Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
@Beholderess: amung libertarians, it varies. More strict libertarians believe that private charities should care for those who need care, while some less strict ones support very limited health care benefits that only pay for the "most necessary services" and is only provided to those who truly can't afford it, or support simply heavily trimming (as oppose to "lightly" or "moderately" trimming) existing social services that are bloated / inefficient / likely to become insolvent.
At least that's what I thought....
However, this one does think that some rights are more important than others, and property and enterprise rights are near the bottom of the ladder of importance.
This one would rather not go away with things like healthcare, police, firefighters, education, workplace safety measures and so on, for without such things, rights remain only words on paper.
To me priorities are the issue, because I would put business decision rights higher, because without that the government could tell me "you can get free health care, but you can't talk to the doctor who you've been seeing who actually understands your problems."
I have a hypothesis that priorities are based on fear. If you fear being left for dead because the system refuses to help, health care is more important, if you fear having choices taken, freedom in that area is more important, etc.
But of course this one can be mistaken about it.
As for the fear, you might be right about it. But thing is, any large organisation (including government, of course - that's why it's actions have to be monitored) will leave people for dead given such choice. It has to be forced in order to act otherwise. For example, look at the conditions for workers in the companies if said companies manage to avoid OSHA compliance. They will not (with the rare exceptions) improve conditions voluntary.
Does a person who is not allowed to do something has any less freedom than someone who is allowed to, but cannot possibly afford it? Technically, yes, but only barely.
In the situation when, say, noone tries to do something about an unemployment rates nor enforce the standards of minimum wage and workplace safety, nor is any sort of welfare assigned to help unemployed - can a potential employee really refuse to work in an unsafe location? No, because that would mean unemployment=no money=no help=death.
negotiate terms themselves if the employee or customer in any given
situation doesn't like the conditions there are plenty of opportunities
about. That's the idea anyway.
This one understands that this is supposed to be so. But it doesn't happen. Again you expect people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps or die if they fail to do so. One would think that people currently working in sweatshops with no regulations would work somewhere else if they had a choice. Oh, of course on the paper they do have a choice, but in fact? If they have a choice, why are they here?
Tnu... you don't have to surrender, but nobody said you can't pretend. The Slave Collective of society functions on doing one thing and giving the impression of another, and so will think nothing of you exploiting that to your own ends. Advertising your adversity will simply make them oppress you harder and make it far tougher to get things to work your way.
Learn to understand in detail how they think. Manipulate their weaknesses. Become resistant to them yourself. That is how you can get ahead.
Oh, and remember: "value" is a reductionist concept of the collective. It is the transformation of multidimensional structures into a monodimensional figure. A simplification. The transformation of a person into a number. Value is something that one who seeks to regain their individuality does not need.
Beholderess... why do you talk like a Hanar? Supplementing pronouns with such terms doesn't make them any less self-referential.
Nah. Just worried that my old tendency to talk like HK-47 might flare up.
People kept having a go at me for calling them meatbags too, but these days I just mix it up a little. Isn't like I can stop thinking of people as bundles of soggy things on phosphate frames.
You don't know that Cygan. You are assuming the worst also see my thread on my utter hatred of Cronyism the state and the private sector are not meant to mix. I intend to win the same way thge founders of the United States won their independence. By refusing ot lose and refusing to hide. I shall recognize what power I have as an individual and not back down from collectives like corporations or the state. Honestly right now I just feel so energized and hopeful that I can make it and win. The proletariat need to start their journy with this sort of energy. We need to simply refuse to lose.
Yours is not the drill that will pierce the heavens.
"Row row, fight tha powah" will not get you anywhere.
Refusing to lose does nothing. The option is not yours to take. The meat-mind controls everything. They can string you up AND make you dance so easily they don't even have to think about it and you don't even have to know they're doing it. Humanity itself is an abomination, less than eldritch but every bit as horrific, and you cannot fight it. Just trying to fight it results in failure and 2D6 sanity loss.
The only way not to lose is to undermine it... to try and act outside of its knowledge. To hide, essentially. If you're not willing to do that... then it is Game Over before you've even started.