Cethin

I have serious practical concerns with anarchism, but that is certainly the ideal.

You should have serious practical concerns with everything. My practical concerns with libertarianism is what led me to social anarchism. For example:

Consumer protections should largely be unnecessary if the market is sufficiently competitive, and ending protectionism should provide that…

Why? Why would ending protectionism necessarily demand competition? Without government stepping in, why wouldn’t the largest companies create barriers that prevent competition? They can user their capital to undercut competitors until they can’t remain solvent, then increase prices far above cost. They can also buy out competitors before they are real competition. They can use their market dominance to demand suppliers to show their product more prominently, or to only show their product.

There are far too many ways the dominant company can curtail competition, and we’ve seen it played out many times even with our current system that Libertarians want to remove the guardrails from. For example, items listed on Amazon that sell moderately well, Amazon creates knockoffs for. They then sell them at a cheaper price under the “Amazon Basic” name until the original is gone, and then they increase prices. This is what the free market looks like.

This is the kind of thing that led me to social anarchism. People are the important thing, not companies. We need a government that’s empowered to protect people, but that let’s people do what they want (assuming they don’t hurt other people). Ideally also we remove hierarchy from the companies and have them owned by employees or the people also. Letting them treat humans as a human resource (which is crazy that HR can be called that and people don’t see a problem) is the issue. Improving the lives of people should be the end goal, not profit.

No, I’m pretty sure he grasps that concept, and he thinks what he believes is that universal truth.

I am a bit left of center in the US and pretty centrist on a global scale, and I lean fairly libertarian. I’m left of most libertarian candidates in the US, supporting things like UBI as an alternative to welfare programs. So I think I have a decent perspective on what’s left and right.

I started at your position a long time ago, when I was a teenager. I realized libertarians are full of shit, and eventually discovered a better descriptor of my beliefs was anarchist (in particular, social anarchist). I think the government shouldn’t be telling people how to live or what they can or can’t do. It should be there to protect people (emphasis; not corporations).

Libertarians (in the US at least) are really just anarcho-capitalists. They want freedom for businesses, but usually at the expense of freedom for people. They don’t want protection for people from exploitation. They want businesses with enough money to be able to exert their authority as far as possible, to the extent of blocking competition and effectively creating slaves. (They’ll argue they don’t agree with slavery, but what’s the difference between your employer owning your ability to live and slavery?)

It depends on where you draw the line for “the center.” I’d agree it’s leftist for America, but it’s center-left on a global scale. You’ll usually get some push back if you promote true leftist politics. Usually more agreement than dissent, but still some.

It’s correct. If you choose to answer questions, you should tell the truth. That should be preceded, in bold, “don’t fucking answer questions! If the police talk to you, shut the fuck up.”

Well, we need to use tariffs until they sell us more goods! Obviously we’re losing too many goods to them and not bringing enough in!

Specifically him.

I think it’s fair, and sometimes good. I’ve been playing Stationeers recently and it’s fantastic. It’s priced reasonably, and it’s an amazing game. They have a few DLCs, which are purely there to give support, not new content. It’s for you to pay the devs more if you have the money to give them and want to.

However, they’re also losing money on the game and have said they never expect it to be profitable*. Most games aren’t Stardew Valley, and they’re struggling to survive. Stardew doesn’t need to make more money. Most small/indie studios do.

*It’s the studio making Kitten Space Agency, which they’ve said they want to be free, with the option to donate. I think they’re allergic to making profit and only like making cool games. I’d highly recommend checking out their games, if only because they seem to be doing development for the sake of the games.

Again, the point is you were saying (or agreeing) that copies being available for free decrease the value. You then later say it has intrinsic value.

I’m not arguing that they don’t have intrinsic value. I’m arguing that you undermined the point of value decreasing if it exists for free by admitting this. It doesn’t. It’s worth something no matter what someone else paid, and no matter what you paid.

A game decreasing in price over time isn’t doing so because it’s worth less (usually, with the exception of online games). They’re decreasing the price to capture customers who don’t agree with the original valuation. It doesn’t change value to the consumer based on the price changing. The object is not suddenly less valuable when there’s a sale and more valuable again after. It has a degree of “goodness” no matter what. The price doesn’t effect this.

Also also, either the thing you’re copying has value that arose from the effort of creating it, or it doesn’t. If it’s of value, then it’s reasonable to expect payment for it. It’s it’s not of value, then you shouldn’t miss not having it.

Doesn’t this contradict the whole rest of the argument? It either has value or it doesn’t. It being available for free somewhere doesn’t change the value. If it’s not of value, then they shouldn’t miss you having it.

They get paid. They just don’t get a share of profits. They are usually paid a salary or, increasingly more commonly, are paid as a contractor.

Adding on to say: no. It doesn’t cost the creator anything when a pirated copy is made. They potentially miss a sale, but if their item wasn’t in a store where someone may have made a purchase you wouldn’t call that actively harmful, right?

In addition, most media the creators don’t actually make money from the profit. Most of the time they’re paid a salary, maybe with a bonus if it does particularly well. The company that owns the product takes the profit (or loss), not the actual creators.

Also, a lot of media isn’t even controlled by the same people as when it was made. For example, buying the Dune books doesn’t give money to Frank Herbert. It goes to his estate.

I found settings for it in my phone’s settings menu, so yeah, no standalone app you can disable or remove. They baked it into the OS.

If you’re talking about the first paragraph, then no, that’s literally what they do.

I agree, but one thing that people always miss with these kinds of rulings is that they generally come with increased oversight and greater fines for repeat offenses. They’re more likely to be caught if they try it again, and it’ll grow until it actually hurts.

Still, this should be a lot larger. They should be trying to dissuade first-time offenses as well, not letting them take advantage of the system for profit because it won’t hurt much when they’re found out.

Well, also AI is hurting actual human beings. We should be fighting against it too. Yeah, be careful of crossfire, but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t fire at all.

We can’t look at the past with the understanding we have now and think they knew this would happen though. They made it clear they expected an easy victory.

They told their soldiers about the easy victory.

Do you think they didn’t know about the Ukraine fortifications built since 2014? Have you seen their faces when they announced the ‘operation’? They had to take Grozny. Why should Kyiv fall in 3 days?

You don’t send your best troops into a position they can’t get out of if you don’t expect results. Sure, after the collapse of the government there’s still going to be some fighting, but they thought they could take out the government in one swift blow.

Have you looked at the book? This conflict is in the making for a long time. Putin tried to win over Germany with cheap gas to become part of the West and avoid the conflict but Merkel betrayed him and just took the gas without changing the original goals.

Yes, it’s been coming for a long time. Obviously. If it wasn’t Ukraine it’d be something else. Russia was always going to push something to the point where other nations wouldn’t let them anymore. It’s not like Ukraine is the first sovereign nation they’ve invaded. It also wouldn’t have been the last. Germany has not “taken” their gas though. They are still purchasing it, which is dumb because it increases they amount the need to spend in Ukraine, but it is what it is. If only they hadn’t shut down those nuclear reactors a few years ago…

I never said the US doesn’t benefit from the war, though they wouldn’t if Russia’s invasion went to plan. Russia thought they could walk in and take over. They clearly thought they could take it all and would gain a lot from owning it; a port in the black sea and the breadbasket of Europe.

Cui bono? That’s more complicated than just “who’s benefitting now.”

Also, again, Putin wanted to cement a legacy. He benefits most if they were successful.

However, now basically everyone except Russia gains from it. China, North Korea, and Iran get to have Russia owe them a lot (We’ll see how that debt is repaid, though I know there’s some particular land China at least wants, but also they love their soft power). Europe gets a significantly weaker Russia threatening them. The US gets to further extend its power. A whole lot of nations get to test weapons (and secretly gain experience) with a new type of warfare.

We can’t look at the past with the understanding we have now and think they knew this would happen though. They made it clear they expected an easy victory.

In that light, aren’t Nato’s actions forcing Russia’s hands?

Forcing? No. They’re choosing what they’re doing. There’s plenty of other options for them. In what way were they forced to invade Crimea, and then the rest of Ukraine?

If you’re going to make the “buffer zone” argument, see how that’s decreased since the invasion, not increased, so if that was the goal, is was incredibly stupid. Who would suspect invading a sovereign nation would make other nations less likely to join an alliance against you?

Probably the best option for Russia (not Putin though) would be closer economic ties to Europe. They are their largest trade partner after all. However, Putin wanted to leave a legacy of “restoring the former boarders of the USSR” so he’s destroying the nation he’s supposed to protect to have his legacy that he won’t get anyway.

That’s not even remotely close to what I said. Try again, and don’t straw man. I engaged with you, and you repeat easily disprovable nonsense straight from Russian media without any reason to believe it. No proof or logic for why it makes sense.