stretchwithme

Just going by the definitions Google provides first, socialism seems pretty similiar to Communism or at least a superset of it.

Communism is intended to produce "a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."

Socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Socialism means the public owning or regulating everything. Communism is definitely about the public owning everything. And socialism is not necessarily about allocating by need the way Communism is supposed to be.

Maybe that's the National Socialists in Germany called themselves that. The State didn't own everything but it did try to control everything. For the good of the people. Well, some of the people. The definition of Socialism doesn't address that detail.

skillfully done.

There isn't a single widely-held opinion that did not begin as an extremist opinion.

And plenty of irrational ideas that became widely held.

Or changing the unnatural environment.

I thought about that too. But utility companies ARE legal monopolies. So you DON'T have a choice of providers.

Jeff Bezos wants us to think of Amazon as a utility, but this is obviously one way that it is very different.

I worked on several contracts at Apple. Since the secrecy supports Apple's success, I don't see the secrecy as an issue. It all helps pull off that "one more thing" moment.

What article or speech or book are you referring to?

I'd love to see how closely I channeled it, especially given my low opinion of that guy.

I would add that property rights don't work as well when rule of law is weak. That doesn't mean they're a bad thing.

I think it's easier to spend money protecting a resource when money is being earned from that resource.

And it's also easier for those who want to use a resource to respect the law if there's still a legal way to access the resource.

Which companies?

No one is motivated to stop poaching as much as the person whose property is being stolen.

A ban works if it's enforced. But who's going to call the enforcers when there's a violation?

This is the reason the tragedy of the commons exists.

Property rights are the answer.

And not property rights the way water rights sometimes works, where a group of people all have the right to take all they can.

If the same people owned an aquifer but all had to pay for what they used, the water would be more properly priced.

With water, as with fish, people often pay the cost of taking the resource and not a price that reflects the value of the resource.

The value is actually more like the future cost of replacing the resource. Once your aquifer is empty, you must ship water in. Or desalinate. That's more like the real cost.

With a species of fish, the replacement is incalculable. But one thing is clear. The price should increase rapidly as it becomes scarcer, preserving the incentive to keep the population viable.

That can't happen if people just pay the cost of going out there and getting the fish. The price has to reflect the value of the fish too.

If the right too harvest a population were a piece of property that could be bought and sold, the incentive to preserve the population would be stronger.

You might even see technologies that avoid taken pregnant females and that count how many males there are so you have enough of those too.

Of course. But there is no way to stop a mob or even identify who they are. Recording them won't help.

A mob follows no rules and some try to blind police officers using lasers. Or they can simply harass somebody for days on end.

No one ever won a lawsuit against a mob.

If you disagree with today's common understanding of what peaceable means, can you explain what you think it used to mean?

Or are the implications of this definition the issue?

We never needed electronic voting to prevent the hanging chad issue. All we needed to do was help people properly encode their paper ballots.

That can be done with open source software running on a PC connected to a punch card machine.

We could also let voters confirm their choices with a punch card reader hooked up to another PC running separately developed software at the polling place.

You can still the votes electronically. But also count the physical ballots. Two counts are better than one. Somebody woould have to change both to hide cheating.

Record the raw ballot in a block at the same time to make it even harder.

These are solvable problems. If we can keep cryptocurrency honest, we can do it with votes.

I would be happier if kids learned fundamental principles, like the law of supply and demand, rather than some interpretation of historical events.

If history is going to be discussed, it should be more just one view. The Great Depression, for example, is often described as a failure of economic freedom, rather than the failure of the government's myriad interventions.

Knowing only ONE side of the story doesn't necessarily leave kids better prepared to learn, unless it's essentially true (good luck reaching that consensus).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

peaceably: inclined or disposed to avoid strife or dissension; not argumentative or hostile:

assemble: gather together in one place for a common purpose.

Consent of the governed is not the same as consent of the criminal element.

Because some protesters will use that information to go to the homes of police officers and continue their vandalism there.

So could cross training police and firefighters. That's what they do in Sunnyvale CA.

Cables will just have to be wrapped super tight.

And probably unlikely for the same material to occur naturally.

Efficiency is for machines. Effectiveness and creativity are for people.

And the more machines do laundry, the more effective and creative people can choose to be. Or they can choose to watch TV.

We had a Trashiba system 20 years ago. The case was impossible to open.

I would say people freely give who feel that they gain from the community far more than they give. And they do right by others when they feel the community is doing right by them.

And this is not PER INTERACTION but over the long haul.

People that are not connected to their community strongly, meaning they don't have mutliple adults protecting, disciplining and sustaining them, aren't as likely to do right by others or give freely.

Sons without fathers living in the home are far more likely to have behavioral problems. I think we grow into our social hierarchy or we seek to establish a new one that competes and clashes with the existing one.

Unfortunately, the trend more and more across most groups is single parent families.

I think that's also true of schizophrenia. Like the main character in A Beautiful Mind, John Nash, my brother was able to discern what was hallucination and what wasn't. The less intelligent a person is, the more difficult that must be.

I've read recently that supplementing zinc and sulforaphane can help autism.

Is there any truth to that? Anyone have personal experience trying either?

Google translate just translates these characters as 'gangster'.

https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=auto...

I just tested 共匪 and it appears to be true.

Of course. This is what the CCP does. They are sucking up every piece of information they can, whether or not they can currently make use it.

We ought to block any know tools that a foreign government uses to spy on our citizens. They block everything of ours and anything that offers a different point of view.

Only bad for the party they are being extorted from. Which is essentially what happens when a monopoly over your labor supply is in place.