Yondoza @ Yondoza @sh.itjust.works

Posts

7

Comments

257

Joined

2 yr. ago

Removing a proven insurrectionist from the ballot is DEMOCRACY following the rule of law in the United States. Exempting individuals from the rule of law is anti-democratic.

All people having representation and subject to the rule of law are fundamental principles of democracy.

Do it

"Pantheon"

Age of Empires, but you have no direct control. You're a god that different factions can pray to and you have to use your influence to gain more followers over your rival gods. You can do that through demanding conquest, sacrifices, hedonism, or many other ways!

I think it'd be fun!

Love this write up! Thank you for posting, I really like your ideas. Out of curiosity how would apartment buildings work in your plan. There are many cities where you probably don't want to encourage single family homes to reduce urban sprawl. How would you encourage high density housing in your plan?

I understand your sentiment, but it took all of a half second to think of one scenario that would cause problems in the proposed system.

As frustrating as it is to hold off on a good-intentioned change, it is far more detrimental to charge headlong without considering the consequences. The systems that are in place now are there for a reason. Some of those reasons are greed and corruption, but others are because of they fulfill people's needs. It would be stupid to build a new system to address the greed side without addressing the need side.

How do you handle situations where people want to live temporarily in houses? An example would be a traveling nurse that doesn't want to be in an apartment building.

Give us the horror movie we really want. Everyone dies but the dog.

They all have access to the Internet now. This would be much more detrimental to learning if other resources weren't in everyone's pocket.

Again, love the lofty goal you're setting, but you pretty blatantly don't mention an alternative system. Easy to point out a problem, much harder to build a real solution.

The funny thing is, capitalism happened organically. It wasn't a designed system. So dismantling capitalism without a solid replacement will likely just lead right back to capitalism.

Love your optimism, but "making things affordable" is not a valid plan for managing resources. It provides a goal without a solution.

Are you suggesting price fixing? That has a lot of associated outcomes that typically cause worse situations than doing nothing.

You can introduce a guaranteed buyer at fixed price points which alleviate some of the negative consequences, but add others.

These are not simple problems. The reason these problems exist isn't solely because "rich and powerful people are evil" as nice as that would be. These problems still exist because they're complicated and 'one size fits all' solutions haven't been found for them.

Disclaimer: not advocating for current system.

What alternative would you propose for providing loans?

My controversial (for Lemmy) take is that loans are good for society. They provide an incentive to not hoard resources, but provide them to those who want to put them into action today for future benefit.

A good loan benefits both parties, ie. An auto loan that allows someone to buy a car to get to a job to earn an income that is above the cost of the loan. Without the loan that person couldn't get to work and whatever service they were providing to society is lost.

All that said - that doesn't mean the way loans work today is the best solution, but the same functionality of trading current and future resources needs to exist. You don't have to call it a loan, and it doesn't have to be performed by private for profit institutions, but if you want a thriving economy I believe you need this function carried out somehow.

The equivalent function in Communism is (or historically has been) a centrally planned resource allocation which very clearly is a horrible idea because of the incentives towards corruption. If you take a literal interpretation of communism (instead of historical) where "the workers own the means of production" trade unions could fulfill this current to future resource allocation function. I do not know if this would create the same corruption as single central authority, but my gut feels is that it would (based on the US labor union and organized crime affiliation of the past.

In short, the current function for trading current and future resources (ie. loans) is far from ideal, but I have not found an alternate that provides more benefits than deficits. I would love to learn about more alternatives, but just saying 'loans R bad' makes it sound like you're advocating getting rid of them with nothing to handle their underlying function, which is a terrible idea.

There is correlation evidence on Mars too! I don't think it's been considered casual at this point, but Atlas Pro has a really cool YouTube video showing a lot of potential examples. The Hawaiian Islands were particularly convincing to me. I'll try and find the video.

Trump: "I have a Jewish friend that gave me Mein Kampf."

Editor: "Close Mr Trump, but the Friend was not Jewish the book was not Mein Kampf."

News: "Trump had a friend."

Me: "Did anybody fact check this? ... Well, I'll be damned..."

Honestly, probably the most contested* area throughout history. Maybe after Anatolia, but that has been relatively peaceful in my lifetime so it feels different.

*And by that I mean contested by the most powerful players at their respective times. I'm sure there are places that have had more consistent fueds at a much smaller scale.

It's Infinity! Infinity -1? also infinity! Well what about infinity times infinity? Believe it or not, infinity! ♾️

Looks like the kid had a grip all on his own!

Great advice!

Whose got your favorite bass face?

I think mine is Sam Wilkes or Joe Dart.

Bassists are just translators between rhythm and melody instruments (source: bassist).

I understand your frustration, but unless the voting system is modified to approval or ranked choice you are probably not acting in your best interest voting for a third party. I hate that fact as much as you and I want to see it changed, but that's the reality of the system we're in.