But there is no way of mitigating that so everyone gets to have a share of the pie. I get that it’s a completion, but perhaps there a way to lower risk and mitigate growth to keep the system more stable.
DOWN WITH THE MONARCHY! REST IN PISS #PACKWATCH
Were honoring the queen of England
You know, this is a much better conversation than most on this fourm, and I’ll be shocked dead if anyone disagrees with that.
1 Like
A doctor is literally more skilled at medicine then a farmer. A farmer is more skilled at agriculture & animal rearing then a doctor. They are not the same, they are not equals. But both are incredibly important in vastly different ways to the function of a society. They should be rewarded in different ways.
From the dawn of human life, nature has made it a competition. Its why things evolve in the first place, to compete & survive against each other. You literally can’t live via stagnation. Humans need challenge, we seek it. Capitalism offers it in bulk, and rewards those who overcome it. Neither of us are owed anything for just existing and we should all be working for every bit we get.
The faults you point to of Capitalism aren’t even faults of Capitalism, the constant seeking of profit margins & so on. They are elements of Corporatism which is an entirely different breed of thinking which sprang out from Capitalism, the same way Communism & Socialism are intertwined.
You point to evidence of Cavemen practicing medicine, as a gotcha for why life isn’t a rat race: when the age of the Cave Men was perhaps humanity’s most tribalistic era and every group was fighting each other for land, food & women. Just because a local community can work together does not mean that community does not engage in competition & sometimes conflict with others. In fact, the entire reason one would even heal another in the Ice Age would be because if you let them die, you’re letting one of the best options for tribal warfare & hunting die and that means the rest of the tribe is fucked.
Again, the issue with socialism is it incorrectly assumes that the merit of one person is unquestionably worth the same as another regardless of their jobs, talents & practices. Supremely false, naive even. It’s a fairy tale, but what isn’t a fairy tale is how meritocracy rewards those who partake in it. Again, going from over 80% of the world being in poverty to 30% by allowing everybody the equal opportunity to access the marketplace of trade & ideas & thus compete with one another.
I would rather a million people get to fight their way to the top and have the best person win then have someone who has never been challenged in their life sit there. That is the honest take of a worker, a worker who came from poverty. If the worker doesn’t even agree with Socialism, then why try to say Socialism is for them?
To many words
1 Like
Well you’re just 'tarded then ol’boy.
1 Like
It would be welcome if people could write two sentances that were to the point and understood by everyone. But it’s not easy. For one, i can’t do it.
I suppose it’s a skill that only a few posses
1 Like
Yes, especially when it comes to complex topics
I mean I could write “Socialism cringe, Capitalism based” and be done with it since that’s my POV boiled down to the barest of essentials but I actually respect & like Pepe & we’re friends so I wanna have a worthwhile discussion with him and let the both of us explain in as best detail as we can why we both think what we think. Same as why with Anytime we were having engaging & long conversations, there’s a level of mutual respect.
1 Like
I see
What would happen if ate dry ice
Could burn your oesophagus, rupture your stomach, cause severe internal injury…
Thx
Unless he’s got namomachines 😁
1 Like
Trying to imagine a society where most if not everybody is on some Armstrong Nanomachine shit is wild because imagine when the complete lack of survival instincts kicks in and people start flinging themselves out of windows instead of taking the stairs because it’d be faster and they’re not going to feel anything anyway. Like the amount of death-defying bullshit everybody would get up to would be through the roof.
1 Like
That would be the case if it happened overnight. If change came gradually, i think people would not be as careless
I dunno man, I think even a gradual change would show people would start to worry/care less & less. One of the examples I think of is right now how most people who don’t live in rural areas don’t have any understanding/comprehension of how dangerous wild animals still can be. The comforts of modern living have largely stripped us off the concerns for such things.
Like city slickers don’t understand how a wild boar will tank shotgun shells to the skull or literally gore itself on a spear just for a chance to kill you. So, like give everybody nanomachines and I guarantee in a few decades time you’d see the approach to safety & lifestyle in general just radically change because nothing, but another human being could really touch you.
1 Like
I’m sure the namomachines should need some kind of tuning or there would be a mechanism to limit careless behavior. If you dont behave accordingly, you’ll be disabled for your troubles. People will learn