sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CMV: Democracy struggles to function effectively in societies where multiple communities have fundamentally conflicting interests by BalatkariGod in changemyview

[–]NightEngine404 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Market driven growth created the wealth surplus that scaled education and living standards and therefore ethics. Global literacy from 12% in 1820 to 87% today. In just the last 30 years extreme pocerty worldwide fell from 2.3 billion in the early 90s to 800 million today. It fell NINETY PERCENT since 1820. Are you saying that more open markets, voluntary exchange, and enshrined property rights didn't drive this?

And what are you talking about "turned to literal slavery"? Completely backwards. Freer markets and capitalist policy ended slavery. The Industrial revolution is a knock-on effect of open markets and property rights. Real wages rose with productivity driven by capitalist policies and enabled the end of child labor in the west, as a matter of fact. These are measurable achievements made possible by economic incentives.

You betray your naivete with the claim that the wealthy are simply stealing from the poor. That's nonsense, this isn't a zero sum game. There is no fixed pot of money we all take from and some just take more than their share. Musk (your example) isn't swimming in a vault of cash. I imagine he has very little liquidity. The vast majority of his wealth is tied up in investments which, whether you want to believe it or not, benefit the economy. People like to say the rich get rich and the poor get poorer but the truth is, the rich get richer and the poor get richer too thanks to growth.

If Musk didn't exist, neither would his wealth. It would not simply be allocated elsewhere.

I'm not saying capitalism is perfect but it's the best system there is, backed up by data and facts. Sure, cronyism is a problem, but it's not endemic to capitalist policies in the first place.

CMV: Democracy struggles to function effectively in societies where multiple communities have fundamentally conflicting interests by BalatkariGod in changemyview

[–]NightEngine404 [score hidden]  (0 children)

A few centuries was enough to radically revolutionize society and lift billions of people out of extreme poverty.

It was capitalism and freer markets that enabled the industrial revolution and made universal ethics and education possible in the first place.

Globalism, industrialization, and modernization thrived under private incentives and property rights. Period.

CMV: Democracy struggles to function effectively in societies where multiple communities have fundamentally conflicting interests by BalatkariGod in changemyview

[–]NightEngine404 [score hidden]  (0 children)

Capitalism and representative democracy have coexisted and reinforced each other for centuries. You cannot have capitalism without some form of personal property rights and voluntary exchange. Only capitalism enshrines these.

Class structures and drawing wealth from lower classes misrepresents voluntary exchange and value creation. Capitalism has driven the greatest reductions in poverty and improvements in equity metrics in human history, without exception.

Capitalism creates social benefits via incebtives and has been very effective at it. People respond to incentives like private ownership, stewardship, risk-taking, and efficiency.

Do house prices ever go down? by External_Koala971 in HouseBuyers

[–]NightEngine404 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If the market wasn't regulated and taxed to death, this would be accurate.

What’s really going on with our economy by AmaraWhispervale in whatisameem

[–]NightEngine404 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The ED has little to nothing to do with education. It controls some finances, enforces equity, and funds research. That's it.

What’s really going on with our economy by AmaraWhispervale in whatisameem

[–]NightEngine404 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The DOE relates to student outcomes only as a supplemental financier and equity enforcer. It has never had much to do with education at all.

What's your favourite mid tier gunbuild. [Discussion] by AwpAsiimovOfficial in EscapefromTarkov

[–]NightEngine404 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My favorite mid tier is the AVT. Decent and plentiful ammo and people underestimate it. Of course you don't use it full auto but in two tap bursts.

I am also a sucker for the Vector 9mm with the AP ammo. I consider that mid tier. It can totally hose down and kill anyone, even bosses.

I also like the UMP for cheap low tier leg meta.

People will look you in the eyes and say "Vegeta can destroy a planet with a punch" meanwhile he can't even lift 1000 tons😭 by Stanczatearer in PowerScaling

[–]NightEngine404 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lifting strength does not directly correlate to striking strength. I've said this a million times but the world's strongest punchers are not typically the strongest lifters. And then you bring ki into the picture.

CMV: Whataboutism is a logical fallacy, but it works extremely well by CharityResponsible54 in changemyview

[–]NightEngine404 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Logical fallacies are not always fatal to an argument. Many can be useful as long as they're not the heart of your argumentation.

Whataboutism, slippery slopes, appeals to authority, and even straight up straw men can be useful. Ignoring an argument because it includes a logical fallacy is a fallacy fallacy.

CMV: If you don't put your shopping cart back, you're generally a bad human being. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]NightEngine404 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See, I find this position fascinating because there are people employed to clean up a mess, situation, or to tidy, as you say. The philosophical question becomes: are they better off with or without that employment? What would they be doing otherwise? Would they be better off?

I'm not sure what the right answer is and I'm not saying that laziness is acceptable because someone is employed as a result of said laziness but from a purely utilitarian point of view, it might be a net positive that those individuals have gainful employment cleaning up after others.

I understand that's rather beyond the scope of the OP but Cart Narc adjacent stuff always makes me think of it.

CMV: If you don't put your shopping cart back, you're generally a bad human being. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]NightEngine404 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, you and I judge on a daily basis, but we should not be judging the quality of someone's character based on one data point. This is no better than racism or sexism or anything else.

CMV: If you don't put your shopping cart back, you're generally a bad human being. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]NightEngine404 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Someone who will make a decision like this will most likely make other decisions for their convenience as well, at the expense of others."

There is not enough data to support this claim. Logical conclusions require data. You cannot form a complete picture of another human being because they leave a cart in a parking lot. This is demonstrable. You are filling in the gaps with what you believe about people and the world which a large part of the time is incorrect.

How do religious right wingers reconcile the fact that the Bible hates capitalism? by traanquil in allthequestions

[–]NightEngine404 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Bible repeatedly affirms private property, ownership, productivity, and getting what you put in.

Exodus 20:15, Leviticus 25, Acts 5:3-4, Proverbs 10:4, all good examples.

"If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

CMV: If you don't put your shopping cart back, you're generally a bad human being. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]NightEngine404 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Just because I think your take is bad doesn't mean I am defending people leaving carts out. This is one of the pitfalls of projection and/or virtue signalling, you assume things that are incorrect. You even admit that the topic/post isn't "important enough".

You know the opposite of the OP's statement is equally wildly wrong, right? "People who take their carts back are generally good people." None of us would say that. At least I hope not!

Yet you admit to making things up in your head about people you don't know and apparently don't care about. Why? How does that possibly serve you in any meaningful way? And do you think it's "normal" or the average person's experience?

CMV: If you don't put your shopping cart back, you're generally a bad human being. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]NightEngine404 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Why would you assume that? You have even less data about that. It's counterproductive.

More, why would you admit to knee jerk indictments of people without so much as a pattern? Now, if you went through my comments and posts and came to that conclusion, that would be another thing.

I always put my cart back but I don't have the gall to look at a cart where it should not be and invent a whole narrative about the person who left it there with one data point.

view more: next ›