kodyo

Hanging put with her coworkers as she ages out of the dating pool will surely be fulfilling.

The more this crap happens, the less legitimate academia becomes.

Which is fine because intellectuals are pretty useless.

I suppose if you see yourself as messianic, it’s hard to imagine why someone wouldn’t want to screw you.

You're projecting. I have no desire to govern other people or in any way restrict their ability to do what they think is best for themselves. That's what climate alarmists do.

Deaths from natural disasters have been dramatically decreasing for decades. The number of people we can feed on less land has been increasing for decades. The ability of humans to move resources from one place to another has been increasing for centuries. Some people choose to live in warm and dry places rather than cold and damp places.

You discount the ability of the planet to respond to feedback and achieve balance, and the ability of humans to adapt. You don't even need international cabals of authoritarian collectivists to live a happy life.

The positive outcomes of using fossil fuels for generating energy have vastly outweighed the negatives, and will continue to do so.

I acknowledge that my opinion depends on a definition of "positive" that reflects my belief that we should make life better for humans.

If they accurately predicted the state of the 2020s climate in the 1970s, the government scientists should be embarrassed.

Is Western CO2 worse than Eastern CO2 somehow?

That’s an accomplishment that climate alarmists can’t claim.

Government scientists have told me we were 10 years from mass death and deprivation for those same 50 years.

Five Eyes makes the official legality moot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

There’s nothing obsolete about it, though. It does exactly what I expect it to do and it’s better than my previous electric stove, in my opinion.

And it’s none of your business. See to your own house.

I like my gas stove. It heats my food well and quickly. It’s not very expensive to operate.

I hope my next house has similar functionality.

Busybodies are never satisfied.

Sir, the Alaska fund is run by a government corporation governed by government employees and government appointees. The government decides how it's funded. The government decides how the money is spent. It's all government, and it's completely authoritarian because there's nothing voluntary about it.

WW1 happened right after Roosevelt and Wilson got done debating who was going to be the best person to centralize state power in the national government in the mold of the social progressives. And just after Wilson outsourced American monetary policy to a banking cartel, which opened the way to unlimited war and an unlimited welfare state.

Thanks for your reply.

That's also the time progressivism was peaking, and nation-states started creating centralized government welfare systems and engaging in Marxist revolutions.

Get rid of welfare states, and you can get rid of borders. But you can't maintain a welfare state with generous welfare subsidies and have open borders.

First of all, the most evil institutions that have existed over the last 120 years or so have been doing it in the name of "the people."

Secondly, if a government isn't both confiscating and redistributing the money, who are the group of robbers that you would designate doing this instead? UBI requires authoritarianism.

How do people identify themselves in order to prevent fraud in this fantasy?

The sinister euphemism of claiming that productive people have to "pay the population" manifests itself in weird ways, and it's not at all clear what you mean by that.

Private property is a civilized abstraction that alleviates the requirement to kill people who enter land you've claimed for your own, for as long as you can defend it.

It's how national borders work.

Most generational wealth dissolves pretty quickly unless the heirs are industrious. It's a problem that solves itself naturally.

Maybe you can find a gig complaining about rich people that will put food on your table.

There are plenty of Marxist-Leninists here.

Is that what happens now?

The arguments for it aren't impressive either.

Foraging and hunting for sustenance is work. Author proposes giving people stuff without work.

Author appears to be spitballing.

Author's assumption is that private property created poverty, and that hunter/gatherer societies were somehow more ideal than agrarian ones, which is nonsensical.

Poverty is the default state. It's there by default. Do nothing, have nothing. Do nothing as a hunter/gather, you're poor relative to your peers and you die.

Whatever cult UBI arises from is attempting to ameliorate the default by giving people something for nothing. Fine. That's honest.

That's even worse! All the downsides and the workers don't even get to control the means of production.

As a white person of only partial English descent, that's not my definition of my culture.

Most of the people I know and care about are within 10 miles of my house. I don't care about my town's relevance on the "world stage," whatever the heck that means to you.

Your threshold appears to be three people.

Mine's higher, I guess.