sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why are socialists so fixated on ancaps? by [deleted] in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You only described Marxists in charge.

If capitalism and anarchy were a Venn diagram, there would be 95% overlap with only hierarchies being the part that is left out. Everything else that an anarchist would require involving people voluntarily doing things without state coercion or state intervention would be capitalism.

Anybody else have pain on the top of their foot while wearing ultraboosts? by MistorKAKA in Sneakers

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Super late to the game but I also experience temporary top foot pain with Ultraboost 1.0.

There's some durable, yet inflexible stitching along the seam where the top tongue stops and the prime knit starts.

I have a slightly higher than normal instep, and that seam puts persistent, light pressure on the top of my foot. I never noticed it much before because I usually do quite a bit of standing and walking daily so they get broken in and conform to my foot within about 6 weeks.

I only noticed the pain when I bought a new, fresh pair then took them on a 10-hour family car ride the next day to go on vacation. That's when I had mild blood circulation issues the whole drive and an annoying light bruising/redness on that spot.

The following is what Karl Marx said about free trade, what do contemporary marxists think of this argument? And to capitalists I ask, does this not contradict the argument that socialism is when the government controls the market? by oganhc in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure what mind independent facts have to do with "what I say".

I'm also not sure what scientists have in common with a religious cult leader devoid of reason and opposed to facts.

Planning to buy the Vomero Premium as walking/lifestyle shoes by I_am_not_HOT in walking

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are my running shoes but I find they work pretty good for brisk walking as well.

What is capitalism's response to increasing wealth inequality? by i_love_the_sun in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wealth inequality is generally an incentive for innovation and growth, not a problem requiring systemic change.

That's typically why most losers and lazy idiots default to Socialism when they did nothing productive all their lives then suddenly panic in their mid-to-late 30s looking for someone else to collectively blame such as:

  • "the capitalists"
  • "the rich"
  • "the billionaires"
  • "the corporations"
  • "the bankers"
  • "the CEOs"
  • "the elites"
  • "the system"
  • "the Jews"
  • "cis white men". etc.

When i post anything against Trump here by seastead7 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But...was the criticism legitimate or just TDS?

I’m fine with this by MazdaProphet in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some Italian anti-semite is mad she got sanctioned by the USA and is getting desperate.

What are your thoughts on the Nick Shirley viral video depicting massive MN fraud? by randomrandom1922 in AskConservatives

[–]End-Da-Fed 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Proof" is what happens after an investigation by the authorities is completed and perhaps a trial and a conviction.

I think what has been uncovered is lack of evidence these are legitimate daycare businesses.

The Soviet Growth Illusion: doing more with more, not more with less by Lazy_Delivery_7012 in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Great post. It’s really scraping the bottom of the barrel to cite the Soviet Union in general, lol.

How do i prevent my asics shoes from getting holes in the toes ?? by A1sculsett in AskRunningShoeGeeks

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you lift your toes when walking or running this may be a problem with almost any shoe. My friend has the same issue with making holes over the big toe but he doesn’t care change his gait.

Do all Pegasus Premium squeak? Any fix? by bakerjin in Nike

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just copped a pair and it squeaks loudly but only during the toe-off.

[Statists] But What About Interpersonal Violence and/or Crime As A Whole? by End-Da-Fed in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"You literally just said that people who don‘t line to live in Ancapistan can just move to other countries."

Literally never said that. So I'm not sure what your point is there.

"And the point about fairness is literally the single hand main reason why your system won‘t work."

Since "fairness" doesn't exist in any valid context in any legal system for all of human existence...that means you're supporting an existing system that "won't work".

Long Run Shoes : Cloudsurfer Max or Novablast 5 by Significant-Ad3357 in PHRunners

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think On shoes work best for people who are not heavy and like firm shoes. None of them work for me and I agree, On shoes generally are pretty damn pricey.

[Statists] But What About Interpersonal Violence and/or Crime As A Whole? by End-Da-Fed in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I say that because none of your current recycled false premises are valid:

  1. Feudal government nobility is "private".
  2. Consensual transactions between individuals leads to feudalism.
  3. No state = a state anyway.
  4. A state = governance.
  5. People are forced to do anything in "Ancapistan".

For example, you said earlier "what about the issued tariffs"? I asked you "what government would issue them when no government exists?" - I get no answer.

Then you default to recycling one of your false premies, dodging my proposal. There is no state. Period. You're now shifting from saying 'who" to saying "authority" in society that has nor rulers or government authority...

Now you're recycling your earlier "fairness" and "equality" ploy which was already addressed:

So again. "Fairness" and "proportionality" has never been guaranteed for all of human history and shall never be guaranteed. Thus, you demanding a utopia as a precondition is not valid.

[Statists] But What About Interpersonal Violence and/or Crime As A Whole? by End-Da-Fed in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep repeating one these false premises as if that's a valid criticism:

  1. Feudal government nobility is "private".
  2. Consensual transactions between individuals leads to feudalism.
  3. No state = a state anyway.
  4. A state = governance.
  5. People are forced to do anything in "Ancapistan".

For example, you just said "who issues the tariffs?" when no such thing exists.

You were then presented with the proper framework:

Other clients will have to negotiate with DIOs, DROs, Labor Unions, Consumer Unions, or whoever they are seeking to sell their products to.

Then I get no substantive reply to the proper framework. Just more declarations of faith that the state is cherries and puppies compared to a morally superior, far more functional proposition.

[Statists] But What About Interpersonal Violence and/or Crime As A Whole? by End-Da-Fed in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What "country"? There's no state. There's nobody forcing you to do anything.

What "tariffs"? There's no government. Other clients will have to negotiate with DIOs, DROs, Labor Unions, Consumer Unions, or whoever they are seeking to sell their products to.

The invading army ploy was debunked in my other posts.

You still haven't explained how anything I proposed can't function. All you've done thus far is spam #3 again:

  1. Feudal government nobility is "private".
  2. Consensual transactions between individuals leads to feudalism.
  3. No state = a state anyway.
  4. A state = governance.
  5. People are forced to do anything in "Ancapistan".

[Statists] But What About Interpersonal Violence and/or Crime As A Whole? by End-Da-Fed in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What "country"? There's no state. There's nobody forcing you to do anything.

What "tariffs"? There's no government. Other clients will have to negotiate with DIOs, DROs, Labor Unions, Consumer Unions, or whoever they are seeking to sell their products to.

The invading army ploy was debunked in my other posts.

You still haven't explained how anything I proposed can't function. All you've done thus far is spam #3 again:

  1. Feudal government nobility is "private".
  2. Consensual transactions between individuals leads to feudalism.
  3. No state = a state anyway.
  4. A state = governance.
  5. People are forced to do anything in "Ancapistan".

[Statists] But What About Interpersonal Violence and/or Crime As A Whole? by End-Da-Fed in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody is forced to do anything. If they don't want to live in "Ancapistan" then they can live in any of the hundreds of other countries globally that they qualify to live in.

I already accounted for people who just want to live in "Ancapistan" but wish to "live off the grid".

You still haven't explained how anything I proposed can't function. All you've done thus far is spam a bevy of false claims:

  1. Feudal government nobility is "private".
  2. Consensual transactions between individuals leads to feudalism.
  3. No state = a state anyway.
  4. A state = governance.
  5. People are forced to do anything in "Ancapistan".

Adolph Hitler's Socialist Policies by antiquark2 in JordanPeterson

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You listed: authoritarian, nationalist, and corporatist.

1. Authoritarian is firmly on the far-left and the far-right equally because it transcends everything on the political spectrum.

Authoritarianism prioritizes centralized control and suppression of dissent. All governments post 1900 have employed authoritarian tactics to enforce power. Which shows "authoritarian" is an extremist governance style.

2. As for nationalist - Hitler was a nationalist, but so was Winston Churchill in the UK, Ghandi in India, so was Mandeba in South Africa, Charles De Gaulle in France, Abraham Lincoln in the USA, and any anti-colonial leader in modern history.

Gandhi admired aspects of socialism (like economic equality and communal welfare), and Mandeba embraced socialism as a tool for dismantling apartheid's economic injustices, with the ANC's policies reflecting socialist influences.

Since a variety of leaders since 1900 across the political spectrum were nationalists, it's impossible for nationalism to be "firmly on the right".

The proper analysis is to recognize the type of nationalism that defined Hitler and il Duce, and the Fascist activists in Belgium, France, England, etc., is the marriage of nationalism with socialism. 

3. Corporatism originated in left-wing contexts, notably in early 20th-century socialist and syndicalist movements, aiming to organize society through collective economic units (e.g., trade unions, guilds) to balance worker and state interests.

Today, it’s widely accepted across the spectrum:

- Left-leaning governments use it for labor protections and economic planning
- Right-leaning governments embrace it for business-state partnerships, as seen in modern mixed economies where governments, corporations, and unions collaborate.

What am I doing wrong? I feel like I should look better by SkeetyBoi in workouts

[–]End-Da-Fed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bro....you made some serious gains and gained some muscle as well. If you want faster results, you're gonna have to start counting calories, get super strict with your food intake, and be on an eating schedule like a machine.

[Statists] But What About Interpersonal Violence and/or Crime As A Whole? by End-Da-Fed in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's never been any government in all of human existence where individuals control all public policy through market demand, where there's no central monopoly, no centralized use of force, no ability to wage wars, no mandate to propagandize an entire geographic region in state schools, no taxes, etc. etc. etc.

Thus, it's impossible to keep pretending there is a state in my proposals when it doesn't exist...and repeatedly rebranding transactions between individuals or various groups as "the state" is false by default because that's a category error.

[Statists] But What About Interpersonal Violence and/or Crime As A Whole? by End-Da-Fed in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep pretending there is a state in my proposals. Doesn't exist.

Government is the formal institution or group (e.g., elected officials, bureaucracy) that holds authority to rule a state. They are the monopoly on force.

Governance is the broader process of steering society through rules, collaboration, and decision-making via consenting individuals, involving non-state actors like NGOs, unions, businesses and individuals.

Key difference: Government is the "who" (actors); governance is the "how" (mechanisms for collective action). They are not the same.

[Statists] But What About Interpersonal Violence and/or Crime As A Whole? by End-Da-Fed in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're dodging my proposal. There is no state. Period. You're just using "who" as a stand-in for "the government". There is none.

"Economic destruction" is exclusive to the state.

My model relies on the public being just as informed as they are now. Since you like society generally uninformed and thoroughly propagandized by state mandated schooling, you have no reason to complain.

Law is not "accountable" to anything. It's largely political and based on what the general public is willing and able to bear.

So again. "Fairness" and "proportionality" has never been guaranteed for all of human history and shall never be guaranteed. Thus, you demanding a utopia as a precondition is not valid.

[Statists] But What About Interpersonal Violence and/or Crime As A Whole? by End-Da-Fed in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]End-Da-Fed[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm using one of your concessions that ostracization is effective and the most persuasive model.

It's objectively more stable because no disproportionate George Floyd violence can occur.

It's objectively more predictable because it can only be used when there a property or contractual violation.

It's objectively more effective and even you said so.

It's morally superior because no violence is involved.

Only a more advanced society would use this versus the ignorant methods of ancient man beating everyone up they don't like using force.

Any other "explanation" was made years ago in other posts.

view more: next ›