@VaxxersPostingTheirLs "So truthful and compelling we need masses of paid propaganda against regular people!"
@jeffcliff You forget that China is a National Socialist dictatorship.
There isn't even a method to become a naturalized citizen. They don't really want foreigners around shitting up their regime. They can barely stand the people they're responsible for, hence the actual honest to god ethinc concentration camps.
There isn't even a method to become a naturalized citizen. They don't really want foreigners around shitting up their regime. They can barely stand the people they're responsible for, hence the actual honest to god ethinc concentration camps.
@zerohedge
>Microsoft to Require Vaccination to Enter U.S. Buildings: Verge
Microsoft worried about viruses for the first time in history
>Microsoft to Require Vaccination to Enter U.S. Buildings: Verge
Microsoft worried about viruses for the first time in history
@rife_with_tedium the fact that people aren't making more comparisons between covid and 9/11 is infuriating to me. After decades of complaining about one type of psychosis, they are now like "oh, this kind of psychosis is ok!"
@CharlesSynyard it's sad seeing people who ought to know better shutting their brains off and literally just saying whatever the state and the largest megacorps on the planet tell them to say.
@furgar "multiculturalism" to these people seems to be a bunch of people with different amounts of melanin acting like the same southern California leftist.
81% of eligible people have had at least one shot in my jurisdiction, and 71% have been fully vaccinated. So life should be totally back to normal, right?
Wrong. Turns out even with 81% of people vaccinated there isn't even a plan to unlock down.
Lefties who hated 9/11 bullshit who back COVID bullshit need to an hero themselves.
Wrong. Turns out even with 81% of people vaccinated there isn't even a plan to unlock down.
Lefties who hated 9/11 bullshit who back COVID bullshit need to an hero themselves.
musing about the Mastodon project
@jeffcliff @meowski @lain @augustus @icedquinn Or alternatively, we should stop treating them (well, us -- I'm not pretending here) like people and have food lockdowns and force people to wear masks to prevent them from eating anything but government mandate foods. We can have government workers going door to door to inspect people's cupboards to make sure they only have healthy foods and we can have politicians suggesting that we should jail people who don't lose weight.
If it saves only one life it's worth it!
If it saves only one life it's worth it!
@jeffcliff @meowski @lain @augustus @icedquinn
Let's wage war on death. We'll sentence anyone who dies to death.
Let's wage war on death. We'll sentence anyone who dies to death.
I've been called anarcho-capitalist because I generally think that capitalism works and often regulation doesn't, but of course there's a need for some regulation to prevent untenable outcomes in a free market. There are three troublesome parts to any regulation:
1. Regulations are often specifically lobbied for and against by the most powerful entities specifically to lead to those undesirable outcomes. Megacorps are demanding minimum wage, for example, because they know they can have workers more productive than that minimum wage, and by forcing wages up they reduce the number of jobs, driving wages down further up the scale. At the same time, a good regulation that silently helps to prevent monopolies by opening markets to competition will be lobbied against because companies want to have monopolies or near-monopolies so they can charge more and abuse workers and customers.
2. Regulations often have an effect of helping institutions forget the reason for a regulation. Let's say hypothetically (what am I, a rubber tree plantation?) that there's a regulation saying that you must have vulcanized rubber tires on your cars. Let's say that basically everyone was using vulcanized rubber because even though it's more expensive there are safety benefits that protect the companies from lawsuits. Then let's say that either major companies find a loophole allowing non-vulcanized rubber or someone comes in and legalizes non-vulcanized rubber. Because the regulation existed there was no point in remembering that you used the vulcanized rubber for reasons that benefit you. I think this was part of the real danger of deregulation that led in part to the 2008 financial crisis. The government eliminated regulations that banned obviously bad behavior, companies engaged in obviously bad behavior, and they all got burned at the same time. Had those laws never existed, the companies would have known through institutional memory that the practices were bad, but the fact it was just illegal caused carrying on that memory to be moot, and when they were lifted everyone rushed into the dangerous practices.
3. Regulations are not always limiting. Banks for example have a lot of benefits that are regulations. They can print money at massive ratios and that isn't fraud. They have massive insurance and they have a lender of last resort created by the government. Their deposits are insured. Some investments are insured. And then there's the fact that any time the banks fuck up we all pay trillions making them whole through tax money. This absolutely picks winners and losers -- The government says "we won't let these guys fail" even if they do something unacceptable, and so they can take massive risks a normal company can't because they are insured to unlimited levels.
The solution then has to be competent regulators, and extremely careful and strict rules about who is allowed to become a regulator. The first situation in general is the cause of the second and the third. The revolving business/regulator/business pipeline makes bad regulation inevitable.
1. Regulations are often specifically lobbied for and against by the most powerful entities specifically to lead to those undesirable outcomes. Megacorps are demanding minimum wage, for example, because they know they can have workers more productive than that minimum wage, and by forcing wages up they reduce the number of jobs, driving wages down further up the scale. At the same time, a good regulation that silently helps to prevent monopolies by opening markets to competition will be lobbied against because companies want to have monopolies or near-monopolies so they can charge more and abuse workers and customers.
2. Regulations often have an effect of helping institutions forget the reason for a regulation. Let's say hypothetically (what am I, a rubber tree plantation?) that there's a regulation saying that you must have vulcanized rubber tires on your cars. Let's say that basically everyone was using vulcanized rubber because even though it's more expensive there are safety benefits that protect the companies from lawsuits. Then let's say that either major companies find a loophole allowing non-vulcanized rubber or someone comes in and legalizes non-vulcanized rubber. Because the regulation existed there was no point in remembering that you used the vulcanized rubber for reasons that benefit you. I think this was part of the real danger of deregulation that led in part to the 2008 financial crisis. The government eliminated regulations that banned obviously bad behavior, companies engaged in obviously bad behavior, and they all got burned at the same time. Had those laws never existed, the companies would have known through institutional memory that the practices were bad, but the fact it was just illegal caused carrying on that memory to be moot, and when they were lifted everyone rushed into the dangerous practices.
3. Regulations are not always limiting. Banks for example have a lot of benefits that are regulations. They can print money at massive ratios and that isn't fraud. They have massive insurance and they have a lender of last resort created by the government. Their deposits are insured. Some investments are insured. And then there's the fact that any time the banks fuck up we all pay trillions making them whole through tax money. This absolutely picks winners and losers -- The government says "we won't let these guys fail" even if they do something unacceptable, and so they can take massive risks a normal company can't because they are insured to unlimited levels.
The solution then has to be competent regulators, and extremely careful and strict rules about who is allowed to become a regulator. The first situation in general is the cause of the second and the third. The revolving business/regulator/business pipeline makes bad regulation inevitable.
@mkljczk Niesprawiedliwy! Od miesięcy próbuję dostać się na tę listę, a oni mnie ignorują!
@alex People bitching about a lack of moderation? That sounds like a group I want to support.
@maximebernier The PPC is the only party that is truly opposed to child slavery. The other parties are running full steam ahead on spending money we never intend to pay back so our kids can pay for it.
Think about it: How is taking out debt you never intend to pay back so your kids can pay it back not slavery? It just is. Our kids are becoming indentured servants to Beijing and New York bankers. Thanks, I hate it.
Think about it: How is taking out debt you never intend to pay back so your kids can pay it back not slavery? It just is. Our kids are becoming indentured servants to Beijing and New York bankers. Thanks, I hate it.
@swashberry It seems to me that a lot of people have forgotten that the core of Free software is Freedom.