It's ok to be angry about capitalism

[Gergar12]

We could likely have a higher population growth rate and global birth rate.


But this isn't the solution. The solution is society has to want more kids, society has to invest in systems around them. Attack people who don't want to have kids, but could and praise people who are having kids, and even praise people who otherwise have reasons not to want them to have them anyway is an example.

It's a system of sticks, carrots, and an environment to do that.

We don't even need to have religious conservatism or human-creating science-based methods. For example, hurting children gets you higher crime penalties than not hurting children. But lots of people are against this because it would change modern society forever. Women would have to pay most of the cost even if men were to be forced to do most of the housework because guess where most of the risk is, women. So women, and especially younger women are against it. Rich people are against it because they would be paying for the cities to be safer from both cars and risky people. Many couples who don't want kids, and just want to vacation would be against it, why change their lifestyle and society and likely their incomes for this? And the list goes on.

In short, it's the free market and democracy that is against it, we would have fewer freedoms and or more stigmas in such a society.

 

[Seanchaidh]

We could likely have a higher population growth rate and global birth rate.

We could also not and it would be fine.

 

[Agema]

But this isn't the solution. The solution is society has to want more kids

Actually no, it doesn't.

There is some weird-ass fucking cult or conglomeration of cults obsessed with producing babies. Such as:

• Nationalism: make babies make people more factory workers and recruits for the army INVADE OUR ENEMIES RAAAAWWRRR!
• Racism: terror of racists that the "white race" is going to be outbred into history by other peoples that, frankly, they view as genetically, morally, intellectually and culturally inferior.
• Weird men like Elon Musk who... I don't entirely know. Think lots of kids is a representation of their power and virility? Narcissistically think that lots of kids ensures their genetic legacy ("One day almost every human will be descended from me!")? Who the fuck knows.
• Misogyny: men who can't get laid and want to complain about it. I mean, they don't want to actually raise the kids anyway (which is of course in their mind women's work).

 

[Gergar12]

Actually no, it doesn't.

There is some weird-ass fucking cult or conglomeration of cults obsessed with producing babies. Such as:

• Nationalism: make babies make people more factory workers and recruits for the army INVADE OUR ENEMIES RAAAAWWRRR!
• Racism: terror of racists that the "white race" is going to be outbred into history by other peoples that, frankly, they view as genetically, morally, intellectually and culturally inferior.
• Weird men like Elon Musk who... I don't entirely know. Think lots of kids is a representation of their power and virility? Narcissistically think that lots of kids ensures their genetic legacy ("One day almost every human will be descended from me!")? Who the fuck knows.
• Misogyny: men who can't get laid and want to complain about it. I mean, they want to actually raise the kids anyway (which is of course in their mind women's work).

What's wrong with liberal nationalism?

 

[Seanchaidh]

What's wrong with liberal nationalism?

the nationalism

and the liberalism

 

[Agema]

What's wrong with liberal nationalism?

Because it's bollocks, Gergar.

It's basically just nationalism for people that also want some individual freedoms in their country. And when I say "individual freedoms", this inevitably means economic much more than social: freedom from them paying taxes far more than freedom for other people to be gay, trans, have abortions, etc.

Fundamentally, I think liberalism is internationalist. Human rights are necessarily held by all humans, irrespective of national borders.

 

[Gergar12]

Because it's bollocks, Gergar.

It's basically just nationalism for people that also want some individual freedoms in their country. And when I say "individual freedoms", this inevitably means economic much more than social: freedom from them paying taxes far more than freedom for other people to be gay, trans, have abortions, etc.

Fundamentally, I think liberalism is internationalist. Human rights are necessarily held by all humans, irrespective of national borders.

Why can't we have both, or a mix of both weight towards a socially free society? I do believe in water, food, clothing, and shelter being worldwide human rights, but the one who pays the most with no strings attached for it will lose in geopolitics. Plus there is a healthy mix of internationalism and nationalism, I just prefer to weight it to nationalism because blocs or superstates will lead to an international world society, and I am realistic about how it will happen which is likely some supersized World War. I prefer to deter it but it will happen despite what Xi, Putin, or Trump do individually.

Human rights are necessarily held by all humans, irrespective of national borders but who will enforce them right now? There is no world police.

Also, I don't want to see what would happen if we see a King of the World-style dictator despite my love of Warhammer 40K. We have to build up to it. Look what happened to Syria, they shot at each other till they got tired of it, and then stopped. The US, Russia, Israel, Iran, or even the EU wouldn't have been able to impose their will on it any more than you can impose worldwide taxes on people in the US, EU, China, and Japan for worldwide human rights.

the nationalism

and the liberalism

I like personal freedom. Nationalism is a defense mechanism to keep citizens in their states safe in the short, and medium term.

 

[Agema]

Why can't we have both, or a mix of both weight towards a socially free society? I do believe in water, food, clothing, and shelter being worldwide human rights, but the one who pays the most with no strings attached for it will lose in geopolitics. Plus there is a healthy mix of internationalism and nationalism, I just prefer to weight it to nationalism because blocs or superstates will lead to an international world society, and I am realistic about how it will happen which is likely some supersized World War. I prefer to deter it but it will happen despite what Xi, Putin, or Trump do individually.

Human rights are necessarily held by all humans, irrespective of national borders but who will enforce them right now? There is no world police.

Also, I don't want to see what would happen if we see a King of the World-style dictator despite my love of Warhammer 40K. We have to build up to it. Look what happened to Syria, they shot at each other till they got tired of it, and then stopped. The US, Russia, Israel, Iran, or even the EU wouldn't have been able to impose their will on it any more than you can impose worldwide taxes on people in the US, EU, China, and Japan for worldwide human rights.

Conflict is primarily caused by competition.

I can accept that the world is organised by a patchwork of independent states as a convenience. However, it the competition of states that drives most conflict. Nationalism does not technically have to drive competition between states, but in practice it does. It inevitably leads to seeing other states as the "opposition" who need to be bettered or even worse, defeated.

I would view a world where people recognise that a rising tide lifts all boats, that co-operation need have no artificial limits and the aim should be to spread freedom, harmony and opportunity to as many as possible. At a pragmatic level, I understand that there have to be limits such as defended borders within the world as is. I don't think we should be reinforcing and idolising those borders and the division of those within them from those without.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I do believe in water, food, clothing, and shelter being worldwide human rights, but the one who pays the most with no strings attached for it will lose in geopolitics.

In theory, that makes sense, but in practice, that doesn't work because of humans being human. The homeless housing initiatives that just give people housing for free don't work out nearly as well as the ones that make the people responsible and pay some kind of rent.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I would view a world where people recognise that a rising tide lifts all boats, that co-operation need have no artificial limits and the aim should be to spread freedom, harmony and opportunity to as many as possible.

The problem with this is that humans are still monkeys gathered around bonfires, plotting to go kill that other tribe and take their stuff before they come kill us and take our stuff.

 

[Chimpzy]

'Uber for Armed Guards' Rushes to Market Following the Assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO

Are you scared to walk down the streets of NYC and also have too much money? There's an app for that.

gizmodo.com

Can't wait for the new Mr Beast video "We hired 1000 goons and started our own gang war"

 

[Thaluikhain]

'Uber for Armed Guards' Rushes to Market Following the Assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO

Are you scared to walk down the streets of NYC and also have too much money? There's an app for that.

gizmodo.com

Can't wait for the new Mr Beast video "We hired 1000 goons and started our own gang war"

An app that you use to tell people you have lots of money and currently no protection? One could envisage this going interestingly wrong.

 

[Chimpzy]

An app that you use to tell people you have lots of money and currently no protection? One could envisage this going interestingly wrong.

1. be hitman
2. advertise yourself in app
3. pick up ceos and billionaires
4. kill them
5. take their phone
6. give yourself a 5 star review

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

1. be hitman
2. advertise yourself in app
3. pick up ceos and billionaires
4. kill them
5. take their phone
6. give yourself a 5 star review

At last, the gig economy starts working for the little guy.

 

[Schadrach]

Still waiting for "Mario Party" to become a codeword for "conspiracy to murder a CEO" because it's a group activity where someone plays Luigi.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Still waiting for "Mario Party" to become a codeword for "conspiracy to murder a CEO" because it's a group activity where someone plays Luigi.

If a guy called Sonic gets one or two, they might rid you of that chance.

 

[Agema]

Still waiting for "Mario Party" to become a codeword for "conspiracy to murder a CEO" because it's a group activity where someone plays Luigi.

Article I read recently says this might be coming faster than we think.

The Piketty model suggests that investments are better at earning than labour, so the rich intrinsically get rich faster than the poor, so wealth inequality inevitably grows. As wealth inequality grows, the rich increasingly capture the state to facilitate greater transfer of wealth to themselves to create an oligarchy. Eventually, the oligarchs own so much that they can only grow by fighting each other, and finally there's a wealth-annihilating rebellion that resets into a new cycle.

With tariffs and trade protectionism, Turmp is pursuing national capitalism rather than global, which means he's cutting out a large chunk of the US elites' economically exploitable territory. This means that it will accelerate the rate at which the US elites will gouge the US masses, then each other, and then eventually everyone gets pissed off and burns everything down.

 

[Chimpzy]

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Fingers crossed.