Posts by Andrew Booth29

Merkel is basically the Panzer-President...

Yeah, just your standard power grab...

And let’s be honest—so many people living in developing nations are completely tied to the whims of global trade... if things go sideways there, the fallout could be even more devastating than what we're seeing here.

Chloe Robinson5 said:Yeah, totally. China is screwed too, along with Norway and Switzerland... you can just go ahead and do whatever you want under those "free market" rules there. Just try it...

Switzerland is ranked 5th globally for economic freedom—I mean, their citizens literally use referendums to stop the government from taxing capitalists. Hilarious, right?
Norway sits at a respectable 28th.

America, meanwhile, ranks 84th—sandwiched right between Saudi Arabia and Bhutan. Does anyone even know where Bhutan is? 🤔

Paul Ross73 said:Does anyone happen to know what the protocol was during the first half of the year regarding travel restrictions? For instance, if my permanent residence was listed in Washington, D.C., but my official domicile was in Newark, would I have been permitted to travel between the two without a permit?

Everyone who applied for a permit got one. Honestly, nobody even bothers to read what you write on the application forms. Just have faith in the sheer laziness and incompetence of American public services.
Two million of them were handed out.

Thomas Nelson25 said:So, are we saying communists and anarchists are just infant neurotics? 😁

Hold up—is having actual ideals even a bad thing in today's world? (Though I’d probably call it weird or just a total outlier)

Why limit it to them? You could say the exact same thing about religious zealots or pretty much any other group out there... It seems to be a universal human trait, doesn't it?

Regarding these "ideals"—they’re actually quite a burden. The goals a person sets for themselves really ought to be measurable and attainable. Abstract, impossible objectives often serve as nothing more than an excuse for doing absolutely nothing. That said, occasionally it helps to aim for something out of reach; sometimes, you actually manage to hit the mark. 😬

Most people spend their early years living in some kind of sheltered utopia—it’s essentially a symptom of youth. But eventually, we all get kicked out of that bubble, don't we? Suddenly, you're left to fend for yourself in the real world. The problem is, we tend to try and project those outdated, idealistic standards onto a future that simply doesn't care about them.

bluemason3 said:Telling Peter he needs a side hustle is pointless—he’d probably end up doing it anyway. If cleaning is his main gig, it just means he lacks the skills or the drive to aim higher.

Maybe he could rotate between the coal mine and the restroom.

Another issue, which makes that Marxist quote sound pretty idiotic, is specialization. I can DIY almost anything a plumber or a mason can do at my house, but it might take me all weekend to finish what they wrap up in an hour. That works fine for home projects or hobbies, but on a societal level, it’s inefficient. It wastes labor and produces inferior results, eventually making a community less functional and less competitive. Specialization and trade work much better than everyone trying to do everything poorly. Ignoring that because of some ideological fantasy is just counterproductive.

It's actually even more interesting that Ricardo laid this all out back in 1817 with his principle of comparative advantage. That’s a massive blow to Marx... honestly, it's incredible how that mentally stunted slacker managed to churn out such a massive tome on Capital when he clearly didn't grasp what he was even writing about. lol.
Marxism is essentially just a 19th-century version of a conspiracy theory. Not that those didn't exist before, of course.

ruggedraven36 said:Basically, Peter handles my bathroom, and I'll handle his brain surgery.

And why on earth would you be performing brain surgery on someone who is perfectly healthy? 🤷
That’s a hell of a trade-off.

There we go—step by step, we’ve arrived at a brand new concept: a double coincidence of wants.

gentlerider7 said:Look, I said "less stress," not "zero stress." Even a utopia needs some kind of actual foundation in reality, otherwise, it's just an endless, mindless daydream.

Then I’d tell you this: if we actually factor in reality, rotating people through different jobs is economically disastrous—whether it’s voluntary or forced. It comes down to that concept of opportunity cost I mentioned before. It isn't just about the money being wasted; it's about the fact that doing this would ultimately lower the standard of living and general welfare for the entire American public. I suppose I just can't figure out where exactly you've decided to draw the line between a workable utopia and pure delusion.

gentlerider7 said:Are you seriously trying to tell me that stress doesn't actually make people sick?

No—but you seem hell-bent on imagining this perfect little world where everything bends to your specific whims. If that's the case, there isn't much point in us even having a conversation, is there?
The real question is: who actually does the dirty work in your utopia? In this dream scenario, people would just volunteer for the grunt work because they're so blissfully happy to serve the collective. Everyone would be healthy, brilliant, and attractive. Everyone would have exactly the same things. They’d spend their days frolicking through meadows picking wildflowers, and then—just like that—they’d switch over to performing brain surgery, piloting jets, or cleaning out pig pens. At the end of the day, they’d all just sing some patriotic anthem about how great the old leaders were... and head to bed feeling perfectly content. That’s my vision of it, anyway. Any objections?

Beyond that, your whole argument regarding stress is just a logical fallacy—specifically, denying the antecedent. But hey, go ahead...

gentlerider7 said:But honestly, just dreaming up a perfect utopia isn't some kind of nirvana fallacy.

But honestly, your response to my post is...

Harold Doyle3 said:And what about air traffic controllers and pilots? Are they just supposed to go out and clean chicken coops instead?

In that kind of society, you won't even need pilots or controllers—because everyone will be flying. That much is certain. People will grow wings.

It feels like I’ve accidentally wandered into some online elementary school instead of a philosophy seminar. 🤣

Hey, tech support—I think my internet settings got scrambled... Oh, and apparently, today is for cleaning out pigpens. Well, whatever. Tomorrow's another day.

gentlerider7 said:Maybe you're overlooking one little detail here; if we lived in some utopia where everyone was perfectly healthy and hard work was basically non-existent, surgeons and doctors wouldn't have nearly as much on their plates. Less work, less stress, and way less grind for the medical profession.

I didn't forget—I explicitly stated that there is no valid argument against the nirvana fallacy.

ruggedraven36 said:I never advocated for forcing people into jobs. Seriously—how exactly do you build a free and fair society through coercion? You're talking nonsense. Not only that, but you're intentionally twisting my words and putting things in my mouth that I never said or even thought.

It seems you haven't quite mastered the art of reading comprehension. I didn't even bring you up personally in that context.

gentlerider7 said:Let's just pretend for a second that we aren't dealing with Maova China here and nobody's being forced into anything. Say the surgeon works a shorter schedule, maybe jumps in for an hour or two every once in a while to lend a hand to the sanitation crews or the farmers.

The issue of opportunity cost still hangs over you, though. But honestly, since this whole argument is built upon the nirvana fallacy, there isn't much point in even debating it. You can't disprove a nirvana fallacy; it's unfalsifiable by its very nature. 😁

It's made all the more difficult by the fact that one side has somehow managed to claim the high moral ground out of thin air—which, let's be real, doesn't leave much room for a counterargument on a moderated forum like this.

ruggedraven36 said:Some other doctor will step up and save him.

Maybe I should try typing slower—perhaps then you'll follow along. If a doctor is spending 10% of their day juggling side hustles instead of actually practicing medicine, you get less medical care. Period. We could have just had that second doctor working full-time instead. Two doctors at 100% capacity is objectively better than two doctors at 90%—it’s basic math, really. It’s almost trivial to prove this holds true in any general scenario.
If even a high schooler can't grasp that... well, clearly my expectations are far too high.
Unfortunately, there isn't a vaccine for cognitive dissonance. One minute, people are waxing philosophical about individual liberty and the evils of predatory capitalism, and the next, they're advocating for forcing people into labor jobs—all just to satisfy their own egos. 😁

Sam Martinez9 said:A man cleans up sewage and gets a paycheck for it; a woman cleans up the mess at home and doesn't get a dime, nor even a simple thank you.

And who exactly is forcing the wife to do the cleaning? 🤔
You can live in a pigsty if that’s your preference. Sure, there are legal health and safety codes to consider, but unless the stench is leaking out into the hallway, I doubt anyone is actually going to file a complaint.

ruggedraven36 said:Where does it even mention "leisure time"? It doesn't.

It’s about the rotation principle. No one’s going to drop dead because they spent one day a month sweeping streets—not even the high-and-mighty surgeons. If that’s a dystopia, then life itself is a dystopia.

But look—that doctor could have saved a life on the very day he was out there cleaning up trash. We are talking about someone who spends twelve years in K-12 and then another twenty years in medical school; to suggest they should be performing manual labor is more than just absurd—it’s immoral. It carries a real cost. Have you ever actually heard the term "opportunity cost"? I suspect not.

It isn’t merely about who handles the dirty work—that’s a simplistic way to look at it. The real question is: who gets to do the meaningful work? I actually find the concept of rotation quite compelling. It feels inherently fair, doesn't it? One week you’re performing delicate neurosurgery, the next you’re handling the waste, and the following week you're out there working construction—just basic labor. To me, there really isn't a more equitable way to structure things than that.