Jump to content

ruraljuror

Members+
  • Posts

    562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

ruraljuror last won the day on September 15 2014

ruraljuror had the most liked content!

About ruraljuror

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Nashville

Recent Profile Visitors

4247 profile views

ruraljuror's Achievements

Hamlet

Hamlet (4/14)

1.4k

Reputation

  1. Not going public enables developers and those in the know an opportunity to buy up some neighboring land to later sell/develop as amenities and infrastructure needs grow if the park is successful.
  2. Nashville Zoo pulls in about a million guests a year on approximately the same acreage as Storyville, and my guess is the zoo operations and maintenance budgets are significantly bigger. Cheekwood pulls in about 400k annual guests on about 1/3rd the acreage. There's clearly a fair amount of demand for outdoor self-guided park experiences with few traditional rides, but to give these numbers some context, even comparable rollercoaster-heavy regional theme parks only pull in 2 to 4 times more guests than the zoo, and the tickets cost twice as much. There are lots of other factors that will come into play as to whether or not this park will ultimately be a success should it come to fruition, but as always, there's a pretty good chance that those who don't like much of what they see in this proposal are simply not in the target demographic and are not expected or frankly intended to be excited about Storyville.
  3. Are you under the impression that only liberals get abortions? I'd bet that the vast majority of people getting abortions have no particular political affiliation. After that, I'd guess the next largest population of abortion-seekers are those who oppose (or are surrounded by people who oppose) birth control and sex education. I guess we'll find out as we now enter the 'be careful what you wish for' part of this clown show that you seem to be cheering on for some reason.
  4. You've lost the plot here. You were initially talking about scarcity in a physics context, saying "the scarcity of resources is a burden placed upon humans by the universe itself, chiefly the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" In that context, I pointed out that these totally accurate physical limitations you're referring to are not currently the limitations our society is butting into as evidenced by the fact that we have enough resources to produce more than all the people on earth consume, hence any scarcity experienced today is artificial. In the broader economic sense, what possible difference would it make if a society has less scarcity if that scarcity is unequally distributed? I assume you've got no problem with 1% of people in a society owning 50% of all resources, of course. Does that hold true if 1% of all people own 99% of all resources? What if .00001% (or about 75 people) of people own 99.99999% of all economic resources? You've neglected to mention how your libertarian society addresses these crimes and violence of the past that has lead to inequality in the distribution of property and resources. How do you account for the head start and the laws that forced certain groups to fight with one hand tied behind their back for centuries? Reparations? The end of inheritance? A fresh start where all property is up for grabs at the count of 3? Genuinely curious what solutions you've got in mind. This is cartoonish. No man is an island. The fruit of everyone's labor depends on functioning electrical grids, and highways, and sewers, and court systems, etc. Life is too short to waste your time with this nonsense. What's the Libertarian solution though? I have to assume y'all have thought about this and have to have some kind of response to deal with the inequities of the systems you want to dismantle, otherwise that's a lot of blood money to sweep under the rug. I agree (and think most other people would as well) that peaceful exchange is better than violent confiscation, so I'm not sure you can really claim that as a Libertarian position. What happens in a libertarian society when someone doesn't pay their debts or refuses to comply with a court order? I wasn't complaining about scarcity I was talking about head starts. Pivoting to more comfortable ground doesn't answer my question about how you deal with the inequities of the past. 100% False. That's like saying there's no value in a fire insurance policy just because your house never catches on fire. It's there if you need it and you can't possibly know for sure whether you'll need it or not. The fact that this is where your brain goes.... I don't begrudge people who have natural talents/luck/training/confidence, and tons of huge idiots become very successful in business. What's the point? You lost the plot again. I was refuting your statement that all taxpayers benefit equally from DOD expenditures. Same goes for police, courts, international treaties, etc. So are you agreeing with me now? This doesn't make any sense. Firefighters put out houses that are on fire today. They won't, however, come spray down your house if it's not on fire today, but they will come spray it down if it's on fire tomorrow. Food stamps go to those who need them today. They're not supposed to go to you if you don't need them today, but they will be available to you if you need them tomorrow. So you don't believe in public health? Gross. You do realize they still get paid, right? I'm bored now.
  5. I stated that humans can currently produce far more than humans can consume, therefore most of the scarcity experienced today is not because of a lack of supply. Of course property owners have the right to throw away their property, but that in now way contradicts the fact that doing so contributes to scarcity. I'm not really arguing for anything, just pointing out some holes in your position as I see them, but I do think property rights are an interesting case study. For example, its been less than 200 years since the majority of Americans were even allowed to own property. Even more recently than that, a whole race of people were themselves considered to be property, and women were only given legal access to credit 50 years ago, which I think you'll agree can significantly impact a person's ability to acquire property and accumulate wealth. That's a very short list of a very long history of property rights being restricted and unequally distributed among people. Further, seems to me that just about every valuable resource and piece of habitable land on earth has had its rules about property rights upended by a conquering or two over the course of the last few millennia. Would that not mean that if we were to look back far enough in the title chain of just about any real estate transaction ledger that we'll find the 'original' owner on record acquired that property through violence and /or other means that the previous owner/occupant would have considered illegal? This is why I have a hard time swallowing the moral high ground you put so much effort into staking out on the sanctity of property rights, because you have to sweep a lot of history under the rug to avoid the very obvious conclusion that property rights have never been absolute or anywhere even remotely close to it. If you get a huge head start and win the race, it's cool to later advocate for the end of head starts, but it rings kind of hollow if you just keep the gold medal and all the prize money....especially if that prize money is generational wealth and ownership of finite resources on a finite planet home to a growing population. It's like a finder advocating for the applications of 'finders keepers' or - even more directly - somebody who got there first advocating for 'first come first served' to be the applicable rule. Your income may be too to high to qualify for food stamps today, but it may not be too high tomorrow, or next year, or in 20 years. Statistically, every time we fill up Nissan stadium, 65 of the people filling those seats are going to be filing medical bankruptcy and be financially ruined within the year, and thinking it wasn't going to happen to you has been proven to be consistently ineffective at preventing that particular possibility. I think your argument here would make sense if you were opposing something like government-funded pap smears or free tampons in public restroom, etc. - thing that you as a man could never legally avail yourself of - but I don't think the argument can be reasonably applied to safety nets. By design, safety nets are only needed by those who fall. It's way better to stay in the air and never miss the trapeze in the first place, but why begrudge the safety net for those who maybe don't have your natural talents, luck, training, confidence etc. that they're never going to fall? And you never know, knock on wood. Sometimes even the best trapeze artist slips. Maybe it's just a little bit more equal for defense contractors and and companies/shareholders with operations/assets where we have military bases and/or provide other financial/military support. C'mon. You need me to supply an example of ways in which you've benefitted from government services indirectly? I have a hard time believing you can't think up a couple. Just spitballing, but how about when the fire department puts out the blaze consuming your neighbor's house before your house catches fire. Or how about free viral testing and vaccination centers that directly reduce your risk of catching a serious disease even if you never get tested/boosted there yourself. Here's a fun one: because emergency rooms are legally required to admit uninsured and/or unconscious people who may not even have ID, your car insurance premiums are lower than they otherwise would be even if you've personally neither been to the ER nor been in a car wreck. Your turn? This is an odd dodge reminiscent of a politician pivoting away from an uncomfortable topic. I understand you'd prefer to return to the comfort of your go-to talking points, but it was genuinely a little jarring to see you go out of your way to insert this vindictive mindset in a made-up scenario. This is an amusing idea. What kind of additional services do you think would be suitable for top tax-braketeers? Free line cuts at the DMV and voting booth? Expedited passport processing? HOV lane access even when driving solo? Like a premium citizenship package. Your solution seems reasonable in theory but is completely impractical in too many cases for it to be considered a credible plan. 1 out of every 5,000 girls aged 10 to 14 gives birth every year. 30 years ago that number was 1 out of about 700, so we're moving in the right direction, but still not great I think you'd agree. Obviously, most of these girls were not able to give legal consent, and these are just the actual births (not just pregnancies) that we know about. On top of that approximately 1 out of every 2,500 girls under the age of 15 gets an abortion in the US each year. Do you expect these children to be prepared to move themselves out-of-state, maybe hundreds or thousands of miles away from their homes? How about developmentally disabled people, 90% of which experience sexual assault in their lives- are they just supposed to pack it up and move? Are those without cars or money for bus fare just supposed to go old school refugee-style and hoof it or hitchhike? Are those without savings for a security deposit or even a couple weeks at a short-stay motel just supposed to go live under a bridge? These are refugee scenes straight out of the opening episodes of the Handmaids Tale. I think you're wrong about being right back where we started. Again, these are just personal opinions, but I don't think the "willing acceptance of duty" kicks in until the birth occurs - the birth of a new person is itself the explicit acceptance of that duty of care. If a newly pregnant woman plans to get an abortion but decides to wait 8 and a half months before doing so while putting her body through all that just to abort at the last possible moment, it ought to be her right to do so, and we all benefit from keeping more of those genes from getting out into the pool. Similarly, if a newly pregnant woman plans to give birth, but learns that there's some problem with the kid or birthing complication for her and decides to abort at the last moment, I think that's her decision to make as well. Returning to the original example, if a newly pregnant woman plans to get an abortion and does a bunch of drugs or whatever, then later decides that she wants to keep the child, that duty of care kicks in when the kid is born and if the baby is drug dependent then, as I said, I certainly think it's fair to hold the mother accountable at that point, but I think a rational argument can be made for both sides of this particular issue. As I said, I've really got no problem with this aspect of your world view, but I don't find the slippery slope argument all that compelling if it's limited to intentionally consumed illegal substances. Still think this is a strange hoop to jump through, but I don't disagree with your conclusion for the most part, I just don't think the hoop jumping is necessary. Let's say I wake up one morning to find a trespasser standing over my bed with a couple IV tubes running between us, and that trespasser tells me that their heart and kidneys stopped functioning and the makeshift dialysis set up is the only thing circulating their blood and keeping them alive. Not only do I have the right to right to rip that IV straight out of my arm despite knowing it would lead to that person's death, but I could (in fact) shoot them in the head with a shotgun or throw them out the 10 story window if I saw fit, and I would be well within my rights - correct? What kind of castle doctrine allows for ending the life of an unwanted trespasser within your property borders but not within the borders of your very own body? Again, I think the castle doctrine more than covers this, but I'd be genuinely interested to see how that poll played out too. The suicide rate goes up by a factor of 3 for adopted kids with some stats I just researched showing that more than 40% in the foster system consider suicide and 1 out of 4 make genuine attempts. Probably would be a lot harder being a super-premi with no invested caretaker in an underfunded public health system, as well. To be sure, I think there's a very good chance that your proposed poll would turn out as you suspect with a majority of those babies who survive to 18 and have the developmental abilities to understand your question indeed siding with you. What I think is less cut cut and dried is how your sample population after 18 years would compare to the initial population. Oh right - no contraband, I forgot. Genuinely curious, does that apply to abortion pills too, or is that up to the culture and religion of the state? You're pivoting on the word "flippant" this time, but I think 'Live Free or Die" is a cool motto too. All the deterrents you're referencing here exist in our current society, and I'd assume you already agree that there should be some limitations on what one can do on their own property - for example, I figure you wouldn't be okay with your neighbor setting of miniature atomic bombs on his property even if the fallout didn't reach your property - so the issue is really just about where that line is drawn. Maybe you draw the line at sonic booms and mushroom clouds on the horizon, maybe somebody else draws the line at bonfires larger than 20 feet in height absent a permit, but we're all drawing the line. Obeying seatbelt laws isn't the same thing as being a slave, you know?
  6. Sure, all this would be true if we were living in a time before we had the technology to produce far more food/shelter/clothing than human beings could possibly consume. In recent decades in our pseudo-capitalist, however, scarcity has largely been artificially induced in order to keep up price and brand cache - which is why so much unused product gets destroyed and/or thrown away. You're in luck. All of your taxes are in fact taken with the express intent of providing a government service to you in return. You certainly won't need or use all of the services the government is providing on any given day/week/month/year/decade, but when serving 330 + million people, somebody needs those services today, and it may be you tomorrow. Argue for fewer services to your hearts content, but don't overlook the ways you benefit from a lot of the services indirectly even when not directly. Genuinely fascinated if the spite you're projecting in destroying assets over donating them in this completely fictionalized scenario is meant just for rich people, or for people in general, but it's both telling and bleak. As for the crux of my argument, I'm saying that having graduated income tax rates doesn't discriminate against anybody and that the rich aren't a class of people. One year my income may stretch all the way into the top tax bracket. Then next year it may not. Either way, it's just a math calculation and the effective overall rate is going to be similar. That calculation is applied equally to everyone's income, thus no discrimination. Do I have it backwards? Tell me again, what rules are being applied to fetuses, exactly? Because I'm pretty sure the fetus has no choice in the matter either way, and that abortion restrictions are curtailing the options of the mother - a situation that not everyone experiences. I doubt the thousands of women who get abortions every year from pregnancies caused by rape and incest are all that comforted by the fact that they represent a tiny portion of total rapes over all. I totally agree with you that any such victim should terminate the pregnancy as soon as possible, but sometimes that's a lot easier said than done - especially in states where the cultural and religious majority may have made accessing such medical services extremely problematic and in some cases effectively impossible. What are we going to do about that? I was saying that it doesn't matter when we assign personhood because the right to use another person's body against their will doesn't exist for persons of any age or pre/post-birth status. That applies whether legal personhood is granted at the moment of conception or when the kid takes its first breath. Very interesting question. Just my opinions here, but I'm inclined to say that the mother should face child abuse charges because she willing accepted a certain duty of care when she decided to have the baby which she obviously violated. My analogy would be that mothers aren't required to provide blood transfusions to their kids if they don't want, but if they do decide to provide those transfusions then they can be held accountable for knowingly spiking them with heroin or an infections disease. That said, my positions is pretty flexible here - I could see a lot of fair justifications for not charging child abuse in these situations too. This part is also very interesting to me, but for very different reasons, as from my perspective it seems to be a perfect example of taking your philosophy to such an extreme as to become a little absurd. Don't get me wrong, I respect the consistency in a way at the very least, and I think what you've laid out here is a pretty clever rationale enabling you to oppose the safe and humane abortion procedures as they currently exist, while promoting your openness to far more dangerous and invasive procedures that accomplishes exactly the same result up to half way through the third trimester (when most people are ok with abortion being illegal anyway), just for the sake of ideological purity, even if it means worse ways to achieve the exact same end. Why do black markets not regulate themselves? Ha. Fair enough. I suppose neither participant wants to be the one who dies, but can they not essentially sign a waiver acknowledging that potential outcome and choosing to participate anyway. That seems right up your alley. Totally. It's these kinds of wildfires are a very common occurrence and they are devastating, which is why it's a good idea do do just about everything within reason to limit their occurrence and scope. And yes, I recognize that in a libertarian society, one is free to start a forest fire and try to keep in entirely on their property, but that's one of the many reasons that a libertarian society is a bad idea. More money than can every be recovered is lost, irreplaceable property and life is lost for generations, and everyone's insurance premiums go up to cover the shortages, but you still don't think there are any other parties involved with enough interest to justify maybe setting a cap on the size of bonfires in order to try and prevent this loss from happening. Just seems so flippant to me, but I digress.
  7. Ha. The idea that money is "good" seems pretty contradictory to the notions that 'money is the root of all evil' and the love of money is one of the seven deadliest mistakes a human being can make in this world, so I'm not sure your depiction of unanimous agreement on the issue is quite accurate. But yeah, most everybody wants money - or rather most everybody wants food, shelter, health, security, entertainment, etc. and we have structured our society in such a way as to make money the primary - and near exclusive - means of obtaining these things. Your argument is like saying that everybody wants a car, when really what everybody wants is the freedom of movement, all the while you're ignoring the last 100 years and trillions of dollars that have been spent creating infrastructure and an environment that ensures there's no meaningful alternative. Of course, in places where there are efficient alternative transit options allowing for a comparable freedom of movement, the desire to own a car drops precipitously. Only 1 in 4 people in Amsterdam own cars, for example. Put another way, everybody in a mafia-protected neighborhood wants mafia protection, but only because such 'protection' is necessary for their survival, and there is no meaningful alternative other than destruction. Given your heightened sensitivity toward authoritarian power flexing, I'm genuinely a little surprised these kinds of arguments don't color your thinking more on these issues. Extortion and the lack of choice are the complete antithesis of free and voluntary association. Have to disagree in part again. I for one pay my taxes voluntarily just the same as I tip at least 20% on every meal. There are tons of people like me who vote and spend money trying to change tax law in a way that would increase our taxes owed, as well, which seems like a pretty good proxy for voluntary taxation. I'd argue it's patriotic to willingly fund your government. You're right of course that taxes are backed by violence, but violence backs the enforcement of property rights, and violence backs civil claims restitution etc. just the same, so I'm not sure this is the moral high ground you seem to think it is. The 'rules' are always backed by violence - that goes for the rules you like just the same as the rules you don't like. You've got the right idea that a non-discriminatory law is morally superior to a discriminatory law but you applied the logic completely backwards. Being rich is one of the least immutable of all possible characteristics. You can be rich one day and poor the next or vice versa. In fact, if one believes they are being discriminated against as a part of the rich minority it is completely within their power to give away enough assets as to no longer have to suffer at the hand of the oppressive poor majority. The rich can pull an 'if you can't beat them, join them' in the blink of an eye if poor people start giving themselves too good of a deal. Contrast that with abortion, where more than half of people can't even get pregnant in the first place. Regardless of what the laws in Tennessee say, I can 100% guarantee that I will never be forced to carry my rapists child because to do so would be physically impossible, and there's nothing women can do to enjoy that same privilege short of eliminating the possibility of bearing children at all. Same goes with the age of consent: you're either legally defined as a minor or you're not, but you can't make yourself older in order to join the oppressive majority of adults faster than one day at a time. I don't think it matters at all when the unborn child has rights actually, because no person has the right to demand the use of another person's body for any purpose without that person's consent. Most parents would gladly donate blood, bone marrow, to their kid in need, but the government isn't stepping in and making laws that force parents to do so, even if the kid's survival depends on it. That right doesn't exist for people. Ha. I'm not worried about the rights of the bears. Even if shooting them were perfectly legal, I don't want to have to do so. Maybe it's against my religion, maybe I don't own a gun and don't want to have to buy one to protect myself, my kids, and my family from wild animals because some idiot next door is baiting them. How many bears would you have to kill before your tune changes, how much time and money would you have to spend disposing of the bears' bodies, how much time and money would you have to spend in court trying to claw back the damages and/or expenses you've incurred as a result, all the while hoping nobody seriously gets hurt when you're not home are asleep or are doing anything other than keeping lookout for bears? What if she were baiting deadly rattle snakes or murder hornets instead of bears, so the gun is no longer effective? Or what if she's not just baiting these things, she's creating a perfect environment to allow their populations to grow and thrive with the specific intent of boosting her pest control and/or antidote businesses around town? Is that still cool? Where do you draw the line? Hard to put up a fence that can keep out murder hornets. The organ sale issue is about provenance. Will you be tightly regulating the organ market to make sure the organs function properly, are disease free, are were not harvested from kidnapped/murdered people or are you just mainstreaming the black market? Regarding duels, is murder still illegal when it's consensual? I thought you'd be on the other side of this one. Think about what you're saying here for a second. Let's say I do something really reckless and it ends up burning down 1,000 acres. That could be billions of dollars in damage. Where do you think that money's going to come from? I'm going to be bankrupt before the ink on the class action suit is dry. Further, the loss of the forest itself could take hundreds of years if not thousands to return to it's pre-fire form, if it ever does. Even if I had the money to cover all the built damage I caused, money alone is entirely incapable of restoring the life that my fire ended - including trees, animals, and people. And in the end, whatever the judgements against me are determined to be in court, after all the loss and all the suffering, the government will still ultimately rely on violence to compel my involuntary behavior. Since violence is underpinning the government's actions regardless, maybe some reasonable restrictions to limit wildfire risk and prevent some of the irreplaceable loss from needing replacement in the first place would be the preferable route. It's certainly more efficient from a financial standpoint, and everybody wants more money, right?
  8. In your second paragraph, when you're speaking negatively about democracy, you note that a majority can use it to target a particular minority, in this case rich people, who you're defending. But in your fifth and sixth paragraphs, you speak positively about democracy in that it can enable the majority to target a particular minority, in this case minors and pregnant women, who you do not defend. Seems like a disconnect there. Why should it be a good thing for the majority to decide the consent and abortion issues on behalf of a minority who may not share their culture or religious views, but somehow it's a bad thing for the same majority to decide tax and property issues for a minority who may not share their cultural or economic news. One step further, if the majority of the voters share a religion that opposes abortion (or same sex marriage, or interracial marriage, etc.) and you're okay with that outcome even though it restricts the free, voluntary actions of individuals who don't share that religion, then wouldn't it correlate that if a majority of voters share a religion that states render unto 'Caesar that which is Caesar's' and 'that it's easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle than to get into heaven' then shouldn't you be okay with taxes not to mention outlawing the accumulation of wealth? If the New Republic as a source is a major hold up, there are tons of other publications and authors who have covered this story in a lot of different forms of media. I assure you that the New Hampshire prohibition against bear hunting was not the source of the downfall of this particular would-be libertarian utopia considering that the town residents went to the caves and took out as many bears as they could despite having to break state law to do so. And as the article made clear, the bears weren't the only problem, though I am curious how you would have handled the bears, as well. What would you have done about the lady leaving piles of grain with sugar donuts sprinkled on top to lure the bears? What recourses should her neighbors have had after the bears did a bunch of damage on the way to the donut feast? Do you agree with the project founder's ideas about legalizing organ trafficking, Alexander Hamilton style duels, and paying bums to fight on the street? Do you agree with one of the other founders of the projects who led the volunteer fire department and restricted his friends' ability to start fires as they saw fit on days with high wildfire risk, or was that just another example of government overreach in your view? Was the fire chief being smart to put some limits on wildfire potential, or had that little bit of power that came with his position already corrupted the former true believer? One man's trash is another man's treasure, of course, but trying to live in such a place truly sounds like a nightmare to me.
  9. Listen, I was in a hurry yesterday and shot off the incel comment without giving it much thought. I take it from the fact that you felt compelled to pull an 'I'm rubber and you're glue" and sling it back at me means that I struck a nerve, and I apologize. If it makes you feel any better I'm among the class of the voluntarily celibate i.e. married with kids, so we're in similar boats anyway. That said, given that you've created a whole thread here to explain libertarianism based on your qualifications as a libertarian, I would think that you'd be more inclined to allow the socialists to define themselves in a similar manner. The alternative is pretty blatant hypocrisy, of course, which is why I honestly didn't think it would set your hair on fire to point out that your usage of the word socialism doesn't match the historical timeline and isn't in line with the common understanding of the word. I even tried to soften the blow by pointing out that there are in fact more accurate words to use that allow you to make the exact same points that you want to be making so you could keep up your momentum without missing a beat. As I said, if you want to take the position that every democracy in history has practiced some degree of socialism, go for it - I even kind of like the idea actually - but from a language standpoint you can't ignore the problem such a definition creates given that democracy predates the modern conception of socialism. But I do think you're right at least that we should probably wrap up this brief interlude of 'socialism explained' and get back to the original intent of the thread where we get to 'ask you anything' about your libertarian beliefs, since that's clearly where your expertise lies. So, here's a couple questions I've got: 1. What do you think should be the age of consent? 2. Do you support the reversal of Roe v. Wade? 3. What was it that went so terribly wrong in the town where libertarians took over, and how would your governing philosophy lead to any different or less disastrous results if libertarians took over another town, or a state, or a country? https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project Thanks in advance for whatever insight you can provide.
  10. Good god man. Words have meanings, don't blame me. And nothing I've said has in any way undermined your ability to mindlessly rant away like you're composing some incel manifesto. Just replace your use of the word 'socialism' with 'business regulation' and you should be good to go.
  11. You're missing the point. I'm pretty indifferent as to what you think 'the key is' or what you believe to be 'the essential concept here'. I only chimed in to point out that you were defining socialism incorrectly, the rest of your opinions about property rights etc. seems pretty irrelevant here. Taking your Brittanica definition, you're still resting your argument on the idea that 'control' can be fairly interpreted to mean 'regulation' and I provided examples to show that your interpretation is so broad as to construe every single democratic government throughout history as practicing socialism. If that's your contention, so be it, but my only purpose here was to point out that particular definition of socialism is not in line with the commonly understood meaning of the word.
  12. It seems like what you're doing here is a bit of sleight of hand in redefining "administration" and "control" to mean "regulation" but these words are not synonyms in this context. First, you'll note that in in your restatement of the Webster's definition, you've conveniently left out the words "and ownership" that follow "collective administration" which seems like a pretty crucial omission on your part that significantly alters the meaning of the sentence. Further, accepting your interpretation of 'collective administration' and 'control' to mean 'regulation' wouldn't make any sense in a historical context, because doing so would then mean by your definition that every democracy in the history of civilization has been practicing socialism going back to Ancient Greece, and that trend isn't exclusive to democracy either. Business regulations like price and quality controls, licensure, and trade restrictions predate the concept of socialism by centuries (and millennia) in some cases I think, so if any business regulation imposed by a government authority equals socialism in your view, then the word socialism is essentially a synonym for government. Is that what you mean? Couldn't agree more but we also have to make sure the garbage gets picked up so we don't get over run by bears. https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-into-bear-book-review-free-town-project
  13. It's kind of an odd mix of condescension and audacity to state that I'm confused about the definition of socialism, then follow it up with your own personal interpretation of the meaning of the word with nothing but 'trust me bro' to back it up. Here's what Merriam-Webster and the good people at the Oxford dictionary think about it, for whatever it's worth to you: Definition of socialism 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods QUICK REFERENCE An economic system in which the means of production are controlled by the state.
  14. I think their current objective is primarily attracting investors, and staying relevant and in the news is one of the ways they're clearly trying to bring those investors to the table. In the Twitter era, every PR piece they get published somewhere increases the odds ever so slightly that they catch Oprah on the right day.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.