sfe22

More bureaucracy probably

Maybe this would not have happened had nato not tried to expand to ukraine

And nato was created to control and prevent the influence/expansion of USSR. Russia is not that threat anymore, so no major reason for nato to exist at all, let alone expand in Ukraine.

Cant you keep the space above freezing? Just not as warm as people would prefer

Who decides what are individual rights? Would they be held up if 95% disagree with it? I mean it might work idk, it would just not be a democracy.

Unfortunately I don’t agree. If 95% Americans want to steal my assets, something is wrong with the them (or me), and I should have probably seen it coming and leave. Why would I want to live in such extreme society anymore. If I was used to set an example that still would tell many a lot about this hypothetical america. Would a tyrant really be of any help then, maybe if it was somehow “good” to me, for a limited time but definitely does not justify its existence and cost on freedom and wealth.

Sounds like a reason to justify tyranny to me. What do you mean mob rule. In a (true) democratic society just a small group can change something the majority disagrees with because they got together? The majority is also together in the same matter isnt it?

The emperor can also be your representative, and so is Putin to russians, and the slightly more complex US system. The slider is democracy to tyranny, just because we dont yet have democracy in most or all countries doesn't change anything here. We just have twisted its meaning to describe some decision power when choosing tyrants. Either all decide equally-democracy , or fewer to very few or one-tyranny.

So CA is too democratic in your opinion? It should slide more towards tyranny?

Government is the glorious monopoly, no other monopoly is glorious. What if government wants to invest in housing? Ban it too? How about if they label it as low cost?

Can the glorious monopoly invest in homes or they get an exception?

It will not have a native feel I guess, so it will feel a bit off to both android and iOS users

Why not take the last step and go full on commie? The countries should ban home ownership unless there is 0 homeless people, same food production, cars, iPhones, healthcare and more, all taken care by your favorite glorious monopoly.

Maybe people get it since “good” guys with big legal guns show up for it, and enslave or shoot you if you don’t come up with it, for your own good of course.

I believe freedoms can be restricted to everyone in a region by a monopoly (government) if a very large group of people in a place vote for it. Not 50%, it would take higher percentage than that. And this way you can create basic laws, agains murder for example, nukes, heavy weapons, basic insurance, etc. And said people should have a right to withdraw their vote. If they want to censor TV this way they can. It would he stupid but they can. However to meet definition of democracy in my books, they also need to have the right to withdraw their support for that restriction of freedom, and if the threshold is not met, the law is abolished automatically after a certain period. Having a certain people create laws is ripe for corruption, and we see that everywhere including Switzerland.

If you cannot get the majority to support your censorship, and still believe it is good for a lot of people, you have to create standards and create programs that adhere to such standards that people can subscribe to voluntarily.

A Canadian organization, not the Canadian monopoly.

In a free market it will be unlikely to have many poor people, as they will see the reality and settle where they are truly productive. Parents care about their children (even if you don’t think so) and reliable education will be offered to them. Fire department can be arranged by neighborhoods, nobody wants their house burning down, or very high insurance payments. Remember how much resources governments waste, they will all get cheaper, how much they tax, people will get way richer.

And yes, I believe everyone will be better off with free markets, otherwise i’d be a commie too. It’s not that I don’t care about others. I care more than most do. I see they working jobs that are not necessary, or governments destroying their purchasing power.

Fortunately I am doing pretty well, even with after the money government takes, and if I was evil or not compassionate I wouldn’t advocate for change, but rather take advantage of current system and move to the side that benefits from peoples diminished value of work. It would be way easier for me.

If government is dependent on smokers smoking a lot to fund its activities, what happens if some smokers decide to quit? The government has vested interest to keep number of smokers high.

Banning by a monopoly dude. Maybe I trust a Canadian organization to regulate baby formulas better, a german one for diapers and no regulation for my hairdresser.

I made two points since i know many add exceptions for some parties when defining theft. Care to reply to the second point?

If people in a region need protection services I am sure they will figure out a way to pay for it. Otherwise said service may not be really that important. If you worry about not getting 100% of people to pay without coercion and threatening taking their freedom to move, good news, even now over 50 percent of Americans don’t pay taxes or pay a tiny amount. The interested parties will take care of it easy.

First problem with taxing is that it takes money without consent and with force, aka theft. But that aside, do you want to get your favorite monopoly hooked on and addicted to the money taken from people’s activities that are harming themselves or others?

No, we should not let a monopoly like the government banning stuff. If some groups believe this censorship better for them (or people they care for) they are free to do so, and if they are a large group a market solution will be offered to them.

If we have a monopoly deciding, we may never know. That is why I specifically said a monopoly like government. If some people subscribe to this idea, good for them. If they are a large group, the market will offer them a solution and we will see.

But who decides what is classified as addictive or not and what gets allowed and what censored? I certainly wouldn’t want a monopoly making the decision.

The problem is other stable coins are not transparent, and are very likely not fully funded so they can collapse any time. USDC is by coinbase and a little more transparent, thus less likely to collapse in case of mass withdrawal.

Cant be ad revenue, it would be stupid. But going into a pot Spotify style is also evil and not fair.

You can target ads in US at $1 CPM?

Other payments processors charge 30c + 3%, so it would be interesting to see how it would work here for smaller payments

Looks like I need a new word to describe a system where everyone rules, rather than certain people or organization, since both democracy and direct democracy are apparently taken to describe systems where all people don’t actually rule. Maybe “actual true direct pure democracy” should do.