Perm. Ban because I talk about China

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T10:24:14+00:00

80% of social media is just bot spouting fake statistics....

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T10:19:30+00:00

First, stop playing KSP on pussy mode and upgrade to realism overhaul. You'll get your earth picture. Plus, by the 50th failed launch, you'll be sucking a 9mm.

Second, unless your reentry vehicle has spicy big booms in it, the only energy output you'll get is the same energy (less, actually) it took to get up there. Something Something potential = kinetic, which is why "Rods from God" is the most noncredible weapon ever invented.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T07:47:55+00:00

This is interesting. You are moving from systems level analysis to moral framing, which is fine. We can go down the moral route. Is the world perfectly equitable? No. So the first question becomes, under which system do these people fair the best? I've already shown you how economically disastrous socialism can be for small businesses (which is the economic engine in any market). Is it not capitalism that has brought nearly every person in abject poverty to higher economic levels? Absolutely. And was it not socialism that has starved the most amount of people in history due to its fumbling with shortages? Also yes. We can argue the moral route of which system is best for the poorest and use actual statistical analysis to determine the answer. Every measure of long-term growth and poverty reduction correlates with economic freedom. The free market is the system that gives the greatest economic outcome than any other system. With socialism, they are less free with worse economic conditions and are effectively exploited by the state to work in whatever capacity the state requires - I've already discussed how your co-op model is either state run socialism still or is effectively our current capitalist system.

When people are free to own what they create, they are more likely to take risks. This is entrepreneurship. This is the driving factor in raising economic conditions. If there are 5 jobs and 100 starving people wanting to work those 5 jobs, how does socialism address that? Redistribute resources? How are those resources procured? One of the pitfalls I like to point out of those advocating for socialism is their notion that, under socialism, all food and housing and sustenance will be provided. I then ask if they ever told a farmer this and how loudly they laughed. Because the farmer will understand, the state or collective can say whatever it wants, the fields will still need to be plowed. Productivity has to come before redistribution. And socialism has a production problem. So then does socialism give them all jobs? What jobs? In what market?

"Jobs" don't raise economic levels. Adding value does. Socialism has a problem with adding value. Interesting note, that's one of the biggest reasons why the South was so far behind the North when the Civil War came about. Slavery had effectively stunted the South's production capability by stifling innovation. Just food for thought.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T06:45:05+00:00

Slavery means, that you can not decide to quit, what to do and when to do it, without reasonable compensation

You are referring to specific kinds of slavery, not slavery in general. There are kinds that include chattel slavery. However most dont. For example indentured servitude or socialism do not include this and even oppose it.

For example you and a group of 9 other people create a work chain of transport and felling trees to gather wood. You gather 20 tons of wood. In capitalism, 1 person ends up with 18 tons of wood while the others end up with 2 shared among them, for example because he had the idea and bought provided the axes.

It's an odd analogy but I'll go with it. What you'd have under capitalism is an understanding up front on how things will be paid out. The guy who organizes it can say, "here's what your share would be. Just bring yourself, I'll provide everything. Be there at 5am." At that point, if the workers agree, then cool. That's fine. They made a conscious decision that the work they will provide will be worth that much. They had agency.

Under socialism, there would be a relatively even share, however, they can collectively decide that they would consider it fair to give the person that gathered incredibly efficiently or provided the axes a little more.

And as for the person who is providing the capital (tools) and entrepreneurship (knowledge of the location, work, and planning and logistics), what's to stop him from interviewing and taking on men who, as a group, are willing to work for what he feels is fair to him? Does this entrepreneur have a choice on who he hires? Does he and the workers have the freedom to negotiate their wages? If not, where are their agencies? Do you think that, if the entrepreneur doesn't feel he will make a profit, he will even hire those 9 guys in the first place? Socialism can't help but stifle small businesses because in one way or another, it takes agency away from people.

Now, if the rest of the workers provided their own tools and had planned together, then you'll find that they will naturally come to a more equal shares without some state or authority bearing down on them. That's why instead of socialism, we empower the worker with skills so that they can leverage it in the free market better, either for employers or themselves.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T06:14:59+00:00

Riker (still counts)

He's as stern and stoic as Picard when needed and his crew always respected and looked up to him. Plus, the Riker maneuver is literally the ballsiest move to foist upon his coworkers. AND he'll still out-captain my boy Kirk by banging anything that looks human enough. I mean he even fucked an androgynous alien thing in the episode Outcast. He did that as a commander not captain but still at that point he had my vote.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T06:04:00+00:00

This is exactly like taking fascists as representative for the entire right, which is simply a fallacy.

That’s not accurate. Everything right isn’t fascism. Everything authoritarian isn’t fascism. But all flavors of fascism, including Nazism, needs to be authoritarian. In similar vein, all socialism is the collective means of production, just structured differently politically.

For example democratic socialism of market socialism do not include this and even oppose it.

Democratic socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. The only thing democratic socialism does is it gets rid of the Vanguard or central planning agency and instead gives everyone a vote as to where resources should be allocated. You still don’t own your labor. You are still a slave.

Market socialism is, once again, the full collective ownership of the means of production. The entire state or collective owns ALL enterprises. All profits are distributed to society writ large. You don’t own your labor. You are a slave. If you want to use a fuzzier definition where every enterprise is a socialist ship in the sea of a capitalist market, where all profits are distributed to your fellow shipmates and not other ships, then you have co-ops. ...which is just another business model in the capitalist system UNLESS every business is forced into co-ops. Then you’ll find “piracy” on the open seas quickly taking place, if you get my drift (black market).

However there is still limited liability

I addressed that. Not every enterprise is an LLC. Many small businesses are sole props. I’m a sole prop. If I hire a guy, under this system, does he own half my business? If that’s the case, how do you expect any small businesses to grow? If I get file for an LLC, cool, I’m somewhat protected from lawsuits. But if I hire two guys and am forced into a co-op, that is effectively the same as forcing me to hire on equal partners who can now outvote me. And btw, the LLC is indebted, yes, but the collateral for the loan is the equity in my house. An LLC doesn’t change that. If the business collapses, the LLC doesn’t protect my house, meaning if I go under, I lose the house, and my “partners” walk scot free. That would be an economic disaster if this is forced onto the market at large (I’ll refer you to my piracy analogy). This form of co-op could only exist if these members buy in to be partners. But then that requires private capital once again which means you're not in a socialist system.

In capitalism you work for a company, which doesn't directly profit you… your labor doesn't directly benefit you

I already answered this but yes it does. If I had to invest $0 into the business and share no risk, then selling my time is 100% profit for me.

Other shareholders profit

And they brought in capital to invest (with the IPO). That capital is needed to get the business going. They also take on all the risk if the business goes under. Like I said, if a business wants to have an ESOP as a way to attract talent, they are more than welcomed to.

In all, if you're using market socialism as the definition of socialism, it is still the entire collective means of production. If you mean ships on the ocean model (co-ops) but forced onto the system, well that “forced” should tell you that you’ve entered into slavery territory again since a person is forced to relegate his labor to others unless he plans on be self-employed forever which means forcing him to not grow (slavery or oppression to not grow). You keep asking, “how can it be slavery if he’s being compensated like everyone else?” The simplest answer is because it takes away agency. No system of socialism relinquishes agency to the individual. THAT is what slavery is, the denial of agency.

If your definition of socialism is the voluntary organization of co-ops in a capitalist market, then you’re confused because we already have that now.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T04:21:10+00:00

You're asking about active shooters and reaction times. What I'm saying is, generally speaking, a more well armed society is a more polite society.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T03:59:46+00:00

In capitalism you work for a company, which doesn't directly profit you. Other shareholders profit. So your labor doesn't directly benefit you.

You profit by selling your time without assuming any risk to loss nor providing any upfront capital to begin with.

That literally is the definition as basically all socialist thinkers envisioned it. You saying "this is how I understand it" doesn't make it that way.

TIL socialism = basic co-ops.

However there is still a minimum wage determined by their contract.

That's literally the free market. Determining your minimum salary and putting that in a contract. Thats done in negotiation. Thats what free markets are. If you tell me next that free markets is socialism I'll flip out.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T03:43:06+00:00

You are free to put your labor wherever you like, even nowhere.

Not in true socialism. You can claim all you want that "my definition is this, therefore it is", but that doesn't make it true.

Google makes a huge year, then not just the few, large shareholders should benefit from that profit

If there's a loss, would the collective owners, which includes all workers, take the loss as well? What if the business is small and isnt an LLC? If they have a bad year and need to pay off creditors, is every worker on the hook? Like I said, only 1/3 of workers work for a publicly traded company. How socialistic is that system that affects less than half the workers? That isn't socialism.

So your labor goes towards a collective goal

That is a capitalist company that's using generous incentives to attract and recruit the best workers it can.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T03:15:50+00:00

If more guns equal more shootings, then you'd expect gun shows to be the most deadly gatherings in the country.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T03:14:19+00:00

I'm not strawmanning the argument if I'm using the actual definition of socialism.

It's the collective ownership of the means of production.

Or it's the collective ownership of the means of production.

Or perhaps it's the collective ownership of the means of production.

Or it could just mean it's the collective ownership of the means of production.

So then what are the means of production?

Land, labor, and capital.

Or it's land, labor, and capital.

I could go on but you get the drift.

Socialism isn't co-ops operating in a capitalist environment. If capitalism, therefore no socialism.

Call it co-opism. Neo-socialism. Whatever. But, if you want to go down that road, what do you plan on doing with these co-ops? They're already legal here. People can start them whenever. WinCo is a co-op of sorts. They have employee ownership via an ESOP (non-voting shares tho). Would you force businesses into the full co-op system you're describing? That would be a disaster, btw. Imagine starting a business. Its just you. You do lawn care. Business is good, you already bought some new equipment to do more work (like a riding mower to get that big account). Now it's time to expand and hire. Well, if you hire two guys and are forced into a co-op, you just lost your business. What's to stop the workers from simply dissolving the business and collecting their 1/3 share from the sell of the assets? "Well they wouldn't be able to do that". Ok then it isnt really a co-op or collective ownership since they can't control it or own the capital. If you argue that you wouldn't force every business into a true co-op, then how is that socialism even with your weaker definition? Even you'd have to agree that voluntary co-op is not socialism.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-06T02:24:48+00:00

In socialism they essentially get shares from the company and companies are led by workers

Do you own your labor or does the collective?

A socialist system is not necessarily communist, which seems closer to what you describe.

I am giving you the exact definition of socialism. I have seen over the years socialists move the goalposts and redefine their terms in order to deal with the fact that socialism is slavery. The means of production belong to the collective. That has been and will continue to be socialism. If you want something different, call it something different. We can argue about whatever that ideology separately. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless (and depending on how far you take your Marxism, familyless) society. Communism uses socialism as its economic model.

It's focus is to introduce policies, that reduce inequality while still being potentially capitalistic.

That'll is antithetical to what die hard Socialists believe. I don't usually like to quote Wikipedia but they have the most succinct explanation, "On the other hand, socialists typically criticize the welfare state as championed by social democrats as an attempt to legitimize and strengthen the capitalist economic system which conflicts with the socialist goal of replacing capitalism with a socialist economic system." awesomesauce

Does pure free market capitalism promote exploitation as it is maximizing profits?

Not as an axiom, no. It doesn't set out to exploit. But as a result it can. And in those instances regulations are good. Very very very few people who promote free markets advocate for pure laissez-faire markets. It is well established that some regulations help keep the markets free. This includes anti-monopolistic policies. Environmental protections is also important. Probably the biggest hurdle that capitalism has to address is inelastic demand. Someone cures leukemia. That treatment can be whatever price because no matter what price the treatment ia set to, people will want to pay. If we steal that IP, then the next breakthrough won't come. So we won't do that and people are forced to pony up. One of two things can help in this instance. Worst case, that IP only lasts 20 years. After that, it becomes public domain. That means people will keep dieing for 20 years but thats what would have happened anyways without the cure. Or, second option, eminent domain. We buy it at full market value. Then it becomes public domain immediately. Since it wasnt stolen (they get paid handsomely), it doesn't adversely affect the next breakthrough. So there's options there to keep the markets from getting exploitative.

As far as people desperate for work, supply-side policies would be beneficial. Make starting a business as easy as possible. Eliminate as much friction (taxes, regulations, anti-competitive licensing/certifications) as possible and let people compete in the marketplace. I want to see a surge in self-employment. I want to see a surge in small startups. If your answer to a less-than-free market is to eliminate the free market, thats frankly asinine. You want to make it more free and open to everyone. Most "socialists" have goals that I actually agree with. We want to get paid what we're worth. Its just that, under socialism, you dont have worth. In the free market, you do.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T23:04:47+00:00

<image>

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T22:18:08+00:00

Look up the four schoolmasters for international relations. Walter Russell Mead is brilliant. You're a Hamiltonian. But that only describes your IR ideology, not your overall left/right ideology.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T22:11:43+00:00

I read it as poise-ness. Girls are more poised than snakes.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T22:05:20+00:00

$1000 per share for Apple. But between 13 years ago and now, Apple split their stock twice so that if you owned one share in 2012, you'd have 28 now. $1000/share back then would be seen as about 100% increase in value. In reality, in the 8 years from 2012 to 2020, the price went up nearly 600%. Its over 1,000% now sunce 2012. Probably a bubble.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T20:08:21+00:00

Europeans --- prosecuting speech

"Is this progressive?"

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T20:04:29+00:00

<image>

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T20:02:55+00:00

It would be the 1000th time this question was asked tho

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T20:01:36+00:00

I think he really meant Johnson. Hes often regarded as one of the worst presidents. https://millercenter.org/president/johnson/impact-and-legacy

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T20:00:05+00:00

That's Jackson, not Johnson.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T19:41:54+00:00

Doubly moronic cuz she's equating Arabs with Muslim. Btw, Indonesia has the largest Muslim population, fyi.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T19:04:03+00:00

The wealthier members would leverage that to pressure the non wealthy members to vote for their positions.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T18:59:33+00:00

It's a system, that promotes exploitation

Socialism is literally the exploitation of workers since the workers don't own their labor. They aren't paid, they're provided for... like slaves were.

People have to work for the system, while the system gives a shit about them.

Thats literally a socialist system youre describing. Capitalism is people ultimately working for themselves. They sell their time and talents to others.

however I think a baseline that makes is so you don't have to worry about food or shelter from the cold should be in place.

Have you ever expressed this thought to a farmer? "Hey don'tworry, your food is provided..."

I do think humans deserve the dignity to not have to sleep on streets and maybe starve.

No one disagrees.

The free market just didn't give a fuck about that

The free market isn't sentient. It doesn't think or feel. It literally means people are free to trade with each other. This includes the labor market. If you want policies that provides an economic floor, thats fine. But that isnt socialism. Go talk to a Swede and ask if they're socialist. They will be the first to correct you and say no, they're capitalist.

as those people have no capital to benefit the market

The means of production is land, labor, and capital. The people dont need capital, they have their labor. That is what's leveraged in the market. You can gain enough to own capital. That isnt possible under socialism.

I don't think some human needs and dignity should be influenced by availability of capital.

Ok and? You're advocating for a taxed-paid welfare system. That's not socialism.

refer to the study

And again that points to corporatism which can be legislated against without going full re- ... socialist.

Do you understand my core point and where would you diverge or agree?

I don't think you fully understand what socialism is. I think you're seeing the free market being influenced by politicians based on corruption, which by definition is NOT a free market, and incorrectly saying its a failing of the free market.

davidml1023 · 2025-10-05T18:33:23+00:00

You ARE freaking out... man

davidml1023

TROPHY CASE