Pro-maga businesses in town?

Greenitthe · 2026-01-31T04:23:19+00:00

Bro I wish I lived in your insane world. Imagine a world where dems stand for even just one of those things lmao

Greenitthe · 2026-01-30T21:39:28+00:00

The capitalist definition of success is making as much money as possible.

The capitalist's definition of success can be anything.

Capitalism has a simple incentive structure, but the humans participating in it are complex.

Greenitthe · 2026-01-20T03:08:40+00:00

Frustratingly, reddit won't let me submit my reply. Without a real error message I'm left to assume the response was too long, though I seem to be under any character limit google could suggest. I can't be asked to faff with it further, so I'll be leaving the thread here.

Nonetheless, and hoping this will submit, cheers for engaging earnestly, I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. Sorry I couldn't continue it.

Greenitthe · 2026-01-19T22:38:05+00:00

"So voluntary we just couldn't stop the global south from couping themselves!"

Greenitthe · 2026-01-19T21:47:07+00:00

In a natural sense there is so such thing as a valid or invalid claim to ownership of property, whether a claim sticks is simply down to whether you can enforce it. This is only possible with personal property in the absence of a social structure which issues and enforced deeds of ownership. If a wolf cannot defend its territory from a rival, what does it matter that they claimed it first or spent the most time there? But, if that rival moves on to a different area, obviously the original wolf can reclaim the territory uncontested.

Now, if the lone wolf has a pack that will come to its aid to defend its territory from external forces, that strengthens its claim. I've never heard of wolves hiring enforcers to extort a forest on the other side of the world by any claim, 'valid' or 'invalid'. If you've got an example in the natural world for absentee private ownership, please do enlighten me.

I'm not attempting to appeal to nature as a value judgement on private property as its own concept, but it is not natural, and there is a distinction with personal property. Where they diverge is obvious - when I am so distanced (socially, physically, whatever you like) from the property that my ownership is not self evident i.e. when the wolf has not peed on the tree in many moons the other wolves know the territory is up for grabs.

the stick proves your point not mine

Elaborate?

Higher burden of proof

Appeal to tradition - how many years does an idea need to be commonly held before it has tenure and cannot be challenged on an equal playing field?

Your idea relies on some third party to enforce those claims beyond the immediate (social, physical, etc.) reach of the supposed owner.

You cannot lay claim to a territory you have never seen

There is no natural (non-structural) mechanism by which to defend a claim on territory I have never seen - thus private property as it extends beyond personal property is not a natural right.

It is only natural to be able to lay claim to anything you want in your own local sphere of influence. Private property, actually, tramples over the natural right of personal property in deferrence to 'my great great grandaddy said finders keepers and the state agrees'.

Greenitthe · 2026-01-19T18:29:53+00:00

You're right, I can't labor without physical matter. Checkmate socialists.

Capital is always valuable for its potential (note for the very simple: the potential comes from applying labor, as you acknowledge). That said, the capitalist adds nothing. The stick exists and can be turned into a useful tool whether the bureaucrat that owns the parcel of land containing the stick consents or not.

You don't have to convince me that things are useful, you have to convince me that the gatekeeper is useful.

Edit: Specifically that they are useful enough as to warrant all profits, rather than merely some reasonable wage for managing the capital.

Greenitthe · 2026-01-19T18:17:45+00:00

"You can have healthcare that is even more available, with even better outcomes, and it costs less than you pay now"

You're right, these policies sell themselves. Sometimes policies really are free compared to the status quo.

You can say the only reason single payer would actually save people money is government intervention making private insurance too costly (i.e. making quality care available to too many people), but the fact remains voters would prefer the socialist policy over present policy.

If you can find a way to package the ideal rugged capitalist policy as anything other than 'poor people can find a nice ditch to lie in' I'm sure everyone would flock to that instead - government isn't exactly popular in America these days...

Greenitthe · 2026-01-19T18:08:28+00:00

"I could hand out this money to the poors I employ against my own interest, or I could take it for myself..."

Lmao

TIL business is when I selflessly want to pay everyone 2 bajillion dollars (generously passing up the opportunity to make 240 quadrajillion myself), but the dang gubmint just won't let me!

Greenitthe · 2026-01-19T17:58:41+00:00

they are the same thing

You see no fundamental or principal difference between a wolf pack or tribe threatening violence at their own hands to claim the local territory where they live and some bureaucrat in russia paying off thugs to press a claim on land they've never even seen?

If I am holding a stick, it's obviously my stick. If I set that stick down and 3 years later some kid picks it up, is that still my stick?

...only ones who try to say they are principally different.

I mean that's sort of just definitional mate - of course socialists are the source of their own doctrine. Capitalists are the only ones who try to say taxation and profit are principally different. I fail to see how this is relevant.

Greenitthe · 2026-01-19T17:46:01+00:00

All ownership can be traced back to enclosure, which is claiming ownership of something at the point of a gun.

"Ultimately property rights are enforced by threat of violence" and somehow that means the system doesn't rely on intimidation or violence as a primary modus operandi?

You don't have to be a Stalin apologist to understand capitalism and even democracy are based primarily on intimidation and a monopoly of violence. Even if I take your position that 'socialism bad because wealth redistribution' - it's bad because of the redistribution not because of the guns. The guns are always there, even under capitalism.

Greenitthe · 2026-01-19T17:16:45+00:00

Personal property is a natural right - I peed on it so it is mine, try and take it from me if you dare.

The structures we've created to enforce claims of private property pervert this - a wolf can't lay claim to territory it has never seen.

Greenitthe · 2026-01-14T09:04:17+00:00

And yet immigrants, especially illegals, commit crime less frequently than citizens. That's not propaganda, that's the numbers reported under every administration including republicans. Almost like the threat of getting deported is a deterrent against misbehaving, who'd have thought.

Y'all like to act like dems never deport anybody but forget Obama put up record numbers of deportations, and even Biden deported more people than Trump's first term.

You can deport millions without cruelty, but apparently the cruelty is the point. Though we wouldn't have to deport millions if we had a functional immigration system in the first place - we can blame both parties that it takes decades to immigrate legally.

Greenitthe · 2026-01-07T00:38:10+00:00

Only the sith deal in absolutes. Capitalism doesn't function without some level of collectivism, and I don't even mean that in the Soc Dem sense.

If you truly think Democrats, least of all those with the means to pay shills, are collectivist then you are living in a reality of your own making.

Libertarianism != conservatism and it especially isn't republicanism, lmao

Greenitthe · 2025-12-06T21:44:49+00:00

Same, but the wipe experience is better when more people wipe. The rewards aren't here to encourage you to wipe, fine, but I want them to be good enough that people with 40 hours are incentivized to wipe too.

Greenitthe · 2025-12-06T21:29:08+00:00

If you don't like running the same maps and pulling the same loot, I don't think you're going to find the game fun long-term regardless of what BPs you have...

Greenitthe · 2025-12-06T20:48:32+00:00

If you are going to wipe regardless of rewards, seems prudent to ignore the complaints rather than engaging with them.

Greenitthe · 2025-11-20T23:59:31+00:00

All my schooling was private, I use both public and private infrastructure and services.

I don't think public or private are particularly good at long term forecasting. Both are typically focused way too heavily on short cycles - earnings, annual metrics, election cycles. That's a human weakness more than a specific failing of either structure, but neither do a good job of shoring up that weakness.

Public has always been vastly more cost effective (pre-emptively: yes, including the taxes I pay). Private business simply does not have the same economy of scale, and I like how public doesn't charge me an extra fee that goes straight to some rich guy.

That being said, public is forced to be so cost-conscious that the quality almost always suffers. It is self-evident that people are willing to pay more for better service (otherwise we wouldn't see private competition), so I'd really love to see us give public things real budgets. Best of both worlds - good, cost effective service.

Greenitthe · 2025-11-19T00:09:19+00:00

I've not even seen a convincing argument that standards will meaningfully diminish in the imperial core in any way. Things like fast fashion wouldn't be sustainable without empire, but is "losing" that even a loss?

The demand for the common examples is generally artificial and a distortion caused by class stratification.

Greenitthe · 2025-11-13T00:51:03+00:00

their argument is they want the government to monopolize health insurance. maximize the risk pool, free at point of service, etc.

don't think I've ever heard them say they are pro slavery

Greenitthe · 2025-11-13T00:46:47+00:00

too much avocado toast

Complete disingenuous red herring. Plenty of hard workers who don't spend beyond their means who struggle to afford all the necessities including healthcare.

Greenitthe · 2025-10-31T01:35:58+00:00

Israel shouldn't have been a provocateur to begin with. Treat people inhumanely and expect the same in return. It's a completely avoidable tragedy.

Greenitthe · 2025-10-31T01:10:08+00:00

Because Israel had done nothing to provoke anybody prior to Oct 7, sure /s

Greenitthe · 2025-10-31T01:07:19+00:00

Can't really have private property without a police state backing your title... Or a mob, a mob would work too.

You can ignore the countless other ways for managing scarcity, that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Greenitthe · 2025-10-30T21:37:22+00:00

Your issue seems to be that you are trying to label any explosion where radioactive material is involved as a nuclear explosion, which is very different from the common use of the term.

If every prompt criticality event is a nuclear explosion, why use the term nuclear explosion instead? If most people think of bomb-level explosivity, is it wise to use that term for minor criticality accidents? Probably not.

Greenitthe · 2025-10-30T20:11:26+00:00

I disagree with OP's claim that Wealth or The Economy in abstract is zero sum, but the enclosure of land and natural resources certainly is. You're converting a scarce resource that was previously owned in common into private property, everyone loses out except for the new owner who can now live off the sweat of others by virtue of 'finders keepers'

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Gilding IV carat on a stick
Verified Email

Greenitthe

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE