232 karma · joined July 19, 2021
As always, that which lends itself to regulation via market should be private and that which does not should be nationalized. So which one is medicine?
Medical care that is needed suddenly and urgently must be nationalized because the consumer of this care doesn’t shop the market and therefore the market is not capable of regulating its participants in that case.
Medical care that planned ahead of time, not urgently needed or otherwise allows people to shop the market should be private.
But this is not the issue. Whether or not medicine of one kind or another is private or public doesn’t matter as long as the medical establishment is corrupt and inefficient. Corruption and inefficiency are possible in both scenarios. Too few people in the public appreciate that it is the massive corruption and inefficiency of the medical establishment that is the cause of America’s healthcare problem. Doctors are in hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt by the time they wear a stethoscope. Hospitals are charging ten dollars for an aspirin. Patients can sue and cause material damage to medical practitioners even if the medical practitioner did nothing wrong. The system is broken. It doesn’t cost 300k to train a fucking doctor. It never did in the past and it doesn’t now either.
I also recommend “Islamic imperialism” from Yale, “the bomb in my garden” by mahdi obeidi and “nothing to envy.”
If you topple the Saud dynasty then another regime would take their place. They aren’t suppressing some kind of egalitarian wellspring. If you disagree then I have 2000 years of history to show you.
Bin laden was an outcast. He left Saudi Arabia and went around to various places and at one point ended up in Northern Africa where he was engaged in evicting the Americans from Somalia. He said that the Americans he fought in Somalia were so weak and retreated so readily that it opened his mind to the possibility of inflicting real damage to the United States. But around this time he became more high profile and was evicted from his host country and wasn’t welcome anywhere, including Saudi Arabia. That should be a big hint about the Saudi theory. He made an appeal to the UK for political asylum, which based on his rhetoric at the time was like hitler asking for asylum in Israel. If the UK had granted him asylum 9/11 wouldn’t have happened. But they didn’t.
From there he ultimately moved on to Afghanistan and the tribal regions of the Pakistan border where there is no presence of government.
Bin laden was a religious fanatic who outwardly pursued The universal adoption of islam and protested foreign occupation of the pan-Arab community, even the willful presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the invasion of Kuwait. He killed 3,000 people because the saudis willingly hosted American troops. Mind-bending. But this leads to the next point which is that despite his outward behavior, inwardly he probably had political ambitions and all indications point to yet another repetition of history in that region — a small group of people justify violence in the name of Islam and then promptly transform into a conventional state, built upon violations of Islam, as soon as they have captured the material means to do so. Bin laden, who probably thought 9/11 would cause the United States to remove itself from the Middle East, only made it to step one.
And this has interesting consequences for the future landscape of terror. We probably won’t see another attack from the Middle East. Attacks from these groups are almost always pragmatic, even if they are done in the name of “Islam,” and almost always the pragmatic target is some other player in that region.
You know how people will sometimes change their mind when confronted with reality? You know how some men scoff at a dangerous activity until they are pushed out from the crowd to do it themselves? The reality of the situation sets in. All of a sudden your mind is revealing to you things that you had not considered before. Revealing intuitions and details that it had not performed for you because your brain doesn’t consider things in detail until they are perceived as important to you — until they are in front of you. This also happens for death. All of a sudden, details fill in that have never been emphasized in the idiot internet threads. All the details of how a suicide attempt can go wrong, where the line of death really is, all the ways that you might feel pain. It’s completely overwhelming if you are suddenly in desperate need of death. It’s the experience of the most marginalized and abused group of people to ever exist. Forced to die in gruesome and terrible ways and in horrific home made contraptions that very often create a huge amount of pain before fulfilling their purpose.
The bread and butter of the matrix is represented by the château scene in matrix 2. It is the epitome of tight computer-accelerated action. Such an amazing and elegant sequence. Maybe I missed it but I didn’t see enough of that in the trailer. And based on everything I know, the movie is a meta critique commentary thing. I don’t like that.
These people are angry at housing prices. Just wait a while longer and the housing investors will all be experiencing something much more painful than a government buyout and your houses will be quite affordable. That the beauty of a free market.
Second, in a war with China wouldn’t the elites and their families be just as dead as everyone else after nuclear bombs land on major US cities? I can imagine elites or private companies encouraging political movements toward war or tangential to war but I can’t imagine them wanting war to actually happen.
Maybe it was coincidence. I’m just saying if the vaccine gave people Lyme, here’s my hypothesis. But it makes a lot of sense that an autoimmune disease created by exposure to X could be triggered by a vaccine containing X. The definition of a vaccine is to expose a person to whatever it is the immune system recognizes — spike proteins and so on. It’s plausible. But as you point out, not very likely.