On May 15 2020 01:25 Liquid`Drone wrote:
We currently have many rating systems that solve that problem that companies pay to have this approval even in the private sector, Kosher for food products, ISO for industries etc, these rating agencies will exist to provide the stamp of approval and will be far more resistant to corruption and bureocracy than the state ones (FDA, EPA etc).
If you are willing to say free market has never existed and can be pursued then I'm willing to say socialilsm has never existed and can be pursued and we can continue the discussion on that, but, if like Loco somebody says this is the inevitable form of the free market while at the same time disociating from the horrors of past attempts of socialism thats where I stop any further discussion because these people are clearly intellectually dishonest.
Its not empirically impossible to test it, and these hole poking is mostly "would you be able to sell your slave-child organs?" which just picture a cartoonish world depict of any morality whatsoever, perhaps thats sadly how many leftits truly picture the individual in the absence of a state.
Shouldn't your intellectual honesty be independent of your perceived intellectual honesty of other posters?[/QUOTE]
I've made my position clear before, I believe collectivism is viable but its very dependant on lets call it "civility" and scarcity I said I envision a distant future where a post-scarcity society makes much more sense being socialist than capitalist, a bit like how its been in your country, I think we are not ready though and its quite possible to improve our current system though.
It's not like I've shut debate before trying to talk these things, I just do it when the retarded cockatoo comes sqawking his hot takes about improving capitalism pipedream, revolution very viable and nothing to do with previous revolutions, capitalism kills parrots and eats babies.
On May 15 2020 03:04 Baalim wrote:
if the FDA does something corrupt what is going to happen? nothing its a state monopoly with no accountability.
This highly depends on the type of government, right? In theory, it would cause public outlash instantaneously and new policies will be put in place to prevent this from ever occurring. In theory a lot of things sound cool ( communism am i right)
What is to stop monopolies from creating an authoritarian type leadership like "Brave New World" expands upon? Its just changing one form of leadership with another which in theory should be more beneficial to the public, even though in theory the current government should be serving the public, while private organizations should be serving their own interests. Yet you argue that serving their own interests would benefit everyone?
On May 15 2020 03:04 Baalim wrote:
if the FDA does something corrupt what is going to happen? nothing its a state monopoly with no accountability.
This highly depends on the type of government, right? In theory, it would cause public outlash instantaneously and new policies will be put in place to prevent this from ever occurring. In theory a lot of things sound cool ( communism am i right)
What is to stop monopolies from creating an authoritarian type leadership like "Brave New World" expands upon? Its just changing one form of leadership with another which in theory should be more beneficial to the public, even though in theory the current government should be serving the public, while private organizations should be serving their own interests. Yet you argue that serving their own interests would benefit everyone?
What if amazon creates an army and what literally blows up the competition? lol thats silly, would you buy from them if they did?.
Also I find it funny that what people worry about in the absence of a state is either currently not being solved by the existence of a state, or what they fear is actually being done by the state
You fear two things, huge monopolies that shouldn't exist since punishing monopolic practices is supposesd to be their job, but they do the opposite.
You fear a big corporation buildilng an army and enforce their law and being untouchable, you basically described a state.
Yes, I would. If Jeff Bezos personally killed all of my family members and took a shit in my face while I'm asleep, I would still use the Amazon Kindle, and if my Kindle broke, I'd get another one. It allows me to save up too much money to pass up on. Virtually all the people who are living paycheck to paycheck--which is almost 80% of the workers in the US--would also keep using Amazon no matter how anti-competitive they are. They buy cheap products because they can't afford anything else. Amazon can make things cheaper than everyone else. That's the bottom line. It's not that complicated.
The whole idea that Amazon is this big because it's somehow an ethical enough business is preposterous nonsense. Their anti-competitive practices are well documented, and their employees are glorified 21st century cotton-picking slaves whose quotas keep getting more demanding as they meet them and they can't unionize.
But let's just say knowing all of this I decided to boycott Amazon. Jeff Bezos doesn't just invest in his own company, he has huge investments in a number of other companies that are almost definitely a part of your life, so you're still making him tons of money unless you boycott everything that he touches including things like Airbnb, Google, Twitter and Uber. Amazon also provides web services for the fucking BBC, Netflix, Twitch.tv, Reddit, Spotify, Facebook, Linkedin, ESPN, and so many more.
Not to mention that there are people who can't go shopping due to disabilities or can't risk shopping because they're immunocompromised or some family members are, so they have to rely on delivery services during the pandemic; it's impossible for them to boycott amazon. It's too idealistic, if not impossible, and it's meaningless, since it's impossible to organize enough people around these decisions in a society that actively fosters individualistic atomization and apoliticalism at best and and an apathetic "I've got mine, fuck you" or sociopathic attitude at worst.
The idea of boycotting billionaires as some form of resistance is a sick joke. It's like thinking you can reshape Mt. Fuji by throwing peanuts at it. If billionaires could be hurt by such tactics they would find ways around maintaining their powers. They make the rules, you suffer them. Whatever power you think you have on the market is an illusion.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
The first thing that would happen in such a society is all potential companies in all potential markets that can get to an oligopoly will sit down and collide with no one to regulate them and then we'll literally become slaves without any say whatsoever
I think your biggest argument against the government is that they are inefficient, which is true except you completely dismiss any advantages they bring. You're implying private agencies would be the ones 'regulating' the businesses through assessment of their ethics and rating them.... cmon. If you'd rely on the masses that heavily you should have a very strong belief in people, which I doubt you do
On May 16 2020 21:29 Loco wrote:
"would you buy from them if they did"
Yes, I would. If Jeff Bezos personally killed all of my family members and took a shit in my face while I'm asleep, I would still use the Amazon Kindle, and if my Kindle broke, I'd get another one. It allows me to save up too much money to pass up on
You are either a liar or you are the most pathetic being I've known in my life
Ex-PokerStars Team Pro Online
1
blackjacki2 United States. May 17 2020 10:49. Posts 2581
On May 16 2020 21:29 Loco wrote:
Yes, I would. If Jeff Bezos personally killed all of my family members and took a shit in my face while I'm asleep, I would still use the Amazon Kindle, and if my Kindle broke, I'd get another one. It allows me to save up too much money to pass up on. Virtually all the people who are living paycheck to paycheck--which is almost 80% of the workers in the US--would also keep using Amazon no matter how anti-competitive they are. They buy cheap products because they can't afford anything else. Amazon can make things cheaper than everyone else. That's the bottom line. It's not that complicated.
.
Isn't it odd that nearly 80% of workers in the US are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford anything else? Surely they don't all earn the same amount of money. So the guy earning $500/week just barely has enough to get by. The guy that earns $1000/week just barely has enough to get by. The guy that earns $1500/week just barely has enough to get by. Funny how that works.
On May 16 2020 21:29 Loco wrote:
Yes, I would. If Jeff Bezos personally killed all of my family members and took a shit in my face while I'm asleep, I would still use the Amazon Kindle, and if my Kindle broke, I'd get another one. It allows me to save up too much money to pass up on. Virtually all the people who are living paycheck to paycheck--which is almost 80% of the workers in the US--would also keep using Amazon no matter how anti-competitive they are. They buy cheap products because they can't afford anything else. Amazon can make things cheaper than everyone else. That's the bottom line. It's not that complicated.
.
Isn't it odd that nearly 80% of workers in the US are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford anything else? Surely they don't all earn the same amount of money. So the guy earning $500/week just barely has enough to get by. The guy that earns $1000/week just barely has enough to get by. The guy that earns $1500/week just barely has enough to get by. Funny how that works.
I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be a point towards Baal's argument but I'm presuming so. The USA is a perfect example for what you're saying simply because consumerism is considered a virtue and that is a direct cause of the 'free market'
I've never heard of cases in other countries where people line up in front of a store days before the release of some new product and camp it out just so they could be the first to buy it. And that's just one scenario of many... Brainwashing at its finest. I think it comes with the entire " you'll sleep when you're dead" " live now, spend now, don't worry about the future" and working 80 hour weeks type of lifestyle that is promoted. And honestly its easily seen in other stats like the amount of diabetes per capita cases with more than 10% of the country having it, it's also known that lack of healthy sleep schedule increases the chance of diabetes heavily (obv not the single factor there but plays a good part)
None of the above is propaganda pushed by the government in any way. In fact, EU governments have strict policies that restrict employers and businesses to try to push such propaganda. Yet Baal argues the free market will save us all, thats a good joke.
P.S. A good amount of the social behaviour described above is also observed in China, with the public health stats being similar. So you could technically cause the same thing through a government, except it has to be an authoritarian one.
On May 16 2020 21:29 Loco wrote:
"would you buy from them if they did"
Yes, I would. If Jeff Bezos personally killed all of my family members and took a shit in my face while I'm asleep, I would still use the Amazon Kindle, and if my Kindle broke, I'd get another one. It allows me to save up too much money to pass up on
You are either a liar or you are the most pathetic being I've known in my life
Scenario number 1:
I stop using the Kindle and deprive myself of the #1 activity that contributes to my well-being: an activity which is done at virtually no cost to me and which I value enormously because I try to live minimalistically and frugally. Bezos is not affected.
Scenario number 2:
I keep using the Kindle (because there is no better alternative to it) and keep saving tons of money by reading pirated books, and using less electricity. (If I wasn't on the Kindle, I'd be using the computer a lot more). Bezos is also not affected.
Only a child would think that his "great act of resistance" is good when it comes at a great cost for them and the person they are resisting against is not aware of it or affected by it. Grow up.
I'll make a vulgar analogy that you should be able to understand: boycotting someone like Bezos at this point in time, knowing what we know about him and the system--if we are paying attention--is almost the equivalent of floating your last building as Terran while you wait for your opponent to hopefully disconnect or them having to leave the game before they can build an anti-air unit. Except in the latter case, it at least has a very small chance of working out in your favor.
When you've lost, the rational thing to do is to learn from your mistakes and grow up. You quit the game, stop hoping, stop denying, stop pretending like there is a chance within that particular game.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On May 16 2020 21:29 Loco wrote:
Yes, I would. If Jeff Bezos personally killed all of my family members and took a shit in my face while I'm asleep, I would still use the Amazon Kindle, and if my Kindle broke, I'd get another one. It allows me to save up too much money to pass up on. Virtually all the people who are living paycheck to paycheck--which is almost 80% of the workers in the US--would also keep using Amazon no matter how anti-competitive they are. They buy cheap products because they can't afford anything else. Amazon can make things cheaper than everyone else. That's the bottom line. It's not that complicated.
.
Isn't it odd that nearly 80% of workers in the US are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford anything else? Surely they don't all earn the same amount of money. So the guy earning $500/week just barely has enough to get by. The guy that earns $1000/week just barely has enough to get by. The guy that earns $1500/week just barely has enough to get by. Funny how that works.
It might seem odd if you don't take into account a few other variables, like the fact that the cost of living isn't the same everywhere, and a society built on social stratification makes people desire and pursue upward social mobility, which makes them spend more if they can. The quality of life of the person who can spend a lot more, even if they are living paycheck to paycheck, is typically higher (excluding obvious medically related circumstances). If you can afford to live in a nicer area that's not a food desert and where you can actually get some decent sleep at night, it's always going to be more desirable than living in squalor so you can save up a bit more. People are also paying back their student loans and credit cards, so earning more doesn't mean they can afford to save money, and the US economy relies on this happening, so it's not just something you can blame on the individuals.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On May 16 2020 21:29 Loco wrote:
Yes, I would. If Jeff Bezos personally killed all of my family members and took a shit in my face while I'm asleep, I would still use the Amazon Kindle, and if my Kindle broke, I'd get another one. It allows me to save up too much money to pass up on. Virtually all the people who are living paycheck to paycheck--which is almost 80% of the workers in the US--would also keep using Amazon no matter how anti-competitive they are. They buy cheap products because they can't afford anything else. Amazon can make things cheaper than everyone else. That's the bottom line. It's not that complicated.
.
Isn't it odd that nearly 80% of workers in the US are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford anything else? Surely they don't all earn the same amount of money. So the guy earning $500/week just barely has enough to get by. The guy that earns $1000/week just barely has enough to get by. The guy that earns $1500/week just barely has enough to get by. Funny how that works.
On May 16 2020 21:29 Loco wrote:
Yes, I would. If Jeff Bezos personally killed all of my family members and took a shit in my face while I'm asleep, I would still use the Amazon Kindle, and if my Kindle broke, I'd get another one. It allows me to save up too much money to pass up on. Virtually all the people who are living paycheck to paycheck--which is almost 80% of the workers in the US--would also keep using Amazon no matter how anti-competitive they are. They buy cheap products because they can't afford anything else. Amazon can make things cheaper than everyone else. That's the bottom line. It's not that complicated.
.
Isn't it odd that nearly 80% of workers in the US are living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford anything else? Surely they don't all earn the same amount of money. So the guy earning $500/week just barely has enough to get by. The guy that earns $1000/week just barely has enough to get by. The guy that earns $1500/week just barely has enough to get by. Funny how that works.
It might seem odd if you don't take into account a few other variables, like the fact that the cost of living isn't the same everywhere, and a society built on social stratification makes people desire and pursue upward social mobility, which makes them spend more if they can. The quality of life of the person who can spend a lot more, even if they are living paycheck to paycheck, is typically higher (excluding obvious medically related circumstances). If you can afford to live in a nicer area that's not a food desert and where you can actually get some decent sleep at night, it's always going to be more desirable than living in squalor so you can save up a bit more. People are also paying back their student loans and credit cards, so earning more doesn't mean they can afford to save money, and the US economy relies on this happening, so it's not just something you can blame on the individuals.
I stop using the Kindle and deprive myself of the #1 activity that contributes to my well-being: an activity which is done at virtually no cost to me and which I value enormously because I try to live minimalistically and frugally. Bezos is not affected.
Scenario number 2:
I keep using the Kindle (because there is no better alternative to it) and keep saving tons of money by reading pirated books, and using less electricity. (If I wasn't on the Kindle, I'd be using the computer a lot more). Bezos is also not affected.
Only a child would think that his "great act of resistance" is good when it comes at a great cost for them and the person they are resisting against is not aware of it or affected by it. Grow up.
I'll make a vulgar analogy that you should be able to understand: boycotting someone like Bezos at this point in time, knowing what we know about him and the system--if we are paying attention--is almost the equivalent of floating your last building as Terran while you wait for your opponent to hopefully disconnect or them having to leave the game before they can build an anti-air unit. Except in the latter case, it at least has a very small chance of working out in your favor.
When you've lost, the rational thing to do is to learn from your mistakes and grow up. You quit the game, stop hoping, stop denying, stop pretending like there is a chance within that particular game.
Spineless and pathetic.
I would make the count of montecristo look like a children's book about forgiveness, and no, I wouldn't use the products of the murderer of my family because I have self respect.
"I wouldn't use the products of the people who have killed my family" is a statement that is missing the implied follow up statement: "but I'm ok with using the products of those who kill other people's families." It's also precisely why you stan for unfettered capitalism with all your might: "better them than my own!" is all there is to it. Anyone who knows anything about capitalism knows that this is how it is structurally engineered to work, mainly through the divide between the Global North and the Global South.
It would make no real difference if you stopped using his products, and you'd still use the things that he has invested in, which also benefits him, and you'd still be participating in a world where you see his brand, his name, his products -- you would be reminded of his power (and your powerlessness) constantly. You wouldn't stop using "his products" and services out of self-respect, but out of frustration and self-delusion.
The delusion that you would be doing something meaningful in your egoic self-absorption might help you deal with the grief momentarily, in the same way that someone who engages in magical thinking and turns to pseudoscience and pseudospirituality to deal with illness, but you'd find it a very small comfort when the entire system that you promote would keep serving his greed and interests.
You'd be deluding yourself that you are doing something courageous while most of the world's population have real issues to deal with, like how they're going to survive within the next few years in the dystopian hellhole of a neoliberal society they live in. While you delude yourself and play pretend, many of them are doing what is actually courageous: committing to a real struggle, educating themselves and building mutual aid networks. Meanwhile you preach that market solutions are the answer to market-caused problems, and you advocate to oppress those who are less socio-economically fortunate than you even further by advocating for more corporate dominance and social atomisation.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
No wonder why you are so system-focused and always spare the individual responsibility its because you are such a pusilanomous cunt that you would lick the asshole of your literal family murderer for a few bucks.
Think he's just viewing this from a rational standpoint without being emotional, which makes sense? Your hypothetical situation would only end up hurting yourself further and accomplish nothing else. It's self-imposed masochism for some hypothetical justice.
Entertaining debate. Stefan is a pathetic debater. No wonder it took him a year to accept this debate, he would have never taken this risk if his situation wasn't so precarious and he felt like he needed the attention even if he got crushed.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On May 19 2020 14:33 Loco wrote:
Entertaining debate. Stefan is a pathetic debater. No wonder it took him a year to accept this debate, he would have never taken this risk if his situation wasn't so precarious and he felt like he needed the attention even if he got crushed.
Hehe Dr Ben Burgis, when I google him one of the first things showing up is him praising Cuba. Why do all leftists love this country, nr 143 (worse than Afghanistan) in the democracy index ?
United States. May 18 2020 22:06. Posts 8538
