Can Donald Trump become President Again?

[Foxi4]

Sorry for the delay, I was distracted by the French election and other issues, including that I travelled. As you said, we have to agree to disagree as I do not approve of your spin on facts just like you don't approve me relying on your playbook, ie being ridiculously selective on data and ignoring everything you don't like.

Honestly my guy, it’s cool. It’s hard for me to follow your train of thought sometimes, and I don’t know why that is, but I made an effort, as you did. You won’t really change my opinion, particularly not on something I’ve experienced and seen with my own two eyes. Arguing about who’s worse, communists or Nazis, is like arguing what’s better, getting boiled or deep fried. My country had a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B, and we’re wiser for it. Both camps can take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

You won’t really change my opinion, particularly not on something I’ve experienced and seen with my own two eyes.

It wasn't my intention. You have seen and experienced NOTHING. You live in UK, if anything you'd know that libertarians are some of the worst ever.

Arguing about who’s worse, communists or Nazis, is like arguing what’s better, getting boiled or deep fried.

Then why did you start the whole thing?

My country had a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B, and we’re wiser for it. Both camps can take a long walk off a short pier.

As did mine, and while I agree with the sentiment, I think distinctions need to be drawn.

 

[Foxi4]

It wasn't my intention. You have seen and experienced NOTHING. You live in UK, if anything you'd know that libertarians are some of the worst ever.

…what are you on about? I grew up in Poland, I was born before the wall fell and watched the entire reconstruction period. One of my earliest conscious memories is denomination in 1994, when we got rid of the old, worthless money in favour of money with actual value. My elder sisters queued in front of empty stores before the system got dismantled in 1989 - I may have been too young to distinctly remember that, but they were not. I know exactly what I’m taking about, so get off the high horse. I spent my early years watching my parent’s generation fixing the mess communists left behind.

As for the UK, where I live *currently*, the libertarian movement here is almost non-existent - all of the freedom-loving Brits boarded ships some time in the 18th century and sailed off to start the best country on planet Earth, the only relevant party in the area with a libertarian bent is Plaid Cymru, and they’re left-wingers - thanks, but no thanks. I don’t understand your allergy to liberty.

Then why did you start the whole thing?

I didn’t start a thing. I just said that communist regimes are the most murderous bar none, which is a fact - it’s you guys who came in with the weird comparisons, racing to prove Godwin’s law correct.

As did mine, and while I agree with the sentiment, I think distinctions need to be drawn.

I don’t. What happened in Italy after the war is in no way comparable to what happened in Poland. After the fall of Mussolini’s fascist regime Italy became a republic - you had a brief communist party majority (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party), but never actually changed the system of governance to anything other than democracy, with a (admittedly strong) socialist bent. Poland was first under complete Soviet occupation and then was pressured into converting to communism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_People's_Republic). Becoming a Soviet satellite state was preferable to annexation, but it was hardly voluntary. Water under the bridge at this point, but our history is not the same - it’s not even close. Italians were always free to make their own decisions - Poles were not. The Polish government at the time was nothing more than Moscow’s puppet.

 

[_47iscool]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes
It is said that in the 500 years of European colonisation of the Americas, 90% of indigenous peoples have died, for a variety of reasons, from direct killings to disease brought over on the ships of colonisers (which is a bit of a Stretch Armstrong-level situation - I don’t see how someone can be held liable for being sick, it’s not exactly a decision one makes deliberately, but hey). That number translates to an estimated 100 million total, give or take. The communists accomplished the same or higher number in just a few decades. The reason why “capitalism versus communism” comparison is a non sequitur is because deaths under communism are by design whereas deaths under capitalism are not. Communism operates within specific confines of a centrally planned economy that the state is in charge of, capitalism is a blanket term describing any market-based economy. The market doesn’t kill people - the market is interested in creating and selling products. Communist states *do* kill people, either directly through genocide or indirectly through market manipulation, which they’ve accepted the responsibility for because it’s a prerequisite to their operation. If a farmer plants crop that isn’t in demand and ends up in poverty, that’s not capitalism’s fault - there was no market for it, the farmer is poor because he’s in a low demand market and should consider changes to their business. If a farmer grows crop that *is* in demand, the state rolls in and confiscates it, the state *is* at fault for the farmer’s poverty - the state took away their livelihood. This is simple stuff.

https://www.eutimes.net/2012/03/sto...t-prove-the-first-americans-came-from-europe/

 

[Deleted member 586536]

you’re the one willingly giving them money for goods and services

When those goods and services are fucking food and housing, perhaps we're not so willing but coerced into it.
Unless your telling me death is a valid and accepted option in a supposed to be functioning society. Essentially obligated to "give" that money otherwise we'd be dead.

 

[Foxi4]

When those goods and services are fucking food and housing, perhaps we're not so willing but coerced into it.
Unless your telling me death is a valid and accepted option in a supposed to be functioning society. Essentially obligated to "give" that money otherwise we'd be dead.

What a ridiculous notion. It implies there’s a food monopoly. There isn’t, you have a variety of vendors. Not only can you go somewhere else if you don’t like the prices, you can produce food yourself - nobody’s going to stop you.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

What a ridiculous notion. It implies food monopoly - you have a variety of vendors. Not only can you go somewhere else if you don’t like the prices, you can also produce food yourself - nobody’s going to stop you.

But making food yourself would imply a lot of work and self sufficiency to do something as ridiculous as hard work when the government can give it to your for free in exchange for your life and mind and compliance.

 

[Foxi4]

But making food yourself would imply a lot of work and self sufficiency to do something as ridiculous as hard work when the government can give it to your for free in exchange for your life and mind and compliance.

We invented trade for this very reason. I don’t know about you, but me? I’m not a farmer, or a baker, or a butcher. I have a good grasp of other disciplines which these other people are not so proficient at. Now, we could all become proficient in each other’s disciplines and be mediocre at everything we do, or we could choose to specialise, establish trade and enjoy good bread, good deli meats and good vegetables, among other things. Humans, being the social creatures that they are, quickly came to the conclusion that the latter option is more optimal. Of course not all disciplines generate a physical product, so bartering was sub-optimal - we have an entire service industry that doesn’t produce a physical “thing” that can be traded, not to mention all the hassle of converting product value in general, so we invented a representation of value called money to facilitate exchange. Ever since then we’ve been trading our labour for money, and used that money to exchange goods and services. Crazy, I know. We participate in this system consensually and willingly because it’s objectively beneficial to everyone involved - regardless of how rich you are, you’re still human and have the same human needs as everybody else. It just so happens that some goods or services are more valuable than others, and the market regulates based on supply and demand. Nobody’s “in charge” of that, it’s just the way it is, and it is the way it is because we have specific wants. Those wants generate demand, and demand creates opportunity. Provide supply in the market and you will not go hungry, be unproductive, or productive in all the wrong ways, and you’ll have trouble making ends meet. That’s not “coercion”, there is no force involved. You have a biological need for sustenance and food companies create products to meet that need. You don’t have to buy their products, but you should, because they make a better, cheaper product than you can, unless your time is worthless otherwise. I *can* bake a loaf of bread, but the time and resource investment required to bake *one* loaf just for myself far surpasses the amount of value I can generate using my expertise elsewhere, so guess what? I don’t bake bread, unless it’s for my own amusement. Nobody “coerced” me to do that - I am actively saving *my* time, which is valuable, by utilising pre-existing supply.

 

[smf]

What a ridiculous notion. It implies there’s a food monopoly. There isn’t, you have a variety of vendors. Not only can you go somewhere else if you don’t like the prices, you can produce food yourself - nobody’s going to stop you.

You can't go somewhere else if you can't afford the lowest prices.

You can't produce food yourself, if you don't have any land or the skills or funds to get started.

It's arguable how the problems should be solved, but you can't just hand wave the problem away.

 

[Foxi4]

You can't go somewhere else if you can't afford the lowest prices.

You can't produce food yourself, if you don't have any land or the skills or funds to get started.

It's arguable how the problems should be solved, but you can't just hand wave the problem away.

Sure you can - there are children in kindergarten right now growing cress in a plastic pot on some gauze. You can put soil in a plastic pot and grow a carrot. You can go to the nearest forest or park and forage for wild fruit, herbs or mushrooms (for your own use, of course). Why you’d do that when food is readily available and cheapest it has ever been in history is beyond me, but you have the option to grow or find your own. I have very fond memories of picking berries and mushrooms on holidays, but I did it for my own amusement as part of the trip. However, locals in wooded areas tend to turn that kind of thing into a business, and sell their foraged fruit and mushrooms on the side, much to the ire of the state (somewhat understandable, seeing that the health and safety of such an endeavour is questionable, hence many acts prohibit the sale of foraged ingredients. Not that anyone cares, but hey). Still, tourists tend to bite, otherwise you wouldn’t see those guys by the roadside.

EDIT: In case someone is terribly interested in the legality of foraging, as far as the UK is concerned this is regulated by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, which enables anyone to forage for what the law recognises as “four F’s” - fruit, foliage, flora and fungus (with the exception of protected species) as long as a public path exists and you’re foraging for personal use, rather than commercial use. This includes private land as long as the foraging does not involve uprooting plants or other forms of damage to the land. The specifics can also be found in the Theft Act, which states that picking on private land is not considered theft unless performed for a commercial purpose.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

What a ridiculous notion. It implies there’s a food monopoly. There isn’t, you have a variety of vendors. Not only can you go somewhere else if you don’t like the prices, you can produce food yourself - nobody’s going to stop you.

Let's play a thought experiment. As I described earlier

When those goods and services are fucking food and housing, perhaps we're not so willing but coerced into it.
Unless your telling me death is a valid and accepted option in a supposed to be functioning society. Essentially obligated to "give" that money otherwise we'd be dead.

That people are coerced into it. So let's see how far someone can go.
4 rules:
1. you cannot spend any money anywhere, if I am arguing this is coercion, and you saying that's ridiculous, then it should be fairly easily decided by how often capitalism or the enforcing governing system does get in the way or makes a task harder to accomplish.
If it is coercion, then we'd expect an absurd amount of intrusions. If it's not, then very few.
2. You start in one of the major cities in the United States by population size.
3. you start this at 18 with little to no assistance from others. Since you clearly believe in individualism, this should be achievable by only the individual since your reheotic heavily follows under individual responsibility. The only exception of this is at the very very start, with your mother obviously renting a house, but that doesn't matter much since you are moving out.
4. As someone who went to school, you do have a small backpack. Outside of that, no additional resources. Somehow capable and have the knowlage to build houses of your own, and a gardening expert.

I'll let you describe how this scenario would go.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Let's play a thought experiment. As I described earlier

That people are coerced into it. So let's see how far someone can go.
4 rules:
1. you cannot spend any money anywhere, if I am arguing this is coercion, and you saying that's ridiculous, then it should be fairly easily decided by how often capitalism or the enforcing governing system does get in the way or makes a task harder to accomplish.
If it is coercion, then we'd expect an absurd amount of intrusions. If it's not, then very few.
2. You start in one of the major cities in the United States by population size.
3. you start this at 18 with little to no assistance from others. Since you clearly believe in individualism, this should be achievable by only the individual since your reheotic heavily follows under individual responsibility. The only exception of this is at the very very start, with your mother obviously renting a house, but that doesn't matter much since you are moving out.
4. As someone who went to school, you do have a small backpack. Outside of that, no additional resources. Somehow capable and have the knowlage to build houses of your own, and a gardening expert.

I'll let you describe how this scenario would go.

These are all very limited circumstances that don't last long. For those circumstances you can visit a food bank, which are run in almost every city by religious organizations. They will provide you with free food to get you by. If there's a will there is a way. All I see you doing is making excuses.

 

[Foxi4]

Let's play a thought experiment. As I described earlier

Let’s not, because your premise is ridiculous. I’m not going to have a weird conversation about a world with no food banks, shelters, part-time jobs for low-skill employees, cheap rental properties and a zillion other factors that make your scenario silly. Here’s what we were actually talking about - you’re not coerced into participating in the marketplace. You have a biological need for sustenance, and I don’t particularly care how you satisfy it. Capitalism didn’t do that - nature did. I’m not going to argue about a stupid hypothetical, particularly not when it’s off topic.

 

[Kurt91]

Let's play a thought experiment. As I described earlier

That people are coerced into it. So let's see how far someone can go.
4 rules:
1. you cannot spend any money anywhere, if I am arguing this is coercion, and you saying that's ridiculous, then it should be fairly easily decided by how often capitalism or the enforcing governing system does get in the way or makes a task harder to accomplish.
If it is coercion, then we'd expect an absurd amount of intrusions. If it's not, then very few.
2. You start in one of the major cities in the United States by population size.
3. you start this at 18 with little to no assistance from others. Since you clearly believe in individualism, this should be achievable by only the individual since your reheotic heavily follows under individual responsibility. The only exception of this is at the very very start, with your mother obviously renting a house, but that doesn't matter much since you are moving out.
4. As someone who went to school, you do have a small backpack. Outside of that, no additional resources. Somehow capable and have the knowlage to build houses of your own, and a gardening expert.

I'll let you describe how this scenario would go.

Let's see... Playing along with your little game, I'm going to assume a city such as NYC.

Step 1: Go to a construction site or hardware store and find a large thrown-out cardboard box. Optimally, while digging through this dumpster, grab a damaged tarp or large sheet of industrial plastic that construction materials are typically packaged in. Also, grab the used twine that said materials are also bundled with. By opening the box, covering with the tarp, and tying the tarp in place, you have a relatively water-proof temporary shelter. If you were exceptionally lucky, you may have found some wooden pallets that you can place your shelter on top of to prevent the bottom from getting wet. Depending on the type of year this thought experiment is to take place, you can fill the space between the tarp and cardboard box with crumpled newspaper for additional insulation. Until you can leave the city and get somewhere where materials and foraging options are more abundant, this provides a warm-enough dry place to sleep away from the elements.

Step 2: Go to a restaurant of some sort and ask if you can have one of the commercial-sized metal tins that their ingredients come in. They usually just get thrown out, and receiving one that's somewhat freshly used should make it easier to rinse out and wash. Again, if you're lucky, it'll include a plastic lid for additional convenience. You now have a metal container that you can fill with water and cook with.

Step 3: Going to Central Park or your chosen city's nearest equivalent, find a tree that you can gather acorns from. These acorns can be ground into an edible flour. Fill your backpack with these acorns for this purpose. If it's the appropriate time of year, dandelions can be gathered as well. The green leaves on young dandelions are not just edible, but delicious enough that they're often put in commercially-sold salad mixes. If the flowers are older, the greens are still edible, but will be more bitter.

Step 4: Since you're still in the city, go to a library and do some research on what plants can be foraged and are edible, as well as other self-sufficiency methods. While the end goal is to leave the city, you don't want a lack of knowledge to be detrimental to your self-sufficient life.

Step 5: Filling your metal container with water from a faucet or drinking fountain at a public facility, use some rocks you grabbed back at the park and begin grinding your acorns down. Your goal is to mix the resulting flour with the water to make a dough that you can make into hardtack, cooking them in your metal container over a garbage-can fire. Hardtack has exceptional shelf-life and can last for years. It should be good enough to last you at least until you can walk/hitch-hike out of the city to where you can have an easier time living off the land.

Yeah, this isn't entirely pleasant, but I've managed to gather enough sustenance and a temporary carry-able shelter to get my way out of the city with zero capitalism or trade. All materials and supplies were either provided with the starting conditions (backpack), free public resource (library), or scavenged from recycling bins. Once out of the city, more typical live-off-the-land measures can be applied.

Note: I'm not exactly taking sides. I just thought it was a fun thing to think about today in my free time.

 

[Foxi4]

Let's see... Playing along with your little game, I'm going to assume a city such as NYC.

Step 1: Go to a construction site or hardware store and find a large thrown-out cardboard box. Optimally, while digging through this dumpster, grab a damaged tarp or large sheet of industrial plastic that construction materials are typically packaged in. Also, grab the used twine that said materials are also bundled with. By opening the box, covering with the tarp, and tying the tarp in place, you have a relatively water-proof temporary shelter. If you were exceptionally lucky, you may have found some wooden pallets that you can place your shelter on top of to prevent the bottom from getting wet. Depending on the type of year this thought experiment is to take place, you can fill the space between the tarp and cardboard box with crumpled newspaper for additional insulation. Until you can leave the city and get somewhere where materials and foraging options are more abundant, this provides a warm-enough dry place to sleep away from the elements.

Step 2: Go to a restaurant of some sort and ask if you can have one of the commercial-sized metal tins that their ingredients come in. They usually just get thrown out, and receiving one that's somewhat freshly used should make it easier to rinse out and wash. Again, if you're lucky, it'll include a plastic lid for additional convenience. You now have a metal container that you can fill with water and cook with.

Step 3: Going to Central Park or your chosen city's nearest equivalent, find a tree that you can gather acorns from. These acorns can be ground into an edible flour. Fill your backpack with these acorns for this purpose. If it's the appropriate time of year, dandelions can be gathered as well. The green leaves on young dandelions are not just edible, but delicious enough that they're often put in commercially-sold salad mixes. If the flowers are older, the greens are still edible, but will be more bitter.

Step 4: Since you're still in the city, go to a library and do some research on what plants can be foraged and are edible, as well as other self-sufficiency methods. While the end goal is to leave the city, you don't want a lack of knowledge to be detrimental to your self-sufficient life.

Step 5: Filling your metal container with water from a faucet or drinking fountain at a public facility, use some rocks you grabbed back at the park and begin grinding your acorns down. Your goal is to mix the resulting flour with the water to make a dough that you can make into hardtack, cooking them in your metal container over a garbage-can fire. Hardtack has exceptional shelf-life and can last for years. It should be good enough to last you at least until you can walk/hitch-hike out of the city to where you can have an easier time living off the land.

Yeah, this isn't entirely pleasant, but I've managed to gather enough sustenance and a temporary carry-able shelter to get my way out of the city with zero capitalism or trade. All materials and supplies were either provided with the starting conditions (backpack), free public resource (library), or scavenged from recycling bins. Once out of the city, more typical live-off-the-land measures can be applied.

Note: I'm not exactly taking sides. I just thought it was a fun thing to think about today in my free time.

I like how a thread about Donald Trump’s potential presidential run has turned into a thought experiment about simulating homelessness. The actual solution is to get a job, but some people have an allergy to the marketplace, it seems.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Let's see... Playing along with your little game, I'm going to assume a city such as NYC.

Thanks for playing along. And yeah that's 100% correct(I say 100 correct since you played exactly by the rules.). I do have some minor gripes, however that's my fault for failing to provide a full context of the goal. I left it way too vague. So I'll state again that's 100% my bad there.
So your main goal at the end is to have some sort of permanent housing figured out, and food and water supply figured out. In which I quickly identified 3 main issues.
1. You cannot just build a house (usually) and I don't mean this in a resource limited way. (though can be) I also mean this in a legal way. You have to buy a plot of land, usually. (there is some exceptions to that. However those exceptions can be incredibly difficult to pull off) This usually is the biggest killer in my eyes.
2. about little over half of the United States waterways are polluted. This obviously comes with health risks and issues. However in order to have a consistent access to water, which will absolutely be needed for making food, you of course, most likely need to use those waterways, unless there is a consistent rainy season.
3.corporations messing with your food.
Yeah that sounds ridiculous... right? Well. Monsanto has patented a lot of genetically modified food genes. Okay so what gives?
Well, plants have a lot of methods of reproducing, a lot of it is commonly through the air. They (Monsanto) are also well known for, checking peoples crops (illegally commonly but we don't talk that part) for if there crop is being used. If so, they will throw the legal hammer. Just so happens they really don't try to prevent any cross pollination

 

[DKB]

This thread is great. Some of the shit said to each other here would easily warrant bans on other forums; Let alone full blown replies by multiple mods.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

The actual solution is to get a job, but some people have an allergy to the marketplace, it seems.

Nah the actual solution is to make so people have a reasonable choice foxi4. Though I'm so happy that you seemed to as a moderator legitimize this discussion through not deleting it.
So, let me describe that. As that individual user stated above it is indeed possible or at least escaping and such, building a place? that's another question. However to get it requires quite frankly, scrapping the bottom of the barrel. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if say idk... those resources was publicly available in not such a difficult manor? Or as I would call it, empowered to do so. Let's hold that thought just for a bit.

See here's my issue with your framing, since your seemingly forgetting the context of capitalism and "the marketplace" There are the owners, and then there are the workers. The workers don't own their own work. They own a tiny little itty bitty fraction of it. while the Owner, "just oversees everything". if that's too abstract, let's describe it this way, since this is how capitalism at the end of the day ends up.

You and your friend are going trick or treating. Your friend states that he'll just sitback and oversee you going door to door, grabbing candy. At the end of the night, he forcefully grabs your pillow/container, takes a handful of candy, and puts in your hand. Reasonably, you'd ask why he would take the bag, after all that was your hardwork. and he would respond with "I told you I would oversee everything. I gave you the bag for you to do the work. If it wasn't for me you wouldn't been able to do this"

People aren't sick of "having a job" or don't want to do work, quite the contrary, people are sick of "I've put in 40 hours a week and I barely make rent" and that problem is literately everywhere. Why do you think there is a worker shortage here in the states? There's no laws or anything like that limiting how high a landlord can increase rent. In other parts of the world, there are.

The main problem, is the United States has still jobs paying 8.25. You were talking about cheep housing. So I'll bring up again that my rent here is 850 including utilities. Two bedrooms one bathroom, for about 800 square feet. if you were to do the math, that's only 660 dollars, pre tax. for a two week pay period, for 40 hours. how about 10.00? that's 800 dollars pre tax for again, two week pay period. So when people are given the choice between, working their ass off to barely if at all, pay their rent. To alternatives (giving up) a lot of people are going to say fuck it, it's not worth it.

I've derailed within my own derail, now that's impressive. Back to the part where I said "let's hold that thought"
Scrapping the bottle of the barrel like that generally has a very negative sentiment behind it. There's plenty of anti homeless design, and rhetoric that those homeless people just don't want to work, somehow lesser. So, wouldn't it be easier if say, you could just idk, ask if it's okay to take those resources? now of course, in a capitalist system, who ever you'd be asking would say get a job, after all they got money and a business to run.
Forcing you to incoperate yourself back into the system.
In anarcho communist system however... No one would really bat an eye as long as you were self sufficient. That's one less home for the community to help build, one less mouth to account for.
Which of the two is more humane? which of the two is less coercive. The one that forces you to be homeless for a significant time, and difficult to even get to building phase?
Or the one that just straight up gives the materials presuming that you demonstrate what you know what your doing, and empowers you to go about things the way you want to?
Such as Idk, an anarcho communist society?
TL;dr
the actual solution is to reconsider how we have structured things. We shouldn't be focusing on endless growth, and having society circle around doing as much work as possible for carrots on a stick for green paper. We should be focusing on work that's only needed when and wherever possible. That doesn't mean to be lazy or sloppy, far the opposite, it's just being more time efficient and pinoint accuracy within reason. We are a social species, our current system is alienating people because how driven this system is to keep us on that treadmill. Unless your one of those few ultra rich people, your on that treadmill walking on it.

 

[Foxi4]

Nah the actual solution is to make so people have a reasonable choice foxi4. Though I'm so happy that you seemed to as a moderator legitimize this discussion through not deleting it.

You have a reasonable choice - a choice of career. Nobody can decide what you want to do to support yourself besides you. Based on your hypothetical personal finances you seem to be doing just fine, compared to living in a cardboard box. If you want more, do more - you have a monetary incentive to improve your productivity. Of course you’re not going to do that - that’d be work. You and I both know that you just want to be “given resources” to “build”, and you won’t accept that you’re probably not qualified to do that, or that you’re paid exactly as much as you’re worth already. You choose lashing out over self-reflection - it’s “the system” that’s wrong and needs to change, you don’t need to change at all, even if you don’t fit in. This lack of motivation to improve your life makes this discussion pointless - I can’t improve it for you, nobody can. You can’t change your own circumstances, but you’re confident you can change the world? Okay. The fact of the matter is that in the system you propose you wouldn’t have two bedrooms and a bathroom - you’d live in a hovel. People with marketable skills wouldn’t do business with you because you have nothing to give them in return for their goods or labour. They simply wouldn’t waste time on you without coercion, and once you introduce coercion, you’ve created the state - you’re not “anarcho” anything anymore. In the current system you have money, and money is king - you can exchange that for anything, regardless of whether the vendor has a need for someone with your skill set or not.

I’m not “legitimising” anything - I’ve told you that this thought experiment is a waste of time based on a ridiculous premise. That was your cue to realise that it’s entirely off-topic, and that I’m not going to entertain it for much longer. Any chance we could get back to Donald Trump? Ideally while the man is still alive? He’s 75 and quite corpulent, we don’t have much time.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

you have a monetary incentive to improve your productivity.

That's blantely false. Productivity has gone up 59.7% but wages have have gone up only 15% since 1979.
https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-growing-employer-power-have-generated-a-productivity-pay-gap-since-1979-productivity-has-grown-3-5-times-as-much-as-pay-for-the-typical-worker/#:~:text=Productivity and pay once climbed,released ahead of Labor Day.
Why continue raising my productivity if obiviously the corporations aren't paying me for my work.
How many hours are necessary foxi4? How many hours is it until it's considered ridiculous for you? A lot of places in the states don't allow or offer over time. If I just described that a lot of people are barely making rent. At what is the considered standard of 40 hour work week. And your telling people to just work more? that's ridiculous even for you.

Of course you’re not going to do that - that’d be work

Nah. I'm willing to work. But I'm not willing to go run on a treadmill for the rest of my friends and my life were someone else chooses my value.
Because let's not kid ourselves here. If companies had direct control over the governent in full. they'd happily pay workers 0 dollars. They'll just include the occasional pieces of food as "benefits" while keeping you working day in out without any breaks in extremely unsafe working conditions.
If you don't believe me. Please explain to me what we saw before unionization, before the 40 hour work week during the industrial revolution.

You choose lashing out over self-reflection - it’s “the system” that’s wrong and needs to change, you don’t need to change at all, even if you don’t fit in This lack of motivation to improve your life

Gaslighting too now? Now that's new. Calling me "lashing out" when I'm responding to a moderator on a political form is rather silly don't you think? As for your "self reflection" argument I have time and time again. Sure I don't conform with society. I'm bisexual polyamorous(multiple consented romantic relationships) and left handed, with a side of being not neuraltypical. All of which does not conform to standard norms. Sure I could repress that I'm left handed. After all, for a time being that seemed like
something to correct. To be "fixed." I could just pretend that I only like girls and not guys to be "fixed"
So the fact that your seeing me as the one in the wrong. Failing to understand my view point. And that I need to "fix" myself is incredibly rude. I'm not perfect, but I also know when to draw the line on something being ridiculous. If someone is working for 10.00 an hour. I'd call that ridiculous. No matter what. And if I'm seeing that ridiculousness every where I turn. Then what I'm I expected to do? Shut up about it? Don't talk about how this is a massive problem? How people are grinding away their life just to meet, not exceed, meet bare neccities. This system when you look at it by level by level is ridiculous and extremely contrived.

You and I both know that you just want to be “given resources” to “build”, and you won’t accept that you’re probably not qualified to do that

Ah wow, great pulling out of context.
No foxi4. Get it out of your head the notion that people don't want to work towards things. People aren't just going to willynilly provide resources if you don't know what your doing. I even explicitly stated that, and you like to cut real early.

So, wouldn't it be easier if say, you could just idk, ask if it's okay to take those resources? now of course, in a capitalist system, who ever you'd be asking would say get a job, after all they got money and a business to run.
Forcing you to incoperate yourself back into the system.
In anarcho communist system however... No one would really bat an eye as long as you were self sufficient.

Self sufficient implying that you knew how to do those things. Which the community would be happy to provide. I'd ask if you could quit trying to spin words, you have a fairly nasty habit of that.

I’m not “legitimising” anything - I’ve told you that this thought experiment is a waste of time based on a ridiculous premise. That was your cue to realise that it’s entirely off-topic, and that I’m not going to entertain it for much longer.

Well it's convenient that you knew it was offtopic, didn't bother deleting it, choose to respond to it and grandstand. And here we are talking again and now your throwing the "this is off topic" hammer. Did you leave it up because you saw it as ridiculous? Or did you leave it up because then you wouldn't be able to grandstand on a deleted post.