You can sue for anything. I can sue you for trespassing in my home because your message is in it right now. Suing someone doesn’t mean you’re right or that you even have grounds to sue.

This is a store where people GIVE away their stuff, out of the goodness of their hearts with the premise that it will be sold at a low price so that someone less fortunate can benefit. If goodwill has decided to sell the merchandise it gets for FREE at “fair market value” to the highest bidder in order to maximise profit then what’s the point of goodwill? Might as well use a consignment store and get a cut.

The exchange in “Goodwill” is that you’re donating in goodwill so your things can help others. That’s what goodwill MEANS.

I found dollarama products listed for $5+ at the local goodwill. Let’s not just make the blanket assumption that exploited goodwill workers are professional appraisers and that the customer is the problem.

I made this to commemorate your first date with your husband, will you marry me and wear this on your finger forever?

More people were killed in the firebombing.

The theory that more people would have died of the nukes weren’t dropped is FAR from settled fact. The Japanese were already looking to surrender and it’s not likely the bomb played a big part in that decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki?wprov=sfla1

Regardless it’s nothing to get banned over, that’s for sure.

I think each Korea just sent the best of their culture!

That’s how a lot of stuff works, true. I don’t agree that can work with violence. I also don’t appreciate the conceptual response to very practical questions.

I live in a peaceful society. I wouldn’t want my neighbour to be able to use violence because my tree dropped it’s leaves on his side of the lawn. I wouldn’t want an alternate police force hired and paid by a group of white supremacists (current statistics aside) to enforce laws in a biased manner. Having other corporations able to use violence is an absolute dystopian nightmare and is 100% the cause of every dystopian fantasy world. If the government WASN’T empowered with violence then there is nothing to stop the above 3 scenarios. So I’m not sure what other “equalizing distribution” you’re imagining and I’m not certain a better one exists.

I am open minded, which is why I asked those 3 very specific questions. If your have a better idea I’m all ears. If your idea is just to open up the floodgates and hope for the best because that will equalise access to violence and more equal is more better, then I will keep treating libertarian ideology as a threat to civilization. Mostly ideas that sound nice, but no practicable solutions that don’t destroy society. Like communism.

Dude what the fuck? You do NOT want it to be legal for people to use violence to enforce their views on others. That’s what “might makes right” is and it’s how gangs are run. It’s brutal. Every positive consequence you imagine will be completely dwarfed by the depths of human violence and depravity this would unleash.

Government programs IS US HELPING EACHOTHER. Sure corporations have been undermining democracy, but the government is OUR corporation. It’s the only one that we get the choose what it does. The fact we’re obligated to pay taxes is EXACTLY the implementation of your statement “we’re obligated to help eachother”

I don’t understand how you can make statements like this. The threat of violence? The government’s monopoly on violence is rephrased as the will of society to ban violence in public life by restricting violence only to the enforcement of democratically selected laws. There is no other way I can conceive. Should more people have the ability to use violence to enforce their views on others? Should corporations have that right? If no one has that right how can we stop someone who decides THEY have that right?

The whole “government monopoly on violence” is for me the most absurd librarian statement of them all. What’s the alternative? Who should decide what deserves violence? Who should use violence? What do we do if someone breaks this compact? Because the current answers are at least ideally “the people, through democratically enacted, clear and transparent laws”, and “the people, through the police they pay for accountable only to the people” and “apply fair and balanced justice through the judiciary system, run by the people and accountable only to them”. I’m in no way saying that it’s working perfectly as is clear in recent politics, but it’s certainly trending in the right direction in social democracies. We’re closer to that ideal now than we have ever been. As far as I’ve seen libertarian ideology has only come up with absolutely HORRIFYING answers to these questions, or wishy washy nonsense.

That’s fair.

It’s very frustrating seeing someone argue for disproven theories (like the government is less efficient than the free market in arenas most countries have socialised) using easily disprovable statements (like single payer healthcare would be more expensive to US citizens than the private system you have now). Especially when those ideologies can only hurt everyone.

I do apologize for the tone since you have been respectful and I have been less so. You don’t deserve the rudeness but your ideas don’t deserve the consideration they get in civilised society either.

Every graph of healthcare costs vs privatisation with the US in it is necessarily a comparison between private and public healthcare systems since most countries have single payer as most of their healthcare.

The US government healthcare programs are by far the most cost effective offering in the US but it’s hampered by regulations such as not having the ability to negotiate prices (until the recent tiny concession on a handful of drugs that has paid off in spades).

Finally, other large countries including India and China may have lower life expectancy, but they’re close and rising rapidly compared the stagnant US trends. Of course the bang for the buck they get is at least 5x what the US gets with its ridiculous system

If you listen to online libertarians they seem to believe everything is on the tables. Utilities have already been partially privatised and they’ve successfully impressed the classification of broadband as a utility which would have improved service, accessibility, and price at the cost of corporate profit.

Exactly. To me all the basics of life, the bottom tiers of Maslow’s pyramid can’t be privatised. Healthcare, utilities, education, infrastructure, social safety nets, you need those things as a PREREQUISITE to participation in the market. The market can’t provide its own prerequisites. If you don’t provide these things you simply cannot have a competitive free market in the first place.

Wow, you seriously still believe that corporations compete with eachother in the healthcare sector despite the fact that most insurance companies have a “network” specifically so that they don’t have to compete with eachother? How is healthcare a competitive market that drives towards efficiency exactly? The more you privatise healthcare the lower life expectancy you get and the higher you all pay!

If you think private healthcare is more efficient than single payer healthcare when EVERY PIECE OF DATA WE HAVE says the opposite then I think that says more about you than it does about the government.

Damn, you’d have to be completely brain dead to still believe anything is more efficient than single payer healthcare. The US has the worst outcomes for the highest cost in terms of life expectancy. Same with roads, utilities, schools etc… the more you privatise the more expensive things get for a lower quality product.

A well regulated, competitive market is good for many things, but for others it’s atrocious. An unregulated market has never produced good outcomes on any scale larger than the board of directors.

If you’re seriously summarizing the libertarian agenda then I can’t believe any one over 14 could hold these ideas unless they were VERY sheltered from reality.

I like what you’re saying and I agree with it fundamentally. I wish it is possible to have the majority of crops be direct to consumer. I KNOW everyone is happier when they have a real personal relationship with the products they consume. That’s even part of what marketing abuses when it anthropomorphises brands.

I’m personally pessimistic on that front though, I think it can’t happen in modern capitalism for two major reasons. Number one, I don’t think the majority of the population of Western nations, let alone the world, can tolerate even a moderate increase in food prices without creating massive instability. I know what the “middle men” jack up prices considerably on almost everything, but the staples: wheat and meat in my part of the world, simply cannot be sold cheaper by smaller operations than grocery store prices (in part due to the regulatory capture so prevalent in modern capitalism). Number two, of the people that CAN tolerate the increase, I don’t think modern capitalism would allow their profits to be undercut by a significant shift towards small producers selling direct to customers. They have a few tools that I just don’t think most people are prepared to live without like comfort and consistency. I can get plums, cauliflower, tomatoes, broccoli ANYTIME OF YEAR at reasonably consistent prices. The idea that people will have to pay more AND change to seasonal eating habits where they just can’t get certain things most of the year? I think we’re too far into the comfort of bourgeois decadence, excuse my communist language, to tolerate the change.

I will say I have enjoyed this discussion and I certainly agree that I mischaracterised you by initially latching onto a throwaway “ew bugs” comment.

Using sustainable practices “they only eat a little” is totally valid. The way we farm now… A pest outbreak will ravage a monoculture crop.

I know there are great alternatives, but they all have higher labour requirements. Modern capitalism can’t tolerate that. If we can find a better solution now we can mitigate the damage before we end capitalism. After that we can definitely switch to more labour intensive sustainable practices. I’m not an accelerationist so I’m not rushing to end the current world order before trying to make all the improvements we can.

It was a wild guess and I was hoping someone smarter than me would correct me ❤️

In my defense the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park came from wildly different eras so Carboniferous super bugs can still fit in!

I’m not fighting you. It’s just you’re acting as if the reason we research pesticides isn’t because we need it to protect our food source.

I’m not even saying that there isn’t some possible alternative, I’m just saying monoculture grains is how humanity gets most of its calories right now. It’s how we currently survive. That requires pesticides. These pesticides are far less damaging to the world than the current ones in use right now. It’s in the research phase too, so it’s not like we’re committing to this specific idea. Everyone knows there are pros and cons, the scientists doing the research do too. You’re not the first person to realise that this will trap all small insects. Just a reminder that our current solution kills all insects and this one is better. The fact it doesn’t harm bees is already a massive improvement.

Everyone should be welcome and encouraged to research any idea that’s better than our current ideas in any way. Any knowledge is good knowledge.

As for your preferred ideas? There are lots of ways to help be part of a future that includes what you feel is the best solution. That being said, none of them include being disingenuous about why we use pesticides in the first place. I don’t know why that was contentious to you. We don’t kill bugs because they’re gross, we kill them because they eat our food.