Actually a better analogy would be to find the our-universe equivalent of WoW's dev-island. Though, if the devs in of a simulated universe were not sufficiently better to avoid needing that I would be surprized (and it could easily be 14-billion light years away from where our little solar system was had ended up after spawning).
Even if we could PROVE we were in a simulation - it does not follow that we could break out of it, it would make our minds part of that simulation - just advanced AI's within a massive software project - that doesn't imply a possibility of existing outside that software infrastructure.
And finally - it does not even imply a simulator. If an entire universe can be produced by the laws of physics, as modern science seems to suggest, then why can such a universe not subsequently produce an entire simulated universe by the mere laws of physics - without any particular intelligence trying to do it ? Even if you assume an intelligence did it, it still doesn't follow that creationism is true - it just brings us to -how did the universe of the simulator come about ? We can't know - we could try to guess based on studying our own but that's not conclusive, if they tried to simulate something akin to their own we would conclude that they are the consequences of processes much like the big bang and evolution and we may even be an attempt to study how those processes happened in their own universe by means of an simulation. But it could just as easily be an entertainment project (as it is in The Thirteenth Floor - though there the simulators are our own future selves) - in which case it need not bare any resemblence to reality at all. The cosmology around Azeroth is hardly like our own, hell it's a planet but nobody has ever even SEEN the thing as a spherical shape - only a flat map exists, and you can't go around it by traveling in one direction. For quite some time another planet in that system was nothing but some lose floating chunks of rocks which somehow, magically, had enough gravity for things to walk on.
Yet it is the most popular open-source license by far, and has given us the infrastructure for the entire internet, powered some of the biggest supercomputers ever built which are helping to solve the mysteries of the universe and so on and so forth.
The BSD systems, even after release, and despite being arguably better in some technical measures never achieved such an impact on the world, their biggest achievement was having MacOSX based on FreeBSD. Sure the GPL precluded what apple did there - and that was why apple chose FreeBSD - but the BSD Licenses failed to build an open internet for the masses or an OS that runs most of it's servers (and a growing number of desktops and virtually all of it's mobile devices).
The GPL succeeded where the BSD licenses failed exactly because it understood that to make society, overall, more free you must REDUCE the freedom of the few in favour of the freedom of the many. Because when you do not, the few will use their freedom to remove freedom from the many - they will BECOME tyrants.
Sometimes, to secure the freedom of the many, you have to somewhat reduce the freedom of the few. The GPL secures the freedom of users (the many), to do so, it must somewhat reduce the freedom of programmers (the few).
This is not tyranny, this is freedom - when you increase the favour of the few at the expense of the many, that is tyranny (and why libertarianism in all it's forms is tyranical).
So... scientific evidence is not "proof" of a scientific claim in your mind ?
Please go jump of a building. Because the proof that gravity exists is, in fact, significantly weaker than the evidence that human are causing climate change. By your own standard of evidence - you should be fine ! And the difference is, by doubting the science that way, if you're wrong, you only fucked over yourself. Right now your scientific illiteracy is fucking over all of us.
I don't know about the wars (though they fall inside the period and are PART of what human activity has dumped) but I do know you're talking bullshit about volcanoes. You're probably even talking bullshit if you add volcanoes to the wars ! The American Geophysical Union did a study - and found that the total average annual CO2 output from volcanoes is only 0.25% (that's a quarter of 1%) of what is put out by coal plants. Just coal plants alone, in other words, is 400 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
More-over volcanoes actually release very little CO2 -they mostly release stuff like ash and sulfur, volcanoes are, in fact more likely to cause temperatures to go DOWN by blocking sunlight, as happened in the late 19th century when a major volcano in Asia the year before caused Europe's "year without a summer".
There is nothing "missing" about it, the human contribution is AT LEAST 100% and probably MORE than that, because all the evidence (and there are several studies linked higher in this same thread) is that the natural factors are currently pushing temperatures DOWN - so without human effects it would actually be getting COLDER, that makes any increases MORE than 100% due to human activity.
This has been studied extensively, and it's thing for which we have overwhelming evidence. It's just the latest stake in the denier chart. "Deny it's happening". Evidence gets too overwhelming. "Deny it's man-made". Evidence gets too overwhelming. "Deny we know how MUCH is manmade"... Further hits on the trail include claiming it will cost less to deal with the effects than to fix the problem, claiming losses from not using as much fossil fuel cannot possibly be outweighed from economic gains in the renewable industries and other patently false and, in fact, flagrantly absurd claims.
Look... I know nobody here reads the article - but right there in it, it explains how this is NOTHING LIKE the Missisipi. That's a change at the END Of the river, not the START of the river.
Changes at the start of a glacial fed river should be nearly impossible, and in a period of less than 50-million years, it shouldn't be possible at all.
A great many people (at least one, here on slashdot in reply to me) however used that as a justification to vote for Trump. Because apparently it makes some sort of moral difference WHICH brutal dictator you suck up to and which you oppose (hint: it doesn't - a good president would be opposed to and, if need be, willing to go to war with BOTH Russia and Syria) ? We were told that her tough stance on Syria was a reason to vote for Trump, because, his voters seemed to believe: he would stay out of the Syrian mess and not provoke Russia.
He has now BOMBED Syria. Do you seriously think Russia is happy right now ?
Isolationism is an incredibly stupid idea, both times America ever tried it there was a world war, one of those times ended with the largest military attack on home soil in history. Now I won't say that hte US hasn't thoroughly fucked up in it's international role since world war 2 sometimes - hell I've repeatedly cited the fuckups, like removing a democratically elected leader in *insert list of over 50 countries here* to install a dictator, going to war in Iraq etc.
But, and this matter, over-all they global liberal order has stood - there has not been another world war. The US has kept wars local in this time, to it's own and the world's benefit. Isolationism would dismantle all that, and almost certainly lead to a new world war.
Now the truth is also that the world, over the past 3 years, have reach the closest point to a world war since the last one ended. Tensions have not been this high in 70 years. Countries around the world are flexing their muscles and itching for a fight. I'm not a Clinton fan (I WAS a Sanders fan) but I did think she had the knowledge, experience and acumen required to hopefully keep a lid on things and calm things down. It was a longshot but it was also the ONLY shot. The one thing I was sure of was that a blustery buffoon like Donald Trump was the absolute worst possible person to have in charge of the US military at a time like this. A brash, loudmouth, egotist with authoritarian and fascist tendency who appeals to ethno-nationalist sentiments - worst possible person for the job.
Nobody saw world war 1 coming, the markets didn't even shift until 3 months after the events that started it. The tensions were there, the build-up is obvious in retrospect, but it was not visible at the time. Now though, with the benefit of having seen it there - I see the same patterns in global geopolitics today. And it takes extremely skilled leadership to steer through this without igniting another one. No rash decisions can be made. 99.9999% very careful and skilled diplomacy, and the tiny 0.000001 surgical precision military strikes - that's what could keep things calm and resolve these tensions without breaking out. Trump has none of the qualities required. Clinton did - she'd STILL be a longshot because of the other world leaders out there Merkel is ONLY other one who is up to the task. Could the two of them keep things calm ? I don't know - but there was a chance. With the election of Trump - there is no chance. Indeed a no-fly zone over Syria with diplomatic pressure to force Russia to accept it could potentially have been exactly the right approach. It would certainly have reduced the likelihood of bombing Syria today.
Do not be surprised if, in future decades, historians refer to this week as the week world war 3 started. And no, the poison gas attack would not be the start- Asad's been doing that for ages. It's this strike, this morning. This strike could very well be the first strike of world war 3. I hope it isn't, I hope there is no world war 3. I hope that the leader of the free world Angela Merkel (oh remember the good old days when that title belonged to whoever was POTUS ?) and the leaders in her European alliances (France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia) have the wisdom (and the scars) to manage to keep a lid on things even in a world where Trump has the big red button. It's not a big hope, but it's hope and I cling to it. I have never so badly wanted to be wrong.
I just fear I'm right, because it's far more than a possibility, it's a strong probability.
Nobody else sells nearly as much. But interestingly the top 5 arms dealers in teh world are ALSO the top-5 members of the UN security council and the only countries with veto rights.
Throughout 2016 we were told that Clinton would "declare a no-fly zone over Syria and cause a war with Russia". Not even 4 months on the job - Trump launches a massive airstrike against Syria... wasn't your whole argument against Clinton based on the idea that she would leave Asad to do whatever evil he wants to rather than provoke Russia ?
Something tells me Putin is seriously pissed right now, after all that effort to put a puppet in the white house.
Actually no, it's because heating is one of the few things electricity does really, really badly. It takes long to heat up (which wastes energy) and it does so inefficiently. So directly-burning fuels like gas is a much more efficient way to produce heat -and that makes it cheaper for the purpose of heat. For moving things around - electricity beats fire every time though.
And of course, the electric car is ALSO far more efficient than the ICE - so you got significantly more efficient work production at both ends - making the total emissions per mile MUCH MUCH less.
>concrete production is a significant CO2 source. On the other hand - concrete curing is a major CO2 trap. That's not actually ideal. Trapping the CO2 traps 2 oxygen atoms for every carbon atom - it doesn't restore the oxygen to the atmosphere, but it's still better than leaving the CO2 in there.
I sincerely doubt that the CO2 absorbed by curing concrete over the first decade or so actually matches that which is used to make it, but it must reduce the overall number by a not insignificant percentage.
Electric cars cause emissions- they're just externalized at the generating station.
Bullshit. 1) Not all generating stations cause emisions 2) Even if yours does - it still causes FAR less. The best ICE's are only about 25% energy efficient. Most electric cars are 2 to 3 times that. This means that, even from a dirty grid, the same amount of carbon burned will take an electric car two to three times further, or to put it another way - an electric car on a dirty grid still produces only between a third and two-thirds as much CO2 per mile as a car with an internal combustion engine.
Violent media is not, however, "violence". There is a difference between "depiction of violence" and "violence".
There is little doubt that experiencing or witnessing acts of violence can engender future violent behaviour - that this is traumatic, but the claim that the same trauma can be engendered by fictionalized depictions of violence is dubious at best.
>How do you draw a connection between "capitalism", an economic system, and the idea of certain people being above the law? It's an inevitable outcome of capitalism that money buys power, so power concentrates in the rich - including the power to buy immunity from the law. If I poison a town's drinking water I would get the death penalty for terrorism. If a corporation does it they may get sued, and probably won't because they can afford an army of lawyers. Even if they get a fine, it will be for far less than the money they made killing people.
>Any problem with law is an issue with government, not the economic system. You're an idiot. These two things are always related, neither can exist without the other. No I don't care what you read in whatever ANCAP manifesto, it's fundamentally impossible for one to exist without the other and without constant influence on the other. They are two sides of the same coin. Of course capitalists CLAIM otherwise, it's the best way to deflect any and all criticism of their preferred way of organizing resource distribution (that's all an economy is) onto government and away from the system or the rich. It is, however, flagrant and obvious bullshit.
>Even when industry is state-owned there is corruption and a double standard of justice. Yes. What's your point ? Nowhere in my post will you find any suggestion that I favor state-ownership of anything. Just because I'm opposed to capitalism doesn't mean I'm in favor of communism. There are more than two ways to distribute resources, in fact there are thousands - the two you know are the worst two - and no, neither is better -they are equally horrible with essentially identical outcomes.
>Clearly, the ultra wealthy and government employees are above the law. Both of which are caused by capitalism and the existence of the ultra-wealthy in the first place. To GET above the law, the ultra-wealthy has to buy loopholes in the law, which is automatically available to the government employees they bought it from afterward. More importantly, there really isn't much difference between the two. There's practically a revolving door between the capitol and the most crooked banks of wall street. The Trump cabinet has more ex Goldman Sachs employees than ANY OTHER SOURCE - even the government and the military. He's not unique in this, Obama and Bush II both had several of their species in their cabinets, but he did take it to a new level. There are more of them than ever before.
>I'm just frustrated that "capitalism" seems to have become the catch-all term for every injustice in our society I didn't say this in a discussion on EVERY injustice in society - I said it in a discussion on labor abuse, and my post was focused on the problem of approaching labor policy from a capitalist perspective which makes humans just another resource in the economy - as opposed to their proper place in an economy: the RECIPIENTS of resources, and about an event in a private company that is all too sadly common and representative. Of course, it's not as bad as it once were, labour laws and standards over the years have improved things a bit, but the fact that - even 200 years later, this shit still happens, shows just how perniciously it is a result of the very concept of "human resources" which is utterly ingrained into capitalism (where EVERYTHING is a market resource). Unions did a lot to make it better. The law did more and made it even better. Sure we no longer kill 90% of our children before age 10 by literally working them to death in factories as was the case in 19th century England... and yet this shit still happens. Because capitalism reduces us to "work. buy. consume. die" - mere resources in the market until we're dead.
> The people in our society who get wealthy by actually producing things and providing valuable services aren't necessarily the bad guys Of course not. Their called "workers". But the people who own their companies - they are almost always and entirely bad guys. It's not that big
Brazilians refer to a woman who is rude to strangers or others terrible to deal with as a "badly eaten bitch". It's mostly an insult used by other women. The implication being that the sexual frustration of having your pussy eaten by somebody who is so bad at it that you don't get off - would make somebody far grumpier than just not getting any.
Now considering that the average Brazilian has sex three times as often as the average American -I daresay they know more about the topic than you do.
And that, right there, is why I can never be in favor of capitalism. Because human beings are not resources, because labour is a part of your LIFE, it's human beings - and human beings are worth more than that. Because the economy exists to serve the people, NOT the other way around. Because the rich should be tolerated only in so far as they are useful to the rest us - and by all the force of law prevented from stepping outside that narrow space - not celebrated, venerated or allowed to be de facto above the law.
Whatever religion you or lack thereoff you subscribe to - the truest words in any holy book ever written is when Jesus (repeatedly) declared that the rich are evil - treat them as such. A necessary evil ? Maybe. But that's as far as it goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually a better analogy would be to find the our-universe equivalent of WoW's dev-island. Though, if the devs in of a simulated universe were not sufficiently better to avoid needing that I would be surprized (and it could easily be 14-billion light years away from where our little solar system was had ended up after spawning).
Even if we could PROVE we were in a simulation - it does not follow that we could break out of it, it would make our minds part of that simulation - just advanced AI's within a massive software project - that doesn't imply a possibility of existing outside that software infrastructure.
And finally - it does not even imply a simulator. If an entire universe can be produced by the laws of physics, as modern science seems to suggest, then why can such a universe not subsequently produce an entire simulated universe by the mere laws of physics - without any particular intelligence trying to do it ?
Even if you assume an intelligence did it, it still doesn't follow that creationism is true - it just brings us to -how did the universe of the simulator come about ? We can't know - we could try to guess based on studying our own but that's not conclusive, if they tried to simulate something akin to their own we would conclude that they are the consequences of processes much like the big bang and evolution and we may even be an attempt to study how those processes happened in their own universe by means of an simulation. But it could just as easily be an entertainment project (as it is in The Thirteenth Floor - though there the simulators are our own future selves) - in which case it need not bare any resemblence to reality at all. The cosmology around Azeroth is hardly like our own, hell it's a planet but nobody has ever even SEEN the thing as a spherical shape - only a flat map exists, and you can't go around it by traveling in one direction. For quite some time another planet in that system was nothing but some lose floating chunks of rocks which somehow, magically, had enough gravity for things to walk on.
Sean Spicer seems to think we can - remember he told us Ryandontcare was better because it was shorter.
And it WAS better, if you're a billionaire, for everybody else it was basically getting raped and being told they charge extra if you want lube.
Yet it is the most popular open-source license by far, and has given us the infrastructure for the entire internet, powered some of the biggest supercomputers ever built which are helping to solve the mysteries of the universe and so on and so forth.
The BSD systems, even after release, and despite being arguably better in some technical measures never achieved such an impact on the world, their biggest achievement was having MacOSX based on FreeBSD. Sure the GPL precluded what apple did there - and that was why apple chose FreeBSD - but the BSD Licenses failed to build an open internet for the masses or an OS that runs most of it's servers (and a growing number of desktops and virtually all of it's mobile devices).
The GPL succeeded where the BSD licenses failed exactly because it understood that to make society, overall, more free you must REDUCE the freedom of the few in favour of the freedom of the many. Because when you do not, the few will use their freedom to remove freedom from the many - they will BECOME tyrants.
Sometimes, to secure the freedom of the many, you have to somewhat reduce the freedom of the few. The GPL secures the freedom of users (the many), to do so, it must somewhat reduce the freedom of programmers (the few).
This is not tyranny, this is freedom - when you increase the favour of the few at the expense of the many, that is tyranny (and why libertarianism in all it's forms is tyranical).
Jerking off the succubus picture in the DnD player's guide counts.
So... scientific evidence is not "proof" of a scientific claim in your mind ?
Please go jump of a building. Because the proof that gravity exists is, in fact, significantly weaker than the evidence that human are causing climate change. By your own standard of evidence - you should be fine ! And the difference is, by doubting the science that way, if you're wrong, you only fucked over yourself. Right now your scientific illiteracy is fucking over all of us.
Evidence please ?
I don't know about the wars (though they fall inside the period and are PART of what human activity has dumped) but I do know you're talking bullshit about volcanoes. You're probably even talking bullshit if you add volcanoes to the wars !
The American Geophysical Union did a study - and found that the total average annual CO2 output from volcanoes is only 0.25% (that's a quarter of 1%) of what is put out by coal plants. Just coal plants alone, in other words, is 400 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
More-over volcanoes actually release very little CO2 -they mostly release stuff like ash and sulfur, volcanoes are, in fact more likely to cause temperatures to go DOWN by blocking sunlight, as happened in the late 19th century when a major volcano in Asia the year before caused Europe's "year without a summer".
There is nothing "missing" about it, the human contribution is AT LEAST 100% and probably MORE than that, because all the evidence (and there are several studies linked higher in this same thread) is that the natural factors are currently pushing temperatures DOWN - so without human effects it would actually be getting COLDER, that makes any increases MORE than 100% due to human activity.
This has been studied extensively, and it's thing for which we have overwhelming evidence. It's just the latest stake in the denier chart. "Deny it's happening". Evidence gets too overwhelming. "Deny it's man-made". Evidence gets too overwhelming. "Deny we know how MUCH is manmade"...
Further hits on the trail include claiming it will cost less to deal with the effects than to fix the problem, claiming losses from not using as much fossil fuel cannot possibly be outweighed from economic gains in the renewable industries and other patently false and, in fact, flagrantly absurd claims.
Look ... I know nobody here reads the article - but right there in it, it explains how this is NOTHING LIKE the Missisipi. That's a change at the END Of the river, not the START of the river.
Changes at the start of a glacial fed river should be nearly impossible, and in a period of less than 50-million years, it shouldn't be possible at all.
I like not this news ! Bring me some other news !
A great many people (at least one, here on slashdot in reply to me) however used that as a justification to vote for Trump. Because apparently it makes some sort of moral difference WHICH brutal dictator you suck up to and which you oppose (hint: it doesn't - a good president would be opposed to and, if need be, willing to go to war with BOTH Russia and Syria) ?
We were told that her tough stance on Syria was a reason to vote for Trump, because, his voters seemed to believe: he would stay out of the Syrian mess and not provoke Russia.
He has now BOMBED Syria. Do you seriously think Russia is happy right now ?
Isolationism is an incredibly stupid idea, both times America ever tried it there was a world war, one of those times ended with the largest military attack on home soil in history. Now I won't say that hte US hasn't thoroughly fucked up in it's international role since world war 2 sometimes - hell I've repeatedly cited the fuckups, like removing a democratically elected leader in *insert list of over 50 countries here* to install a dictator, going to war in Iraq etc.
But, and this matter, over-all they global liberal order has stood - there has not been another world war. The US has kept wars local in this time, to it's own and the world's benefit.
Isolationism would dismantle all that, and almost certainly lead to a new world war.
Now the truth is also that the world, over the past 3 years, have reach the closest point to a world war since the last one ended. Tensions have not been this high in 70 years. Countries around the world are flexing their muscles and itching for a fight. I'm not a Clinton fan (I WAS a Sanders fan) but I did think she had the knowledge, experience and acumen required to hopefully keep a lid on things and calm things down. It was a longshot but it was also the ONLY shot. The one thing I was sure of was that a blustery buffoon like Donald Trump was the absolute worst possible person to have in charge of the US military at a time like this. A brash, loudmouth, egotist with authoritarian and fascist tendency who appeals to ethno-nationalist sentiments - worst possible person for the job.
Nobody saw world war 1 coming, the markets didn't even shift until 3 months after the events that started it. The tensions were there, the build-up is obvious in retrospect, but it was not visible at the time.
Now though, with the benefit of having seen it there - I see the same patterns in global geopolitics today. And it takes extremely skilled leadership to steer through this without igniting another one. No rash decisions can be made. 99.9999% very careful and skilled diplomacy, and the tiny 0.000001 surgical precision military strikes - that's what could keep things calm and resolve these tensions without breaking out.
Trump has none of the qualities required. Clinton did - she'd STILL be a longshot because of the other world leaders out there Merkel is ONLY other one who is up to the task. Could the two of them keep things calm ? I don't know - but there was a chance. With the election of Trump - there is no chance. Indeed a no-fly zone over Syria with diplomatic pressure to force Russia to accept it could potentially have been exactly the right approach. It would certainly have reduced the likelihood of bombing Syria today.
Do not be surprised if, in future decades, historians refer to this week as the week world war 3 started. And no, the poison gas attack would not be the start- Asad's been doing that for ages. It's this strike, this morning. This strike could very well be the first strike of world war 3.
I hope it isn't, I hope there is no world war 3. I hope that the leader of the free world Angela Merkel (oh remember the good old days when that title belonged to whoever was POTUS ?) and the leaders in her European alliances (France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia) have the wisdom (and the scars) to manage to keep a lid on things even in a world where Trump has the big red button.
It's not a big hope, but it's hope and I cling to it. I have never so badly wanted to be wrong.
I just fear I'm right, because it's far more than a possibility, it's a strong probability.
Which previous time are you thinking off ? Me, I'm thinking Iran/Contra scandal...
Nobody else sells nearly as much. But interestingly the top 5 arms dealers in teh world are ALSO the top-5 members of the UN security council and the only countries with veto rights.
Throughout 2016 we were told that Clinton would "declare a no-fly zone over Syria and cause a war with Russia". Not even 4 months on the job - Trump launches a massive airstrike against Syria... wasn't your whole argument against Clinton based on the idea that she would leave Asad to do whatever evil he wants to rather than provoke Russia ?
Something tells me Putin is seriously pissed right now, after all that effort to put a puppet in the white house.
Actually no, it's because heating is one of the few things electricity does really, really badly. It takes long to heat up (which wastes energy) and it does so inefficiently. So directly-burning fuels like gas is a much more efficient way to produce heat -and that makes it cheaper for the purpose of heat. For moving things around - electricity beats fire every time though.
And of course, the electric car is ALSO far more efficient than the ICE - so you got significantly more efficient work production at both ends - making the total emissions per mile MUCH MUCH less.
>concrete production is a significant CO2 source.
On the other hand - concrete curing is a major CO2 trap. That's not actually ideal. Trapping the CO2 traps 2 oxygen atoms for every carbon atom - it doesn't restore the oxygen to the atmosphere, but it's still better than leaving the CO2 in there.
I sincerely doubt that the CO2 absorbed by curing concrete over the first decade or so actually matches that which is used to make it, but it must reduce the overall number by a not insignificant percentage.
Electric cars cause emissions- they're just externalized at the generating station.
Bullshit.
1) Not all generating stations cause emisions
2) Even if yours does - it still causes FAR less. The best ICE's are only about 25% energy efficient. Most electric cars are 2 to 3 times that. This means that, even from a dirty grid, the same amount of carbon burned will take an electric car two to three times further, or to put it another way - an electric car on a dirty grid still produces only between a third and two-thirds as much CO2 per mile as a car with an internal combustion engine.
Violent media is not, however, "violence". There is a difference between "depiction of violence" and "violence".
There is little doubt that experiencing or witnessing acts of violence can engender future violent behaviour - that this is traumatic, but the claim that the same trauma can be engendered by fictionalized depictions of violence is dubious at best.
>How do you draw a connection between "capitalism", an economic system, and the idea of certain people being above the law?
It's an inevitable outcome of capitalism that money buys power, so power concentrates in the rich - including the power to buy immunity from the law. If I poison a town's drinking water I would get the death penalty for terrorism. If a corporation does it they may get sued, and probably won't because they can afford an army of lawyers. Even if they get a fine, it will be for far less than the money they made killing people.
>Any problem with law is an issue with government, not the economic system.
You're an idiot. These two things are always related, neither can exist without the other. No I don't care what you read in whatever ANCAP manifesto, it's fundamentally impossible for one to exist without the other and without constant influence on the other. They are two sides of the same coin. Of course capitalists CLAIM otherwise, it's the best way to deflect any and all criticism of their preferred way of organizing resource distribution (that's all an economy is) onto government and away from the system or the rich. It is, however, flagrant and obvious bullshit.
>Even when industry is state-owned there is corruption and a double standard of justice.
Yes. What's your point ? Nowhere in my post will you find any suggestion that I favor state-ownership of anything. Just because I'm opposed to capitalism doesn't mean I'm in favor of communism. There are more than two ways to distribute resources, in fact there are thousands - the two you know are the worst two - and no, neither is better -they are equally horrible with essentially identical outcomes.
>Clearly, the ultra wealthy and government employees are above the law.
Both of which are caused by capitalism and the existence of the ultra-wealthy in the first place. To GET above the law, the ultra-wealthy has to buy loopholes in the law, which is automatically available to the government employees they bought it from afterward. More importantly, there really isn't much difference between the two. There's practically a revolving door between the capitol and the most crooked banks of wall street. The Trump cabinet has more ex Goldman Sachs employees than ANY OTHER SOURCE - even the government and the military. He's not unique in this, Obama and Bush II both had several of their species in their cabinets, but he did take it to a new level. There are more of them than ever before.
>I'm just frustrated that "capitalism" seems to have become the catch-all term for every injustice in our society
I didn't say this in a discussion on EVERY injustice in society - I said it in a discussion on labor abuse, and my post was focused on the problem of approaching labor policy from a capitalist perspective which makes humans just another resource in the economy - as opposed to their proper place in an economy: the RECIPIENTS of resources, and about an event in a private company that is all too sadly common and representative. Of course, it's not as bad as it once were, labour laws and standards over the years have improved things a bit, but the fact that - even 200 years later, this shit still happens, shows just how perniciously it is a result of the very concept of "human resources" which is utterly ingrained into capitalism (where EVERYTHING is a market resource). Unions did a lot to make it better. The law did more and made it even better. Sure we no longer kill 90% of our children before age 10 by literally working them to death in factories as was the case in 19th century England... and yet this shit still happens. Because capitalism reduces us to "work. buy. consume. die" - mere resources in the market until we're dead.
> The people in our society who get wealthy by actually producing things and providing valuable services aren't necessarily the bad guys
Of course not. Their called "workers". But the people who own their companies - they are almost always and entirely bad guys. It's not that big
Brazilians refer to a woman who is rude to strangers or others terrible to deal with as a "badly eaten bitch". It's mostly an insult used by other women. The implication being that the sexual frustration of having your pussy eaten by somebody who is so bad at it that you don't get off - would make somebody far grumpier than just not getting any.
Now considering that the average Brazilian has sex three times as often as the average American -I daresay they know more about the topic than you do.
Translation: He couldn't find the clitoris AND he didn't call her after. :P
"Work. Buy. Consume. Die.".
And that, right there, is why I can never be in favor of capitalism. Because human beings are not resources, because labour is a part of your LIFE, it's human beings - and human beings are worth more than that. Because the economy exists to serve the people, NOT the other way around. Because the rich should be tolerated only in so far as they are useful to the rest us - and by all the force of law prevented from stepping outside that narrow space - not celebrated, venerated or allowed to be de facto above the law.
Whatever religion you or lack thereoff you subscribe to - the truest words in any holy book ever written is when Jesus (repeatedly) declared that the rich are evil - treat them as such. A necessary evil ? Maybe. But that's as far as it goes.
You know way too much about blowing aquatic mammals.