Posts by Peter Reyes63

Is it revolution time yet?

Depends on what kind we're talking about. If it's a right-wing or libertarian one, I'm all in.☕

vividsailor7 said:Nasonex is probably your best bet. For antihistamines, you could try Alerdin 5mg, either on its own or paired with a leukotriene antagonist like Monlast 10mg.

I'll give the antihistamines a shot. Are those OTC or do I need to see a doctor?

Tyler James5 said:Besides, you just take the Nasonex once a day with two sprays in each nostril—if that actually clears everything up for you, then stick with it.

Like I was saying, Aqua Maris, that Quixx stuff, basic saline solution... it’s all just plain old salt water for rinsing out your nose. Use it as much as you need.

If those allergy symptoms start getting nasty again, go ahead and ask for an antihistamine. They're just pills you take once a day to help block those heavy-duty attacks during peak season.

And seriously, stay away from whatever's triggering you as much as you possibly can.

Thanks!

So, use Nasonex once
And Aqua Maris or Quixx whenever I feel like it.

When should I actually use Operil, Olynth, or Nafarin? Or should I even bother with them at all?

Tyler James5 said:Nah, if you look at that photo, it’s clearly just saltwater, pretty much like Aqua Maris...

Are you guys 100% certain this is actually a pollen allergy and not just rhinitis or a common cold? Like, have you ever even gone in for actual testing?

Usually, Nasonex requires a prescription, so I'm assuming you already got some professional medical advice? There should be a dosage guide right inside the box too.

Basically, feel free to rinse your nose with saltwater (or saline solution) as often as you want. But those vasoconstrictors? Use them as little as humanly possible—only when you're absolutely desperate. As for Nasonex, you just spray it once a day, two sprays per nostril (that's the adult dose), specifically during the season when whatever plant you're allergic to is in bloom.

I'll share my story then... I'm allergic to G3, G4, G5, G6, and G8... ragweed, field poppy, cocklebur, meadow grass, and timothy.
..I got tested once... They took blood and on a scale of 01 to 17.5 (anything over 17.5 is extremely high), I scored 72.2..

What should I do... do I need to start taking pills or what? I didn't even know I had an allergy until I started sneezing like crazy this summer. It's not a massive problem, just irritating when I can't breathe through my nose.

I'm clueless about allergies and how to manage them. So, I figured I'd ask for some advice here. About two months ago, I went to the doctor because my nose was totally stuffed up. I don't remember which spray I used. Diagnosis: Allergic rhinitis. He told me to get Nasonex and spray it twice a day, morning and night. He also said to use Quixx a few times a day. Honestly, I felt better immediately.

Anyway, two months have passed, and for the last few days, breathing has been hard again. Should I just follow exactly what he told me and stick to the same spray routine, or...?

Thanks in advance!

Tyler James5 said:First thing though—check the dates on those bottles. Make sure nothing is expired.

Aqua Maris is basically sterile seawater for rinsing out your nose. It helps when things feel dry and washes away all those nasty allergen particles.

Operil is a vasoconstrictor—it shrinks the capillaries in your nasal lining to "open" up a stuffed nose. Just don't use it too long, or you'll get hooked and end up thinning out your mucus membrane... not good.

Nasonex is a local corticosteroid. It calms down the inflammation caused by allergic reactions. It’s a solid med for pollen allergies, but maybe not meant for constant, year-round use.

Quixx... honestly, no clue, never even heard of it.

Nafarin works almost exactly like Operil, just uses naphazoline chloride as the active ingredient.

Olynth is pretty much the same boat as Operil and Nafarin.

Thanks! 🙂I'll definitely double-check those dates.

It's Quixx, not Quickxx.



So, looking at these sprays... how should I actually use them? Up until now, I've just been grabbing whatever spray was handy and jamming it up my nose whenever I couldn't breathe. Not the smartest move, but when it's the middle of the night and I can't catch a breath through my nose, I start panicking.☕

Grass pollen is killing me and making it hard to breathe. I've ended up with a bunch of different nasal sprays over time, but honestly, I can't tell them apart. Here’s what I have:

Aqua Maris
Operil
Nasonex
Quixx
Nafarin
Olynth

What's the actual difference between these? 🤷

I’m interested in hearing more from the leftists

placidrider48 said:I mean, I guess you could argue that most of these ultra-wealthy folks didn't actually earn their fortunes fairly, and they certainly aren't using that cash for anything particularly noble, so maybe seizing those assets could work as both a legal penalty and a way to actually help people who are struggling through no fault of their own.

You say the wealthy... how is that any different from saying Black people? You realize how much you're generalizing here, right?

So, I see a lot of people holding grudges against our local billionaires because of those old privatization vultures and whatnot. And they’re blaming the essence of capitalism for all of it? 🤷 Look, don't go confusing a broken legal system with actual economics. If someone built their fortune through shady dealings, then yeah, an audit should definitely be thrown their way to figure out where that money actually came from.

Quincy:

The thread should be titled: "Why do conservatives roll over for the rich and exploiters?" Why do you think there isn't a thread with a title like that?

That would be a pretty short discussion. I'm guessing to you, every employer is an exploiter (which is how most union guys see it).

So what does rolling over for the rich actually mean to you? Are you saying people should just have their stuff taken away simply because they have it? Go back and read my first post, then tell me if you want that based on reason 1, 2, or 3.

I'll give you the answer to your unstarted thread right now:

If the employees and the boss enter a working relationship voluntarily and agree to the terms, it’s a fair deal. If Ivica Todorić hires his aunt to work a cash register for minimum wage, that’s fine. There’s no coercion involved. If she had better skills and could do something else, she would. If someone offers me a burger for $8.25, and I agree to pay my money for it, that’s fine too. Even if the guy could have charged me $6.75 and still made a profit, I weighed the situation and decided paying $8.25 for that burger was worth it.

Capitalism and the free market are built on freedom and voluntary exchange. Leftist ideologies are built on force. The government tells you what you must do here and there. As far as I'm concerned, anything goes as long as nobody is forcing anyone. Wages depend on market conditions. Do I really need to explain why a cashier makes peanuts while a mechanical engineer or a specialist surgeon makes bank?

Prostitution is fine by me.
Rape is NOT.
Hiring your aunt at the register $1000 is fine.
Owning slaves to work your fields is NOT.
Get it?

Milton Friedman hit the nail on the head when he said there’s a direct link between economic freedom and personal freedom. Where you find socialism, you find a dictator.

Quincy:

Starting a thread like that is an easy way to label someone a psychopath. Taking pleasure in something others find "outrageous," just so you can feel morally superior about it? That's a disaster.

I don't get what you're trying to say. 🤷

To guy is a thief to me too, just a more specific kind. He owns several shops in Rome selling silk from China. He sources it in China and hauls it by caravan all the way to Europe. He gets the silk dirt cheap and flips it for a massive markup. After 15 years of doing this, he’s built an empire—seven stores, a villa, and a country estate. He’s got 50 slaves working for him and over 150 servants and maids. There's no way he did that honestly; you don't get that rich that fast without cutting corners.

Jesus might have been a decent carpenter, but he wasn't exactly an economist. What's even the point of this story? Is a man a thief just because he sells a non-essential product at a price people are willing to pay? Is he guilty simply because he struck it rich in 15 years? What would Jesus say to Zuckerberg, who became a billionaire in a heartbeat? Would he sentence him to death? 🤷

The Left is an enigma I just can't quite wrap my head around.
I'm not trying to attack them here. I’m just trying to corner them. Let's keep this civil, please.
I honestly can't wrap my head around their logic. It's the complete opposite of how I see things.

I mostly wanted to start a thread about their... economic I don't care about their stances.
I get their whole deal—pro-gay, anti-nationalist, anti-military. I don't have any questions about where they stand.

Why are leftists so obsessed with redistribution? Is it just pure envy, malice, or some twisted idea of equality?
I come from a solid middle-class background. My parents are highly educated, I am too, and we’re all financially stable. We actually work for a living. So, definitely no Ivanka Trumps in my family.

Look, I don't have any beef with wealthy people.I'm talking about people who built their wealth the legitimate way. I don't give a damn about those crooks who got rich through shady privatization schemes.).
I actually want more wealthy people in the States, especially if they’re coming from abroad. I see them as a net positive. Let them start companies, create jobs, and buy from local suppliers. But whenever I scroll through the comments on sites like CNN or the New York Times, all I see is pure contempt. The second someone successful comes up—like that woman who founded Zora—it’s just constant hate. People act like she only achieved what she did because she’s rich. It’s pathetic.

Hold on a second. I might actually be able to wrap my head around your argument if she had built her fortune by trafficking kids, but she made her money through legitimate means.

As Ludwig von Mises put it, In a capitalist system, you only get rich if you actually solve someone else's problems. You build wealth by making other people wealthier. It’s pretty simple: you offer products or services that people actually find valuable enough to pay for. At the end of the day, consumers call the shots. They’re the ones in control, deciding through their spending exactly which companies thrive and which ones go bust.

So, why do leftists have such a massive chip on their shoulder when it comes to wealthy, successful people? Why do they treat success like some kind of moral failing, and why are they so hell-bent on burying them under draconian taxes?

I’ve got three theories:

Equality.
The obsession with equality is exhausting. The further left you go, the more they demand total parity. You’ve got the hardline communists wanting everyone in the same uniform with universal access to everything, while the moderate liberals push for progressive taxation. But what is this fixation on equality, really? People aren't equal. It’s simple. Some people work harder, some are more capable, some have more ambition or higher intelligence. I get equality before the law. I'm all for equal voting rights. And look, I don't mind "free" healthcare or public schools—I accept that. But you could fund those things with a low, flat income tax. Even if we could cover all our social services through a flat tax, the left would still demand progressive rates. They aren't looking for equal opportunity; they want total economic leveling. They don't seem to realize that the only way to force that kind of fantasy world into existence is through raw power. The only way they achieve it is by having the state forcibly seize the wealth people worked their lives away to build.
Maybe equality isn't even their end goal. It might just be a cover for something else entirely.

2. Jealousy
Is this whole obsession with equality just a smokescreen for some deeper leftist agenda? Take Sweden, for example. It’s a place where the government holds your hand from birth until death. But if you actually sit down and read a pamphlet by someone like Ludwig von Mises, you start to see the cracks. Occupy Wall StreetThey’re obsessed with fighting the wealth gap. Just a heads-up though: if you look at the Gini index, Sweden is basically the most equal country in Europe.

3. Bias and prejudice
Maybe this is it. They probably think the only way to make a buck is by playing dirty. Exploiting people, cheating, stealing. That's just how they see it. 🤷

What do you guys think? I’m calling on all the forum keyboard warriors to step up and explain themselves.

Admin, please don't lock this thread. If you think it’s too political, just move it to another section. I'm not here to troll or start fights; I'm just breaking down how the left-wing mindset actually works.

But then that's just socialism, not anarcho-capitalism. 🤷

Look, the point is that anarcho-capitalism—and the world we live in now—allows people to band together, start their own factories, or set up farming cooperatives to live independently. That can happen under anarcho-capitalism too. You could do everything an anarcho-communist does. But here’s what I’ve gathered from talking to other communists: in anarcho-communism, you aren't allowed to work for profit, trade for your own benefit, or hire people. They ban any agreement where all parties actually consent to the terms. Get what I'm saying? How can anarcho-communism even exist without sliding back into a market economy? Someone smarter or more skilled will eventually step up and demand more in exchange for their labor. If you ban trade and hiring, you're attacking freedom. And if workers are forced to take over factories, that's just stealing property from shareholders and owners. Basically, anarcho-communism relies on force and prohibitions, whereas anarcho-capitalism is built on mutual consent, property rights, and the non-aggression principle. That's how it looks from a libertarian perspective.

In a real socialist society, nobody would be threatening you. The whole idea was trashed by Lenin and his successors with their Gulags and the FBI. A true socialist society would just work because people would get the fruits of everyone's labor. They'd realize if they don't work, nobody else is working for them either. It’s a self-regulating system—you work for others, they work for you. The worst that happens is a few free riders, but that's a tiny burden on the economy.

Take the Spanish Civil War, for example. In some small communities, they managed to set up food supply programs based entirely on volunteers within just a few months. You could basically walk into a warehouse and grab what you needed. That's what the text says, I'm not exaggerating.

So why wouldn't that work in an anarcho-capitalist world? People could just decide they don't want to trade, or they'll just provide for themselves, and that's fine. That can

On the flip side, can I demand labor in exchange for money (wages) in "your" world? What if I don't want to work for someone else? If I have specific skills, I'm only offering them if I get something back in return.

Do you agree with this idea? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

You're mistaken. Personal property like houses, cars, or vacation homes wouldn't be touched. Individualism is actually a huge part of socialism (especially anarchism).

Okay, if there's no money (assuming there isn't any in your world), how do you deal with free riders? You see them as a minor issue, but I wouldn't work if everything was just handed to me on a silver platter. I'd argue a Stalinist system is easier to picture... you have a job, you do it, or you get a bullet. Get what I'm saying? What's the actual motivation for a person to work?

I can't watch Friedman right now (my speakers are 🤣), but I will by tomorrow...

Friedman isn't specifically for you. Watch it if you care, but I mentioned the videos just so you know which post I'm talking about. This part about trading and associating is what matters.

Whoa, you're right, the poverty rate in India is dropping, but that's thanks to government welfare, not capitalism.

http://www.economicshelp.org/indian/india-growth.gif
Market liberalization saved millions upon millions of people in India and China from extreme poverty. Every socialist country follows the same pattern: misery and poverty -> market liberalization -> massive economic growth.

What do you think about my earlier point—that Friedman quote—saying capitalism is inseparable from human freedom? Especially if you consider capitalism as the freedom to trade, work, and associate.

I've already made this point. When capital concentrates in the hands of a few individuals—regardless of how much they actually deserve it—those people will do everything in their power to stay on top. They do this by keeping workers and other lower-income groups under their thumb through the wage system. Essentially, these wealthy elites push the working class deeper into poverty just to squeeze out more profit. Capitalism is inherently hierarchical, which makes "anarcho"-capitalism an oxymoron at its core.

There’s no doubt about it. Buffett, Bill Gates, and the rest of that crowd spend all day figuring out how to keep employees under their control and how to screw them over 🙄

How exactly does the wage system keep workers down? I run my own small business and I mostly contract out to one other firm... I don't really see how they're "keeping me under their thumb" when I can walk away whenever I want. Plus, I'm not exploiting my staff; they can quit whenever they feel like it too. 🤷

So... does your worldview even account for property rights? Go find my previous post (or the one before that, where I linked those 4-5 Milton Friedman videos) and then come back and try to argue with me.

Check out the graph at 05:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgSqZKx0mNI

Prices follow the money supply almost perfectly. You can't "cheat" the market...

I read end the Federal Reserve by Ron Paul a while back; there's a lot of good stuff on inflation in there. I definitely recommend picking up Murray Rothbard's book, What Has government Done to Our money .

Here’s the full book:

http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

Looking at this thread, it might be useful to drop a few Milton Friedman videos here.

Welfare State Dynamics
www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8L3lb1cq2U

Redistribution of Wealth
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRpEV2tmYz4

The Free Lunch Myth
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8

Economic Policy Debates
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY

It ties right into discussions on liberty, libertarianism, and that endless clash between left-wing and right-wing economic thinkers.

Regarding freedom itself, I’ll paraphrase Friedman: you can live without freedom and still have capitalism (free trade), but you can't live in freedom without capitalism. Basically, capitalism is a prerequisite for liberty.

Think about it—everything in a capitalist system happens through consent. Goods are traded because both sides agree to it. Labor relations exist because both parties agree to them. Businesses are formed that way. The whole economy runs on voluntary cooperation. The West reached this level of development because individuals have this drive to maximize their own potential. As Friedman put it in his video socialism vs capitalism, "the great achievements of our time have not come as a result of bureaucratic command, but as a result of the pursuit of self-interest by individuals."

So, one massive pillar of freedom is voluntary exchange. From that, you can conclude a socialist society can never truly be free. If someone uses force to make me work for them, or if my property is seized in the name of "solidarity" under threat of fines or prison, I'm not free.

I'm guessing Kimberly Cox59's version of a perfect world doesn't account for property rights, which are the very foundation of freedom. Or am I wrong? 😉

Charles Campbell7 said:In economic terms, individual liberty practically means that nobody can live off your dime without your explicit permission...

It's difficult to expect a real debate about this here in the States, where people seem perfectly fine with everyone living off someone else's tab. In America, if you actually try to live off your own earnings—say, by being a private entrepreneur—you're often branded a thief. But if you live off everyone else's money through public service, suddenly you're a respected member of society fighting for the "public interest."

Decades of brainwashing from communists, nationalists, and today's autocratic parties have finally come due. I honestly have no idea how many people in this country actually think for themselves anymore.

What I'm curious about is: how many people actually realize that a system built on these principles of individual liberty is, in reality, that much-hated and despised free market? 😍

this

From what I've seen, most modern hippies, Occupy Movement types, and the like preach about "freedom" while trying to ride everyone else's coattails. Real freedom means all human interactions happen without coercion and based on mutual consent.

I’ve been seeing that a lot lately myself 🤷

My posts have been vanishing on me a few times now. I’ll post something, hit refresh, and everything looks fine... then I come back to the thread a couple of hours later and my comment is just gone. 🙏