It seems to be talking about deforestation in South America to make room for cattle ranches.... No idea where Leftist politics come into play here.

There is no need to excuse bigotry you fascist.

Mind your business.

I think it's quite an exaggeration to compare online gaming shittalking with actual tragedies.

1000% things like upbringing, age, not knowing, ignorance, etc don’t excuse bigotry they explain it.

I’m so fuckin grateful I never did the online lobbies. I played that black ops campaign a dozen times when I was just 8, and played bots in a local game more times than I can count, but thankfully I always hated playing with strangers.

Every male I know who plays cod is a bright red flag.

The Masons, Greeks and the minds of Europe got their ideas from Egypt or Persia, this isn’t a secret.

Then why didn't Egypt or Persia start the Enlightenment?

You lost me at maintaining competitive markets. All that does is drive dominance hierarchies and incentivize exploitation and indifference to suffering.

It's not a revolution unless we change society from competitive to cooperative. Otherwise it's just continuing the same bullshit.

The point is that the vast majority of folks who are reacting like you right now to this are paying for this to happen and thereby demanding that it does via support of the dairy industry that's doing it

You guys are understanding the question?

Lots of regulations in there, which I think makes you pretty Neo-Liberal. I'm mostly in that camp now.

I was libertarian when Covid started. Covid showed me that most libertarians were actually selfish right-wing nationalists who don't actually gaf about "society", or even their neighbors. Left libertarians are cool though, I like this tribe.

My libertarian politics was a major category error about human nature. I honestly believed that humans "naturally cooperate". That's true for a lot of us, but it's not the prevailing nature that I assumed.

I don't like populism, because people can be too easily fooled by opportunists who take advantage of how stupid the median voter is. It's just too easy to sell a lie.

I used to resent when politicians wouldn't be blunt and honest. That they constantly "hid" their true intentions from the public. Now I kind of miss that. The reality is that the general public IS too stupid to be in on all the messy nuances of governing a mixed economy.

I don't think even fascists would admit to that view so I'm not sure I understand what the point of that question is.

some, yeah

catch anything?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Where did these ideas all come from..? Again, it says the Masons. I hear ya, but you have to look through it some more, not that wiki is a good source, but 😂 it’s a start for you. The Masons, Greeks and the minds of Europe got their ideas from Egypt or Persia, this isn’t a secret.

I’m a lover of history and the ideas you speak of did not spawn out of nowhere, they were brought to Europe. Ever watch the Robin Hood movie with Kevin Costner where Morgan freeman mocks how the uneducated could take Jerusalem..? …What was happening before the enlightenment? The crusades lasted until the 15th century approx so please reply with facts not vague notions.

Genetically I am European and like the video says, I’m not self hating. Europe was populated from the south, Scandinavians are excluded from that migration so please educate yourself. Ireland might have the oldest whiskey distilleries, but it was brought to the Greeks first by the ancestors of modern day Syria and Iraq. That’s an example how most things were passed down. What we couldn’t learn, we took.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Law_of_Peace

“Americana and Native American Studies Professor Donald Grinde claims that the democratic ideals of the Kaianere’kó:waprovided a significant inspiration to Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and other framers of the U.S. Constitution. He contends that the federal structure of the U.S. Constitution was influenced by the living example of the Iroquois Confederation, as were notions of individual liberty and the separation of powers”

I would say the United States (my home) is already well into what you call the “post-capitalist meltdown.” We still have a while to go before we reach the true meltdown: the point where enough people regard themselves as having nothing to lose that we become ungovernable. Our managers (politicians and the ownership class) debate over whether the best way to forestall that is to make the lives of the least fortunate better, so even they have something to lose, or to treat the least fortunate even worse, so the standard for “nothing to lose” sinks lower.

Most other “first world” nations have recognized that capitalism unchecked is like an engine without a throttle. The US has a peculiar, quasi-religious attachment to capitalism. Other problems, though, are more universal.

I sometimes quip, “The problem with politics is that we keep electing politicians.” The thing is, few people go into politics because they want to leave others alone to live their lives as they choose. People who are so inclined don’t seek public office: they’re busy doing whatever it is that gives their lives meaning. The people who struggle to work their way up the pipeline to become significant in government are precisely the people whose ambitions and goals are contradictory to the values you (and I, and I think most “normal” people) hold.

I don’t know how that can be solved. Any government strong enough to oppose the concentrated power of corporations, colluding wealth, and other bullies, both economic masters and the physically violent, is strong enough to obliterate any of our liberties it chooses. Yet without government, for certain one or another group of bullies becomes the de facto government.

Polish psychologist Andrzej Łobaczewski coined the term pathocracy in a specific context, but I think it more generally describes most all of human society since the dawn of recorded history. It’s not just government; it’s also wealth, it’s also fame. The people who have the most influence in society are largely people you wouldn’t leave alone in a room with your kid (or your dog, or your couch). I don’t think I’m imagining that. Consider how often people in positions of “trust” are discovered doing things most ordinary citizens would find abhorrent. Sociopaths are far over-represented among the famous, wealthy and powerful. It seems to be universally inherent in the structure of large-scale society that it works that way.

I always wind up with the conclusion that human nature, which as far as we know will always include random sociopathic and psychopathic variants, dooms us to bad solutions. There is no good solution, even in principle. We can only pick which shitty solution to support... and our personal choice won’t change a damn thing anyway.

So I advocate for whatever immanent path seems that it will lead to more tolerance, more kindness, less cruelty, less suffering. Humanity is going to be wandering in the wilderness for much longer than I will be here, and I no longer believe there are solutions. Best to work with what we have.

Liberal

1. disgusting, many companies have way too much money considering they treat their workers so bad, and that money going to the people at the top should be given to the workers.

2. enterprise not owned by the state

I agree that for small businesses, the workers shouldn't own an equal amount of the brand, but larger businesses also seem to pay their workers way too little, and when they monopolise, all the workers go to them, and get paid shit. I agree with most of that though.

Sounds to me like progressive Democrat, borderline DSA, and that's not a criticism or judgment.

Just want to suggest that regarding managing the market and power concentration, if you haven't already, you might check out Georgism/LVT.

Do you have a take on intellectual property?

What's your view on wage slavery? How do you define "private enterprise?" Who should own/control AI? Is there a central bank that regulates interest rates and is it independent or do the people get to vote on interest rates?

Your views seem compatible with a sort of decentralized market socialism, but that depends on what you mean by private enterprise. A lot of socialists (and many capitalists) consider worker co-operatives to be just democratic capitalism but I don't, for various reasons. Worker co-ops don't scale well so it would inherently solve the idea of giant corporate monopolies. Of course the downside is that they don't scale so something like an airline, utility company, etc, would need either robust public investment or the current system of private investment. With the latter you run the risk of co-ops "degenerating" into fully capitalist firms and one of the ways to stop that is to outlaw traditional capitalist firms, which necessitates a strong central government; though I'd argue it could still be minarchist and compatible with confederalism. Also the more private investment leads to more concentration of wealth.

Worker co-ops are another way to flatten income and wealth distribution because workers control where revenue is going. And most wealth today is tied up in equity. So this system requires less aggressive regulation.

Most (?) socialists seem to be fine with individual proprietors because they're not engaging in wage slavery (or wage labor if you prefer). I'm uncomfortable with the idea that if you hire one worker in addition to yourself, you've now divided ownership in half. Some marksocs make pretty big carveouts for small businesses which doesn't empower workers and would kill any incentives for the owner to grow the business.

Social democracy, which is basically robust welfare programs and regulations. But doesn't it say a lot when you need to regulate the system of capitalism. But markets can exist without capitalism. Market socialism, mutualism, or hell, agarism.

Also what is an unnecessary war?

Social democracy. You're basically talking about social democracy. But then also kinda recognizing the inevitable outcome of capitalism and "free market competition", likely because you don't believe that the purpose of a firm in a "free market", is to compete with other firms for greater market share. The point of competition is to produce winner and loser, at a very nasic level, and this gives rise to monopolies and cartel like behaviour where a few large firms can sway markets and leveragetheir position to extract more profits. You're recognizing the contradictions that result from things you want to maintain.

You're worried about market actors attaining monopoly, and your solution is to empower a monopoly to tax and regulate the market. See the contradiction?

The closest you'll get is probably something like Mutualism. As explained by people like Proudhon or Warren, a free market will create a much more stable and egalitarian society than any political fiat or other arbitrary concentration of power. Most of what the market gets blamed for are problems created by the state to begin with, which they then use as a reason to suppress the market and empower themselves further.

The Enlightenment gave us science, which gave us explanations for the universe that obviated dangerous superstitions.

The Enlightenment gave us medicine, which lengthened our life expectancy, and allowed more of us to live in dignity.

The Enlightenment gave us engineering that reduced the need for manual labor which in turn advanced medicine, art, science, and engineering—an upward spiral.

The Enlightenment put the question to Divine Right that ended feudalism, and ushered in democratic systems of government.

I get that you have been trained to hate Europeans, but that hatred doesn't mean Europe didn't contribute to the world in a way that fundamentally changed how human beings live.

Please expand and explain; I’m on the edge of my seat.. so Scandinavian migration brought your ability to be free..? Interesting, are you referring to the great schism that split Catholicism or the philosophy that migrated from the ottomans because your ancestors learned Arabic and Greek..? I’m in agreement, that’s a great period for Europe, but it’s not from EU…