Philosophy of Freedom

one free pass.

In my experience, I haven’t met anyone who actually avoids working—at least, I can't recall ever meeting such a person.
I’ve met plenty of people who hate their current jobs because they’re unfulfilling or suffocating, but make no mistake, those people are eager to work. They just want to do honest work and get paid fairly for it.

There is honestly no legitimate reason why society needs to oppress people or force them into roles they despise. We already have the mechanization and infrastructure sitting right there, ready to handle almost all the dirty work.

Now, I can already hear the skeptics asking: "But what about the essential stuff? Like sanitation, road repairs, maintaining infrastructure, unclogging toilets, hauling hazardous waste, and so on?"

The answer is actually quite simple. When things hit the breaking point, people realize they have to step up. It’s the same logic as shoveling snow; when a blizzard hits, a massive crowd of volunteers suddenly appears. It’s the same with blood donations—nobody enjoys being stuck with a needle or feeling weak afterward, yet people do it voluntarily. Why?

Because they see a genuine need. When people realize there’s nobody else to fix the pothole on their street or repair the main road they drive on every single day, they will absolutely step up and do something about it. And let’s be real, everyone has enough spare time to dedicate at least 50 to 100 hours a month to community service without exception. Let's get to work!

Look, if your city’s sewer system backs up or a water main bursts, you aren't going to sit there complaining—you’ll rent or borrow an excavator, some shovels, lights, and tools, and you'll get to work. Period.

So, the system is inherently sustainable because we have plenty of able-bodied people and the necessary machinery to keep everything running smoothly. The issue is that we currently have people being paid specifically to do these tasks, while the rest of us have been conditioned to accept exploitation. By the time a grueling workday is over, most people are too exhausted to do anything except sit in front of the TV and complain.

The reality should be different: you should come home from work feeling rested and energized, because you spent eight hours doing something that actually fulfills you and makes you feel alive.

Sure, the truth is we might have to give up certain luxuries—like having thirty different brands of toilet paper to choose from at the supermarket—but the trade-off would be immeasurably greater.

The freedom to work on your own terms.

Man, you sound just like Kim Jong-Il.
The idea that crowds of people would happily spend hours every week fixing roads with a smile on their faces... give me a break. Who’s actually going to force me to do that? If I have to do the work myself, then what am I even paying taxes for?

William Anderson5 said:Man, you sound just like Kim Jong-Il.
The idea that crowds of people would happily spend hours every week fixing roads with a smile on their faces... give me a break. Who’s actually going to force me to do that? If I have to do the work myself, then what am I even paying taxes for?

Exactly. Whatever! Everything will be just perfect because Jack Smith5 is gonna force us to make it that way. Lawyers and doctors will be happily digging through trash instead of doing actual work, while uneducated blue-collar workers live like kings in filth—all because the government thinks they can just print wealth out of thin air. I mean, if creating value is really that easy, why doesn't every single country on Earth just print enough cash to hand every citizen a billion dollars? Then we’d all be rich and nobody would ever have to lift a finger again, right? 🙂🙂

Jack Smith5 said:one free pass.

In my experience, I haven’t met anyone who actually avoids working—at least, I can't recall ever meeting such a person.
I’ve met plenty of people who hate their current jobs because they’re unfulfilling or suffocating, but make no mistake, those people are eager to work. They just want to do honest work and get paid fairly for it.

There is honestly no legitimate reason why society needs to oppress people or force them into roles they despise. We already have the mechanization and infrastructure sitting right there, ready to handle almost all the dirty work.

Now, I can already hear the skeptics asking: "But what about the essential stuff? Like sanitation, road repairs, maintaining infrastructure, unclogging toilets, hauling hazardous waste, and so on?"

The answer is actually quite simple. When things hit the breaking point, people realize they have to step up. It’s the same logic as shoveling snow; when a blizzard hits, a massive crowd of volunteers suddenly appears. It’s the same with blood donations—nobody enjoys being stuck with a needle or feeling weak afterward, yet people do it voluntarily. Why?

Because they see a genuine need. When people realize there’s nobody else to fix the pothole on their street or repair the main road they drive on every single day, they will absolutely step up and do something about it. And let’s be real, everyone has enough spare time to dedicate at least 50 to 100 hours a month to community service without exception. Let's get to work!

Look, if your city’s sewer system backs up or a water main bursts, you aren't going to sit there complaining—you’ll rent or borrow an excavator, some shovels, lights, and tools, and you'll get to work. Period.

So, the system is inherently sustainable because we have plenty of able-bodied people and the necessary machinery to keep everything running smoothly. The issue is that we currently have people being paid specifically to do these tasks, while the rest of us have been conditioned to accept exploitation. By the time a grueling workday is over, most people are too exhausted to do anything except sit in front of the TV and complain.

The reality should be different: you should come home from work feeling rested and energized, because you spent eight hours doing something that actually fulfills you and makes you feel alive.

Sure, the truth is we might have to give up certain luxuries—like having thirty different brands of toilet paper to choose from at the supermarket—but the trade-off would be immeasurably greater.

The freedom to work on your own terms.

Are you kidding me?

You expect people to pull 50-100 hours of "community service" for free *after* they've already put in an eight-hour workday? And you're calling that "freedom of labor"?

@driftingjackal5
Because money should serve as the yardstick for the value of social output, which is ultimately just a measure of the quality of work produced by the individuals making up that society.

@IC
You pay taxes to access those specific services—the goods of civilization—that actually keep you alive within that society. We’re talking healthcare, water, energy; things that ought to be public goods, much like our roads. But let’s not call them exclusively public goods. If I build my own road on my own land, that's my road. If I fund my own medical clinic with my own cash and hire the staff, then that's a private venture, not a government one, and so on.

What would happen if a doctor had to lose his dignity cleaning toilets? It might do some good for certain people—including politicians—to come down from the clouds they live in. I won't even mention the average resident of a big city like Chicago or New York, who can be quite the pampered, lazy type.

The category of an "uneducated manual laborer" doesn't exist. In fact, there is no such thing as a "manual laborer" by definition. Everyone finds fulfillment in creating something for someone else, whether it's a tangible good or a service. Nobody engages in physical labor without a result—like trying to manually bail out the ocean... that's just pure masochism with zero progress.

Right now, all those people you label as "uneducated manual laborers" are actually just unlucky souls who couldn't find a better path because the system completely failed them.

Not everyone is built for school under the current model, which is essentially a mindless, rote-learning grind. People learn through example and practice. There shouldn't be any standardization in education; instead, we need an individual approach. You have to tap into a person's ambition—what they actually *want* to be—and then educate them toward that goal.

The current educational system has chewed up and spat out far too many people. Professors don't actually care about you because their salary isn't tied to your success in life; it's tied to how many hours they clock in. Those who don't earn a diploma often have no other choice, simply because nobody taught them they had one, and their parents—often stuck in a subservient mindset—didn't teach them either.

So, calling someone a "manual laborer" as a vocation is, to me, immoral.
The people that the "distinguished" urbanites and elites look down upon because they are dirty, uneducated, unshaven, or perhaps sweaty from physical toil, are actually the most honest and big-hearted people at their core. They have more heart than the doctors, lawyers, economists, and the rest of the "respectable" class.

It is much easier to do business with someone "lower class"—meaning someone unpretentious and straightforward—because they follow a simple pattern: I help you, you help me. It's nothing like dealing with the elite, who are always looking for ways to exploit someone or squeeze the most out of the least investment. That's your typical high-society type (I'm actually doing business with one right now, and it's certainly not the first or last time).

Joshua Moore13 said:Are you kidding me?

You expect people to pull 50-100 hours of "community service" for free *after* they've already put in an eight-hour workday? And you're calling that "freedom of labor"?

No, I am not going to force anyone to do anything. Can you actually read?
I asked why people donate blood, yet nobody forces them to do it.
I asked why people volunteer to shovel snow, yet nobody forces them to do it.

Can you answer those questions, or are you just messing 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

Jack Smith5 said:@driftingjackal5
Because money should serve as the yardstick for the value of social output, which is ultimately just a measure of the quality of work produced by the individuals making up that society.

@IC
You pay taxes to access those specific services—the goods of civilization—that actually keep you alive within that society. We’re talking healthcare, water, energy; things that ought to be public goods, much like our roads. But let’s not call them exclusively public goods. If I build my own road on my own land, that's my road. If I fund my own medical clinic with my own cash and hire the staff, then that's a private venture, not a government one, and so on.

What would happen if a doctor had to lose his dignity cleaning toilets? It might do some good for certain people—including politicians—to come down from the clouds they live in. I won't even mention the average resident of a big city like Chicago or New York, who can be quite the pampered, lazy type.

The category of an "uneducated manual laborer" doesn't exist. In fact, there is no such thing as a "manual laborer" by definition. Everyone finds fulfillment in creating something for someone else, whether it's a tangible good or a service. Nobody engages in physical labor without a result—like trying to manually bail out the ocean... that's just pure masochism with zero progress.

Right now, all those people you label as "uneducated manual laborers" are actually just unlucky souls who couldn't find a better path because the system completely failed them.

Not everyone is built for school under the current model, which is essentially a mindless, rote-learning grind. People learn through example and practice. There shouldn't be any standardization in education; instead, we need an individual approach. You have to tap into a person's ambition—what they actually *want* to be—and then educate them toward that goal.

The current educational system has chewed up and spat out far too many people. Professors don't actually care about you because their salary isn't tied to your success in life; it's tied to how many hours they clock in. Those who don't earn a diploma often have no other choice, simply because nobody taught them they had one, and their parents—often stuck in a subservient mindset—didn't teach them either.

So, calling someone a "manual laborer" as a vocation is, to me, immoral.
The people that the "distinguished" urbanites and elites look down upon because they are dirty, uneducated, unshaven, or perhaps sweaty from physical toil, are actually the most honest and big-hearted people at their core. They have more heart than the doctors, lawyers, economists, and the rest of the "respectable" class.

It is much easier to do business with someone "lower class"—meaning someone unpretentious and straightforward—because they follow a simple pattern: I help you, you help me. It's nothing like dealing with the elite, who are always looking for ways to exploit someone or squeeze the most out of the least investment. That's your typical high-society type (I'm actually doing business with one right now, and it's certainly not the first or last time).

No, I am not going to force anyone to do anything. Can you actually read?
I asked why people donate blood, yet nobody forces them to do it.
I asked why people volunteer to shovel snow, yet nobody forces them to do it.

Can you answer those questions, or are you just messing with me?

But they don't want to clean up the mess. Seriously. How exactly do you think you're going to solve a problem like that? How are you even supposed to talk them into it?

Jack Smith5 said:@driftingjackal5
Because money should serve as the yardstick for the value of social output, which is ultimately just a measure of the quality of work produced by the individuals making up that society.

@IC
You pay taxes to access those specific services—the goods of civilization—that actually keep you alive within that society. We’re talking healthcare, water, energy; things that ought to be public goods, much like our roads. But let’s not call them exclusively public goods. If I build my own road on my own land, that's my road. If I fund my own medical clinic with my own cash and hire the staff, then that's a private venture, not a government one, and so on.

What would happen if a doctor had to lose his dignity cleaning toilets? It might do some good for certain people—including politicians—to come down from the clouds they live in. I won't even mention the average resident of a big city like Chicago or New York, who can be quite the pampered, lazy type.

The category of an "uneducated manual laborer" doesn't exist. In fact, there is no such thing as a "manual laborer" by definition. Everyone finds fulfillment in creating something for someone else, whether it's a tangible good or a service. Nobody engages in physical labor without a result—like trying to manually bail out the ocean... that's just pure masochism with zero progress.

Right now, all those people you label as "uneducated manual laborers" are actually just unlucky souls who couldn't find a better path because the system completely failed them.

Not everyone is built for school under the current model, which is essentially a mindless, rote-learning grind. People learn through example and practice. There shouldn't be any standardization in education; instead, we need an individual approach. You have to tap into a person's ambition—what they actually *want* to be—and then educate them toward that goal.

The current educational system has chewed up and spat out far too many people. Professors don't actually care about you because their salary isn't tied to your success in life; it's tied to how many hours they clock in. Those who don't earn a diploma often have no other choice, simply because nobody taught them they had one, and their parents—often stuck in a subservient mindset—didn't teach them either.

So, calling someone a "manual laborer" as a vocation is, to me, immoral.
The people that the "distinguished" urbanites and elites look down upon because they are dirty, uneducated, unshaven, or perhaps sweaty from physical toil, are actually the most honest and big-hearted people at their core. They have more heart than the doctors, lawyers, economists, and the rest of the "respectable" class.

It is much easier to do business with someone "lower class"—meaning someone unpretentious and straightforward—because they follow a simple pattern: I help you, you help me. It's nothing like dealing with the elite, who are always looking for ways to exploit someone or squeeze the most out of the least investment. That's your typical high-society type (I'm actually doing business with one right now, and it's certainly not the first or last time).

No, I am not going to force anyone to do anything. Can you actually read?
I asked why people donate blood, yet nobody forces them to do it.
I asked why people volunteer to shovel snow, yet nobody forces them to do it.

Can you answer those questions, or are you just messing with me?

Oh yeah, it’s definitely a wicked system designed to crush the little guy. You really think otherwise?

Jack Smith5 said:@driftingjackal5
Because money should serve as the yardstick for the value of social output, which is ultimately just a measure of the quality of work produced by the individuals making up that society.

@IC
You pay taxes to access those specific services—the goods of civilization—that actually keep you alive within that society. We’re talking healthcare, water, energy; things that ought to be public goods, much like our roads. But let’s not call them exclusively public goods. If I build my own road on my own land, that's my road. If I fund my own medical clinic with my own cash and hire the staff, then that's a private venture, not a government one, and so on.

What would happen if a doctor had to lose his dignity cleaning toilets? It might do some good for certain people—including politicians—to come down from the clouds they live in. I won't even mention the average resident of a big city like Chicago or New York, who can be quite the pampered, lazy type.

The category of an "uneducated manual laborer" doesn't exist. In fact, there is no such thing as a "manual laborer" by definition. Everyone finds fulfillment in creating something for someone else, whether it's a tangible good or a service. Nobody engages in physical labor without a result—like trying to manually bail out the ocean... that's just pure masochism with zero progress.

Right now, all those people you label as "uneducated manual laborers" are actually just unlucky souls who couldn't find a better path because the system completely failed them.

Not everyone is built for school under the current model, which is essentially a mindless, rote-learning grind. People learn through example and practice. There shouldn't be any standardization in education; instead, we need an individual approach. You have to tap into a person's ambition—what they actually *want* to be—and then educate them toward that goal.

The current educational system has chewed up and spat out far too many people. Professors don't actually care about you because their salary isn't tied to your success in life; it's tied to how many hours they clock in. Those who don't earn a diploma often have no other choice, simply because nobody taught them they had one, and their parents—often stuck in a subservient mindset—didn't teach them either.

So, calling someone a "manual laborer" as a vocation is, to me, immoral.
The people that the "distinguished" urbanites and elites look down upon because they are dirty, uneducated, unshaven, or perhaps sweaty from physical toil, are actually the most honest and big-hearted people at their core. They have more heart than the doctors, lawyers, economists, and the rest of the "respectable" class.

It is much easier to do business with someone "lower class"—meaning someone unpretentious and straightforward—because they follow a simple pattern: I help you, you help me. It's nothing like dealing with the elite, who are always looking for ways to exploit someone or squeeze the most out of the least investment. That's your typical high-society type (I'm actually doing business with one right now, and it's certainly not the first or last time).

No, I am not going to force anyone to do anything. Can you actually read?
I asked why people donate blood, yet nobody forces them to do it.
I asked why people volunteer to shovel snow, yet nobody forces them to do it.

Can you answer those questions, or are you just messing with me?

So, how exactly do you plan on pulling that off? One teacher for every single student? Seriously? And what happens when all the boys decide they want to be pro football players and every girl wants to be a pop star?

So, I’m thinking about filming some adult films with Ian Jurčević—who exactly am I supposed to contact for training? 😍

Jack Smith5 said:@driftingjackal5
Because money should serve as the yardstick for the value of social output, which is ultimately just a measure of the quality of work produced by the individuals making up that society.

@IC
You pay taxes to access those specific services—the goods of civilization—that actually keep you alive within that society. We’re talking healthcare, water, energy; things that ought to be public goods, much like our roads. But let’s not call them exclusively public goods. If I build my own road on my own land, that's my road. If I fund my own medical clinic with my own cash and hire the staff, then that's a private venture, not a government one, and so on.

What would happen if a doctor had to lose his dignity cleaning toilets? It might do some good for certain people—including politicians—to come down from the clouds they live in. I won't even mention the average resident of a big city like Chicago or New York, who can be quite the pampered, lazy type.

The category of an "uneducated manual laborer" doesn't exist. In fact, there is no such thing as a "manual laborer" by definition. Everyone finds fulfillment in creating something for someone else, whether it's a tangible good or a service. Nobody engages in physical labor without a result—like trying to manually bail out the ocean... that's just pure masochism with zero progress.

Right now, all those people you label as "uneducated manual laborers" are actually just unlucky souls who couldn't find a better path because the system completely failed them.

Not everyone is built for school under the current model, which is essentially a mindless, rote-learning grind. People learn through example and practice. There shouldn't be any standardization in education; instead, we need an individual approach. You have to tap into a person's ambition—what they actually *want* to be—and then educate them toward that goal.

The current educational system has chewed up and spat out far too many people. Professors don't actually care about you because their salary isn't tied to your success in life; it's tied to how many hours they clock in. Those who don't earn a diploma often have no other choice, simply because nobody taught them they had one, and their parents—often stuck in a subservient mindset—didn't teach them either.

So, calling someone a "manual laborer" as a vocation is, to me, immoral.
The people that the "distinguished" urbanites and elites look down upon because they are dirty, uneducated, unshaven, or perhaps sweaty from physical toil, are actually the most honest and big-hearted people at their core. They have more heart than the doctors, lawyers, economists, and the rest of the "respectable" class.

It is much easier to do business with someone "lower class"—meaning someone unpretentious and straightforward—because they follow a simple pattern: I help you, you help me. It's nothing like dealing with the elite, who are always looking for ways to exploit someone or squeeze the most out of the least investment. That's your typical high-society type (I'm actually doing business with one right now, and it's certainly not the first or last time).

No, I am not going to force anyone to do anything. Can you actually read?
I asked why people donate blood, yet nobody forces them to do it.
I asked why people volunteer to shovel snow, yet nobody forces them to do it.

Can you answer those questions, or are you just messing with me?

Blood donors actually get something for their trouble—people complain about snow, so I guess they clean it up for that.

How exactly do you plan on getting people to show up en masse for community workdays?

Joshua Moore13 said:But they don't want to clean up the mess. Seriously. How exactly do you think you're going to solve a problem like that? How are you even supposed to talk them into it?

Oh yeah, it’s definitely a wicked system designed to crush the little guy. You really think otherwise?

So, how exactly do you plan on pulling that off? One teacher for every single student? Seriously? And what happens when all the boys decide they want to be pro football players and every girl wants to be a pop star?

So, I’m thinking about filming some adult films with Ian Jurčević—who exactly am I supposed to contact for training? 😍

Blood donors actually get something for their trouble—people complain about snow, so I guess they clean it up for that.

How exactly do you plan on getting people to show up en masse for community workdays?

Nobody’s going to talk them into it, and honestly, nobody’s even going to lift a finger in that direction. Force isn't going to move the needle one bit.

They’ll end up cleaning it themselves once the streets become too clogged with government interference. It'll come down to pure necessity—either they realize they have to do it to survive, or they fall victim to that "help thy neighbor" syndrome. You know the one; it's that same impulse that drives people to shovel snow in front of a helpless neighbor's house or just clear the roads in general because nobody else will.

Yeah, it’s true. It’s a wicked system designed to screw over the little guy. You really think otherwise?

The problem isn't that the system is inherently evil; it’s just incredibly inefficient. And at this level, inefficiency is more than enough to ruin everything. It’s absurd to watch failing corporations lay off workers they no longer need, only to have those very same employees prove the entire model wrong by succeeding on their own terms. Take my neighbor, for example. After years of grinding away at a massive utility company like Duke Energy, he finally got the boot. Instead of sinking, he bought a small plot of land. Now, he spends his days growing flowers with his wife and son, and honestly? He’s making a killing. He works from sunrise to sunset, but he's doing it on his own schedule. Is he some uneducated, failed laborer who couldn't make it? Not a chance. Did the system force him into a dead-end, low-wage job where he was basically cleaning up after everyone else just because he didn't have the patience for academic "nerd stuff"? Sure it did. He never finished much more than a few years of high school because he wasn't built for textbooks, but he has a knack for business and honest, hard work. Now, through plant cultivation, he's outperforming the very people who let him go.

So, how exactly do you plan on pulling that off? You're suggesting we give every single student their own personal tutor? That sounds like a logistical nightmare. Besides, what happens when reality sets in? What if all the boys decide they want to be professional athletes and every girl wants to be a pop star?

No, I can't find it right now. There was this documentary floating around online about a Japanese teacher—if I track it down, I’ll let you know. But seriously, that guy is the living embodiment of what a functional education system should look like. There’s zero rote memorization or mindless drilling in his classroom. Instead, once a student actually masters a topic to the teacher's satisfaction, they step up to teach it to someone else. It creates this continuous chain of mentors within the classroom. Honestly, it's much easier to wrap your head around a concept when a peer explains it to you. Not every kid speaks "teacher language," and sometimes adults just struggle to translate complex ideas into something a student can actually digest. That’s why peer-to-peer learning isn't just a gimmick; it's necessary.

So, I’ve been thinking... if I actually wanted to get into filming adult content with someone like Ian Jurčević, who exactly am I supposed to reach out to for training? Any leads on where to start? 😍

Ian Jurčević.

Blood donors actually get something for their trouble after every donation. People complain about the snow being a nuisance, but I guess that's why they bother clearing it.

How exactly do you plan on getting people to show up en masse for labor actions?

Potholes in the street aren't enough to bother them, apparently. Floating crap in the gutters after every rainstorm won't move them to actually do something about it either. Yeah, right... typical.

Jack Smith5 said:Hyperinflation? Please, I’m talking about pocket change here.
We're looking at maybe 10% of the budget at most, just scraping the surface.

The government—and the European Union too—is constantly subsidizing production through various joint funds they pull money from anyway. Nothing actually changes. A "normal" person isn't going to notice a slight uptick in the money supply, except for those specific people I mentioned who basically act as a black hole for social wealth: the financiers. Large-scale capital might notice a fresh influx of cash, but do you really think 99% of people—regular citizens or small business owners—are going to sense a thing if the state injects new money? They won't notice a damn thing. They don't deal with enough volume to track those kinds of shifts. They’ll just take their slice from the government and pass it along to pay for the services or tech they need.

So, what I’m actually getting at is this: why can't the state just 'tweak' the financial system directly? Why does everything have to be routed through the banks?

Are you still missing the point?

Let's say, hypothetically, a "Party of Responsible Economists" shows up.

1. These folks are uncorruptible, brilliant, and use purely scientific methods to circulate money—but only for high-quality investments.
2. By some miracle, this party wins the election and actually acts responsibly. GDP grows steadily, slowly, but at a sustainable rate that matches real development.

Even those two points are pure fantasy. But even if we assume they happen, here is what follows:

Enter the "Party for a Better Life."

Their platform is simple: a better life for everyone. The problem with America right now is that we still have poverty, unemployment, and people working incredibly hard for almost nothing. We see these heartbreaking stories every single day. The "Party for a Better Life" promises to fix it all.

Their plan? Massive investments in building "monuments to the little guy." Think 60-foot monuments being erected all over the country. These investments would eat up 10% of the budget every year (funded by printing money), with the goal of having thousands of these landmarks and instantly creating 100,000 jobs. On top of that, they’ll print another 10% to hand out directly to the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

Now, here's the real question: who wins the next election?

Don't forget—by printing money, you are handing the government an instrument to effectively tax its own citizens INFINITELY, whenever they feel like it.

Jack Smith5 said:Yeah, well, value is generated by having capital to work with...

The government funds forward-looking projects to kickstart production, and from there, the market takes care of itself automatically.

Who’s going to know the government conjured that cash out of thin air, and how exactly is the market supposed to revolt against a move like that?

It doesn't matter if someone knows the money was printed or not. The mere existence of more currency devalues it regardless.
Banks fund those strategic projects, and they do it better than the government ever could. I can't imagine the disaster if the state took charge... it would be ten times worse than their usual vote-buying schemes.

Jack Smith5 said:Nobody’s going to talk them into it, and honestly, nobody’s even going to lift a finger in that direction. Force isn't going to move the needle one bit.

They’ll end up cleaning it themselves once the streets become too clogged with government interference. It'll come down to pure necessity—either they realize they have to do it to survive, or they fall victim to that "help thy neighbor" syndrome. You know the one; it's that same impulse that drives people to shovel snow in front of a helpless neighbor's house or just clear the roads in general because nobody else will.

Yeah, it’s true. It’s a wicked system designed to screw over the little guy. You really think otherwise?

The problem isn't that the system is inherently evil; it’s just incredibly inefficient. And at this level, inefficiency is more than enough to ruin everything. It’s absurd to watch failing corporations lay off workers they no longer need, only to have those very same employees prove the entire model wrong by succeeding on their own terms. Take my neighbor, for example. After years of grinding away at a massive utility company like Duke Energy, he finally got the boot. Instead of sinking, he bought a small plot of land. Now, he spends his days growing flowers with his wife and son, and honestly? He’s making a killing. He works from sunrise to sunset, but he's doing it on his own schedule. Is he some uneducated, failed laborer who couldn't make it? Not a chance. Did the system force him into a dead-end, low-wage job where he was basically cleaning up after everyone else just because he didn't have the patience for academic "nerd stuff"? Sure it did. He never finished much more than a few years of high school because he wasn't built for textbooks, but he has a knack for business and honest, hard work. Now, through plant cultivation, he's outperforming the very people who let him go.

So, how exactly do you plan on pulling that off? You're suggesting we give every single student their own personal tutor? That sounds like a logistical nightmare. Besides, what happens when reality sets in? What if all the boys decide they want to be professional athletes and every girl wants to be a pop star?

No, I can't find it right now. There was this documentary floating around online about a Japanese teacher—if I track it down, I’ll let you know. But seriously, that guy is the living embodiment of what a functional education system should look like. There’s zero rote memorization or mindless drilling in his classroom. Instead, once a student actually masters a topic to the teacher's satisfaction, they step up to teach it to someone else. It creates this continuous chain of mentors within the classroom. Honestly, it's much easier to wrap your head around a concept when a peer explains it to you. Not every kid speaks "teacher language," and sometimes adults just struggle to translate complex ideas into something a student can actually digest. That’s why peer-to-peer learning isn't just a gimmick; it's necessary.

So, I’ve been thinking... if I actually wanted to get into filming adult content with someone like Ian Jurčević, who exactly am I supposed to reach out to for training? Any leads on where to start? 😍

Ian Jurčević.

Blood donors actually get something for their trouble after every donation. People complain about the snow being a nuisance, but I guess that's why they bother clearing it.

How exactly do you plan on getting people to show up en masse for labor actions?

Potholes in the street aren't enough to bother them, apparently. Floating crap in the gutters after every rainstorm won't move them to actually do something about it either. Yeah, right... typical.

Look, someone’s always going to show up to sweep the streets if the cash is right—why on earth would doctors bother doing that? Ever heard of concepts like "specialization" or the "division of labor"?

Jack Smith5 said:Nobody’s going to talk them into it, and honestly, nobody’s even going to lift a finger in that direction. Force isn't going to move the needle one bit.

They’ll end up cleaning it themselves once the streets become too clogged with government interference. It'll come down to pure necessity—either they realize they have to do it to survive, or they fall victim to that "help thy neighbor" syndrome. You know the one; it's that same impulse that drives people to shovel snow in front of a helpless neighbor's house or just clear the roads in general because nobody else will.

Yeah, it’s true. It’s a wicked system designed to screw over the little guy. You really think otherwise?

The problem isn't that the system is inherently evil; it’s just incredibly inefficient. And at this level, inefficiency is more than enough to ruin everything. It’s absurd to watch failing corporations lay off workers they no longer need, only to have those very same employees prove the entire model wrong by succeeding on their own terms. Take my neighbor, for example. After years of grinding away at a massive utility company like Duke Energy, he finally got the boot. Instead of sinking, he bought a small plot of land. Now, he spends his days growing flowers with his wife and son, and honestly? He’s making a killing. He works from sunrise to sunset, but he's doing it on his own schedule. Is he some uneducated, failed laborer who couldn't make it? Not a chance. Did the system force him into a dead-end, low-wage job where he was basically cleaning up after everyone else just because he didn't have the patience for academic "nerd stuff"? Sure it did. He never finished much more than a few years of high school because he wasn't built for textbooks, but he has a knack for business and honest, hard work. Now, through plant cultivation, he's outperforming the very people who let him go.

So, how exactly do you plan on pulling that off? You're suggesting we give every single student their own personal tutor? That sounds like a logistical nightmare. Besides, what happens when reality sets in? What if all the boys decide they want to be professional athletes and every girl wants to be a pop star?

No, I can't find it right now. There was this documentary floating around online about a Japanese teacher—if I track it down, I’ll let you know. But seriously, that guy is the living embodiment of what a functional education system should look like. There’s zero rote memorization or mindless drilling in his classroom. Instead, once a student actually masters a topic to the teacher's satisfaction, they step up to teach it to someone else. It creates this continuous chain of mentors within the classroom. Honestly, it's much easier to wrap your head around a concept when a peer explains it to you. Not every kid speaks "teacher language," and sometimes adults just struggle to translate complex ideas into something a student can actually digest. That’s why peer-to-peer learning isn't just a gimmick; it's necessary.

So, I’ve been thinking... if I actually wanted to get into filming adult content with someone like Ian Jurčević, who exactly am I supposed to reach out to for training? Any leads on where to start? 😍

Ian Jurčević.

Blood donors actually get something for their trouble after every donation. People complain about the snow being a nuisance, but I guess that's why they bother clearing it.

How exactly do you plan on getting people to show up en masse for labor actions?

Potholes in the street aren't enough to bother them, apparently. Floating crap in the gutters after every rainstorm won't move them to actually do something about it either. Yeah, right... typical.

Failing companies fail. Lol, that's why they lay people off—they don't have the cash to pay them. Simple as that.

Jack Smith5 said:Nobody’s going to talk them into it, and honestly, nobody’s even going to lift a finger in that direction. Force isn't going to move the needle one bit.

They’ll end up cleaning it themselves once the streets become too clogged with government interference. It'll come down to pure necessity—either they realize they have to do it to survive, or they fall victim to that "help thy neighbor" syndrome. You know the one; it's that same impulse that drives people to shovel snow in front of a helpless neighbor's house or just clear the roads in general because nobody else will.

Yeah, it’s true. It’s a wicked system designed to screw over the little guy. You really think otherwise?

The problem isn't that the system is inherently evil; it’s just incredibly inefficient. And at this level, inefficiency is more than enough to ruin everything. It’s absurd to watch failing corporations lay off workers they no longer need, only to have those very same employees prove the entire model wrong by succeeding on their own terms. Take my neighbor, for example. After years of grinding away at a massive utility company like Duke Energy, he finally got the boot. Instead of sinking, he bought a small plot of land. Now, he spends his days growing flowers with his wife and son, and honestly? He’s making a killing. He works from sunrise to sunset, but he's doing it on his own schedule. Is he some uneducated, failed laborer who couldn't make it? Not a chance. Did the system force him into a dead-end, low-wage job where he was basically cleaning up after everyone else just because he didn't have the patience for academic "nerd stuff"? Sure it did. He never finished much more than a few years of high school because he wasn't built for textbooks, but he has a knack for business and honest, hard work. Now, through plant cultivation, he's outperforming the very people who let him go.

So, how exactly do you plan on pulling that off? You're suggesting we give every single student their own personal tutor? That sounds like a logistical nightmare. Besides, what happens when reality sets in? What if all the boys decide they want to be professional athletes and every girl wants to be a pop star?

No, I can't find it right now. There was this documentary floating around online about a Japanese teacher—if I track it down, I’ll let you know. But seriously, that guy is the living embodiment of what a functional education system should look like. There’s zero rote memorization or mindless drilling in his classroom. Instead, once a student actually masters a topic to the teacher's satisfaction, they step up to teach it to someone else. It creates this continuous chain of mentors within the classroom. Honestly, it's much easier to wrap your head around a concept when a peer explains it to you. Not every kid speaks "teacher language," and sometimes adults just struggle to translate complex ideas into something a student can actually digest. That’s why peer-to-peer learning isn't just a gimmick; it's necessary.

So, I’ve been thinking... if I actually wanted to get into filming adult content with someone like Ian Jurčević, who exactly am I supposed to reach out to for training? Any leads on where to start? 😍

Ian Jurčević.

Blood donors actually get something for their trouble after every donation. People complain about the snow being a nuisance, but I guess that's why they bother clearing it.

How exactly do you plan on getting people to show up en masse for labor actions?

Potholes in the street aren't enough to bother them, apparently. Floating crap in the gutters after every rainstorm won't move them to actually do something about it either. Yeah, right... typical.

And what about the ones who couldn't care less about school curriculum?

Jack Smith5 said:Nobody’s going to talk them into it, and honestly, nobody’s even going to lift a finger in that direction. Force isn't going to move the needle one bit.

They’ll end up cleaning it themselves once the streets become too clogged with government interference. It'll come down to pure necessity—either they realize they have to do it to survive, or they fall victim to that "help thy neighbor" syndrome. You know the one; it's that same impulse that drives people to shovel snow in front of a helpless neighbor's house or just clear the roads in general because nobody else will.

Yeah, it’s true. It’s a wicked system designed to screw over the little guy. You really think otherwise?

The problem isn't that the system is inherently evil; it’s just incredibly inefficient. And at this level, inefficiency is more than enough to ruin everything. It’s absurd to watch failing corporations lay off workers they no longer need, only to have those very same employees prove the entire model wrong by succeeding on their own terms. Take my neighbor, for example. After years of grinding away at a massive utility company like Duke Energy, he finally got the boot. Instead of sinking, he bought a small plot of land. Now, he spends his days growing flowers with his wife and son, and honestly? He’s making a killing. He works from sunrise to sunset, but he's doing it on his own schedule. Is he some uneducated, failed laborer who couldn't make it? Not a chance. Did the system force him into a dead-end, low-wage job where he was basically cleaning up after everyone else just because he didn't have the patience for academic "nerd stuff"? Sure it did. He never finished much more than a few years of high school because he wasn't built for textbooks, but he has a knack for business and honest, hard work. Now, through plant cultivation, he's outperforming the very people who let him go.

So, how exactly do you plan on pulling that off? You're suggesting we give every single student their own personal tutor? That sounds like a logistical nightmare. Besides, what happens when reality sets in? What if all the boys decide they want to be professional athletes and every girl wants to be a pop star?

No, I can't find it right now. There was this documentary floating around online about a Japanese teacher—if I track it down, I’ll let you know. But seriously, that guy is the living embodiment of what a functional education system should look like. There’s zero rote memorization or mindless drilling in his classroom. Instead, once a student actually masters a topic to the teacher's satisfaction, they step up to teach it to someone else. It creates this continuous chain of mentors within the classroom. Honestly, it's much easier to wrap your head around a concept when a peer explains it to you. Not every kid speaks "teacher language," and sometimes adults just struggle to translate complex ideas into something a student can actually digest. That’s why peer-to-peer learning isn't just a gimmick; it's necessary.

So, I’ve been thinking... if I actually wanted to get into filming adult content with someone like Ian Jurčević, who exactly am I supposed to reach out to for training? Any leads on where to start? 😍

Ian Jurčević.

Blood donors actually get something for their trouble after every donation. People complain about the snow being a nuisance, but I guess that's why they bother clearing it.

How exactly do you plan on getting people to show up en masse for labor actions?

Potholes in the street aren't enough to bother them, apparently. Floating crap in the gutters after every rainstorm won't move them to actually do something about it either. Yeah, right... typical.

The whole system is broken. Honestly, the first domino should have already fallen.

Jack Smith5 said:Nobody’s going to talk them into it, and honestly, nobody’s even going to lift a finger in that direction. Force isn't going to move the needle one bit.

They’ll end up cleaning it themselves once the streets become too clogged with government interference. It'll come down to pure necessity—either they realize they have to do it to survive, or they fall victim to that "help thy neighbor" syndrome. You know the one; it's that same impulse that drives people to shovel snow in front of a helpless neighbor's house or just clear the roads in general because nobody else will.

Yeah, it’s true. It’s a wicked system designed to screw over the little guy. You really think otherwise?

The problem isn't that the system is inherently evil; it’s just incredibly inefficient. And at this level, inefficiency is more than enough to ruin everything. It’s absurd to watch failing corporations lay off workers they no longer need, only to have those very same employees prove the entire model wrong by succeeding on their own terms. Take my neighbor, for example. After years of grinding away at a massive utility company like Duke Energy, he finally got the boot. Instead of sinking, he bought a small plot of land. Now, he spends his days growing flowers with his wife and son, and honestly? He’s making a killing. He works from sunrise to sunset, but he's doing it on his own schedule. Is he some uneducated, failed laborer who couldn't make it? Not a chance. Did the system force him into a dead-end, low-wage job where he was basically cleaning up after everyone else just because he didn't have the patience for academic "nerd stuff"? Sure it did. He never finished much more than a few years of high school because he wasn't built for textbooks, but he has a knack for business and honest, hard work. Now, through plant cultivation, he's outperforming the very people who let him go.

So, how exactly do you plan on pulling that off? You're suggesting we give every single student their own personal tutor? That sounds like a logistical nightmare. Besides, what happens when reality sets in? What if all the boys decide they want to be professional athletes and every girl wants to be a pop star?

No, I can't find it right now. There was this documentary floating around online about a Japanese teacher—if I track it down, I’ll let you know. But seriously, that guy is the living embodiment of what a functional education system should look like. There’s zero rote memorization or mindless drilling in his classroom. Instead, once a student actually masters a topic to the teacher's satisfaction, they step up to teach it to someone else. It creates this continuous chain of mentors within the classroom. Honestly, it's much easier to wrap your head around a concept when a peer explains it to you. Not every kid speaks "teacher language," and sometimes adults just struggle to translate complex ideas into something a student can actually digest. That’s why peer-to-peer learning isn't just a gimmick; it's necessary.

So, I’ve been thinking... if I actually wanted to get into filming adult content with someone like Ian Jurčević, who exactly am I supposed to reach out to for training? Any leads on where to start? 😍

Ian Jurčević.

Blood donors actually get something for their trouble after every donation. People complain about the snow being a nuisance, but I guess that's why they bother clearing it.

How exactly do you plan on getting people to show up en masse for labor actions?

Potholes in the street aren't enough to bother them, apparently. Floating crap in the gutters after every rainstorm won't move them to actually do something about it either. Yeah, right... typical.

I’m telling you again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHeVfkpqowg

Look, I’m sorry, but I still don't quite follow you.

I honestly can't see the connection between your framework and what I was actually getting at.

Nobody was talking about printing 10% of the budget every single year just to dump it into useless monuments that serve no purpose other than being stared at.

My point was specifically about printing between 1% and 10% of the budget ONLY during a crisis, or when there are viable projects on the market capable of driving up prices—meaning, increasing total market value.
Let's try this: suppose a market consists of 1,000 products produced by its citizens, and each product costs $3.25 on average. In that case, the total market value is 10 $0.00.

Now, if new investments are planned to create 1,000 additional products at an average price of $1.75, then once that's achieved, the total market value will be 10,000 plus 5,000, which equals $5000.

So, using simple math, before those products even exist, the government could print 5,000 new dollars and distribute them via subsidies to the entrepreneurs behind these projects to kickstart production.

They spend that money on technology, labor, and land to get things moving, but they get that capital back through the sales price of $1.75 times those 1,000 products. Everything beyond that is pure profit. The government plays it safe; they don't overstate the sales of these new goods, so they aren't printing $2000 excessively. But if the products are good enough, they might sell 2,000 units instead of the initial 1,000.

In that scenario, the government gains fresh room to print more money and pump more investment if necessary.

If the government screws up and only 500 products are sold, then that surplus of printed money creates inflation—essentially a drop in the purchasing power of money because there is too much cash chasing far too little total product value ($4167 represents the value of all products, while $5000 is what's actually available on the market, so the market adjusts by raising prices to absorb that $833 difference). If the government messes up like that, they can't just keep printing without crashing the value of existing currency.

If they want to take a risk, the government could print, say, another 1,000 dollars and intentionally underestimate the next wave of sales, perhaps setting an average price of $1.75 per unit for 200 items.

In reality, if 1,000 products were produced and sold at $1.75, the market value would increase by $1667, while the government only increased the money supply by $333. This creates a gap between market value and the money supply:
The previous 15,000 dollars plus the newly printed $333 equals $5333, which is what exists in the market.
Compared to
the previous $5000 value of all products (accounting for the inflation from the $833 difference), plus the $1667 newly acquired market value of the products, which equals $6667. Now, money is worth more, and we have deflation.

Essentially, the government is playing around with tweaking the financial system, while the market continues to determine prices and product selection based on the same old principles.

And let's not forget: not every new product increases market value. An increase in market value only happens when industrial production—or service production—expands. If factory capacity grows and the number of workers in the market increases, market value goes up. Even if the raw number of products decreases, if those fewer products are more specialized, more expensive, higher quality, and highly sought after, the market value still climbs.

However, if the products don't sell—if demand drops—then prices drop, and the market value falls along with it.

To put it simply: if we produce 1,000 screwdrivers at $1 each,
but next year we produce only 100 screwdrivers at $1 each AND 10 machines at $33 each, it means that even though numerical production capacity shrank, the market value actually increased by 10% next year (assuming demand is met and the products actually sell at those prices).

Joshua Moore13 said:Look, someone’s always going to show up to sweep the streets if the cash is right—why on earth would doctors bother doing that? Ever heard of concepts like "specialization" or the "division of labor"?

Failing companies fail. Lol, that's why they lay people off—they don't have the cash to pay them. Simple as that.

And what about the ones who couldn't care less about school curriculum?

The whole system is broken. Honestly, the first domino should have already fallen.

I’m telling you again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHeVfkpqowg

So, doctors are still out there grinding through their PhDs, but honestly, I don't see the issue. And as for when they’re supposed to find time for social volunteering? Please. They aren't exactly going to volunteer while they're clocked in at the hospital, that's for damn sure...🤷

Failing companies fail. Lol, that’s why they lay people off. They simply don't have the cash to cover the payroll.

Failing companies usually go under because of inefficiency—which is often just a polite way of saying corruption, poor management, and a complete inability to delegate tasks effectively. In my experience, you don't see a business collapse if the people involved are actually willing to put in the work, stay flexible, and function as a cohesive, intelligent team. The businesses that truly die are the ones where nobody gives a damn. It’s easy to point fingers at market shifts, but the real issue is culture. There are certain companies where employees work with genuine heart rather than pure greed. When you actually care about the outcome, you do whatever it takes to keep things moving. You aren't rigid, you don't fight the reality of the market, and you aren't just looking for ways to line your own pockets at the expense of the group. If everyone is just out for themselves, the whole thing is doomed from day one.

And what about the ones who just couldn't care less about school curriculum?

Look, I just told you—the curriculum itself is the issue, along with the way it’s actually delivered. We need to overhaul what's being taught. The material should be tailored to the student. In a better system, every school would have teachers covering one or more related fields—say, a math professor who also handles computer science. If a kid shows a real knack for that field, they’d focus on it as their major, much like how students handle things in the US, while treating something like art or PE as a minor. Specialization should start as early as elementary school, and by the time you hit high school, it should be front and center. By the time someone heads off to college, they shouldn't be a blank slate; they should already be an experienced worker. Every school should be plugged directly into the production system, giving students the chance to actually build things and learn through hands-on application rather than just sitting in a desk staring at a chalkboard all day.

At university, you aren't just sitting through lectures; you're actually building your own projects, grinding out seminars, and diving deep into research and analysis. You start weaving in the economic side of things, the psychology of consumer behavior, and the sociology behind sales tactics. It’s basically everything you need to become a well-rounded expert in the field you've been focused on since elementary school.

Back in elementary school, if someone had actually bothered to ask me what I wanted to do with my life, I wouldn't have given them some vague answer about being an astronaut or a doctor. Even then, I would have been elbow-deep in motorcycle engines and machine tools. My curriculum would have looked more like a roadmap for engineering: physics, biology, electrical engineering basics, computer science—the works. Honestly, I could see myself working in R&D groups, just tinkering and building things.

Look, I had to grind through the absolute gauntlet of geography, chemistry, history, English, religion class—which was its own special kind of headache—and biology. Honestly? I didn't retain even 20% of any of it. And let’s be real, nobody else did either, except for those rare souls who actually decided to specialize in those fields. But then you run into the flip side: those specialists usually don't have a clue when it comes to math, computer science, or physics.

Look, there’s nothing wrong with learning the basics—that’s why we call them "elementary" for a reason. But there is a massive difference between mindless data dumping and actually acquiring practical knowledge you can use in the real world. If someone is actually going out of their way to make you listen to something, the material should be tailored to your level of interest and the fundamentals. It shouldn't feel like a lecture designed for an expert when you're just trying to get your bearings.

Of course, geography starts with basic navigation. That’s where you should begin—learning how to read a map and orienting yourself using a compass or the stars. Only after you can actually find your way around should you move on to studying the wider world through cartography.

Then there's history. Sure, you need to understand human development from the beginning up to the present day, but man, how many damn facts, figures, and dates do they expect us to memorize? For what? It just drives you to hate school, even though you really ought to love it. If you want to be truly successful, you have to actually enjoy what you're doing.

Ryan Nelson5 said:It doesn't matter if someone knows the money was printed or not. The mere existence of more currency devalues it regardless.
Banks fund those strategic projects, and they do it better than the government ever could. I can't imagine the disaster if the state took charge... it would be ten times worse than their usual vote-buying schemes.

Look, the state would just have a specific agency dedicated to the task, and we’d still have independent judicial bodies to step in if subsidies started being handed out based on nepotism.

Plus, the way they handled funds would eventually come back to haunt them—especially regarding things like tax evasion or election interference. But I've said this before: I'm fundamentally against politicians running the show. They are quite possibly the least qualified people to be making these calls.

Jack Smith5 said:Look, I’m sorry, but I still don't quite follow you.

I honestly can't see the connection between your framework and what I was actually getting at.

Nobody was talking about printing 10% of the budget every single year just to dump it into useless monuments that serve no purpose other than being stared at.

My point was specifically about printing between 1% and 10% of the budget ONLY during a crisis, or when there are viable projects on the market capable of driving up prices—meaning, increasing total market value.
Let's try this: suppose a market consists of 1,000 products produced by its citizens, and each product costs $3.25 on average. In that case, the total market value is 10 $0.00.

Now, if new investments are planned to create 1,000 additional products at an average price of $1.75, then once that's achieved, the total market value will be 10,000 plus 5,000, which equals $5000.

So, using simple math, before those products even exist, the government could print 5,000 new dollars and distribute them via subsidies to the entrepreneurs behind these projects to kickstart production.

They spend that money on technology, labor, and land to get things moving, but they get that capital back through the sales price of $1.75 times those 1,000 products. Everything beyond that is pure profit. The government plays it safe; they don't overstate the sales of these new goods, so they aren't printing $2000 excessively. But if the products are good enough, they might sell 2,000 units instead of the initial 1,000.

In that scenario, the government gains fresh room to print more money and pump more investment if necessary.

If the government screws up and only 500 products are sold, then that surplus of printed money creates inflation—essentially a drop in the purchasing power of money because there is too much cash chasing far too little total product value ($4167 represents the value of all products, while $5000 is what's actually available on the market, so the market adjusts by raising prices to absorb that $833 difference). If the government messes up like that, they can't just keep printing without crashing the value of existing currency.

If they want to take a risk, the government could print, say, another 1,000 dollars and intentionally underestimate the next wave of sales, perhaps setting an average price of $1.75 per unit for 200 items.

In reality, if 1,000 products were produced and sold at $1.75, the market value would increase by $1667, while the government only increased the money supply by $333. This creates a gap between market value and the money supply:
The previous 15,000 dollars plus the newly printed $333 equals $5333, which is what exists in the market.
Compared to
the previous $5000 value of all products (accounting for the inflation from the $833 difference), plus the $1667 newly acquired market value of the products, which equals $6667. Now, money is worth more, and we have deflation.

Essentially, the government is playing around with tweaking the financial system, while the market continues to determine prices and product selection based on the same old principles.

And let's not forget: not every new product increases market value. An increase in market value only happens when industrial production—or service production—expands. If factory capacity grows and the number of workers in the market increases, market value goes up. Even if the raw number of products decreases, if those fewer products are more specialized, more expensive, higher quality, and highly sought after, the market value still climbs.

However, if the products don't sell—if demand drops—then prices drop, and the market value falls along with it.

To put it simply: if we produce 1,000 screwdrivers at $1 each,
but next year we produce only 100 screwdrivers at $1 each AND 10 machines at $33 each, it means that even though numerical production capacity shrank, the market value actually increased by 10% next year (assuming demand is met and the products actually sell at those prices).

If you hand the state that kind of power, then exactly what I'm describing will happen. The responsible people will be pushed out of power very quickly, replaced by whoever is making the biggest promises about a better life right now.

Jack Smith5 said:Look, the state would just have a specific agency dedicated to the task, and we’d still have independent judicial bodies to step in if subsidies started being handed out based on nepotism.

Plus, the way they handled funds would eventually come back to haunt them—especially regarding things like tax evasion or election interference. But I've said this before: I'm fundamentally against politicians running the show. They are quite possibly the least qualified people to be making these calls.

The main issue isn't that money would be handed out based on nepotism; it's that under such a system, the people would simply vote for whoever promises to print and redistribute the most cash until everything goes to hell. It’s the exact same pattern we've seen with politicians constantly running up debt just to pass it around.

Even within our current system, they could have used those credits to kickstart actual production. Instead, they just handed them out for salaries and pensions.
Why do you think printing new money would actually change anything?

Jack Smith5 said:Look, the state would just have a specific agency dedicated to the task, and we’d still have independent judicial bodies to step in if subsidies started being handed out based on nepotism.

Plus, the way they handled funds would eventually come back to haunt them—especially regarding things like tax evasion or election interference. But I've said this before: I'm fundamentally against politicians running the show. They are quite possibly the least qualified people to be making these calls.

The moment the government starts spinning up specialized agencies and commissions to manage specific issues, you already know the outlook for those activities isn't great.
All those systems you're bringing up basically stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of how an economy actually functions. Even if they managed to pull it off, it would just look like standard socialist central planning—which, as history has shown us repeatedly, is vastly inferior to a capitalist system...

Harold Martin10
Won't those same people promising you a better life today be the very ones leaving you behind tomorrow, once the government kicks inflation into gear and effectively drains the value from your paycheck?

@spl
It’s the same answer as before: wouldn't this endless money printing policy have to change pretty quickly if we aren't looking to trigger hyperinflation? Honestly, who could be dense enough to miss the obvious and sprint headlong into that disaster, knowing exactly what happens when you overprint the currency?

@William Anderson5
Do you honestly expect the government to micromanage every single individual project? That’s just not how it works. They aren't there to get bogged down in the weeds of every minor task. Their job is to set the broad strokes—to provide the high-level vision and the guiding principles that steer the country in the right direction. They hand out the instructions, lay out the framework, and then step back. That's it.
Centralized control over what, exactly? The only thing you can truly manage from a central hub is money. And that’s still exactly how it works today—except now, the power rests in the hands of financial authorities who weren't even elected by the people.

Here’s my take: I’m suggesting that a market economy should operate on a simple principle—we only have as much money as our products are actually worth. I’m not entirely sure how the velocity of money is currently managed, but GDP and the money supply really ought to move in lockstep. In this model, the government would handle the quantity of money, while the market—meaning us, the people—determines its actual value. If you look at it that way, where is the "central planning" everyone complains about? To me, it just looks like interdependence.

The government essentially tries to act on the will of the people by subsidizing the types of production where citizens actually recognize value and are willing to pay. That’s the only way the market truly thrives and purchasing power stays steady, or at least doesn't crater. At the end of the day, voters decide whether the administration met their standards for competence based on one thing: the trajectory of economic growth or decline. That path determines the election results.

Why isn't that an option anymore? Because it’s always easier to point fingers at external factors—blaming some global crisis or a sudden tightening of credit markets. It's a classic move: passing the buck to someone else to avoid accountability. If we actually held the reins and decided our own destiny, we’d have a much clearer picture of whether we’re succeeding or failing on our own merits. But here's the catch: most citizens don't wrap their heads around the complex machinery of the profit world. Consequently, they can't accurately judge the financial performance of the government, mostly because the government isn't even the one running those processes in the first place.

Start a grassroots political party—one member, one vote. Simple enough, right?
First, you bring them into power. Then, you carve the US up into five distinct regions, assigning each one its own specific strategic objectives and a unique vision for development.
Step three involves assembling a dedicated task force. Their job is to evaluate whether the product actually holds water, based on two specific pillars: the technical documentation provided by the industry and the results of their own independent market research.
If we find ourselves facing a budget shortfall for subsidizing promising new projects, the move would be to resort to printing money. To keep inflation from spiraling out of control, we’d have to play it extremely safe—printing only the bare minimum amounts and keeping production capacities at rock bottom. Think of it like releasing test balloons into the atmosphere just to see how the market reacts before committing to anything major.
Look, if demand spikes, subsidies follow. Then production capacities ramp up, and suddenly you’ve got the money printing presses running overtime. We’re talking about relatively short windows here—the gap between issuing a subsidy and actually getting production lines moving is usually within a year, often just a few months. In that timeframe, the market hasn't even had a chance to get properly disrupted by the influx of all that newly minted cash.

Looking at these five regions, it’s pretty obvious that we need to start slashing through the bureaucracy and trimming down public administration immediately. It's common sense.
We could slash the sales tax to give everyday Americans some breathing room and actually boost consumer spending, then balance the books by hiking corporate taxes and income tax. Of course, we wouldn't just slap a flat rate on everyone; we’d scale those income taxes based on what people actually bring home. It’s a simple enough concept, really.

We should make things easier for employers to actually hire people. I’m talking about opening up the door to unlimited labor without all the heavy-handed union interference. Basically, workers should be able to jump into a job and walk away from one just as easily, without getting boggedusly tangled up in endless paperwork, legal battles, or bureaucratic red tape. Of course, that doesn't mean they're helpless—if an employer refuses to pay up, you should still be able to hit them with a wage garnishment or whatever legal lever exists to recover unpaid wages. But beyond that? Simplify the whole employment relationship. Scrap the mandatory minimum wage and get rid of those other stifling regulations. Let the market breathe.

My buddy is actually pulling double duty, working two different roles within the same company. It was a massive headache for his employer to navigate all the legal hurdles and HR red tape just to make that arrangement possible. Honestly, it’s a total clusterfuck, par excellence.
"War veterans with disabilities can't work while receiving their pensions"—give me a break. It’s the same old nonsense, claiming someone isn't "allowed" to hold down two jobs at once. Honestly, what kind of logic is that? Give me a rest.

Think about a workforce that’s mobile, fast-paced, and agile. Imagine a system where you actually have the freedom to choose your own career path, provided you meet certain benchmarks—basically, showing real effort and measurable progress. It’s about the government actually incentivizing you to get an education and pursue what you're passionate about rather than just filling slots. We need to talk about slashing through the red tape and simplifying the bureaucracy entirely. Then there's the matter of fiscal control: we should be cutting some taxes while hiking others to balance the scales. Most importantly, we need radical transparency. I’m talking about making both the decision-making process and all data regarding government spending fully public. We need real-time, online databases detailing everything from state expenditures to the financial dealings of every single corporation and individual. It’s a necessary step toward something resembling direct democracy.

These are just a few of the moves needed to finally unleash the tiger within us. It all starts when people stop being terrified of taking their destiny into their own hands. We need that mindset where an employee can look at an exploitative boss and say, "Get lost, you trash; I'll find someone else to hire tomorrow," or conversely, for the employer to tell a lazy worker, "Beat it, you slacker; I'll have a new hire by Monday." If we actually reached that level of agency, corporate efficiency would skyrocket. You'd end up with companies staffed only by people who actually want to be there and who provide real value to others, rather than a bunch of cronies who only landed their jobs through connections and coasting on favors.

It would also give the average Joe a chance to step back, take a breather, and realize that if his career is hitting a dead end, he doesn't have to just grind it out indefinitely. If there isn't an open position at his current firm, he could actually pivot—retrain, get certified, learn a new skill—all while being paid to do it. It’s essentially an investment in oneself. Of course, you’d have to pay back that investment later by paying higher taxes than someone who managed to nail their dream job on the first try.
If you have a solid plan and a killer idea, that’s usually enough to get the government to buy in. They might toss some cash your way, hand over some land to help scale up what you're building, or hit you with tax breaks just to get production off the ground.

Anyone with a solid idea and the drive to actually put in the work can make it happen.

driftingjackal5 said:So, here you go—it’s basically the Communist Party's entire platform, pulled straight out of the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. After that, feel free to sing your little songs about how "central planning isn't actually communism." I guess it's all just one big circle, right?

First off—you're quoting Marx, an anarchist, which just feels super fuzzy and confusing to me, I guess.
And another thing—you’re kind of forgetting that Marx and Engels actually believed all those measures you mentioned were just a temporary phase. They thought it was all leading toward eventually getting rid of the state entirely, along with all that central planning stuff. I guess they saw it as just a stepping stone.

Look, every single one of these points has already been tested out in one way or another across all those "non-communist" countries you keep talking about. Honestly, some of these ideas are actually being used right now in modern social-democratic nations. So, I guess maybe just stop nitpicking over stuff when it’s pretty clear you don't really have a clue what you're talking about.

You haven't got a clue, honestly. I mean, if you had just taken a second to look up the actual dictionary definition of communism, you'd realize it’s supposed to be an idea for a society without... Class, the State, and Money.. ☕

I see the words popping up on the screen, but I’m honestly not seeing a single actual argument to back them up. Just saying "because I said so" isn't really an argument, I guess.

I feel like I've already laid this out before. Look, whenever capital—you know, the cash—starts piling up in the hands of just a few people, it doesn't really matter how much they actually earned to get there. Once they have that kind of weight, those individuals are going to do everything in their power to stay on top. And honestly? They’ll probably do it by keeping workers and everyone else struggling just to get by trapped within the wage system. Basically, these wealthy folks end up pushing the working class deeper into poverty just to squeeze out more profit for themselves. To me, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, which makes the whole idea of "anarcho"-capitalism feel like a total oxymoron at its core.

So, I mean, does being an anarchist actually mean you have to push back against every single hierarchy out there? Is authority really such a bad thing on its own? I guess we should think about experts and people who actually know what they're talking about. Even your favorite guy, Bakunin, writes that we should probably trust authorities that are actually justified. I mean, you wouldn't exactly ask a carpenter to fix your laptop, right? Or would you really want to listen to a psychologist when they start lecturing you on math? Probably not.

Thank God that’s not the case. I guess you might be having a little trouble distinguishing between legitimate authority and unjustified authority. To me, legitimate authority comes from actual expertise—think of a professor in a classroom, an architect overseeing a construction site, or a conductor leading an orchestra. You know, people who actually know their stuff. Unjustified authority is totally different. That’s just someone holding power because of their position, like a king, a priest, or some boss at a factory. They aren't necessarily experts in their field; they’re just sitting in a position of power and trying to hang onto it. Maybe that makes sense?

Kimberly Cox59 said:First off—you're quoting Marx, an anarchist, which just feels super fuzzy and confusing to me, I guess.
And another thing—you’re kind of forgetting that Marx and Engels actually believed all those measures you mentioned were just a temporary phase. They thought it was all leading toward eventually getting rid of the state entirely, along with all that central planning stuff. I guess they saw it as just a stepping stone.

Look, every single one of these points has already been tested out in one way or another across all those "non-communist" countries you keep talking about. Honestly, some of these ideas are actually being used right now in modern social-democratic nations. So, I guess maybe just stop nitpicking over stuff when it’s pretty clear you don't really have a clue what you're talking about.

You haven't got a clue, honestly. I mean, if you had just taken a second to look up the actual dictionary definition of communism, you'd realize it’s supposed to be an idea for a society without... Class, the State, and Money.. ☕

I see the words popping up on the screen, but I’m honestly not seeing a single actual argument to back them up. Just saying "because I said so" isn't really an argument, I guess.

I feel like I've already laid this out before. Look, whenever capital—you know, the cash—starts piling up in the hands of just a few people, it doesn't really matter how much they actually earned to get there. Once they have that kind of weight, those individuals are going to do everything in their power to stay on top. And honestly? They’ll probably do it by keeping workers and everyone else struggling just to get by trapped within the wage system. Basically, these wealthy folks end up pushing the working class deeper into poverty just to squeeze out more profit for themselves. To me, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, which makes the whole idea of "anarcho"-capitalism feel like a total oxymoron at its core.

So, I mean, does being an anarchist actually mean you have to push back against every single hierarchy out there? Is authority really such a bad thing on its own? I guess we should think about experts and people who actually know what they're talking about. Even your favorite guy, Bakunin, writes that we should probably trust authorities that are actually justified. I mean, you wouldn't exactly ask a carpenter to fix your laptop, right? Or would you really want to listen to a psychologist when they start lecturing you on math? Probably not.

Thank God that’s not the case. I guess you might be having a little trouble distinguishing between legitimate authority and unjustified authority. To me, legitimate authority comes from actual expertise—think of a professor in a classroom, an architect overseeing a construction site, or a conductor leading an orchestra. You know, people who actually know their stuff. Unjustified authority is totally different. That’s just someone holding power because of their position, like a king, a priest, or some boss at a factory. They aren't necessarily experts in their field; they’re just sitting in a position of power and trying to hang onto it. Maybe that makes sense?

You fundamentally misunderstand how capitalism works. Capitalism is driven by consumption, and widespread poverty actually hurts the "wealthy" because there’s nobody left with the money to buy their products and services. What’s the point of manufacturing computers if everyone is too broke to buy them?
Whatever your argument may be, fifteen years ago, the middle class didn't have high-speed internet, laptops, smartphones, DVD players, or hundreds of other gadgets at their fingertips. Today, the average person owns all of this, and it significantly raises their standard of living. The material reality for the average American is improving. Sure, there are plenty of problems, but the typical person has seen an upgrade in their material conditions over the last fifteen years, just as they did in the fifteen before that, and just as they will in the next fifteen...
There isn't really any philosophy to be found here.