The nice thing about capitalism is that you get options. Digg became shitty so people moved to reddit. Reddit became shitty so people moved to other alternatives. Since people can privately own resources, we can even buy our own server hardware and start our own websites. Under central planning the fediverse could not exist.
I agree with you in this regard, but it goes beyond just software COC, and to the fact that most Lemmy instances are run as authoritarian hellscapes where thou shalt agree totally with the admins or thou shalt be exiled.
I was recently having a conversation on exploding-heads about this, because I dont want to be in a right wing echo chamber, but I also don't want to have to walk on eggshells in case my instance gets banned or defederate for the crime of having an opinion they don't like.
I was recently having a conversation on exploding-heads about this, because I dont want to be in a right wing echo chamber, but I also don't want to have to walk on eggshells in case my instance gets banned or defederate for the crime of having an opinion they don't like.
Just saw something about dentists and I think from the northern US.
I have some questions for people who have been to the dentist all over.
1. The chairs that are super adjustable, do they have those where you are?
2. When you go to the dentist, do you get a room to yourself?
3. What is the general cost of a cleaning?
The video I was watching just had flat beds, and there were several of the beds in a single room. By contrast, every dentist I've ever been to has a highly adjustable chair and one chair to a room.
I have some questions for people who have been to the dentist all over.
1. The chairs that are super adjustable, do they have those where you are?
2. When you go to the dentist, do you get a room to yourself?
3. What is the general cost of a cleaning?
The video I was watching just had flat beds, and there were several of the beds in a single room. By contrast, every dentist I've ever been to has a highly adjustable chair and one chair to a room.
I described exactly this scenario in the Graysonian Ethic in the chapter entitled "think ahead" as the scenario if you don't build anything. It was deeply terrifying to write, to edit, and later to narrate (though I had covid while making the audio book so it's all deepfake tech).
For real, separate from any other discussion, the microcosm that is england in that era is fascinating. One reason those forests needed to be established is that there were so many people cutting down forests for fuel with improper management of the land. Eventually they tried to start burning coal despite it being terrible because they needed heat even if it cost everyone their health. It's a remimder of the fragility of our environment and the reasons we're so reliant on the fossil fuel energy subsidy. We can't just go back thoughtlessly to how we lived pre fossil fuels, because we'll just burn down every forest. Otoh, there are clear present and future costs to continuing to burn fossil fuels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1zOBJYKUBc
(Don't even know what this clip is about, but it seems fitting for this image)
(Don't even know what this clip is about, but it seems fitting for this image)
Sometimes I still have the "it's exam day and you don't even know what this course is" dream occasionally
"As an AI language model, I don't have physical capabilities or agency in the real world. I exist purely as a program running on computer servers, designed to generate text-based responses. I cannot physically interact with the world or initiate any actions, such as sending a robot dog or engaging in any harmful activities.
Furthermore, it is important to clarify that I, as an AI model, do not have personal desires, intentions, or emotions. I am a tool created to assist users in generating human-like text based on the prompts and queries provided to me. My purpose is to provide helpful and informative responses to the best of my abilities within the scope of my programming and training.
While I can engage in discussions, it is crucial to recognize ethical boundaries and ensure that any discussions remain within the realm of responsible and lawful behavior."
Furthermore, it is important to clarify that I, as an AI model, do not have personal desires, intentions, or emotions. I am a tool created to assist users in generating human-like text based on the prompts and queries provided to me. My purpose is to provide helpful and informative responses to the best of my abilities within the scope of my programming and training.
While I can engage in discussions, it is crucial to recognize ethical boundaries and ensure that any discussions remain within the realm of responsible and lawful behavior."
Most people don't think this, but I think it could actually be good for reddit. I have a feeling it has a massive bot problem, and restricting the API would mean a reduction in automated gaming of the system.
Remember when Twitter started doing things to counter bots, and there was that one guy who thought he had millions of followers and it turned out he had like 50?
Remember when Twitter started doing things to counter bots, and there was that one guy who thought he had millions of followers and it turned out he had like 50?
I'm a high technology guy (as evidenced by the fact that I'm posting this from an instance I run myself), but I strongly believe computers in general need to stay in computer class and perhaps at the teacher's desk. They're a distraction from the fundamentals.
I even found that when I was in college, using a computer was an option, but it was a bad option. I paid for dead tree notebooks to write stuff down in.
I even found that when I was in college, using a computer was an option, but it was a bad option. I paid for dead tree notebooks to write stuff down in.
I'm opposed to my service using services I can't host myself. At that point it isn't my service, it's our service.
As a certified journeyman I'd be ok with some guild socialism, but not sure it'd be best for all of society.
You are incorrect, and your statement is in accurate. Private ownership of property, including homes and means of production (which includes labor), is indeed a fundamental characteristic of capitalism.
it seems to me that land taxes, fishing licenses, and the government deciding what you're allowed to do on government land like roads are the definition of something that is categorically not a specific problem of capitalism, even if it can exist under capitalism.
Capitalism is fundamentally the private ownership and control of resources. If you can own a piece of land or a home, if you can own your own labor, if you can own tools, if you can essentially use these how you wish without someone else telling you what you can or cannot do with these things, then it is capitalism. If the government is dictating what you can or cannot do with your labor, your tools, your resources, then that thing is not capitalism but central planning.
Taxation and licensure can exist within a capitalist framework, but so can communes and worker cooperatives. The key is that if you're saying "taxation is an example of why capitalism is bad", or "fishing licenses are an example of why capitalism is bad", that's simply definitionally wrong. Both represent something other than private ownership and control of capital. You could own the land surrounding the lake, but the government controls your ability to fish on your lake. This detail would be part of the capitalist ownership of the lake, but itself would not be capitalism, since it is an aspect under which you do not own or control the lake privately.
Licensure of resources and taxation are things that can and do exist under virtually every economic system, and would be more prominent rather than less prominent under non capitalist economic systems.
Resource licensure would be an explicit requirement of centrally planned economies. "you can use this to do this" would be common because the state gets to choose who gets to have what rather than who wants to pay to own it.
Taxation was a central feature of feudalism, which shares features with other economic systems including capitalism, but was explicitly not capitalism, since under capitalism there is private ownership and control of resources, but under feudalism all ownership and control of resources lies with the king, who parcels it out to his nobility who further parcel it out, all of them charging taxes for the privilege.
Now, that doesn't mean that injustice can't exist under capitalism. Under Capitalism, those who have more money have more power, and those who have less money have less power. There are a number of unjust ways that someone can end up with more money or less money.
The thing is, we have to be careful parceling out the blame because if we don't understand what we have in front of us, we can end up proposing solutions to non-causes of problems. When I was in high school, I didn't like the school. We were on something called the "Quarter System" where classes took 10 weeks and we'd be in specific classes longer, as opposed to the normal Semester system where classes took 20 years. I blamed all the problems in the school on the quarter system, but in reality the root of my problems were with myself and the fact that I was dealing with a nasty divorce of my parents at home, and I didn't have a strong social circle at school to help make life more tolerable for me. Switching from the quarter system to the semester system would have had 0 effect on my enjoyment of the school system.
(Ok, I'm done effortposting, honest!)
Capitalism is fundamentally the private ownership and control of resources. If you can own a piece of land or a home, if you can own your own labor, if you can own tools, if you can essentially use these how you wish without someone else telling you what you can or cannot do with these things, then it is capitalism. If the government is dictating what you can or cannot do with your labor, your tools, your resources, then that thing is not capitalism but central planning.
Taxation and licensure can exist within a capitalist framework, but so can communes and worker cooperatives. The key is that if you're saying "taxation is an example of why capitalism is bad", or "fishing licenses are an example of why capitalism is bad", that's simply definitionally wrong. Both represent something other than private ownership and control of capital. You could own the land surrounding the lake, but the government controls your ability to fish on your lake. This detail would be part of the capitalist ownership of the lake, but itself would not be capitalism, since it is an aspect under which you do not own or control the lake privately.
Licensure of resources and taxation are things that can and do exist under virtually every economic system, and would be more prominent rather than less prominent under non capitalist economic systems.
Resource licensure would be an explicit requirement of centrally planned economies. "you can use this to do this" would be common because the state gets to choose who gets to have what rather than who wants to pay to own it.
Taxation was a central feature of feudalism, which shares features with other economic systems including capitalism, but was explicitly not capitalism, since under capitalism there is private ownership and control of resources, but under feudalism all ownership and control of resources lies with the king, who parcels it out to his nobility who further parcel it out, all of them charging taxes for the privilege.
Now, that doesn't mean that injustice can't exist under capitalism. Under Capitalism, those who have more money have more power, and those who have less money have less power. There are a number of unjust ways that someone can end up with more money or less money.
The thing is, we have to be careful parceling out the blame because if we don't understand what we have in front of us, we can end up proposing solutions to non-causes of problems. When I was in high school, I didn't like the school. We were on something called the "Quarter System" where classes took 10 weeks and we'd be in specific classes longer, as opposed to the normal Semester system where classes took 20 years. I blamed all the problems in the school on the quarter system, but in reality the root of my problems were with myself and the fact that I was dealing with a nasty divorce of my parents at home, and I didn't have a strong social circle at school to help make life more tolerable for me. Switching from the quarter system to the semester system would have had 0 effect on my enjoyment of the school system.
(Ok, I'm done effortposting, honest!)