Now you’d technically be a professional runner.
Now you’d technically be a professional runner.
Yes, by Argentinian standards. That is not much, taking into account the left bias that Argentinian politics have at the moment. By most standards, Juntos por el Cambio are a social-democrat solution. That is pretty much left in most countries.
See? That’s where I get confused and I end up with the “that can’t happen” attitude in my head.
If you abolish private property, then who has that property? Someone will always have some of that, at least. Let’s imagine that it’s seized, by whom? How? And why wouldn’t that be thievery in the eyes of those who don’t want it? Because if I want it to happen, then it would be relinquishing, but if I don’t it would be coercive, because I cannot pay anything to that person, otherwise it would become a “haver” against all of those “havenotters” that gave their property for nothing but good will.
And then there’s the redistribution fact, of how to do that? Equitable? By some principle? Depending on who you are and are not, you get X o Y amount of “property”? And then it’s the issue of how do you measure that “property”? Because two cups of sugar can be of similar value, but not two houses. It’s not the same to live in downtown Manhattan than in the middle of Saskatchewan.
Finally, who does that? We? And who is “we”? Who organises “we”? How is “we” not anarchist? And if it’s anarchist, how do we ensure it’s just?
“Planned by the libs”, as if the “libs” were a single entity that have a homogeneous plan. Let’s stop giving entity to stuff that never existed and realise that there is a structural problem that occurred because of bad management of our economy and policies. Because we had mediocre actors and in some cases actors with bad faith.
I don’t hate the human race. But I cannot stop pointing to our flaws. Not understanding our flaws, will lead to keep having them and the problems they carry.
On the other hand, what you are saying will be valid in any system. How do you propose to have a completely egalitarian society? It’s nearly impossible, there will always be people wanting more than they have and won’t care about the consequences of it.
Don’t blame capitalism for something that’s at the core of any political system: Greed destroys it. Greed and humans are intertwined. It’s not capitalism’s fault. The same happened across history even when and where capitalism didn’t exist: the Egyptian empire, the Roman Empire, the Soviet block and even in China now. Greedy people that can be bought will exist everywhere. The wish for power is not inherent of capitalism, is inherent of human nature. Failing to see that will lead to the same issue over and over again, in democratic or autocratic regimes.
Yes, of course we do. We just need politicians willing to do that. I thinks that’s the most difficult part.
Yes and no. Capitalism without regulations may bring this kind of issues. But capitalism with regulations shouldn’t. The issue is that the required regulations are not being applied or do not exist.
We should not blame or put the weight of the issue in capitalism, when we clearly know we don’t live in a perfect capitalistic world, and very few markets are like that. The issue is with politicians.
No, that’s an effect of collusion and cartelization of the economy. It’s because you have very few actors supplying the product and the barriers of creating a similar product are too high, so new competitors cannot access the market. Then the current suppliers can sit on the product and wait for it to be at the right price, as long as it doesn’t go to waste.
As you can see, all of this screens about real estate:
This is the time when governments should intervene and come up with a proposal to solve the cartelization.
I was actually just trolling and with low effort. But I appreciate the wall of text. It means I’ve done it well.
Thanks for the compliments, have a pleasant evening.
Because, in case you didn’t realise, we don’t think that waging wars, hoarding nukes and “exporting freedom and democracy” is a good international policy nor a wise use of tax payers’ money.
But what do I know, right? I just have low crime rates, an affordable university system and don’t have to sell my kidney for a ride in an ambulance. All the while having 1 month paid vacation and a minimum salary that allows me to not live in the streets.
Sorry, I’m out of line.
Sorry, I cannot hear you over the sound of my state funded healthcare system and minimum wage over the poverty line.
You are not putting luck in the equation. There’s still a chance that it can hit something before the truck rolls over or is blown by any projectile.
Risotto. I make one with panceta and mushrooms that can’t be easier to make. And the principle is to just stir for 20’ or so.
Not necessarily. Again, having content and users separated and the instances with different concerns seems like a good way to simplify operations for users and server admins/mods. And from the instance POV is just what kind of features do you enable.
Content generation only? Users creation only? Both?
It’s also easier to make a service out of it.
I was thinking about this, actually. Wouldn’t it be better to have users-only instances and content-only instances? That way you can have an instance with a policy towards certain subjects (e.g.: bigotry, racism, sex openness), but you chose the content you want. Just like if it were a cable or streaming service. You choose the content you want.
BTW, is there a place to discuss this? How to improve Lemmy and next steps? Also as a way to know how to contribute.
If true, that actually speaks volumes. Like what kind of guy removes a dead man, at some point revered, from the list of co-founders. What do you lose by not doing it? What did you win by doing it? I mean, the odds are you lost more than anything. Besides, he should have been your partner. Even if you did for the cash, what about all the moments you had with him? Was Aaron such a piece that you’d rather have him erased?
I seriously can’t get it.
It feels a little bit like the old reddit, right? Very few in many communities. You see a lot of sttuff, you want to comment. It’s a weird feeling.
I don’t understand that point of view? Why would they pay their CEOs less than any other company? If they did, then they would either not be able to hire CEOs, have the shittiest CEOs or have CEOs that wouldn’t give a crap. People don’t live on welfare, especially highly connected, highly educated people like CEOs.