> My question is, couldn’t you do this fairly without even spending that much money?
It would actually cost tens of millions of dollars (if not more) if you want to comply with the securities laws of every country.
It would actually cost tens of millions of dollars (if not more) if you want to comply with the securities laws of every country.
Saying that Sam Altman is a scammer
Which is ludicrous. They aren't the underdogs here. They _are_ the powerful parties who need to be kept in check for democracy to function. A journalist publishing despite censorship is in no way comparable to wealthy promoters distributing unregulated securities.
I think what you were going for may have been that distributing these securities is in some way freedom of speech, which is also just incorrect, or correct in some way so limited as to be irrelevant. If it is freedom of speech, your freedom to distribute securities stops at scamming your neighbor's nose. But the burden of proof here is on your security _not_ being a scam, and that is because unregulated securities markets readily devolve into scam after scam.
I think in reality there are many different kinds of power, and talking about power as if it's one simple fungible thing leads to naive and wrong conclusions.
Powerful people lobby against legislation constantly with mixed success. They're able to hold a lot of influence, but not able to hold total influence. It is difficult to understand, it's a complex system composed of many fully autonomous human beings. But we do ourselves a disservice when we cast it in such stark terms, wouldn't you say?
I responded to an argument I thought was silly with something on a similar level, and what I wrote doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny.
Such is life on the forums sometimes.
So you're wrong, but it isn't your fault, because you didn't even believe what you said, and you only said it because you wanted to respond to my argument, which you didn't think was worth taking seriously?
I'd encourage you to hold yourself and your public statements to a higher standard than that. If my arguments aren't worth responding to - don't. If you don't believe something - don't say it.
That isn't just "how things go," that's a series of decisions you made. Putting that on me shouldn't be something you accept from yourself.
I think it's quite telling that you described us as "opponents." You aren't actually here to discuss anything, you're here to "win." That's why you're throwing out opinions you don't hold, and why you can't admit you're wrong without wrapping it in an insinuation that I am more wrong. That's why you keep responding, even if it's only to assert I'm not worth responding to.
To put my cards on the table, I care about this conversation, I care about what the truth of this matter is, and I want to either change your mind or have my mind changed. I think you care too. I think you're cloaking your ideas in a veneer of detachment to protect yourself from taking my criticism seriously. And I think that's deeply unfortunate.
Power is not a binary quantity, and there isn't just one type of power.
A power president would be able to put in unqualified judges.
Considering there was recently a president putting in unqualified judges, while the prior president couldn't put in any judges, that is a difference in their power
That would seem to contradict your last statement, so I'm just not sure what you are asserting here.
By law, appointments of certain positions require explicit consent of congress.
The ability of regressive partisan elements to break government is a part of the design of the government. I personally find it repugnant and stupid. I also think that the short sighted nature of wielding this power in such a trivial and hamfisted way will ultimately backfire and result in constitutional changes down the road.
It's amazing the way you guys (small-d democrats) are always dressing up what is nakedly the statement that "everything I like and want is good and proceeds in a way I'll call democracy (because I say it's good for the people), but whatever I dislike is authoritarian (even if the people want it.)"
It may surprise you to learn that, historically, this is exactly how authoritarianism views itself. Even Saddam Hussein conducted polls of his popularity so he could pretend his sovereignty arose from the people. The Vichy government was legal, popular, and internationally recognized. What the law says on paper is a different thing than what is practiced, and conveniently appealing to what the paper says is a time-honored tactic of eliding inconvenient realities.
Democracy, c. 2020s: "The people must be allowed to choose, but only if what they choose is good for them, as decided by me."
Democracy doesn't scale. You need representation. Which makes the question of "what do the people want" very challenging because you go through layers of representation. Definitionally it's a problem which surfaces obviously at the extreme - "if the people want an authoritarian government and they get it, does that mean that that's democracy?". You may think that's absurd yet humanity tends to favor authoritarianism in groups, particularly in moments of crisis and/or being swayed via propaganda (see Julias Ceaser).
I think the nuance that's missing is that you can have objective definitions and measures of democracy which you have dismissed as ""everything I like and want is good and proceeds in a way I'll call democracy" when it's more nuanced.
Taking your assertion at face value, that means no full and true democracy has ever existed prior to ~2010. Is that what you believe? Because even the then-believed-to-be freest countries of the 80s were probably quite regressive on gay rights.
You would have to believe that, because otherwise "democracy" seems to mean "all the things that good people support today," which is my point. And if that is what you believe, that only in the last 1-2 decades has a real democracy existed, then you must also believe that it's possible that the science of democracy measuring will discover in the future that the True Democracy is even more democratic than what we have today. It's not clear to me how this is any different from "everything I like is democracy," where "what I like" is increasingly progressive policies.
Why are gay rights apparently part of the canonical definition of democracy and not firearms ownership, which directly empowers people to resist tyranny? How can you explain this by appealing to universal principles, instead of simply reiterating liberal orthodoxy? I don't see a way.
So in a society that sees gays as people, it's not a large leap to consider gay rights as part of a evolving definition of democracy. Same as all western "democracies" took time to let women rights be a thing. Will you argue that a contemporary democracy which doesn't give women a right to vote is a democracy? If not, then how is gay rights different?
In other words, is there a limiting principle that you're appealing to?
And why do you suppose that the right of people directly to be armed, and therefore resist tyranny and remain governed only democratically, never figures into these democracy scores?
I think statistics can be certainly be used to be illustrative. For example, having a 7x higher incarceration rate than Canada might imply that on some level USA has a larger problem than Canada on this democracy level. Specifically, the US disenfranchises people while in prison and frequently keeps them disenfranchised afterward. I'd say it's pretty non-controversial to say that metrics around the percentage of the population living within the country that is enfranchised is a measure of one aspect of democracy (which means that most countries fail on this metric of letting non-citizens vote). Another might be whether citizens believe that an election result was free and fair (in addition to actually trying to find any evidence that it wasn't). A more democratic country would probably engender more good will and faith from its constituents vs one where the population believe that it only paid lip service to the idea.
Anyway, that's all I'll say on this as I'm done talking with someone engaging in bad faith tactics.
Democracy in 2020 in the United States looked more like 1890 than 1980. That’s not good for anyone.
And the regressive elements I reference exist by peddling fear and anger without addressing the source of the grievance or the problem faced. Someday, the people in places like Kansas will figure it out. In the meantime, folks will feast on the bread and circus of “LGBTQ”, or whatever is being served up by the outrage of the month club.
Rights that are granted by laws are not rights at all, which is why the proper understanding of human rights is that they can neither be granted nor taken away by any human law, as any law that would do so is just a coercive force belonging to whoever happens to be in power at the time.
The Anti-Federalists were so concerned to make this clear that they even viewed enumerating basic rights in the Bill of Rights as dangerous / likely to be interpreted as exhaustive vs. transcendent, which is exactly what has happened over time, of course.
Pardon the ignorant question, but what did you study to learn this? My midwestern education completely failed me here. I'd like to read whatever it is you read.
Man, I wish I had a simple answer for you, it's basically what I've pieced together over the years by trying to fill in the gaps in my own midwestern education.
A lot of it, I did pick up by digging into the history the Federalist / Anti-Federalist papers themselves, as well as various readings on the Founders / framing of the Constitution. If I think of anything specific I can point to, I'll follow back up here.
The Anti-Federalist Papers aren't necessarily easy to breeze through, but definitely worth reading: https://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalist-Papers-Dover-Thrift-E...
They can also be found in audio format here, and elsewhere: https://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail/q3qhq-50128/The-Anti-...
The real mindset change happened, for me, when I saw that coercion in society is THE enemy. All actions and interactions should be voluntary. It's when those lines are crossed that crimes and evil occur. Everything flows from that, in my opinion.
Without writing down what our natural rights are in a way that is understandable, you’re stuck trying to reconcile religious beliefs. How do you deal with an individual who believes that people of African descent we designated by the creator as less than human?
We deal with this today in other contexts. Ambiguity and conviction don’t mix well.
As far as your other question, it comes back to coercion vs those rights. If some jackass wants to believe that, I can’t change those beliefs. But I can certainly support the right of self-defense or shared defense of the intended victim if that ideology is used to attack them.
But... when you look at how the world turns, and that Jim Crow was legal well into my parents lifetime, and that some individuals fight against things like privacy rights in pursuit of their own agenda and others fight for universal payments under the guise of "general welfare", the scope provided by a written list seems like the pragmatic choice.
Regulation is generated by those in power and largely
The law comes from the constitution alone.
That’s like saying it would cost tens of millions of dollars to comply with health regulations in different countries when you sell foodstuff. Yes, of course!
Maybe electric automobile mfgs can just ship cars all over the world without going through safety standards too!
The standard Silicon Valley Ethos excuse.
Which is what a lot of these "self-made men" have and built their careers and fortunes on.