about landfills, so idk how relevant they are atm
Is it comparable to the misconceptions about nuclear energy?
I would assume so, form what i always heard before I was working at one landfills were dirty wastefull things.
modern landfills are just big trash bags, nothing nasty gets out of them and they even give off gasses that can be burned for enegry if one wanted to do that.
I would love to see them try.
it's 7 and a half min long, but totes worth if you are at all worried about countries just flinging nukes at each other.
i'm not Trump, but my answer to North Korea makeing such a threat would be park a target in the middle of the pacific and ask them to hit it within a weak.
Lol
North Korea is that little brother who messed up a holiday once and hasn't received motherly love since, and now his older siblings are trying to clean up after her mess
I mean it has been stalemated since feb the negotiations
"you think you scare me? I would love a reason to flatten everything you are and to split what is left between South Korea and China."
I think they don't want Pompeo to be involved too for some reason
I think my first attack would be hitting all strategic targets on the same hour, if what was left didn't just give up after that I would let the others take care of it on the ground.
oh, it's about the size of Maine... wow...
MCP looks like police of vice and virtue in disguise.
@ETBrooD. Socialism isn't just wealth distribution. That can just be a "tax to fund services capitalism" deal. That happens a lot in European countries. SOCIALISM is a system where production and services are not under private control. The state will have Monopoly powers over products and services and the economy that is concerned with those things. A lot of socialists point at particular European countries and say "see, it works there". But they're wrong, those countries are capitalism based (often tourism) and tax the fuck out of their citizens and the money is redistributed through welfare and health care systems. Or, they give cash back to people who buy certain things like electric cars. Again, that's not socialism.
A country can have many or few socialist policies, each socialist policy adds to the overall standing of the country. There are two essential ideas that can be turned into policies, one is the redistribution of wealth (e.g. taxes), the other is the collectivization of the means of production. There are a few more fringe ideas that can also be considered socialist, but those two are the major ones.
So socialism is of course not *just* wealth REdistribution (emphasis on RE, because it's about involuntary distribution, i.e. using force/coercion rather than negotiation), as I have also said so myself.
Every single socialist policy is socialist, but of course the whole country can still be considered capitalist if the sum of all policies are more capitalist than socialist.
So therefore "socialism is xyz" as a complete package of set ideas paints a false picture of what socialism is, as there is a wide range of policies that would be considered socialist, and the argument that a country can only be either-or, and not a mix between capitalism and socialism, is wrong.
At which point exactly a country should be considered capitalist or socialist (how many socialist policies must be or must not be in place) isn't something that has been decided by anyone, it's just a label to roughly identify a country's sum of its policies.
E.g. most people would argue the US is more capitalist and should therefore be considered a capitalist country. But others would argue that it has so much socialism that it should be considered mixed.
An example that demonstrates why the amount of wealth redistribution is so crucial in deciding the label of capitalism or socialism is if taxes are raised to 100% for example. In such a case it'd be abundantly clear that the country must be considered mainly socialist because no capital ever gets to be private in the first place. Even with the means of production in private hands it would be overwhelmingly socialist.
Likewise if the means of production are entirely collectivized, even if taxes are at 0% it would have to be considered a mostly socialist country.
I personally would argue that redistribution of wealth brings more socialism than collectivization of the means of production does.
But that'd be more an example of it not being always obvious what constitutes more/less socialism.