To me this is like saying: You don't have the freedom to be a slave, therefore your system isn't really free.
98 karma · joined September 21, 2022
As for scarcity: It seems to me from my research that it is most often the leaders and factions that create artificial scarcity in order to enforce their power, rather than there being a lack of resources in the first place.
It may be inevitable that people may rise up to seek power over others, but the question is what is the best way to respond to this? Do we leave them to rule over others without restrictions, or do we limit the damage they can do? Do we reward this impulse of control of the few over the many to their general detriment, or do we treat it as a mental health issue (like sociopathy or hoarding)?
Having said that several avowed socialist states have attempted to centrally plan the economy, and their success or failure is a matter of highly disputed opinion - depending on what their aims, achievements, and outside opposition (and possible sabotage) were.
Some Socialists say it is possible: See "Towards a New Socialism" (1993). Some say that Capitalist corporation like Amazon or Walmart are already effectively achieving this ("The People's Republic of Walmart" (2019)
Others suggest models such as "negotiated coordination", "participatory economics", or "market socialism" will be able to accurately account for need, volume, value etc. But there are incredibly powerful interests that oppose any alternatives, and most of us are stuck playing their game by their rules.
I tend to prefer games with story (and like puzzles so I guess I fit that oldie category), but play Mario Kart, Just Dance etc. regularly with one of my children, and I still play around creating retro 8-bit style arcade and adventure games too.
I find gaming and coding to be a way to unwind, my other half works late sometimes and I prefer it to being stuck in front of a television, but I'll take social time over it anytime. Somehow I still find time for reading and working on writing a new novel too.
One of the sources was anti-capitalist, but the journalists who wrote a a couple of those articles for business news sources undoubtedly were supporters of capitalism, and are likely to be know much more about the financial issues than most us do.
Although there are larger questions of whether anyone should be in a position to hoard so much wealth, what 'cost' that wealth comes at for the rest of us, and whether the accompanying power he exercises (even if indirectly) is good for society.
Those are larger philosophical and ethical queries, that do often come with strong opinions for good reason. Those on the right worry that regulating wealth may come with an affect on some other freedoms, those on the left worry that such wealth comes with a risk to the integrity of the democratic process and comes at a high societal cost.
Most of the defences of Buffett against this criticism have seemed to have been: "he is just a money geek who doesn't get into those details", "at least he is planning to give a lot of it away", and "you are in no position to judge him." I, like many others, do not feel he is beyond criticism or that those are sufficient answers.
Are you really happier having a higher burden of taxation because of Buffett and others using these (albeit technically legal) means to avoid paying theirs - whether you like what the government does with those taxes or not?
He was a landlord who exploited the low paid by jacking up prices on run down housing, or was that Buffett?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/korihale/2019/04/18/warren-buff...
Is this the same Warren Buffett whose railway refused to provide his train workers with sick leave despite the company reporting a net income of nearly 6 billion?
https://twitter.com/RBReich/status/1570088566411366405
The same train company that didn't meet safety standards and so recently ended up poisoning a whole town after a derailment?
https://www.thestreet.com/video/warren-buffetts-bnsf-railway...
The same Buffett that pays almost no tax? (& can you guess who has to pay the tax in his stead - the poors who are subsidising his private jet flights)
Rowling is definitely a very divisive figurehead and so gets more focus than most, but all threats of abuse and violence are wrong. However, from what I have seen the vitriol and abuse (from a vocal few) has gone both ways from both sides, but when it comes to actual violence then trans people have definitely been physically harmed more (and arguably face more emotional and mental abuse). The association of several of those Rowling has commended and promoted on this issue with far-right causes (in some cases even anti-female) is also a cause for worry.
As to whether any of the concerns are reasonable that would take a lengthy discussion to cover them all. Suffice it to say that a large proportion of women do not feel that their rights are impacted by trans rights (and would want their views respected too), which may lead to pitting one group of (cis) women against another.
There is also the potential for (cis) women's rights to be impacted by legislation that impacts trans access to female spaces (such as the potential for women needing to prove they are women (and the violations of privacy that may entail), women who are perceived to be masculine being kicked out of female spaces (as has already happened), and the potential of female-to-male trans men being forced to use women's bathrooms, which many women would not feel comfortable with).
It seems to me that trans issues are being capitalised upon by those who care little for women's rights at all (the religious right), and by politicians trying to draw attention away from bigger failings in their policies and performance. This makes it difficult to have a mature conversation not focused on extreme cases, remote possibilities and reasonable and respectful solutions.
Personally my interactions and experiences with trans people have been positive ones, devoid any of the extremes that the press likes to focus on. I also know people who find some of the issues confusing and have sincere worries about statistically uncommon situations. If both sides could meet in a spirit of seeking understanding and respect I think a lot more progress could be made.
https://twitter.com/ContraPoints/status/1626231558842765312
This article gives an overview of the controversy from the start to present -
https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk...
Scrivener can synchronise with Git too - albeit indirectly (it sync's with a folder & I use a simple script to keep it up to date)
If you need to organise research you can sync Wiki.js with Git.
However, Gitbook or mdBook might be easier to use for a single book project.
https://rust-lang.github.io/mdBook/
* The Tragedy Of The Tragedy Of The Commons - https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-t...
* The Truth About The Tragedy Of The Commons - https://evonomics.com/the-only-woman-to-win-the-nobel-prize-...
* The Tragedy Of The Commons Is A Dangerous Myth - https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false...
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common,
But turns the bigger robber loose
Who steals the common from off the goose.
* https://github.com/ppeetteerrs/obsidian-zola
* https://github.com/ozntel/ozanshare-publish-plugin
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/no-doubt-cutting-taxes-wi...
Its seems Biden and Truss are falling out already!