Show newer

@zleap Yea using the ban to actually try to force tiktok's ownership is even more deplorable than just a straight up ban in some ways. Either way that wont get him a pass thats for sure.

@louis I dont care about parties or what they want, I care about the individual politicians and what they supported.

Biden signed the law and supported it. Trump actively opposed it. Thats all I need to know to judge the two.

As much as I hate Trump seeing Biden censor the internet at the government level (basically doing what China does) and then having Trump say he will reverse it... thats a pretty good move to have me believe Trump might have been the lesser of te two evils afterall.

@mike

Right, so preventing free access to information for americans is clearly the solution. There isnt much you can get do to get me to like Trump, but fighting against censorship of the internet by the government is certainly one way to win me over.

@sgryphon

My entire company must use mermaid or PlantUML for all diagrams.. In almost all cases we do not find mermaid suffecient (even though we try) and almost always fall back to either graphviz or plantUML for most things.

@enroweb Should be done, I tool them off the block list. May take up to 24 hour before it works correct since it may need to resync with the server.

@freeschool It happens in tons of ways with humans, the tail bone is a good example.

There is no reason to think social constructs arent indirectly effected by similar processes. Maybe people are just getting dumber.

@rastinza

You speak of communism and socialism as if it is some opposite of capitalism. It isnt. A communism with a free-market economy is not just possible, it has been done and is called "Market Socialism":

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_s

@freeschool

@rastinza

You speak of communism and socialism as if it is some opposite of capitalism. It isnt. A communism with a free-market economy is not just possible, it has been done and is called "Market Socialism":

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_s

@freeschool

@rastinza

Again your viewing capitalism as yes or no, I am viewing the nuance.

Its all capitalism just in different ways and to varying degrees, thats the point, there is no "this is capitalism and this isnt" Everything is a mix of ideologies applied in many different ways.

I would say that what you describe "is mostly capitalism", it has aspects to it that are strongly capitalist (the private person gets a significant portion of ownership rights) and has anti-capatilist components such as lacking certain ownership rights in dealing with how I wish to use my property (in this case to sell it).

@freeschool

@rastinza @freeschool

> Sure I agree, I would definitely call a nation with no tariffs and trade restrictions a free trade.

The existent of, or lack of tariffs, if applied equally to all members (usually not the case) is still free market. When you have tariffs the market is no longer internationally free (some countries are at a disadvantage others are) but locally/internally is a free market. In other words, all the players in the market in the country have equal footing.

So the mere existence of tariffs doesnt make a country a capitalism or not, it depends on how it is applied. In fact if tariffs are meant to offset an unfair advantage one party has at the table then it would be against the principles of capitalism to not have tariffs. For example if china had a monopoly on cell phones then putting a tariffs on cell phones would be a requirement to follow capitalist ideals.

> The government can place tariffs on brick import/export, but it is still up to me to decide what is profitable and what should be done.

Then to my original point you dont fully own those bricks. If someone is **forcing** me to sell those bricks at some price that isnt the market price then I dont **fully** own the bricks. Someone else is telling me what I can or cant do with my bricks, and therefore someone else has some level of joint ownership over those bricks. Now again im not saying this is a bad thing, or even that it should or can be avoided entirely, capitalisms (along with any other ideal) does not exist in a pure sense so that would be nonsense anyway. But absolutely if there is a tariff exclusive to a category of goods, and that tariff is **not** designed to make the markets free (that is, everyone having equal power), then it is contrary to capitalism since it makes markets less free (brick sellers are at a disadvantage due to price fixing).

@rastinza @freeschool

> You say we don't have a free market now, I guess you refer to the United States - don't know about all places, but I feel a purely free market capitalism is practically unachievable unless you go into an anarchist society.

You could, but no one should want that. As I said this goes back to my comment about pure ideologies, they are almost always bad. Ideologies are meant to be principles, default ideas that work **most** of the time, but no ideaology should ever be applied in the absolute.

Nor does capitalism (or any ideology) require itself to be applied absolutely. Capitalism as a principle applied most of the time, and other principles used where they apply is completely in line with capitalism, and should be the goal of a capitalist.

> I feel the Oxford dictionary definition...

as I said words dont have a single definition, that is certainly one of them. It is distinctly different than free-market which is another definition. Since private ownership and free market are two halves of the same coin I find the distinction largely irrelevant. If the market isnt free then you dont truly completely own your products since someone else can force you to sell it as a price other than what it is worth. You dont truly own a thing if you cant choose when and how to sell it.

@freeschool @rastinza

Language is a werid thing, a word means whatever you mean it to mean. There is no "right" there is just varying degrees of adoption, some terms are used by some people.To me the more important part is that capitalism is well defined in a technical way so it is useful. When we talk about capitalism as a principle of free markets, its useful. Using it as a catch all term that isnt well defined isnt so much wrong, as it is just not useful and is counter productive.

@david_chisnall

Silly to assume Canadians would vote blue or red. Canadians aren't stupid enough to buy into a 2 party myth. Chances are they would all vote for the green party.

@bonifartius the reason I went with bowtie was to show off the accent colors of the shirt. Thanks

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.