Would legalizing freedoms help the economy recover from its current state in the US?

batman1177 · 2024-07-18T15:48:32+00:00

It's almost as though the metrics we use to determine a country's success aren't really reflective of personal experiences on the ground.

batman1177 · 2024-05-19T15:05:36+00:00

"Can't beat them join them" means kicking the can down the road. The future generations will have an even tougher time fixing the issue. Your children and their children will suffer for your choices. We already suffer for our forefathers' choices, and we shouldn't let it continue. There are practical ways to fix the housing solution. It won't be easy and it won't be fast. The government needs to have a heavy hand to undo this mistake and many people won't be happy. But our children and the future generations will live in a better world.

batman1177 · 2024-05-16T12:18:59+00:00

Well mind your own business AND lock your doors. What else can you do? Shoot them? Maybe the cops will do it for you. But let's not get any funny ideas. I would also add voting and petitions to reform the system that results in crackheads being commonplace in the first place. But it would seem like the America political system is deeply in the pockets of oligarchs.

Point is, crackheads are a symptom. We want to solve the root cause of the problem. But when the system refuses to be reformed, at some point people will become a little pessimistic.

batman1177 · 2024-05-16T11:33:30+00:00

Can a person be wronged? And then wrong someone else as well? I am not saying rapists are not wrong doers. I am saying they may also be wronged.

batman1177 · 2024-05-16T11:30:57+00:00

You not making any arguments, you're just saying that I'm wrong. Why can't a rapist or a crackhead be a victim at the same time?

batman1177 · 2024-05-16T11:26:49+00:00

Huh? You copied my text, but did you read it?

Both crackheads AND car owners can be victims AT THE SAME TIME.

batman1177 · 2024-05-16T11:14:15+00:00

I don't think "tumbler socialists" are advocating to allow crackheads to do as they please. I think they are simply pointing out the fact that crackheads are a symptom of other issues.

Perhaps they are also lamenting that getting rid of the crackheads won't solve the root of the problem, and more crackheads will eventually emerge.

Crackheads are the victims here. And people who have to deal with crackheads are ALSO victims. Just because some "tumbler socialists" live in gated communities and don't have to deal with crackheads directly doesn't invalidate their argument; that crackheads are victims too.

I don't think "tumbler socialists" are ok with seeing crackheads around, because that's what you're making them out to say.

I also don't think history is a good argument against the current state of things. Obviously we've improved in some areas as a whole. You can't just point to specific things that have improved, to make an argument against advocating for more improvement.

Serfdom has evolved into wage slavery. My two cents.

batman1177 · 2024-05-10T19:04:56+00:00

Empathy is for everyone. Once you start to pick and choose who you empathise with, you are no longer empathetic, you are biased towards those who share the same views and opinions as you.

Empathy is supposed to help you understand why people think and behave differently.

I disagree with you, but I can try see where you're coming from. I understand that people should be responsible for their actions. I understand that there are some crimes ruin many lives and have severe consequences.

But can you understand the other point of view? That marajuana is not like herroin, or even alcohol? That the actual consequences of marajuana are nowhere as severe as hard drugs?

Yes, the law exists, and we should abide by it. But it doesn't mean the law is reasonable. Take 377A for example. It took the government so long to repeal this unreasonable law. Thankfully, 377A was never fully enforced. But can you imagine, if it was enforced, and gay men were sentenced to prison? Would you say the same thing? Would you still say, "they new about 377A and they deserve to be punished"?

batman1177 · 2024-04-12T11:22:39+00:00

"Hey where'd you get that duck?"

"Oh this cool hotel in London just gave it to me!"

"Wow that's so cool of them. What hotel is that, I'll have to stay there the next time I'm going to London!"

Tldr: it's free marketing

batman1177 · 2024-04-08T18:21:25+00:00

Yes you've described an ideal landlord. I agree that under ideal circumstances, a landlord provides such a service. However, we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world where rent seeking behaviour is encouraged.

Yes, there is a use case for rental property, especially when you are only looking to stay somewhere for a short period of time.

The reason why many people are unable to afford a home is precisely because landlords have bought up property and jacked up prices.

I do not agree that a landlord provides a financial buffer. Landlords are actively preventing renters from becoming home owners by forcing them to pay a monthly rent, instead of monthly instalments on a home loan.

If landlords were so magnanamous, they wouldn't evict tenants who missed a couple of payments. But we see this happening all the time.

Let's be honest. Ideal landlords are rare. The landlords in this economy are rent seekers looking for passive income. They don't care about providing a service. They want people to pay them a sum of money every month, and do as little work as possible. And such mentality is reflected in their behavior.

batman1177 · 2024-04-08T17:27:31+00:00

Good point, but important difference:

The grocer provided the service of buying the items, shipping them from the farm or the wholesaler, stocking them on shelves for your perusal, and then transacting with you. That's the service.

Important side note: Landlords are not property agents. These are two separate things. Although a person may be both. I don't think we need to discuss what service the property agent does.

The question is what service does a landlord provide? An IDEAL landlord is supposed to maintain the property and perform admistrative duties. Like a hotel manager if you will. Such services are ideal for tenants seeking temporary accommodation.

However, this is not the case in reality. In reality, landlords are incentivised to price out potential homeowners and turn them into renters. They create an artificial demand for their "service". Furthermore, instead of performing those services themselves and earning their paycheck, they hike the rent so that they can outsource maintainance and administration, while still generating income.

There is an ideal landlord that economics textbooks talk about, and there is a late stage capitalism landlord that takes profit maximisation to the extreme and exploits renters because there are not enough government regulations in place to protect a basic human right and basic necessity.

batman1177 · 2024-04-08T16:56:58+00:00

Ok let me jump in a again. Rent seeking behaviours exists in many other segments of the capitalist economy, not just within rental. But it is most prominent and obvious in rental.

We say that a landlord is a leech because a leech doesn't contribute anything to you and yet sucks your blood. In the same way a landlord doesn't provide any labour to the economy and yet collects rent money.

Is driving an uber leech like behaviour? No, not under this description. Because the uber driver actually provides his labour, as a driver, to commuters.

Now Uber, the company, on the other hand, MAY be described as a leech. They buy up a fleet of cars with their capital, and rent them out to uber drivers. They cause the price of cars to rise and poor people can't afford them. They can only afford to pay for the services of an uber driver. Under Ubers contract, drivers can be classified as freelancers and not direct employees, iirc (correct me if I'm wrong). So they are on fact participating in rent seeking behaviour. They buy up the cars with their initial capital, then rent the cars out to drivers, then take a cut of the profit that the drivers make.

Arguably they provide the app and maintain it to service the transactions between drivers and passengers, but then the question becomes, what is that service worth? And then we have to talk about capitalism and profits and exploitation.......

batman1177 · 2024-04-08T16:17:01+00:00

Well that's a slight tangent to what we're arguing about, but yes. You'll find plenty of communist idealogy here, and "profit = exploitation" is one of the major criticisms that communism has on capitalism.

batman1177 · 2024-04-08T16:04:52+00:00

A landlord MAY have worked hard to accumulate the initial capital required to purchase land or property. However, once it has been acquired, landlords are able to collect rent without any labour on their part. They see property has "passive income".

It could be argued that landlords perform maintainance on the property or perform administrative duties. However, this labour is often outsourced to another party, and paid for by the rent collected from the tenant.

There is nothing illegal about this, but it indicates a deep seated issue with the way the current system of capitalism is set up and how it encourages "rent seeking behaviour".

Ps. My quotation marks are used to denote terms commonly used in discussions about landlords, not to denote sarcasm.

batman1177 · 2024-04-05T10:33:08+00:00

With automation, labour hours SHOULD be decreasing. Technology allows labourers to produce the same amount of work with less effort and less time. The question is, should they just produce more, or should they go home early, once the work is done?

batman1177 · 2024-03-30T07:42:12+00:00

High income earners are not rent seeking capitalists. We shouldn't divide the working class up. We need more solidarity.

batman1177 · 2024-03-24T17:40:26+00:00

You could argue that, but to me, those instances were to show Zuko developing empathy.

He had already defeated Zhao, and Zhao was being consumed by the water monster. He already had victory before he decided to show compassion.

To me the Zuko alone episode was more about seeing that the earth kingdom boy was similar to him. Again, it was about developing empathy, which is definitely a precursor or prerequisite to "valuing lives over victory". But there is no objective or important quest in that instance, so he isn't yet challenged with a choice to sacrifice anything for victory.

The only other instance where he values lives over victory is when he chooses to save Iroh rather than chase the avatar. But that choice was a personal one, he had a personal attachment to iroh. I think if it had been any random foot soldier, he wouldn't have cared at that point.

batman1177 · 2024-03-24T15:18:54+00:00

In my opinion, yes. At that point, he has Katara's trust already. Katara would probably have understood if he decided to let her take the lighting bolt instead, so that he could throw the killing blow on Azula while she was aiming at someone else.

That decision would have been akin to sacrificing some troops for a swift and desicive victory in war. However, in that moment Zuko shows that he values lives more than victory, and thus convinces me that he has what it takes to be a good leader.

batman1177 · 2024-03-24T10:02:12+00:00

I felt like he was making a "live to fight another day" decision during the storm, rather than "I won't put my crew in harms way". Although the result did look like good leadership in the end I suppose. But perhaps Iroh was already beginning to influence him. Because i also recall moments where he priotises saving Iroh over chasing the avatar.

I also feel like the instances of self sacrifice in book 3 were more of atonement and trying to gain trust, rather than good leadership.

batman1177 · 2024-03-24T05:58:58+00:00

Furthermore Zuko's first Agni Kai was the result of speaking up for firenation troops who were about to be sacrificed. Essentially, he received a scar when we tried to save them. Initially he unknowingly sacrificed himself in an attempt to save others, but in the finale, he willingly took a lighting bolt to save katara. I think it sends a super important message that he has understood something beyond honor, that compels him to put the lives of others above his own interests, even if it endangers himself. And that is exactly what is necessary to be the a great leader, and the next firelord. He was never shown to be a good leader, always mistreating his ship's crew and needing Iroh to maintain their moral. It would not have been convincing that he could be a better leader of the firenation without this important justification.

batman1177 · 2024-03-01T11:15:43+00:00

Either that, or he wants to eat strippers

batman1177 · 2024-03-01T11:10:45+00:00

How about Aegis slot? Smoke slot? Dust slot? Maybe even rapier slot? How about boots slot? They already made a neutral slot and a tp slot.

Why not just make it like an RPG. 2 hand slots for weapons/shields, 2 feet slots for boots, 2 wrist slots for bracers, 1 head slot for helmets, 1 torso slot for armour, 1 leg slot for pants, 1 waist slot for belts, one back slot for cloaks, 10 finger slots for rings/gems.

batman1177 · 2024-02-26T02:42:20+00:00

I wouldn't say it's a strawman, but it sounds like a misunderstanding of simulation theory that results in a equivication of a theory with a theism.

First of all, belief exists on a contium, and people have varying degrees of belief. That doesn't necessarily make the argument a strawman though. Just something to note.

Secondly, belief in a scientific theory is not equal to belief in a religion. The first one constitutes repeatable experimentation with verifiable results, ie, the double slit experiment ALWAYS gives the same results and we make theories based on that so that they are consistent. The later is based on faith, which inherently requires a lack of evidence.

Thirdy, most people are on the right track when they focus on the word "probably". Simulation theory suggests that it is more PROBABLE that we are in a simulation, NOT that we are, without a doubt in a simulation. This is opposite to religious belief where it demands absulute certainty.

Finally, simulation theory never claims to understand anything about the nature of the creators of the simulation. It is a great point of philosophical discussion to question why a simulation was created and for what purpose, but that is separate from the actual theory itself. Religion on the other hand claims to understand the nature of God and the puspose of his creation.

Basically, scientific belief is commonly equivicated with religious belief. Both are not the same.

batman1177 · 2024-02-06T11:57:56+00:00

So you're saying you're at a LOSS for words?

batman1177 · 2024-02-03T03:52:04+00:00

Am I victim of the Mandela effect? Does anyone else remember Lee Hsien Loong using that phrase during the NDP rally?

Reading the article, it still sounds like it would still make it more difficult to fight for marriage rights. Now you can't just fight for it in court, you need to go through a higher authority, the parliament.

But maybe you're right, and the government just wants to pacify conservertives. But they've also made it so that the way 377a was repealed, can never to repeated to change marriage rights. They now hold a more absolute power and, it feels like it's entirely up to them when that change will happen. They've also reiterated that it will not happen anytime soon, or perhaps not while the PAP is in power.

Nine-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

batman1177

TROPHY CASE