🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

Our new business cards are kinda badass.

It's Eron Musk

#ElonMusk #Musk #Funny #Humor

@nat

So welfare deincentavises them? Therefore we should abolish welfare?

I would disagree.

@cobratbq yea but why dont they fly when their born? Vestigial organs make sense.

@dick Its common for animals to loose a capability as an evolutionary advantage. Basically if it isnt benefiting you much then you are wasting energy maintaining the systems for it, so if flying isnt worth the cost it could be lost.

Why do all insects (that I can think of) start their life in a stage that crawls (usually wormlike of some kind) and usually end their lives in a form that can fly. I cant think of any insects that start being able to fly and then their final form is flightless.

Im guess its because the final stage is the stage that mates and flying is critical to mating in some way.

@freeschool

> You mention the "me and you" example of doing a trade without rules and force- PERFECT- But the reality today is the opposite - there are rules and force beyond the 1 time deal and anything more regular between us is wanting to be regulated or punished (basically)... or within more people difficult.

This goes back to what i was saying about seeing it not as a government type or a pure all or nothing ideology but rather just one among many ideologies that should influence the way you structure a government, but not be seen as a hard rule.

More specifically, we dont live in a country that is a pure capitalism, or even much of a capitalism at all... You are right we **dont** have free markets, thats the point. Markets are highly regulated, and there are big players that control it (including the government). Not only is it not a free market, but it is quite far away from being one. That said we also shouldnt strive for one, while capitalism (free markets) should be the default for sure, its not a rule so much as an ideological guidline, and the reality should be a mix of many things, where capitalism is only an influence.

For example there is a strong argument that healthcare shouldnt exist in a free market system because the laws of supply and demand break down since a person would pay anything (usually) to live one more healthy day. So the supply is limited but demand is effectively infinite. So free market cant work in health care. That said the solution there isnt universal or single payer health care. The solution is to design a system that addresses this problem, and that solution would look like co-op based healthcare which would restore free market pressures since the patients are also the owners.

> So are we in Capitalism?

Again this goes back to what im saying, you arent in a capitalism or not. It isnt a binary thing that a government either is or isnt a capitalism, thats kindergarten way of thinking about it. There are many things we handle in mostly capitalist ways, like the buying and selling of gold, thats fairly capitalistic. But the buying and selling of cars is far from a free market, we fix the price of cars such that gasoline powered cars are artificially more expensive than electric ones (through taxes and other mechanisms), so the buying and selling of cars is far from capitalism in the USA in many ways. That said, like i said, it isnt a bad thing to not follow an ideology as a pure idea, in fact, its good we dont.

@kkarhan

transmisogynist is someone who is hateful towards trans people presenting as a woman? New term for me.

But yea people are silly with how much their rhetoric oversimplifies things.. to the point of absurdity.

@cobratbq Ha! Won't be the last time!

@896c3ee86294d9f9c09ee357334aef4be4f7828508aa9810d6938d3ce054cc31

As far as I know his medal wasnt actually revoked. But this isnt an absurd representation. I would completely expect this to be an actual response and wouldnt even bat an eye wondering how absurd it is because its the norm now.

I'm not even sure babylon bee or the onion are satire anymore.

@freeschool

> That's like an illegal operation or incompatible way of looking it it sometimes. What's a beautiful bird worth?

There is nothing about capitalism that says you need to "sell the planet"

Free market capitalism only dictates that the market be free (no one can fix the market), it does not dictate that everythign and anything must be up for sale. If society decides its illegal to kill pretty birds because they are endangered that is perfectly in line with capitalism.

This comes back to the issue with the idology i touched on where I talked about it being viewed often as an absolute or all encompassing attribute. When you try to think of **Everything** about a government being dictated by capitalist ideology it wont work because it is only an idology defining that markets should be free, ti doesnt define what should be allowed to be sold or any of the thousands of other attributes of a government (like environmental protection).

If you still think capitalism means "anything for sale and no rules go" then you still arent getting what capitalism really is. It just means that if me and you make a trade no outside force is going to force my hand and set a price other than the natural market price of the good.

@KimPerales

4 years is a long time....

@rastinza I havent actually looked into threads. Do you have some examples for me?

@deightonrobbie

Absolutely, electric systems tend to be far more energy efficient than combustion based systems. People dont realize it but charging an electric car off cas is very close to as efficient as a gas engine. When you consider our grid is at least some small part green it is already more efficient off the grid even with a dirty grid.

@fabio

@896c3ee86294d9f9c09ee357334aef4be4f7828508aa9810d6938d3ce054cc31

Yup, nice chatting. I followed you back. See ya around.

@896c3ee86294d9f9c09ee357334aef4be4f7828508aa9810d6938d3ce054cc31

Im not sure if the car would be considered evidence, but even if it was by slashing the tires you in no way destroyed the evidence or made it any harder for the evidence to be used in a court of law. So i cant imagine that angle working.

As for more probable cause, sure, but if your vehicle is immobile no amount of probable cause will allow a search. Once it is immobile you need a warrant regardless of how strong your probable cause maybe.

> The premise is also wrong i suppose i need to look more. But i think the focus of the vehicle search doctrine focuses on the vehicles as class of readily mobile locomotive.

Even simply locking your drugs in a safe in the trunk is enough to require a warrant actually, the premise is intentionally absurd as a joke, using a large safe would get the job done with less theatrics.

> It can be argued that no matter what you do to a car, a car is redily mobile as long as someone can fix it.

Im not sure specifically where the threshold for immobility is. But I know I've read a case (cant remember the name) where a warrant was needed because the car was on cinder blocks and didnt currently have tires on it.

Also all of this is moot because in 2020 the supreme court (PA in this case but it may be upheld in higher courts) dictated all vehicle searches now need warrants regardless of mobility.

@freeschool

> Cool. So what words do you think I should use for my definition.

If you are looking for the name of a form of government that has authoritative central banks there really isnt one. However if you want a form of government that is anti-capitalist but represents a dynamic where money directly effects your influence in the government (basically what people misuse capitalism to mean) then the closest I can think of is plutocracy.

If you just want to highlight the authoritative nature then you can say authoritism, which is a major component in how many define conservatism.

> And then how to avoid this - I can see myself like a scratched record falling back into it... because I think many others are also not as educated or good with nuances? (kinda funny but if lots of people think it's the same then they can agree incorrectly)

The best way to avoid it is learn the concepts and the vocabulary better and try to use narrow and specific language like I described above.

> The use of this word is for me to know what I mean and then also for others to know - so it's kind of a vicious cycle! -
> Although I am using the word incorrectly / inaccurately, ironically others / we know what I . they mean and share similar dislike in the things I listed along the way in reply to you.

Well no apparently others dont know what you mean, because based on this one individuals responses he seemed to completely derail the conversation focusing on communism and capitalism and completely avoiding the important aspect of authoritarianism and even making recommendations that would increase authoritarianism suggesting the use of language may give the **illusion** of people understanding you when in fact their just mapping their own definitions. It is all smoke and mirrors from what I see.

> I can see how people might naturally never come out of these proper definitions because the feelings are almost right to them or others (oppression or cheating of some kind, lack of power or some meta way to see it) and even if the words they use are not great we can agree on 'wrong' or 'right' in some way.

Its much simpler than that, its purely about tribalism and non-cooperation principles which ironically was the main topic. Look how this guy @messaroundmarx responded to even light symantic criticism, his immediate response was to try to "exile" me from any discussion. **This** anti-cooperation toxic behavior is exactly why people intentionally keep using words incorrectly, because those errors allow you to make nonsensical arguments and allow you to construct bad logic that let you "fit in" with the community. Its the same reason you do it, everyone does it. People are so toxic you will be an outcast if you actually use logic and have nuanced opinion, so you ahve to talk their language, hate who they hate, and tow the line and youll fit in. You only do that if you use the same language as them, however wrong it is because that language is centrtal tot he idology. Hating capitalism, without having a clue what that word even means, is the cool thing to do.

> So thanks for this talk.

Happy to

> A few questions to wrap is the over question and mini points here so I can continue on a better trajectory and even 'teach' others on a better way to distinguish as a better reference or step by step way. Any ideas?

Just what I said above, be mindful of the nuance, be careful about your words, and stop thinking in black and white terms all or nothing. A government isnt capitalist or not, **every** government has some amount of capitalism in it, its a matter of degrees. Its also important to know capitalism on its own means nothing all that useful other than "free market" so if you find yourself using it to mean everything a government is and does, stop and rethink.