In other words, this is a law that still ought to be overturned by a better Supreme Court.
61 karma · joined March 3, 2026
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2023/09/02/...
In fact, both the majority of the Taiwanese people and the current government are against unification.
Not to nitpick too much, but even if the land is "owned in common", it is very much possible to to tell whose cow is which, either by memorizing their differences, tagging, branding, etc.
But I digress, even when the owner isn't clear, it's often clear who isn't. In your cow example, if one powerless individual tried to oppose the cow's sacrifice, for whatever reason, and was denied, they objectively aren't the cow's owner, even though no individual owner has been determined. Simultaneously, we see also a glimpse of alienation. This also applies to land, with the caveat that most land was just mostly unowned for most of history, save for civilizational centers.
It should also be mentioned that law was once (and can once again be) implemented through vibes.
Please note I never redefined the concept of a "village", simply explored possible cases. At best, I redefined the concept of a "corporation", given that the definition I'm using is "a group of people combined into or acting as one body under a normative arrangement, such as a formal contract, a constitution or a customs." I don't think this redefinition is unwarranted, given it contrasts the notion of a individual/physical person, while being state-agnostic. This notion also isn't particularly tied to capitalism (in the Marxist sense of the word at least) either. Given that all I did was accentuate that form of privation, I don't think this is a case of "capitalism hypernormalization", but a case of relationships being more broader than they look.
I will keep a note of those books, although I won't deny that I'm really late in my reading list.
Thus, I'd like to posit that there's no such thing as common ownership, but corporate ownership instead, a subset of private ownership, characteristic of capitalism.
Tax is not a "mechanism for distribution of wealth" anymore than it is "charity". That's its own form of corporate propaganda/brainwashing only governments and their cronies can provide. It's, in the best terms, a fee you are forced to pay to whoever owns the monopoly over force. In other terms, legalized stealing. This stolen wealth may be redistributed to the poor, but it would be no different than doing charity through stolen money.
GDP is not a measurement of wealth, thus can't be owned.
The government (presumably USA's) chose to be in debt. It didn't have to. It also won't be bled dry either, unless by complete incompetence, as it has plenty of ways of paying it back.
I suppose you are correct in that large corporations are sucking society dry, but that includes the government as well.
Possibly due to point 2, for instance.
> What kind of reciprocity exists if we talk about healthy adults taking care of disabled children that would likely die in few years?
You do realize that people may become disabled in their lives, right? It's not just children.
In any case, that can also be explained by point 3.
> Oh, how close it is to saying "people are often being selfless"!
But it isn't, and that's the point. This is a case of self-actualization, the highest expression of the "self". Some may argue that this is "selflessness", but I argue that this is "selfishness" in its purest form: the pursuance of one's highly personal goal, i.e. psychic profit seeking.
1. Social pressures. Failing to care for others can result in social stigma, with increasing levels of alienation depending of culture/society; 2. Setting examples for reciprocity . One can help others today to set the expection to receive support later. All become old, sick and/or disabled at some point (if they don't die beforehand, immortals notwithstanding); 3. Friends and relatives are valuable in multiple ways; 4. Some just see value in helping others, either in the act or the results.
These are the examples I can state on top of my head. They all require each individual's evaluation scales to favor such motivations.
Most of the coalitions you mentioned are, ultimately, born out of the realization that, sometimes, you have to give a little now, to gain more later. Even charity at its pure idealistic form requires the altruistic individual to feel they made the world better in their own view (psychic profit, thus ultimately selfish) to happen.
This isn't the "default capitalist view", this is praxeology, plain and simple.
Not that excuses your astronomical lack of decorum.
> I’m a developer who has to deal with Zionism every day. We’re speed running IBM and the Holocaust. Commenting about it is the very least I can do.
> I have zero issue with Hezbollah.
The parent comment, from OP, which was flagged, was questioning GP about Iran's support for Hezbollah IIRC.
That being said, I do agree that there's a dangerous apathy about how the free markets work. The free market, being the product of voluntary action, is anything but automatic.
But I don't see how that is a scapegoating mechanism for "anything you don't like". Anymore than apathy is, at least. I see human rights (specially the right to live and private ownership) being used as scapegoats much more often.
The solution, presuming said law to be fair, is to make a world where no one has to sleep under bridges, to beg on the streets and steal their bread. Not getting rid of the rule of law. Of course, that presumes said law to be fair (aside from the last part, it isn't).
> Those with money and power DO have a lot of goals that are aligned with each other. They're not incompetent, and they understand the power of collusion.
Most people share goals, understand the benefits of collaboration, and exploitable conflicts still arise. The problem isn't caused by a lack of shared goals, but the presence of conflicting ones. Even just one can inhibit collaboration and induce sabotage. After all, there is no long-term collaboration to be had if your goals are mutually exclusive.
Also, it think it bears reminding that the alternative, regulation, is enforced through a powerful corporation that is structurally much harder to hold accountable (despite best efforts, although it was always a non-starter), the state.
The legally and ethically relevant concept of ownership is about dealing with mutual exclusivity of material resources and avoiding its conflicts. Abudant things, in this context, do not have mutual exclusivity and, as such, are not ownable in a natural sense.
> But they do indicate intent.
And?
> I was talking about the physical object.
Sure, but we are talking about IPs, not real property, so I fail to see how this example is relevant.
> It is extremely natural for someone to have ownership over what one has created.
Intelectual property is an oxymoron, and no oxymoron can be natural. Only scarce things can be property. Making non-scarce things (e.g. binary code) act as property is conflict-seeking behavior that often results in the violation of real ownership of others.
> It's protected by NDAs for the express fact that it doesn't become part of what the people have.
NDA do not protect IPs. While they restrict the flow of information, they are still contracts, and bounded by their limits as such.
> If you make a beautifully designed pendant someone can't just steal it from you and claim that they are "archiving it" and want to experience culture.
Yes, someone can "steal" (copy) my beatiful design on the basis that they own their own pendant materials. To prevent that is to violate their private property rights and, in some cases, their right to live.
You speak for others as if you are a representative for them. Somehow, it doesn't go through your mind that other people might have different readings and perspectives from articles or papers, and you default to accusing them of just not reading. A view that's possibly amplified by certain social bubbles. Evidence of that lies in your, basically gratuitous, accusation of sinophobia.
This ties to the "common knowledge" issue. Due to diversity, there is no such thing as objective "common knowledge", thus it is always subjective to social groups. Best case scenario, appeal to common knowledge is simply an intolerant way of uncritically asserting your biases onto others, who might not even belong to any of your social groups. Worst case scenario, it's used by bad actors to gaslight their way through a discussion.
Someone asked you to fetch the current month's article (not a study) to use as a sample. Instead of just quickly googling and linking it, allowing the conversation to go forward, you kept trying to dismiss and avoid doing your due dilligence. Only after many posts, you managed to post a analyzable sample. If that's not a waste of energy, I don't know what is.
If you genuinely believe this was a total waste of energy, you could've just left. If your arguments were solid, no further comments would take them down (that is, if you made actual arguments, not just claims before).
I'm not here to change your mind (specially given how you treat all your proof as "common knowledge", which indicates that is so enshrined in your perspective, that only a serious event can actually change), but to either: present a point or debunk bogus/baseless claims (primarily this one). Other people can read through our posts and reach their own conclusion.
The first, from 2015 (year of the 2015-2016 Chinese stock market turbulence), is an analysis of the response of the other countries to the aforementioned issue. With that context, its cover seems to be the usual attention grabbing shit other journals do, lest you want to conclude that the Economist also has a vendetta against USA for some of its covers.
The other articles simply show specific issues they noted: the second is about the effect of the trade war and how that will slow China but it'll be fine otherwise; the forth is repeating a concern of some authrorities, but it has no tone of "this will end China".
The third one is the closest, being about discrepanciea between the numbers reported by the top officials and the local governments. It mentions the possibility of being worse than it appears, but, at the end, it also posits whether it actually is given the lack of worry from party officials.
In all, doesn't seem that different from the average doomerism you see for other countries (including the US). They, to me, appear much more likely to be clickbaits than actual propaganda pieces.
Given the dates of these results, I suspect you specifically searched for the Economist saying anything negative about China's economy. If so, not exactly a good starting point for measuing bias. Now, to be fair, Google results can be different from user to user and you did at least post some actual the Economist links, in contrast to that bogus Reddit post you linked.
What's actually impressive is how you are baffled for doing the bare minimum. "That's common knowledge" is just a cheap excuse for ending discussions. But I'll elaborate on that on the other chain.
Now, for comparison, here are my 3 top results from searching "The Economist china" in Google:
1) https://www.economist.com/topics/china
2) https://www.economist.com/china/2026/04/27/xi-jinping-wants-...
3) https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/04/29/...
So far, it just looks like the usual news media shenanigans.
If by "common knowledge" you mean "common sense", I refer you to search about the appeal to common sense fallacy. Here's a link:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-...
Nothing can dissuade discussions more than fallacies.
If all you do is come, claim that the Holocaust happened in a certain way, and hoped to call it a day without any proof nor evidence, that's just a demonstration of your own bad faith and intolerance.
Luckily for many, the internet is filled with evidence about it, so any good faith argumenter should have little difficuty doing so.
The only people averted to do so are people not interested in a proper discussion, at which point, they should just leave rather than spout baseless claims. Even if their conclusion is correct, poor arguments do nothing more than hurt the pursuit of the truth (normally for spreading intolerance, which helped the Holocaust happen).
Since you mentioned Nintendo, do you think the many criticisms(fair or otherwise) against Nintendo and their games are due to Japanophobia?
I think its fairly clear that, when talking bad about China, they are focusing on its goverment, not its people nor ethnicities.
Still, I'll concede since that's not what's relevant to me. I'm more curious about the claim that USA would do the same. I can see congress calling the CEO to testify, but keep them in the country until the government is satiafied? How? AFAIK congress has no such power, and the executive may try, and they might be struck down by the courts.
While US has export controls, this wouldn't be a company incorporated, or running, for that matter, in the US (so the Supermicro already doesn't qualify). It would be a company, say, incorporated in the UK. Even if the company started in the US, this, AFAIK, would be unprecedented. Hence the relevance of showing a prior case.
And, make no mistake, I'm not here to say USA is better than China, but these "China is just doing what USA does" claims are getting ridiculous.