Where does my freedom end and yours begin?

Here’s my take on this—from a purely practical standpoint. I feel like if an action doesn't directly jeopardize someone else's freedom or safety, society shouldn't have the right to condemn it. Yet, I keep seeing these constant crackdowns on individual liberties just to satisfy certain socially accepted dogmas—think mandatory schooling requirements, drug laws, religious finger-wagging... It feels like there are only a handful of instances where someone isn't actually infringing on anyone else's rights, yet we still force our views on them. We're living in the 21st century, for crying out loud. Even physicists—who used to be hardcore determinists—have embraced the idea of statistical probability (that gray area between black and white) rather than clinging to absolute certainty. Relativity has been part of the conversation for ages, stretching from Galileo all the way to Einstein 😁. But when it comes to morality, we’re still acting like we can dictate 100% absolute values and force those mandates onto minorities.

How do you guys even justify stuff like this? I honestly don't get how anyone can defend banning the mere possession of drugs (or using them in your own home, where the risk to anyone else is basically zero). Or how you justify mandatory education, where the state decides certain things are absolute facts and forces them down everyone's throats. Wouldn't it make way more sense to leave education up to the people, so anyone who wants to learn something—regardless of their age—can just dive into the subjects offered? It blows my mind that people are so bothered by someone using "illegal substances" in private, or that simply carrying them on a street in the US could land someone in a jail cell. Since when did we decide that prison is the answer to social infractions? I agree that people who are genuinely dangerous to the public should be separated from society, but it should be about rehabilitation and reintegration, not just punishment. And setting a fixed timer on that process just seems totally nonsensical
. How can any of this be justified in what we call a "liberal" society?

quieteagle16 said:Here’s my take on this—from a purely practical standpoint. I feel like if an action doesn't directly jeopardize someone else's freedom or safety, society shouldn't have the right to condemn it. Yet, I keep seeing these constant crackdowns on individual liberties just to satisfy certain socially accepted dogmas—think mandatory schooling requirements, drug laws, religious finger-wagging... It feels like there are only a handful of instances where someone isn't actually infringing on anyone else's rights, yet we still force our views on them. We're living in the 21st century, for crying out loud. Even physicists—who used to be hardcore determinists—have embraced the idea of statistical probability (that gray area between black and white) rather than clinging to absolute certainty. Relativity has been part of the conversation for ages, stretching from Galileo all the way to Einstein 😁. But when it comes to morality, we’re still acting like we can dictate 100% absolute values and force those mandates onto minorities.

How do you guys even justify stuff like this? I honestly don't get how anyone can defend banning the mere possession of drugs (or using them in your own home, where the risk to anyone else is basically zero). Or how you justify mandatory education, where the state decides certain things are absolute facts and forces them down everyone's throats. Wouldn't it make way more sense to leave education up to the people, so anyone who wants to learn something—regardless of their age—can just dive into the subjects offered? It blows my mind that people are so bothered by someone using "illegal substances" in private, or that simply carrying them on a street in the US could land someone in a jail cell. Since when did we decide that prison is the answer to social infractions? I agree that people who are genuinely dangerous to the public should be separated from society, but it should be about rehabilitation and reintegration, not just punishment. And setting a fixed timer on that process just seems totally nonsensical
. How can any of this be justified in what we call a "liberal" society?

It’s quite fascinating, really... I was actually discussing this exact point just the other day here.
👍Thanks for starting the thread.

Dennis Rogers6 said:It’s quite fascinating, really... I was actually discussing this exact point just the other day here.
👍Thanks for starting the thread.

It’s pretty much the same vibe, but what I’m really digging for is some actual insight from someone who actually supports these kinds of bans. I want to wrap my head around that specific way of thinking—since it’s clearly a super common viewpoint—but honestly, that "mindset" just doesn't click for me, at least not based on my own experience. Theoretically, I'd guess it's the kind of people who lean toward dogma and aren't big on independent thought, but maybe there's some deeper logic I'm missing. When it comes to stuff like drug enforcement, I can somewhat wrap my head around the conspiracy angle—like how the police get funded to wipe it out, which just drives up the street price—but then you have these much bigger, more global examples of absolutism and the government stepping all over privacy and individuality. That's where I get stuck. What's the actual driver behind maintaining those systems? Is it just societal inertia? I'd love to see a real, deep-dive debate on this topic.

quieteagle16 said:Here’s my take on this—from a purely practical standpoint. I feel like if an action doesn't directly jeopardize someone else's freedom or safety, society shouldn't have the right to condemn it. Yet, I keep seeing these constant crackdowns on individual liberties just to satisfy certain socially accepted dogmas—think mandatory schooling requirements, drug laws, religious finger-wagging... It feels like there are only a handful of instances where someone isn't actually infringing on anyone else's rights, yet we still force our views on them. We're living in the 21st century, for crying out loud. Even physicists—who used to be hardcore determinists—have embraced the idea of statistical probability (that gray area between black and white) rather than clinging to absolute certainty. Relativity has been part of the conversation for ages, stretching from Galileo all the way to Einstein 😁. But when it comes to morality, we’re still acting like we can dictate 100% absolute values and force those mandates onto minorities.

How do you guys even justify stuff like this? I honestly don't get how anyone can defend banning the mere possession of drugs (or using them in your own home, where the risk to anyone else is basically zero). Or how you justify mandatory education, where the state decides certain things are absolute facts and forces them down everyone's throats. Wouldn't it make way more sense to leave education up to the people, so anyone who wants to learn something—regardless of their age—can just dive into the subjects offered? It blows my mind that people are so bothered by someone using "illegal substances" in private, or that simply carrying them on a street in the US could land someone in a jail cell. Since when did we decide that prison is the answer to social infractions? I agree that people who are genuinely dangerous to the public should be separated from society, but it should be about rehabilitation and reintegration, not just punishment. And setting a fixed timer on that process just seems totally nonsensical
. How can any of this be justified in what we call a "liberal" society?

It’s hard to spot the irresponsible person or the idiot who’s going to become
aggressive and seriously threaten everyone else because of
substances, ignorance, or a lack of morals, so you can only ban *that* specific
behavior or mandate certain actions for them.
I mean, I still have to stop at a red light when there isn't a soul in sight just because of regulations
designed to protect society from the idiots who kill people with cars.
But protecting against those types is pretty ineffective.
So, first you have to prove you're a conscientious, responsible, moral person, and
then you can do whatever you want.
Since the system is set up to make you prove other kinds of things, then...

yeah, finish the sentence however you want.

So, this is what passes for "Meritorious" goods—when an individual isn't quite capable of judging what’s actually good for themselves, the government steps in and decides on their behalf (think things like mandatory schooling requirements or banning alcohol, drugs, and prostitution)

Which brings me to the real question: who exactly handed the state the authority to define those things in the first place?
I found my answer while watching the whole mess unfold during the last election cycle...

Keith Lee2 said:It’s hard to spot the irresponsible person or the idiot who’s going to become
aggressive and seriously threaten everyone else because of
substances, ignorance, or a lack of morals, so you can only ban *that* specific
behavior or mandate certain actions for them.
I mean, I still have to stop at a red light when there isn't a soul in sight just because of regulations
designed to protect society from the idiots who kill people with cars.
But protecting against those types is pretty ineffective.
So, first you have to prove you're a conscientious, responsible, moral person, and
then you can do whatever you want.
Since the system is set up to make you prove other kinds of things, then...

yeah, finish the sentence however you want.

Honestly, all this "preventative" security nonsense and the obsession with bureaucratic red tape is, in my humble opinion, way less effective than just letting a liberal system run its course. If you look at it realistically, someone who’s determined to blow through a red light regardless of pedestrians isn't thinking about safety—they’re just making sure they don't get caught. If you're a conscious, responsible driver and you make a mistake because of some totally unpredictable situation out of your control, that's just a bad break. In those cases, I think instead of heavy-handed punishment, people should just be sent through mandatory re-education courses to brush up on things. But as for the people who lack the judgment to make those calls in the first place? Honestly, if you don't have the basic knowledge to handle the road, you shouldn't even have a driver's license to begin with. 🙂
Those other values are basically just a massive red flag for anyone actually trying to act with a sense of responsibility or a moral compass—at least based on how things work around here in the States. 🙂 )

That’s exactly what I call "Meritorious" goods—when an individual can't quite wrap their head around what's actually good for them, so the government steps in to make the call instead. It’s like when the state decides you only need a basic high school diploma to get by, or when they start policing things like alcohol, drugs, or sex work. It's that whole vibe where the government acts like a parent because they don't think we can handle our own business.

That’s exactly what I’m getting at—it feels like our idea of a "liberal" society basically boils down to this: if you happen to hold an opinion that doesn't align with the crowd, people immediately decide you're incapable of making sound judgments. It's like having a different perspective is treated as a defect in logic rather than just a different way of looking at things. 🙂 That’s a pretty interesting way to look at it... It definitely highlights that individualistic angle and the statistical chance of things going sideways. Honestly, it reminds me of that old Henry Ford line: "You can have any color you want, as long as it's black." 🙂)

Look, I honestly don't think the whole concept of democracy or statistical trends should ever be used as an excuse to stifle what an individual can do. To me, that completely misses the entire point of being an individual—it’s all about exploring every single possibility out there. Think of it like a massive, real-world experiment; eventually, natural selection will step in and decide whether my ideas were brilliant or just plain wrong. Sure, society might try to step in and shut me down or tell me "no," but you can't really legislate away the drive to test things out. 🙂 Look, it’s not about me stepping in just to trample over everyone else's freedom. If you look at democracy through a purely statistical lens—where the idea is that the majority should technically hold the winning hand—that doesn't actually mean the majority is always right. It’s more about how things function from a legislative or social standpoint. It's like saying a majority vote in a local town hall meeting gives a decision legal weight, even if half the people in the room think it's a total disaster. The system is built on the framework of the majority, not necessarily on the absolute truth of their opinion. Most likely. I mean, honestly? Most people are probably right on this one.

quieteagle16 said:Honestly, all this "preventative" security nonsense and the obsession with bureaucratic red tape is, in my humble opinion, way less effective than just letting a liberal system run its course. If you look at it realistically, someone who’s determined to blow through a red light regardless of pedestrians isn't thinking about safety—they’re just making sure they don't get caught. If you're a conscious, responsible driver and you make a mistake because of some totally unpredictable situation out of your control, that's just a bad break. In those cases, I think instead of heavy-handed punishment, people should just be sent through mandatory re-education courses to brush up on things. But as for the people who lack the judgment to make those calls in the first place? Honestly, if you don't have the basic knowledge to handle the road, you shouldn't even have a driver's license to begin with. 🙂
Those other values are basically just a massive red flag for anyone actually trying to act with a sense of responsibility or a moral compass—at least based on how things work around here in the States. 🙂 )

That’s exactly what I call "Meritorious" goods—when an individual can't quite wrap their head around what's actually good for them, so the government steps in to make the call instead. It’s like when the state decides you only need a basic high school diploma to get by, or when they start policing things like alcohol, drugs, or sex work. It's that whole vibe where the government acts like a parent because they don't think we can handle our own business.

That’s exactly what I’m getting at—it feels like our idea of a "liberal" society basically boils down to this: if you happen to hold an opinion that doesn't align with the crowd, people immediately decide you're incapable of making sound judgments. It's like having a different perspective is treated as a defect in logic rather than just a different way of looking at things. 🙂 That’s a pretty interesting way to look at it... It definitely highlights that individualistic angle and the statistical chance of things going sideways. Honestly, it reminds me of that old Henry Ford line: "You can have any color you want, as long as it's black." 🙂)

Look, I honestly don't think the whole concept of democracy or statistical trends should ever be used as an excuse to stifle what an individual can do. To me, that completely misses the entire point of being an individual—it’s all about exploring every single possibility out there. Think of it like a massive, real-world experiment; eventually, natural selection will step in and decide whether my ideas were brilliant or just plain wrong. Sure, society might try to step in and shut me down or tell me "no," but you can't really legislate away the drive to test things out. 🙂 Look, it’s not about me stepping in just to trample over everyone else's freedom. If you look at democracy through a purely statistical lens—where the idea is that the majority should technically hold the winning hand—that doesn't actually mean the majority is always right. It’s more about how things function from a legislative or social standpoint. It's like saying a majority vote in a local town hall meeting gives a decision legal weight, even if half the people in the room think it's a total disaster. The system is built on the framework of the majority, not necessarily on the absolute truth of their opinion. Most likely. I mean, honestly? Most people are probably right on this one.

The government is essentially terrified that an uninformed individual might make a bad call and jeopardize, say, their own health. In this context, they see their role as protecting the collective interest as a whole.

Of course, there will always be minorities who won't be happy about that, no matter the circumstances. But, hey, that's life in a society; you have to adapt, and we call that conformism.

The real question is how we actually dismantle these archaic ways of thinking...

When I talk about archaic concepts, I’m not referring to things like seatbelts, hard drugs, or teenage binge drinking; rather, I'm primarily thinking about the release of minor illicit substances within the privacy of one's own home 😉
maybe prostitution as well (though I honestly feel a sense of pity for both parties involved) and perhaps polygamy or polyandry if that's someone's cup of tea...
hmmm, I'm certain there are others out there... I just can't quite wrap my head around them at this exact moment

coastalorca11 said:The government is essentially terrified that an uninformed individual might make a bad call and jeopardize, say, their own health. In this context, they see their role as protecting the collective interest as a whole.

Of course, there will always be minorities who won't be happy about that, no matter the circumstances. But, hey, that's life in a society; you have to adapt, and we call that conformism.

The real question is how we actually dismantle these archaic ways of thinking...

There’s a practical difference, sure, but from a moral or legal standpoint, there really shouldn't be a distinction between hard and soft drugs (if you're into that sort of thing).

coastalorca11 said:The government is essentially terrified that an uninformed individual might make a bad call and jeopardize, say, their own health. In this context, they see their role as protecting the collective interest as a whole.

Of course, there will always be minorities who won't be happy about that, no matter the circumstances. But, hey, that's life in a society; you have to adapt, and we call that conformism.

The real question is how we actually dismantle these archaic ways of thinking...

Protect them from who? From themselves? That kind of logic boils down to that old "nanny state" mentality—the idea that "you don't know what's good for you, so we'll decide for you." It's pretty much the same vibe as the Republican stance during that NATO referendum debate. 🙂 )
The most any government should do if they actually respect personal freedom is provide education. If someone intentionally breaks the law, they likely believe they're doing it for their own benefit. Instead of just punishing them, we should be educating them on the actual consequences of their actions. We need to help them see that acting morally actually benefits them in the long run by maintaining a healthy society (even if that sounds like a fairy tale in today's world). They shouldn't be tossed back into society until they show some actual responsibility or grasp the problem. Throwing someone into a cell with a bunch of thugs for a few months or years just turns them into a hardened criminal who comes out ready to take over the neighborhood or build connections in prison just to get back into business later. (As for things that are genuine illnesses or disorders, those should be treated regardless.)
Just throwing people in jail doesn't work; it has zero real impact. People follow the law because they're scared of it, so they'll just find a way to break it at the first opportunity.
I think you can draw a parallel to how our school grading system works. In school, there's such a massive push for rote memorization and short-term studying that nobody actually learns for the sake of knowledge anymore—they just learn for the grade. People won't hesitate to cheat because the goal isn't wisdom, it's the GPA. You end up with students finishing school with maybe 10% actual knowledge but straight A's.
It's a classic example of an inefficient, non-liberal, bureaucratic mess.

quieteagle16 said:Here’s my take on this—from a purely practical standpoint. I feel like if an action doesn't directly jeopardize someone else's freedom or safety, society shouldn't have the right to condemn it. Yet, I keep seeing these constant crackdowns on individual liberties just to satisfy certain socially accepted dogmas—think mandatory schooling requirements, drug laws, religious finger-wagging... It feels like there are only a handful of instances where someone isn't actually infringing on anyone else's rights, yet we still force our views on them. We're living in the 21st century, for crying out loud. Even physicists—who used to be hardcore determinists—have embraced the idea of statistical probability (that gray area between black and white) rather than clinging to absolute certainty. Relativity has been part of the conversation for ages, stretching from Galileo all the way to Einstein 😁. But when it comes to morality, we’re still acting like we can dictate 100% absolute values and force those mandates onto minorities.

How do you guys even justify stuff like this? I honestly don't get how anyone can defend banning the mere possession of drugs (or using them in your own home, where the risk to anyone else is basically zero). Or how you justify mandatory education, where the state decides certain things are absolute facts and forces them down everyone's throats. Wouldn't it make way more sense to leave education up to the people, so anyone who wants to learn something—regardless of their age—can just dive into the subjects offered? It blows my mind that people are so bothered by someone using "illegal substances" in private, or that simply carrying them on a street in the US could land someone in a jail cell. Since when did we decide that prison is the answer to social infractions? I agree that people who are genuinely dangerous to the public should be separated from society, but it should be about rehabilitation and reintegration, not just punishment. And setting a fixed timer on that process just seems totally nonsensical
. How can any of this be justified in what we call a "liberal" society?

How safe can we really be that someone who embraces drug use as a way of life won't influence others toward that same path, whether they intend to or not?
The moment you post something like this on a forum, you are already exerting an affirmative influence on others regarding drug consumption.
I grew up in a neighborhood where drugs were a massive plague—it was the kind of place where even the local gang was notorious throughout the entire United States. I haven't met a single user who wasn't actively preaching the lifestyle to those around them. In fact, they would get quite vocal and complain whenever I tried to advocate for common sense and thinking twice before taking such a step.

how do you justify mandatory education, where certain subjects are treated as absolute facts and forced upon everyone?

That's fine. Personally, I believe people shouldn't be forced to get an education, but if they choose not to, then the government shouldn't have to pick up the tab for their social welfare. If they can't find employment because they lack skills, they'll just end up sitting at a dive bar, nursing a beer, and "contemplating life."
People with less education—specifically those who dropped out during middle school or rushed straight into "adult life" far too early—often find themselves stuck in dead-end jobs, manual labor, or worse, sliding into crime. The state simply doesn't want a high crime rate. That is why they push to fund education.

I tend to look at it through the lens of consistency; if we’re okay letting cigarettes and alcohol slide, then why wouldn't we allow lighter drugs too?
As for those other two points, they strike me as being heavily influenced by traditional religious values...

Morally speaking—it all boils down to social conventions.
Legally speaking—well, it's just more social conventions again.

What I wrote below was meant to be a definition, essentially an explanation of the underlying logic behind why the state operates this way and what the actual purpose is...

Regarding the rehabilitation of offenders or criminals, I honestly don't want to weigh in on that because I truly have no idea what the best approach is. That said, anyone who poses a threat to others absolutely has to face some kind of sanction. How that should actually work, though, is something I'll leave to the experts.

Education is another topic that keeps popping up on this forum. Personally, I am not in favor of scrapping basic mandatory schooling. Now, if we need to ramp up critical thinking skills and foster a genuine love for learning, then absolutely, yes—but that's a separate issue entirely.

Why don't you get specific and tell me how you would actually organize a society where everyone possesses absolute, unrestricted freedom?

goldencobra5 said:How safe can we really be that someone who embraces drug use as a way of life won't influence others toward that same path, whether they intend to or not?
The moment you post something like this on a forum, you are already exerting an affirmative influence on others regarding drug consumption.
I grew up in a neighborhood where drugs were a massive plague—it was the kind of place where even the local gang was notorious throughout the entire United States. I haven't met a single user who wasn't actively preaching the lifestyle to those around them. In fact, they would get quite vocal and complain whenever I tried to advocate for common sense and thinking twice before taking such a step.

how do you justify mandatory education, where certain subjects are treated as absolute facts and forced upon everyone?

That's fine. Personally, I believe people shouldn't be forced to get an education, but if they choose not to, then the government shouldn't have to pick up the tab for their social welfare. If they can't find employment because they lack skills, they'll just end up sitting at a dive bar, nursing a beer, and "contemplating life."
People with less education—specifically those who dropped out during middle school or rushed straight into "adult life" far too early—often find themselves stuck in dead-end jobs, manual labor, or worse, sliding into crime. The state simply doesn't want a high crime rate. That is why they push to fund education.

Hold on, I'm not quite following your angle here. Are you saying people should be banned from expressing a lifestyle just because it doesn't align with yours? Calling drugs a "plague in the neighborhood" clearly shows your take on the subject—even though I personally agree that long-term drug use is a bad idea—but does that mean we should restrict their behavior? Maybe even limit free speech? You might think you're right, but you don't have the right to force others to fit into your specific worldview based on your beliefs. You absolutely have the right to share your views and promote your perspective (which you mentioned earlier), but it’s up to them whether they choose to listen or not—just like you can choose whether or not to listen to their "drug promotion"...
Now, you'll probably try to bring up peer pressure or something similar, but honestly, that comes down to the individual—the ability of a person to separate themselves from their surroundings. It's true that kids and teenagers shouldn't be allowed to use drugs because they realistically aren't capable of making those kinds of judgments (meaning it's morally justified to protect them until they gain some level of maturity), but you can't coddle adults and treat them like children—even (get this) when their views don't match 🙂

goldencobra5 said:How safe can we really be that someone who embraces drug use as a way of life won't influence others toward that same path, whether they intend to or not?
The moment you post something like this on a forum, you are already exerting an affirmative influence on others regarding drug consumption.
I grew up in a neighborhood where drugs were a massive plague—it was the kind of place where even the local gang was notorious throughout the entire United States. I haven't met a single user who wasn't actively preaching the lifestyle to those around them. In fact, they would get quite vocal and complain whenever I tried to advocate for common sense and thinking twice before taking such a step.

how do you justify mandatory education, where certain subjects are treated as absolute facts and forced upon everyone?

That's fine. Personally, I believe people shouldn't be forced to get an education, but if they choose not to, then the government shouldn't have to pick up the tab for their social welfare. If they can't find employment because they lack skills, they'll just end up sitting at a dive bar, nursing a beer, and "contemplating life."
People with less education—specifically those who dropped out during middle school or rushed straight into "adult life" far too early—often find themselves stuck in dead-end jobs, manual labor, or worse, sliding into crime. The state simply doesn't want a high crime rate. That is why they push to fund education.

I think you slightly missed the point I was trying to make regarding mandatory education. What I meant by a more liberal approach to schooling is allowing adults (who are actually capable of working) to specialize in a niche field. That’s way more efficient than forcing a rigid curriculum on kids who have no clue what's ahead of them or what they want from life. Why shouldn't these "kids" be allowed to play around and discover their natural talents or inclinations through hands-on experience before committing to a career path?
And look at the reality: plenty of people who went through the standard, bureaucratic school system still end up unemployed and relying on welfare.🤷

EDIT: goldencobra5 - just realized I might have sounded a bit aggressive there, my bad if I gave off that vibe—I just like to spice things up a bit during a debate 🙂 nothing intended as a personal shot at your take (that would be totally illiberal 🙂 )

coastalorca11 said:Could you actually walk me through how you’d organize a society where everyone enjoys absolute freedom?

First off, we’d need to free up "minimal social goods" for everyone—basically food, energy, and housing. We're talking about removing the financial barrier to accessing those core essentials. This could happen either through full automation of the entire production cycle or, more realistically, by providing a social minimum that covers a decent standard of living.
Once that's settled, it opens the floodgates for true societal liberalization. Think about it: someone who isn't struggling just to survive is way less of a threat to social stability than someone living in constant economic precarity. From there, we could redesign how we live. Take housing, for example: instead of needing a massive apartment with a kitchen and a living room, your home could just be a private space for sleeping and hygiene, while everything else—dining, working, hanging out—happens in public restaurants, "cyber cafes," or via great public transit. It puts socialization front and center. People would probably develop a much stronger sense of social responsibility; you'd lose that old-school, isolated "me against the world" mentality where people just hoard everything behind their own fences.
When everyone is socially secure and responsible, and when material goods are handled liberally, you don't have to worry about what people are doing in their private time. You wouldn't feel the need to intervene unless someone is directly hurting others... whether they're using drugs or whatever else, that's their business.

goldencobra5 said:How safe can we really be that someone who embraces drug use as a way of life won't influence others toward that same path, whether they intend to or not?
The moment you post something like this on a forum, you are already exerting an affirmative influence on others regarding drug consumption.
I grew up in a neighborhood where drugs were a massive plague—it was the kind of place where even the local gang was notorious throughout the entire United States. I haven't met a single user who wasn't actively preaching the lifestyle to those around them. In fact, they would get quite vocal and complain whenever I tried to advocate for common sense and thinking twice before taking such a step.

how do you justify mandatory education, where certain subjects are treated as absolute facts and forced upon everyone?

That's fine. Personally, I believe people shouldn't be forced to get an education, but if they choose not to, then the government shouldn't have to pick up the tab for their social welfare. If they can't find employment because they lack skills, they'll just end up sitting at a dive bar, nursing a beer, and "contemplating life."
People with less education—specifically those who dropped out during middle school or rushed straight into "adult life" far too early—often find themselves stuck in dead-end jobs, manual labor, or worse, sliding into crime. The state simply doesn't want a high crime rate. That is why they push to fund education.

I find myself nodding along, at least when it comes to the vast majority of substances out there. But let’s look at DMT for a second; does anyone honestly think someone would adopt DMT as a permanent "way of life," much less try to recruit others into the fold? It isn't even addictive in the traditional sense, and since it's strictly illegal under federal law anyway, one has to wonder: in what actual way does an individual consuming DMT pose any sort of threat to the fabric of American society? 🤷

quieteagle16 said:Hold on, I'm not quite following your angle here. Are you saying people should be banned from expressing a lifestyle just because it doesn't align with yours? Calling drugs a "plague in the neighborhood" clearly shows your take on the subject—even though I personally agree that long-term drug use is a bad idea—but does that mean we should restrict their behavior? Maybe even limit free speech? You might think you're right, but you don't have the right to force others to fit into your specific worldview based on your beliefs. You absolutely have the right to share your views and promote your perspective (which you mentioned earlier), but it’s up to them whether they choose to listen or not—just like you can choose whether or not to listen to their "drug promotion"...
Now, you'll probably try to bring up peer pressure or something similar, but honestly, that comes down to the individual—the ability of a person to separate themselves from their surroundings. It's true that kids and teenagers shouldn't be allowed to use drugs because they realistically aren't capable of making those kinds of judgments (meaning it's morally justified to protect them until they gain some level of maturity), but you can't coddle adults and treat them like children—even (get this) when their views don't match 🙂

I think you slightly missed the point I was trying to make regarding mandatory education. What I meant by a more liberal approach to schooling is allowing adults (who are actually capable of working) to specialize in a niche field. That’s way more efficient than forcing a rigid curriculum on kids who have no clue what's ahead of them or what they want from life. Why shouldn't these "kids" be allowed to play around and discover their natural talents or inclinations through hands-on experience before committing to a career path?
And look at the reality: plenty of people who went through the standard, bureaucratic school system still end up unemployed and relying on welfare.🤷

EDIT: goldencobra5 - just realized I might have sounded a bit aggressive there, my bad if I gave off that vibe—I just like to spice things up a bit during a debate 🙂 nothing intended as a personal shot at your take (that would be totally illiberal 🙂 )

First off, we’d need to free up "minimal social goods" for everyone—basically food, energy, and housing. We're talking about removing the financial barrier to accessing those core essentials. This could happen either through full automation of the entire production cycle or, more realistically, by providing a social minimum that covers a decent standard of living.
Once that's settled, it opens the floodgates for true societal liberalization. Think about it: someone who isn't struggling just to survive is way less of a threat to social stability than someone living in constant economic precarity. From there, we could redesign how we live. Take housing, for example: instead of needing a massive apartment with a kitchen and a living room, your home could just be a private space for sleeping and hygiene, while everything else—dining, working, hanging out—happens in public restaurants, "cyber cafes," or via great public transit. It puts socialization front and center. People would probably develop a much stronger sense of social responsibility; you'd lose that old-school, isolated "me against the world" mentality where people just hoard everything behind their own fences.
When everyone is socially secure and responsible, and when material goods are handled liberally, you don't have to worry about what people are doing in their private time. You wouldn't feel the need to intervene unless someone is directly hurting others... whether they're using drugs or whatever else, that's their business.

The concept of creating a more socially equitable society has popped up countless times throughout history—communism, socialism, the "third way"... Nowadays, the closest we've seen to that ideal are the Nordic countries.
So, what actually happens when the government tries to fix the distribution of income and wealth?

"freeing up minimal goods" — The issue here is that there is no such thing as a free lunch; everything you give to one person, you've essentially taken from someone else. How do you achieve true fairness if, say, an individual built their own wealth from scratch? Unfortunately, the reality is that people tend to work harder when there's a direct incentive to earn more. If you remove that, you'll almost certainly see a decline in economic activity, which can end up hurting society as a whole.

Then you run into the moral hazard problem. There will always be people looking to game the system to avoid working entirely, content to live off whatever crumbs they're handed. If those crumbs get bigger, you'll just end up with a larger number of people doing exactly that. Once again, you're left with a dead weight on the shoulders of those actually producing value, and the collective output of society ends up shrinking...

Oh, I should probably point out that while you keep calling your system "liberal," you’re actually pushing for a much heavier government hand that would step in to redistribute resources instead of letting the free market handle things.

And it also just hit me that a huge chunk of this inequality stems from stuff completely out of people's control—things like gender, where they happen to live, their health, or what kind of education they can access...

quieteagle16 said:Here’s my take on this—from a purely practical standpoint. I feel like if an action doesn't directly jeopardize someone else's freedom or safety, society shouldn't have the right to condemn it. Yet, I keep seeing these constant crackdowns on individual liberties just to satisfy certain socially accepted dogmas—think mandatory schooling requirements, drug laws, religious finger-wagging... It feels like there are only a handful of instances where someone isn't actually infringing on anyone else's rights, yet we still force our views on them. We're living in the 21st century, for crying out loud. Even physicists—who used to be hardcore determinists—have embraced the idea of statistical probability (that gray area between black and white) rather than clinging to absolute certainty. Relativity has been part of the conversation for ages, stretching from Galileo all the way to Einstein 😁. But when it comes to morality, we’re still acting like we can dictate 100% absolute values and force those mandates onto minorities.

How do you guys even justify stuff like this? I honestly don't get how anyone can defend banning the mere possession of drugs (or using them in your own home, where the risk to anyone else is basically zero). Or how you justify mandatory education, where the state decides certain things are absolute facts and forces them down everyone's throats. Wouldn't it make way more sense to leave education up to the people, so anyone who wants to learn something—regardless of their age—can just dive into the subjects offered? It blows my mind that people are so bothered by someone using "illegal substances" in private, or that simply carrying them on a street in the US could land someone in a jail cell. Since when did we decide that prison is the answer to social infractions? I agree that people who are genuinely dangerous to the public should be separated from society, but it should be about rehabilitation and reintegration, not just punishment. And setting a fixed timer on that process just seems totally nonsensical
. How can any of this be justified in what we call a "liberal" society?

Look at it this way: someone using drugs in their own home eventually has to step out into the public sphere just to acquire them. If they want to get high, frankly, I couldn't care less, but drugs are expensive; the money has to come from somewhere, and unless you're part of the ultra-wealthy elite whose daddy always picks up the tab, it leads to crime—any kind of robbery or assault to get the cash—and once that happens, aren't others being endangered? Why would someone mug me and take my credit card or $67, when I don't even carry those things around anymore? Furthermore, regarding imprisonment: that is an unthinkable category for me, and I would do everything in my power to avoid it. To be clear, it isn't claustrophobia (it's acrophobia), but I would rather face death than have my freedom stripped away. Certain social norms must exist for a society to function. There is no such thing as "reintegration" or "re-education"—I admit that, even if we are approaching this from different angles—nor is there a fixed process or deadline for, say, dangerous individuals. No one is going to "cure" a pedophile or a schizophrenic (though that would be a whole new debate). People criticize me for being too liberal, but if there are no boundaries in the sense you're suggesting, then fine, man—I don't smoke inside so I don't poison the kids, but I might run into a neighbor right outside my front door, exchange a quick hello, and suddenly I'm being judged because the smell might bother a baby. I remember him when he was an infant, so I respect the father. Now, I’m heading out for coffee with two non-smokers at an outdoor cafe, and we'll be careful about where we sit so the smoke doesn't drift toward their "sensitive" noses that I'm so eager to see! There is no goldencobra5 here; rules must be respected, though it feels to me like laws in this country mostly exist to be broken. Best regards!

coastalorca11 said:The concept of creating a more socially equitable society has popped up countless times throughout history—communism, socialism, the "third way"... Nowadays, the closest we've seen to that ideal are the Nordic countries.
So, what actually happens when the government tries to fix the distribution of income and wealth?

"freeing up minimal goods" — The issue here is that there is no such thing as a free lunch; everything you give to one person, you've essentially taken from someone else. How do you achieve true fairness if, say, an individual built their own wealth from scratch? Unfortunately, the reality is that people tend to work harder when there's a direct incentive to earn more. If you remove that, you'll almost certainly see a decline in economic activity, which can end up hurting society as a whole.

Then you run into the moral hazard problem. There will always be people looking to game the system to avoid working entirely, content to live off whatever crumbs they're handed. If those crumbs get bigger, you'll just end up with a larger number of people doing exactly that. Once again, you're left with a dead weight on the shoulders of those actually producing value, and the collective output of society ends up shrinking...

Look, just being honest here—and I don't mean this to be rude—but I think that perspective is a little narrow-minded.
We can see for ourselves that fewer and fewer people are working in manufacturing, and agricultural employment has dropped to such tiny levels it's almost unbelievable. I work in IT, so I’m pretty well-acquainted with how automation works. We're getting closer and closer to being able to automate these processes entirely—humanity has been trying to reduce manual labor since the beginning of time, and we're nearly at the point where we can eliminate it altogether. It's just a matter of time...
And once that happens, the "free lunch" dilemma becomes much clearer from a moral standpoint: why would anyone bother working for food when nobody *has* to work to produce it? Our current system is stretched so thin, and it creates these artificial jobs—I've seen plenty of examples during short stints at various companies (especially within big government agencies or their spin-offs)—just to keep people employed. Eventually, that bubble is going to burst...

coastalorca11 said:The concept of creating a more socially equitable society has popped up countless times throughout history—communism, socialism, the "third way"... Nowadays, the closest we've seen to that ideal are the Nordic countries.
So, what actually happens when the government tries to fix the distribution of income and wealth?

"freeing up minimal goods" — The issue here is that there is no such thing as a free lunch; everything you give to one person, you've essentially taken from someone else. How do you achieve true fairness if, say, an individual built their own wealth from scratch? Unfortunately, the reality is that people tend to work harder when there's a direct incentive to earn more. If you remove that, you'll almost certainly see a decline in economic activity, which can end up hurting society as a whole.

Then you run into the moral hazard problem. There will always be people looking to game the system to avoid working entirely, content to live off whatever crumbs they're handed. If those crumbs get bigger, you'll just end up with a larger number of people doing exactly that. Once again, you're left with a dead weight on the shoulders of those actually producing value, and the collective output of society ends up shrinking...

Sorry, but... if you take a look at today's "free" market, it’s anything but free.

• With the massive influence of giant corporations, it’s nearly impossible to launch a serious startup (especially in tech), because as soon as you hit a milestone, a mega-corp just buys you out and that's that. If your innovation doesn't fit neatly into their corporate mold, you can bet it won't last long.
• The way marketing manipulates consumers in this "free market" is so blatant you can't just ignore it. Basically, whoever has the better ad campaign wins, which leads to the absurdity of people judging quality based on commercials rather than actual substance—which is exactly what the "ideal" free market is supposed to prevent. And don't even get me started on how they brainwash kids with those same ads; there’s absolutely no protection for them.
• ... There's more to it, but I think my point is clear. 🙂

Ideally—in the kind of system I’d love to see—since automation will eventually take over most standard jobs, nobody should realistically *have* to work, at least not just to secure a basic standard of living. You'd have a social floor, and then people could just spend their days doing whatever they feel like.
Look, people who actually want to work would be genuinely motivated by this—personally, if I didn't have a way to build things and stay creative, I’d honestly lose my mind, regardless of how much money was in the bank. But for this to work, we’d need a massive shift in our core values, which would probably end up driving crime rates even lower anyway. Plus, a new value system should encourage people to take on those less "glamorous" jobs. It’s pretty simple: once you realize you’re living off society and are an integral part of the community, it shouldn't feel illogical to give something back through hard work...

The issue with past attempts at these kinds of systems, in my opinion, is that they tried to force a new set of values onto a very specific, limited group of people. The main goal was usually just to elevate certain individuals—creating a cult of personality 😁—and they tried to push the whole "social safety net" political agenda way too early. Back then, the working class was still the dominant force in the country, so there was a clear demand for it, unlike the constant decline we see today. Even now, a system like this wouldn't fly immediately, but maybe in 20 years? If we don't kill each other over energy prices first, we might eventually move toward that Nordic model... Whatever happens, most people definitely wouldn't swallow this system right away, but given enough time... :?

By the way, we have incredibly sophisticated ways of predicting market needs today—the kind of stuff big Wall Street investors use—which could easily be leveraged to let the "invisible hand" of the government redistribute resources effectively.

@Brandon Moore20
Regarding the point about lacking rehabilitation and reintegration—well, tell me, what's even the point of prison then? If a predator walks out of jail exactly the same way they walked in, why bother locking them up at all? At that point, you might as well just line them up against a wall and pull the trigger (maybe even send the families a bill for the ammo 🙂)?
Reintegration absolutely needs to happen within the prison system (so feel free to keep being terrified of that idea), but there shouldn't be a fixed sentence for release. Instead, we should have experts determining whether someone is actually fit to rejoin society, along with specialists working directly with inmates on their reentry process. I know a few people who’ve been behind bars (for drug issues, coincidentally 🙂), and they aren't bad people at heart; it's just that their value system and worldview are clearly different from the rest of us. I really don't think re-education is an impossible task
.
One thing I still don't get is—would we actually go out and kill each other if nobody was standing over us telling us not to? If the answer is yes, then we haven't actually come that far yet...

quieteagle16 said:Look, just being honest here—and I don't mean this to be rude—but I think that perspective is a little narrow-minded.
We can see for ourselves that fewer and fewer people are working in manufacturing, and agricultural employment has dropped to such tiny levels it's almost unbelievable. I work in IT, so I’m pretty well-acquainted with how automation works. We're getting closer and closer to being able to automate these processes entirely—humanity has been trying to reduce manual labor since the beginning of time, and we're nearly at the point where we can eliminate it altogether. It's just a matter of time...
And once that happens, the "free lunch" dilemma becomes much clearer from a moral standpoint: why would anyone bother working for food when nobody *has* to work to produce it? Our current system is stretched so thin, and it creates these artificial jobs—I've seen plenty of examples during short stints at various companies (especially within big government agencies or their spin-offs)—just to keep people employed. Eventually, that bubble is going to burst...

Sorry, but... if you take a look at today's "free" market, it’s anything but free.

• With the massive influence of giant corporations, it’s nearly impossible to launch a serious startup (especially in tech), because as soon as you hit a milestone, a mega-corp just buys you out and that's that. If your innovation doesn't fit neatly into their corporate mold, you can bet it won't last long.
• The way marketing manipulates consumers in this "free market" is so blatant you can't just ignore it. Basically, whoever has the better ad campaign wins, which leads to the absurdity of people judging quality based on commercials rather than actual substance—which is exactly what the "ideal" free market is supposed to prevent. And don't even get me started on how they brainwash kids with those same ads; there’s absolutely no protection for them.
• ... There's more to it, but I think my point is clear. 🙂

Ideally—in the kind of system I’d love to see—since automation will eventually take over most standard jobs, nobody should realistically *have* to work, at least not just to secure a basic standard of living. You'd have a social floor, and then people could just spend their days doing whatever they feel like.
Look, people who actually want to work would be genuinely motivated by this—personally, if I didn't have a way to build things and stay creative, I’d honestly lose my mind, regardless of how much money was in the bank. But for this to work, we’d need a massive shift in our core values, which would probably end up driving crime rates even lower anyway. Plus, a new value system should encourage people to take on those less "glamorous" jobs. It’s pretty simple: once you realize you’re living off society and are an integral part of the community, it shouldn't feel illogical to give something back through hard work...

The issue with past attempts at these kinds of systems, in my opinion, is that they tried to force a new set of values onto a very specific, limited group of people. The main goal was usually just to elevate certain individuals—creating a cult of personality 😁—and they tried to push the whole "social safety net" political agenda way too early. Back then, the working class was still the dominant force in the country, so there was a clear demand for it, unlike the constant decline we see today. Even now, a system like this wouldn't fly immediately, but maybe in 20 years? If we don't kill each other over energy prices first, we might eventually move toward that Nordic model... Whatever happens, most people definitely wouldn't swallow this system right away, but given enough time... :?

By the way, we have incredibly sophisticated ways of predicting market needs today—the kind of stuff big Wall Street investors use—which could easily be leveraged to let the "invisible hand" of the government redistribute resources effectively.

@Brandon Moore20
Regarding the point about lacking rehabilitation and reintegration—well, tell me, what's even the point of prison then? If a predator walks out of jail exactly the same way they walked in, why bother locking them up at all? At that point, you might as well just line them up against a wall and pull the trigger (maybe even send the families a bill for the ammo 🙂)?
Reintegration absolutely needs to happen within the prison system (so feel free to keep being terrified of that idea), but there shouldn't be a fixed sentence for release. Instead, we should have experts determining whether someone is actually fit to rejoin society, along with specialists working directly with inmates on their reentry process. I know a few people who’ve been behind bars (for drug issues, coincidentally 🙂), and they aren't bad people at heart; it's just that their value system and worldview are clearly different from the rest of us. I really don't think re-education is an impossible task
.
One thing I still don't get is—would we actually go out and kill each other if nobody was standing over us telling us not to? If the answer is yes, then we haven't actually come that far yet...

I was just pointing out some of those standard, nagging questions that inevitably pop up when you're designing a system like this. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds, I know, but I think it's worth looking at whether anyone has actually tried to tackle these specific hurdles before. Can anyone here actually prove that these issues have already been addressed, or are we just spinning our wheels on problems that haven't truly been solved yet?

quieteagle16 said:Look, just being honest here—and I don't mean this to be rude—but I think that perspective is a little narrow-minded.
We can see for ourselves that fewer and fewer people are working in manufacturing, and agricultural employment has dropped to such tiny levels it's almost unbelievable. I work in IT, so I’m pretty well-acquainted with how automation works. We're getting closer and closer to being able to automate these processes entirely—humanity has been trying to reduce manual labor since the beginning of time, and we're nearly at the point where we can eliminate it altogether. It's just a matter of time...
And once that happens, the "free lunch" dilemma becomes much clearer from a moral standpoint: why would anyone bother working for food when nobody *has* to work to produce it? Our current system is stretched so thin, and it creates these artificial jobs—I've seen plenty of examples during short stints at various companies (especially within big government agencies or their spin-offs)—just to keep people employed. Eventually, that bubble is going to burst...

Sorry, but... if you take a look at today's "free" market, it’s anything but free.

• With the massive influence of giant corporations, it’s nearly impossible to launch a serious startup (especially in tech), because as soon as you hit a milestone, a mega-corp just buys you out and that's that. If your innovation doesn't fit neatly into their corporate mold, you can bet it won't last long.
• The way marketing manipulates consumers in this "free market" is so blatant you can't just ignore it. Basically, whoever has the better ad campaign wins, which leads to the absurdity of people judging quality based on commercials rather than actual substance—which is exactly what the "ideal" free market is supposed to prevent. And don't even get me started on how they brainwash kids with those same ads; there’s absolutely no protection for them.
• ... There's more to it, but I think my point is clear. 🙂

Ideally—in the kind of system I’d love to see—since automation will eventually take over most standard jobs, nobody should realistically *have* to work, at least not just to secure a basic standard of living. You'd have a social floor, and then people could just spend their days doing whatever they feel like.
Look, people who actually want to work would be genuinely motivated by this—personally, if I didn't have a way to build things and stay creative, I’d honestly lose my mind, regardless of how much money was in the bank. But for this to work, we’d need a massive shift in our core values, which would probably end up driving crime rates even lower anyway. Plus, a new value system should encourage people to take on those less "glamorous" jobs. It’s pretty simple: once you realize you’re living off society and are an integral part of the community, it shouldn't feel illogical to give something back through hard work...

The issue with past attempts at these kinds of systems, in my opinion, is that they tried to force a new set of values onto a very specific, limited group of people. The main goal was usually just to elevate certain individuals—creating a cult of personality 😁—and they tried to push the whole "social safety net" political agenda way too early. Back then, the working class was still the dominant force in the country, so there was a clear demand for it, unlike the constant decline we see today. Even now, a system like this wouldn't fly immediately, but maybe in 20 years? If we don't kill each other over energy prices first, we might eventually move toward that Nordic model... Whatever happens, most people definitely wouldn't swallow this system right away, but given enough time... :?

By the way, we have incredibly sophisticated ways of predicting market needs today—the kind of stuff big Wall Street investors use—which could easily be leveraged to let the "invisible hand" of the government redistribute resources effectively.

@Brandon Moore20
Regarding the point about lacking rehabilitation and reintegration—well, tell me, what's even the point of prison then? If a predator walks out of jail exactly the same way they walked in, why bother locking them up at all? At that point, you might as well just line them up against a wall and pull the trigger (maybe even send the families a bill for the ammo 🙂)?
Reintegration absolutely needs to happen within the prison system (so feel free to keep being terrified of that idea), but there shouldn't be a fixed sentence for release. Instead, we should have experts determining whether someone is actually fit to rejoin society, along with specialists working directly with inmates on their reentry process. I know a few people who’ve been behind bars (for drug issues, coincidentally 🙂), and they aren't bad people at heart; it's just that their value system and worldview are clearly different from the rest of us. I really don't think re-education is an impossible task
.
One thing I still don't get is—would we actually go out and kill each other if nobody was standing over us telling us not to? If the answer is yes, then we haven't actually come that far yet...

I mean, I really do find myself hoping that total automation will one day take over all that grueling, back-breaking physical labor we deal with, though honestly, until then, it feels like we're still firmly stuck in the realm of science fiction.

quieteagle16 said:Look, just being honest here—and I don't mean this to be rude—but I think that perspective is a little narrow-minded.
We can see for ourselves that fewer and fewer people are working in manufacturing, and agricultural employment has dropped to such tiny levels it's almost unbelievable. I work in IT, so I’m pretty well-acquainted with how automation works. We're getting closer and closer to being able to automate these processes entirely—humanity has been trying to reduce manual labor since the beginning of time, and we're nearly at the point where we can eliminate it altogether. It's just a matter of time...
And once that happens, the "free lunch" dilemma becomes much clearer from a moral standpoint: why would anyone bother working for food when nobody *has* to work to produce it? Our current system is stretched so thin, and it creates these artificial jobs—I've seen plenty of examples during short stints at various companies (especially within big government agencies or their spin-offs)—just to keep people employed. Eventually, that bubble is going to burst...

Sorry, but... if you take a look at today's "free" market, it’s anything but free.

• With the massive influence of giant corporations, it’s nearly impossible to launch a serious startup (especially in tech), because as soon as you hit a milestone, a mega-corp just buys you out and that's that. If your innovation doesn't fit neatly into their corporate mold, you can bet it won't last long.
• The way marketing manipulates consumers in this "free market" is so blatant you can't just ignore it. Basically, whoever has the better ad campaign wins, which leads to the absurdity of people judging quality based on commercials rather than actual substance—which is exactly what the "ideal" free market is supposed to prevent. And don't even get me started on how they brainwash kids with those same ads; there’s absolutely no protection for them.
• ... There's more to it, but I think my point is clear. 🙂

Ideally—in the kind of system I’d love to see—since automation will eventually take over most standard jobs, nobody should realistically *have* to work, at least not just to secure a basic standard of living. You'd have a social floor, and then people could just spend their days doing whatever they feel like.
Look, people who actually want to work would be genuinely motivated by this—personally, if I didn't have a way to build things and stay creative, I’d honestly lose my mind, regardless of how much money was in the bank. But for this to work, we’d need a massive shift in our core values, which would probably end up driving crime rates even lower anyway. Plus, a new value system should encourage people to take on those less "glamorous" jobs. It’s pretty simple: once you realize you’re living off society and are an integral part of the community, it shouldn't feel illogical to give something back through hard work...

The issue with past attempts at these kinds of systems, in my opinion, is that they tried to force a new set of values onto a very specific, limited group of people. The main goal was usually just to elevate certain individuals—creating a cult of personality 😁—and they tried to push the whole "social safety net" political agenda way too early. Back then, the working class was still the dominant force in the country, so there was a clear demand for it, unlike the constant decline we see today. Even now, a system like this wouldn't fly immediately, but maybe in 20 years? If we don't kill each other over energy prices first, we might eventually move toward that Nordic model... Whatever happens, most people definitely wouldn't swallow this system right away, but given enough time... :?

By the way, we have incredibly sophisticated ways of predicting market needs today—the kind of stuff big Wall Street investors use—which could easily be leveraged to let the "invisible hand" of the government redistribute resources effectively.

@Brandon Moore20
Regarding the point about lacking rehabilitation and reintegration—well, tell me, what's even the point of prison then? If a predator walks out of jail exactly the same way they walked in, why bother locking them up at all? At that point, you might as well just line them up against a wall and pull the trigger (maybe even send the families a bill for the ammo 🙂)?
Reintegration absolutely needs to happen within the prison system (so feel free to keep being terrified of that idea), but there shouldn't be a fixed sentence for release. Instead, we should have experts determining whether someone is actually fit to rejoin society, along with specialists working directly with inmates on their reentry process. I know a few people who’ve been behind bars (for drug issues, coincidentally 🙂), and they aren't bad people at heart; it's just that their value system and worldview are clearly different from the rest of us. I really don't think re-education is an impossible task
.
One thing I still don't get is—would we actually go out and kill each other if nobody was standing over us telling us not to? If the answer is yes, then we haven't actually come that far yet...

Did you actually hear me when I said today’s market was "free," or were you just not paying attention?

quieteagle16 said:Look, just being honest here—and I don't mean this to be rude—but I think that perspective is a little narrow-minded.
We can see for ourselves that fewer and fewer people are working in manufacturing, and agricultural employment has dropped to such tiny levels it's almost unbelievable. I work in IT, so I’m pretty well-acquainted with how automation works. We're getting closer and closer to being able to automate these processes entirely—humanity has been trying to reduce manual labor since the beginning of time, and we're nearly at the point where we can eliminate it altogether. It's just a matter of time...
And once that happens, the "free lunch" dilemma becomes much clearer from a moral standpoint: why would anyone bother working for food when nobody *has* to work to produce it? Our current system is stretched so thin, and it creates these artificial jobs—I've seen plenty of examples during short stints at various companies (especially within big government agencies or their spin-offs)—just to keep people employed. Eventually, that bubble is going to burst...

Sorry, but... if you take a look at today's "free" market, it’s anything but free.

• With the massive influence of giant corporations, it’s nearly impossible to launch a serious startup (especially in tech), because as soon as you hit a milestone, a mega-corp just buys you out and that's that. If your innovation doesn't fit neatly into their corporate mold, you can bet it won't last long.
• The way marketing manipulates consumers in this "free market" is so blatant you can't just ignore it. Basically, whoever has the better ad campaign wins, which leads to the absurdity of people judging quality based on commercials rather than actual substance—which is exactly what the "ideal" free market is supposed to prevent. And don't even get me started on how they brainwash kids with those same ads; there’s absolutely no protection for them.
• ... There's more to it, but I think my point is clear. 🙂

Ideally—in the kind of system I’d love to see—since automation will eventually take over most standard jobs, nobody should realistically *have* to work, at least not just to secure a basic standard of living. You'd have a social floor, and then people could just spend their days doing whatever they feel like.
Look, people who actually want to work would be genuinely motivated by this—personally, if I didn't have a way to build things and stay creative, I’d honestly lose my mind, regardless of how much money was in the bank. But for this to work, we’d need a massive shift in our core values, which would probably end up driving crime rates even lower anyway. Plus, a new value system should encourage people to take on those less "glamorous" jobs. It’s pretty simple: once you realize you’re living off society and are an integral part of the community, it shouldn't feel illogical to give something back through hard work...

The issue with past attempts at these kinds of systems, in my opinion, is that they tried to force a new set of values onto a very specific, limited group of people. The main goal was usually just to elevate certain individuals—creating a cult of personality 😁—and they tried to push the whole "social safety net" political agenda way too early. Back then, the working class was still the dominant force in the country, so there was a clear demand for it, unlike the constant decline we see today. Even now, a system like this wouldn't fly immediately, but maybe in 20 years? If we don't kill each other over energy prices first, we might eventually move toward that Nordic model... Whatever happens, most people definitely wouldn't swallow this system right away, but given enough time... :?

By the way, we have incredibly sophisticated ways of predicting market needs today—the kind of stuff big Wall Street investors use—which could easily be leveraged to let the "invisible hand" of the government redistribute resources effectively.

@Brandon Moore20
Regarding the point about lacking rehabilitation and reintegration—well, tell me, what's even the point of prison then? If a predator walks out of jail exactly the same way they walked in, why bother locking them up at all? At that point, you might as well just line them up against a wall and pull the trigger (maybe even send the families a bill for the ammo 🙂)?
Reintegration absolutely needs to happen within the prison system (so feel free to keep being terrified of that idea), but there shouldn't be a fixed sentence for release. Instead, we should have experts determining whether someone is actually fit to rejoin society, along with specialists working directly with inmates on their reentry process. I know a few people who’ve been behind bars (for drug issues, coincidentally 🙂), and they aren't bad people at heart; it's just that their value system and worldview are clearly different from the rest of us. I really don't think re-education is an impossible task
.
One thing I still don't get is—would we actually go out and kill each other if nobody was standing over us telling us not to? If the answer is yes, then we haven't actually come that far yet...

I really can't get behind that take—I mean, have you actually looked at how much Google has dominated everything lately? If things kept moving at this pace, you'd probably be arguing that they should just fold right into Microsoft by now.
How does a patented invention just... vanish? It doesn’t make sense. I mean, any halfway decent inventor out there is going to take their idea, file the paperwork, and get it patented. To even get that far, the device has to go through this grueling level of scrutiny where everything is picked apart, and once it finally passes—whether it actually works or if it's just some clever way of repackaging someone else's work—it gets officially recognized and published for the world to see. So, how does something that has gone through all that legal rigor just slip through the cracks?
The way I see it, he’s basically sitting there on full display for everyone to look at and put through the ringer if they feel like it.
Unless you're actually trying to argue that the massive tech giants have their hands all over the patent offices... but honestly, I really don't want to go down that rabbit hole of conspiracy theories or start talking about the "assassination" of scientists.

quieteagle16 said:Look, just being honest here—and I don't mean this to be rude—but I think that perspective is a little narrow-minded.
We can see for ourselves that fewer and fewer people are working in manufacturing, and agricultural employment has dropped to such tiny levels it's almost unbelievable. I work in IT, so I’m pretty well-acquainted with how automation works. We're getting closer and closer to being able to automate these processes entirely—humanity has been trying to reduce manual labor since the beginning of time, and we're nearly at the point where we can eliminate it altogether. It's just a matter of time...
And once that happens, the "free lunch" dilemma becomes much clearer from a moral standpoint: why would anyone bother working for food when nobody *has* to work to produce it? Our current system is stretched so thin, and it creates these artificial jobs—I've seen plenty of examples during short stints at various companies (especially within big government agencies or their spin-offs)—just to keep people employed. Eventually, that bubble is going to burst...

Sorry, but... if you take a look at today's "free" market, it’s anything but free.

• With the massive influence of giant corporations, it’s nearly impossible to launch a serious startup (especially in tech), because as soon as you hit a milestone, a mega-corp just buys you out and that's that. If your innovation doesn't fit neatly into their corporate mold, you can bet it won't last long.
• The way marketing manipulates consumers in this "free market" is so blatant you can't just ignore it. Basically, whoever has the better ad campaign wins, which leads to the absurdity of people judging quality based on commercials rather than actual substance—which is exactly what the "ideal" free market is supposed to prevent. And don't even get me started on how they brainwash kids with those same ads; there’s absolutely no protection for them.
• ... There's more to it, but I think my point is clear. 🙂

Ideally—in the kind of system I’d love to see—since automation will eventually take over most standard jobs, nobody should realistically *have* to work, at least not just to secure a basic standard of living. You'd have a social floor, and then people could just spend their days doing whatever they feel like.
Look, people who actually want to work would be genuinely motivated by this—personally, if I didn't have a way to build things and stay creative, I’d honestly lose my mind, regardless of how much money was in the bank. But for this to work, we’d need a massive shift in our core values, which would probably end up driving crime rates even lower anyway. Plus, a new value system should encourage people to take on those less "glamorous" jobs. It’s pretty simple: once you realize you’re living off society and are an integral part of the community, it shouldn't feel illogical to give something back through hard work...

The issue with past attempts at these kinds of systems, in my opinion, is that they tried to force a new set of values onto a very specific, limited group of people. The main goal was usually just to elevate certain individuals—creating a cult of personality 😁—and they tried to push the whole "social safety net" political agenda way too early. Back then, the working class was still the dominant force in the country, so there was a clear demand for it, unlike the constant decline we see today. Even now, a system like this wouldn't fly immediately, but maybe in 20 years? If we don't kill each other over energy prices first, we might eventually move toward that Nordic model... Whatever happens, most people definitely wouldn't swallow this system right away, but given enough time... :?

By the way, we have incredibly sophisticated ways of predicting market needs today—the kind of stuff big Wall Street investors use—which could easily be leveraged to let the "invisible hand" of the government redistribute resources effectively.

@Brandon Moore20
Regarding the point about lacking rehabilitation and reintegration—well, tell me, what's even the point of prison then? If a predator walks out of jail exactly the same way they walked in, why bother locking them up at all? At that point, you might as well just line them up against a wall and pull the trigger (maybe even send the families a bill for the ammo 🙂)?
Reintegration absolutely needs to happen within the prison system (so feel free to keep being terrified of that idea), but there shouldn't be a fixed sentence for release. Instead, we should have experts determining whether someone is actually fit to rejoin society, along with specialists working directly with inmates on their reentry process. I know a few people who’ve been behind bars (for drug issues, coincidentally 🙂), and they aren't bad people at heart; it's just that their value system and worldview are clearly different from the rest of us. I really don't think re-education is an impossible task
.
One thing I still don't get is—would we actually go out and kill each other if nobody was standing over us telling us not to? If the answer is yes, then we haven't actually come that far yet...

I'll give you that—promotions definitely try to manipulate people by peddling easy fixes.
But at the end of the day, I suppose it really comes down to a person's level of education or just their own common sense regarding how much they actually believe the hype, though you usually end up learning the hard way regardless.
Personally, I have a hunch that most people will eventually gravitate toward brands based on actual value provided rather than just falling for some silly storytelling...

quieteagle16 said:Look, just being honest here—and I don't mean this to be rude—but I think that perspective is a little narrow-minded.
We can see for ourselves that fewer and fewer people are working in manufacturing, and agricultural employment has dropped to such tiny levels it's almost unbelievable. I work in IT, so I’m pretty well-acquainted with how automation works. We're getting closer and closer to being able to automate these processes entirely—humanity has been trying to reduce manual labor since the beginning of time, and we're nearly at the point where we can eliminate it altogether. It's just a matter of time...
And once that happens, the "free lunch" dilemma becomes much clearer from a moral standpoint: why would anyone bother working for food when nobody *has* to work to produce it? Our current system is stretched so thin, and it creates these artificial jobs—I've seen plenty of examples during short stints at various companies (especially within big government agencies or their spin-offs)—just to keep people employed. Eventually, that bubble is going to burst...

Sorry, but... if you take a look at today's "free" market, it’s anything but free.

• With the massive influence of giant corporations, it’s nearly impossible to launch a serious startup (especially in tech), because as soon as you hit a milestone, a mega-corp just buys you out and that's that. If your innovation doesn't fit neatly into their corporate mold, you can bet it won't last long.
• The way marketing manipulates consumers in this "free market" is so blatant you can't just ignore it. Basically, whoever has the better ad campaign wins, which leads to the absurdity of people judging quality based on commercials rather than actual substance—which is exactly what the "ideal" free market is supposed to prevent. And don't even get me started on how they brainwash kids with those same ads; there’s absolutely no protection for them.
• ... There's more to it, but I think my point is clear. 🙂

Ideally—in the kind of system I’d love to see—since automation will eventually take over most standard jobs, nobody should realistically *have* to work, at least not just to secure a basic standard of living. You'd have a social floor, and then people could just spend their days doing whatever they feel like.
Look, people who actually want to work would be genuinely motivated by this—personally, if I didn't have a way to build things and stay creative, I’d honestly lose my mind, regardless of how much money was in the bank. But for this to work, we’d need a massive shift in our core values, which would probably end up driving crime rates even lower anyway. Plus, a new value system should encourage people to take on those less "glamorous" jobs. It’s pretty simple: once you realize you’re living off society and are an integral part of the community, it shouldn't feel illogical to give something back through hard work...

The issue with past attempts at these kinds of systems, in my opinion, is that they tried to force a new set of values onto a very specific, limited group of people. The main goal was usually just to elevate certain individuals—creating a cult of personality 😁—and they tried to push the whole "social safety net" political agenda way too early. Back then, the working class was still the dominant force in the country, so there was a clear demand for it, unlike the constant decline we see today. Even now, a system like this wouldn't fly immediately, but maybe in 20 years? If we don't kill each other over energy prices first, we might eventually move toward that Nordic model... Whatever happens, most people definitely wouldn't swallow this system right away, but given enough time... :?

By the way, we have incredibly sophisticated ways of predicting market needs today—the kind of stuff big Wall Street investors use—which could easily be leveraged to let the "invisible hand" of the government redistribute resources effectively.

@Brandon Moore20
Regarding the point about lacking rehabilitation and reintegration—well, tell me, what's even the point of prison then? If a predator walks out of jail exactly the same way they walked in, why bother locking them up at all? At that point, you might as well just line them up against a wall and pull the trigger (maybe even send the families a bill for the ammo 🙂)?
Reintegration absolutely needs to happen within the prison system (so feel free to keep being terrified of that idea), but there shouldn't be a fixed sentence for release. Instead, we should have experts determining whether someone is actually fit to rejoin society, along with specialists working directly with inmates on their reentry process. I know a few people who’ve been behind bars (for drug issues, coincidentally 🙂), and they aren't bad people at heart; it's just that their value system and worldview are clearly different from the rest of us. I really don't think re-education is an impossible task
.
One thing I still don't get is—would we actually go out and kill each other if nobody was standing over us telling us not to? If the answer is yes, then we haven't actually come that far yet...

That's essentially the utopian vision. Marx talked about this quite a bit. I always found his point particularly interesting—that people could pursue jobs they actually care about and move fluidly between different interests. He genuinely had some brilliant ideas, but look at how they've twisted them into something else entirely...

quieteagle16 said:Look, just being honest here—and I don't mean this to be rude—but I think that perspective is a little narrow-minded.
We can see for ourselves that fewer and fewer people are working in manufacturing, and agricultural employment has dropped to such tiny levels it's almost unbelievable. I work in IT, so I’m pretty well-acquainted with how automation works. We're getting closer and closer to being able to automate these processes entirely—humanity has been trying to reduce manual labor since the beginning of time, and we're nearly at the point where we can eliminate it altogether. It's just a matter of time...
And once that happens, the "free lunch" dilemma becomes much clearer from a moral standpoint: why would anyone bother working for food when nobody *has* to work to produce it? Our current system is stretched so thin, and it creates these artificial jobs—I've seen plenty of examples during short stints at various companies (especially within big government agencies or their spin-offs)—just to keep people employed. Eventually, that bubble is going to burst...

Sorry, but... if you take a look at today's "free" market, it’s anything but free.

• With the massive influence of giant corporations, it’s nearly impossible to launch a serious startup (especially in tech), because as soon as you hit a milestone, a mega-corp just buys you out and that's that. If your innovation doesn't fit neatly into their corporate mold, you can bet it won't last long.
• The way marketing manipulates consumers in this "free market" is so blatant you can't just ignore it. Basically, whoever has the better ad campaign wins, which leads to the absurdity of people judging quality based on commercials rather than actual substance—which is exactly what the "ideal" free market is supposed to prevent. And don't even get me started on how they brainwash kids with those same ads; there’s absolutely no protection for them.
• ... There's more to it, but I think my point is clear. 🙂

Ideally—in the kind of system I’d love to see—since automation will eventually take over most standard jobs, nobody should realistically *have* to work, at least not just to secure a basic standard of living. You'd have a social floor, and then people could just spend their days doing whatever they feel like.
Look, people who actually want to work would be genuinely motivated by this—personally, if I didn't have a way to build things and stay creative, I’d honestly lose my mind, regardless of how much money was in the bank. But for this to work, we’d need a massive shift in our core values, which would probably end up driving crime rates even lower anyway. Plus, a new value system should encourage people to take on those less "glamorous" jobs. It’s pretty simple: once you realize you’re living off society and are an integral part of the community, it shouldn't feel illogical to give something back through hard work...

The issue with past attempts at these kinds of systems, in my opinion, is that they tried to force a new set of values onto a very specific, limited group of people. The main goal was usually just to elevate certain individuals—creating a cult of personality 😁—and they tried to push the whole "social safety net" political agenda way too early. Back then, the working class was still the dominant force in the country, so there was a clear demand for it, unlike the constant decline we see today. Even now, a system like this wouldn't fly immediately, but maybe in 20 years? If we don't kill each other over energy prices first, we might eventually move toward that Nordic model... Whatever happens, most people definitely wouldn't swallow this system right away, but given enough time... :?

By the way, we have incredibly sophisticated ways of predicting market needs today—the kind of stuff big Wall Street investors use—which could easily be leveraged to let the "invisible hand" of the government redistribute resources effectively.

@Brandon Moore20
Regarding the point about lacking rehabilitation and reintegration—well, tell me, what's even the point of prison then? If a predator walks out of jail exactly the same way they walked in, why bother locking them up at all? At that point, you might as well just line them up against a wall and pull the trigger (maybe even send the families a bill for the ammo 🙂)?
Reintegration absolutely needs to happen within the prison system (so feel free to keep being terrified of that idea), but there shouldn't be a fixed sentence for release. Instead, we should have experts determining whether someone is actually fit to rejoin society, along with specialists working directly with inmates on their reentry process. I know a few people who’ve been behind bars (for drug issues, coincidentally 🙂), and they aren't bad people at heart; it's just that their value system and worldview are clearly different from the rest of us. I really don't think re-education is an impossible task
.
One thing I still don't get is—would we actually go out and kill each other if nobody was standing over us telling us not to? If the answer is yes, then we haven't actually come that far yet...

That sounds great on paper, but I think you might be being a little too optimistic about human nature and morality. How else do you explain the mess we're currently living in? And you're still completely ignoring the whole issue of racial, gender, and other deep-seated prejudices that are just baked into being human.

I'm starting to wonder if this topic even belongs in this thread anymore...

coastalorca11 said:I was just pointing out some of those standard, nagging questions that inevitably pop up when you're designing a system like this. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds, I know, but I think it's worth looking at whether anyone has actually tried to tackle these specific hurdles before. Can anyone here actually prove that these issues have already been addressed, or are we just spinning our wheels on problems that haven't truly been solved yet?

I mean, I really do find myself hoping that total automation will one day take over all that grueling, back-breaking physical labor we deal with, though honestly, until then, it feels like we're still firmly stuck in the realm of science fiction.

Did you actually hear me when I said today’s market was "free," or were you just not paying attention?

I really can't get behind that take—I mean, have you actually looked at how much Google has dominated everything lately? If things kept moving at this pace, you'd probably be arguing that they should just fold right into Microsoft by now.
How does a patented invention just... vanish? It doesn’t make sense. I mean, any halfway decent inventor out there is going to take their idea, file the paperwork, and get it patented. To even get that far, the device has to go through this grueling level of scrutiny where everything is picked apart, and once it finally passes—whether it actually works or if it's just some clever way of repackaging someone else's work—it gets officially recognized and published for the world to see. So, how does something that has gone through all that legal rigor just slip through the cracks?
The way I see it, he’s basically sitting there on full display for everyone to look at and put through the ringer if they feel like it.
Unless you're actually trying to argue that the massive tech giants have their hands all over the patent offices... but honestly, I really don't want to go down that rabbit hole of conspiracy theories or start talking about the "assassination" of scientists.

I'll give you that—promotions definitely try to manipulate people by peddling easy fixes.
But at the end of the day, I suppose it really comes down to a person's level of education or just their own common sense regarding how much they actually believe the hype, though you usually end up learning the hard way regardless.
Personally, I have a hunch that most people will eventually gravitate toward brands based on actual value provided rather than just falling for some silly storytelling...

That's essentially the utopian vision. Marx talked about this quite a bit. I always found his point particularly interesting—that people could pursue jobs they actually care about and move fluidly between different interests. He genuinely had some brilliant ideas, but look at how they've twisted them into something else entirely...

That sounds great on paper, but I think you might be being a little too optimistic about human nature and morality. How else do you explain the mess we're currently living in? And you're still completely ignoring the whole issue of racial, gender, and other deep-seated prejudices that are just baked into being human.

I'm starting to wonder if this topic even belongs in this thread anymore...

Man, I just love the "Google argument." 😁
The reason Googlet is such a phenomenon is because it hit a very specific window of opportunity (do a little Googlet search on the topic if you're curious 🙂 ) and nailed it. But under the rules of the free market, you might think you could build an internet service that offers some groundbreaking new feature and keep it all to yourself—but that's just not how it works. Look at what happened with Yahoo—Microsoft and Googlet both moved in to grab pieces of it just to solidify their monopolies. Look at YouTube, or Blogger (Googlet bought them 🙂). Now Googlet basically has a monopoly on internet marketing (which Microsoft is desperately trying to counter by eyeing up Yahoo). The bottom line is that this is a game played by the "big boys," and small entrepreneurs are mostly just left to pick up the crumbs...
I find conspiracy theories pretty silly too, but there is one fundamental principle the industry operates on: if something threatens the future of your product, you neutralize it (by any means necessary). The first move is often buying up patents—sometimes under duress, which isn't just physical pressure, but attacks on reputation and status—and then comes the discrediting of research and endless lawsuits... You wouldn't believe how many trivial, basic patents Microsoft owns (patents that cover things used every single day, like XML) -
just imagine what would happen if someone made a move that actually threatened them:?

Marketing has this massive subconscious pull on people that's almost impossible to resist consciously, especially with kids. Just think about how many food commercials pop up during a single TV show, and how much that makes you crave a snack (and so on)...

Regarding the sci-fi stuff—think about it—if NASA can send a robot to Mars that navigates itself, imagine how much effort it would take to write a program that drives a tractor through a field automatically 🙂? Why hasn't it happened yet? Simply because, right now, it costs more than just having a farmer drive the thing. But technology isn't stagnant; it evolves fast and prices drop constantly. It's really just a matter of time before those things become "practical" by capitalist standards.
As for Marx—well, manual labor jobs have basically already vanished—it's pretty obvious at this point. There's already a tool for just about everything; we're just in the process of moving those machines toward full automation. You can see exactly where we're headed...

coastalorca11 said:I was just pointing out some of those standard, nagging questions that inevitably pop up when you're designing a system like this. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds, I know, but I think it's worth looking at whether anyone has actually tried to tackle these specific hurdles before. Can anyone here actually prove that these issues have already been addressed, or are we just spinning our wheels on problems that haven't truly been solved yet?

I mean, I really do find myself hoping that total automation will one day take over all that grueling, back-breaking physical labor we deal with, though honestly, until then, it feels like we're still firmly stuck in the realm of science fiction.

Did you actually hear me when I said today’s market was "free," or were you just not paying attention?

I really can't get behind that take—I mean, have you actually looked at how much Google has dominated everything lately? If things kept moving at this pace, you'd probably be arguing that they should just fold right into Microsoft by now.
How does a patented invention just... vanish? It doesn’t make sense. I mean, any halfway decent inventor out there is going to take their idea, file the paperwork, and get it patented. To even get that far, the device has to go through this grueling level of scrutiny where everything is picked apart, and once it finally passes—whether it actually works or if it's just some clever way of repackaging someone else's work—it gets officially recognized and published for the world to see. So, how does something that has gone through all that legal rigor just slip through the cracks?
The way I see it, he’s basically sitting there on full display for everyone to look at and put through the ringer if they feel like it.
Unless you're actually trying to argue that the massive tech giants have their hands all over the patent offices... but honestly, I really don't want to go down that rabbit hole of conspiracy theories or start talking about the "assassination" of scientists.

I'll give you that—promotions definitely try to manipulate people by peddling easy fixes.
But at the end of the day, I suppose it really comes down to a person's level of education or just their own common sense regarding how much they actually believe the hype, though you usually end up learning the hard way regardless.
Personally, I have a hunch that most people will eventually gravitate toward brands based on actual value provided rather than just falling for some silly storytelling...

That's essentially the utopian vision. Marx talked about this quite a bit. I always found his point particularly interesting—that people could pursue jobs they actually care about and move fluidly between different interests. He genuinely had some brilliant ideas, but look at how they've twisted them into something else entirely...

That sounds great on paper, but I think you might be being a little too optimistic about human nature and morality. How else do you explain the mess we're currently living in? And you're still completely ignoring the whole issue of racial, gender, and other deep-seated prejudices that are just baked into being human.

I'm starting to wonder if this topic even belongs in this thread anymore...

Look, I’m not out here preaching some impossible utopia; I’m just touching on things that aren't quite so 👍
Is it really that naive to assume that if you give someone total freedom, they’ll be smart enough to realize that whatever they do to others will eventually loop back around to them? Even Jesus was making that point two thousand years ago—you don't need to be an Einstein to grasp that basic concept.🙂

As for prejudices, they’re part of everyone. They stem from individual reasoning, and whether those biases turn out to be right or wrong is something we'll just have to leave to natural selection to figure out. But in a functioning social system, there’s simply no room for that kind of stuff. That part seems pretty obvious to me.

coastalorca11 said:I was just pointing out some of those standard, nagging questions that inevitably pop up when you're designing a system like this. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds, I know, but I think it's worth looking at whether anyone has actually tried to tackle these specific hurdles before. Can anyone here actually prove that these issues have already been addressed, or are we just spinning our wheels on problems that haven't truly been solved yet?

I mean, I really do find myself hoping that total automation will one day take over all that grueling, back-breaking physical labor we deal with, though honestly, until then, it feels like we're still firmly stuck in the realm of science fiction.

Did you actually hear me when I said today’s market was "free," or were you just not paying attention?

I really can't get behind that take—I mean, have you actually looked at how much Google has dominated everything lately? If things kept moving at this pace, you'd probably be arguing that they should just fold right into Microsoft by now.
How does a patented invention just... vanish? It doesn’t make sense. I mean, any halfway decent inventor out there is going to take their idea, file the paperwork, and get it patented. To even get that far, the device has to go through this grueling level of scrutiny where everything is picked apart, and once it finally passes—whether it actually works or if it's just some clever way of repackaging someone else's work—it gets officially recognized and published for the world to see. So, how does something that has gone through all that legal rigor just slip through the cracks?
The way I see it, he’s basically sitting there on full display for everyone to look at and put through the ringer if they feel like it.
Unless you're actually trying to argue that the massive tech giants have their hands all over the patent offices... but honestly, I really don't want to go down that rabbit hole of conspiracy theories or start talking about the "assassination" of scientists.

I'll give you that—promotions definitely try to manipulate people by peddling easy fixes.
But at the end of the day, I suppose it really comes down to a person's level of education or just their own common sense regarding how much they actually believe the hype, though you usually end up learning the hard way regardless.
Personally, I have a hunch that most people will eventually gravitate toward brands based on actual value provided rather than just falling for some silly storytelling...

That's essentially the utopian vision. Marx talked about this quite a bit. I always found his point particularly interesting—that people could pursue jobs they actually care about and move fluidly between different interests. He genuinely had some brilliant ideas, but look at how they've twisted them into something else entirely...

That sounds great on paper, but I think you might be being a little too optimistic about human nature and morality. How else do you explain the mess we're currently living in? And you're still completely ignoring the whole issue of racial, gender, and other deep-seated prejudices that are just baked into being human.

I'm starting to wonder if this topic even belongs in this thread anymore...

The mods will decide. 🙂

I suppose I should probably address this, though I’m not entirely sure where to start or if anyone actually cares about my particular brand of rambling. It feels like we’re constantly circling the same drain, isn't it? We talk around the issues, dancing through the nuances without ever really landing on anything substantial, much like how I tend to wander through a conversation when I haven't had enough coffee. Anyway, let's just get into it. kaže:
I honestly have such a soft spot for how Google builds its arguments; there's just something about their logic that I find incredibly compelling. 😁
There’s a legitimate reason why people call Google a phenomenon, really. It didn't just happen by accident; it emerged from a very specific set of circumstances that shaped everything we know about the internet today. If you actually take a moment to dig into the history of it—just do a little digging on your own if you're curious—you'll see how unique that whole situation was. 🙂 So, they pulled it off, but if you actually look at how a free market is supposed to function, you’d think you could just launch some groundbreaking internet service, introduce a feature no one has ever seen before, and maintain total control over it—but that’s just not how the game is played anymore. You see it happening right in front of our eyes with Yahoo; it’s basically being carved up by giants like Microsoft and Google who are just looking to consolidate power and cement their monopolies. Just look at the history of what happened with YouTube or Blogger—Google swooped in and swallowed them whole, and that's exactly the pattern we're seeing. 🙂Now Google basically holds a monopoly on the entire online marketing landscape, which is exactly what Microsoft is trying to counter by snapping up Yahoo. But honestly, if you step back and look at the big picture, these are just games played by the massive heavyweights in the industry; small businesses are really just left scavenging for whatever crumbs happen to fall from the table.

I mean, I only used that specific example because it’s such a massive, undeniable success story, but if you really want to dive down the rabbit hole, there are plenty of others out there. You could look at how Yellow Tail carved out its niche, or the sheer spectacle of Cirque du Soleil, or even the way Amazon basically rewrote the rules of commerce back in the day. And honestly, if we're talking about game-changers, you can't ignore what Apple pulled off with the iPod—that was nothing short of a miracle. There's an endless supply of these stories if you know where to look; just pick up a copy of Blue Ocean Strategy and you'll see what I mean.
It really all boils down to that one spark—an original idea that just takes over the market by sheer force—paired with whether or not the entrepreneur actually has the grit to pull it off. But there’s this other side to the coin too, isn't there? You see these companies that aren't even looking at the long game; they just want to cash out as fast as humanly possible, selling themselves off the moment they realize they've hit on something big just to capitalize on the hype and get out.
Every single massive corporation you see today started out as nothing more than a tiny, insignificant operation, which I know sounds incredibly cliché, but it’s just an undeniable reality of how things work.
Beyond that, you constantly run into these scenarios where massive corporations just do whatever serves their immediate interests, and in the end, those short-sighted moves end up getting them eaten alive by the little guys. It’s a pattern I see all the time. Honestly, IBM almost fell victim to this exact kind of thing—just another case study in how a company can lose its way—whereas you look at someone like Dell, and it's such a perfect example of success through sheer intuition, like that one college kid who basically figured out the entire hardware configuration business just by paying attention to what people actually needed.

I honestly don't know where to start with this because it feels like we're all just circling the same drain, but here we are, sitting around waiting for some kind of epiphany that probably isn't coming. It’s funny, in a deeply depressing sort of way, how we tend to overcomplicate things when the answer is usually staring us right in the face, though I suppose that’s why most people fail—they lack the patience for the slow, grinding reality of actually getting anything done. I find myself drifting through these thoughts quite often, wondering if anyone else feels this same sense of aimless momentum, moving fast but going nowhere, much like those corporate giants who pivot their entire strategy every six months just to feel relevant again. Anyway, I digress, which I know I do too often, but I think there's a certain necessity to the wandering if you want to stumble upon something that actually matters. kaže:
I’ll be the first to admit that conspiracy theories always strike me as a bit ridiculous, but there is one fundamental principle that keeps this industry running: if something actually threatens the future of your product, you destroy it by any means necessary. It's almost a rule of thumb at this point. The first move is usually just buying up patents—often through heavy-handed tactics that go way beyond simple business deals, involving full-on attacks on a competitor's reputation or social standing. Once you've got the legal leverage, you move on to discrediting their actual research or burying them under endless, soul-crushing lawsuits. Honestly, if you look at the sheer volume of banal, practically useless patents held by Microsoft, it’s pretty clear how they play the game; they own rights to things that are basically essential for everyday tech, like standard XML usage, just so they can hold everyone else's feet to the fire.
I can't help but wonder what would actually go down if someone decided to make a move that was genuinely threatening toward them. It’s one of those questions that stays hovering in the back of your mind, isn't it? You start thinking about the fallout, the immediate reaction, and then you get lost in the "what ifs" of how a situation like that might spiral out of control before anyone even realizes what happened. It's a heavy thought to sit with, honestly.

Don't go thinking Microsoft is some kind of unstoppable force. Just look at how they got absolutely hammered over in Ireland... I mean, when you actually have decent laws in place to hold these giants accountable, things change real quick.

I don't really know what to make of all this, but I suppose I should probably say something, if only to get my thoughts out of my head and into the void. It feels like we’re just drifting through these endless cycles of information, isn't it? Sometimes I sit back and wonder if any of this actually moves the needle or if we're all just spinning our wheels in the same old patterns, much like how people used to talk about those outdated business models before everyone discovered the Blue Ocean Strategy and thought they'd found some secret map to success. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly, trying to parse through the noise, but then again, maybe that's just the nature of being alive in a world that never seems to hit the pause button. I tend to overthink things, I know, and I'll likely spend way too much time dwelling on the nuances of why things aren't working the way they should, but I can't help it. It's just a habit of mine, a sort of mental clutter that I haven't quite figured out how to sweep away yet. As requested:
Marketing exerts this massive, subconscious pull on us that’s almost impossible to consciously fight off, especially when you're dealing with kids. I mean, just think about it—you sit down to watch a single show on Netflix or catch a game on ESPN, and how many food commercials do you have to sit through before you realize you're suddenly starving? It’s constant, and honestly, it's pretty hard to stay ahead of that kind of psychological conditioning once it starts hitting your brain.

there are certain restrictions regarding content and the actual runtime of propaganda programs aimed at kids... though if you ask me, I think we could probably tighten those regulations even further...

quieteagle16 said:Man, I just love the "Google argument." 😁
The reason Googlet is such a phenomenon is because it hit a very specific window of opportunity (do a little Googlet search on the topic if you're curious 🙂 ) and nailed it. But under the rules of the free market, you might think you could build an internet service that offers some groundbreaking new feature and keep it all to yourself—but that's just not how it works. Look at what happened with Yahoo—Microsoft and Googlet both moved in to grab pieces of it just to solidify their monopolies. Look at YouTube, or Blogger (Googlet bought them 🙂). Now Googlet basically has a monopoly on internet marketing (which Microsoft is desperately trying to counter by eyeing up Yahoo). The bottom line is that this is a game played by the "big boys," and small entrepreneurs are mostly just left to pick up the crumbs...
I find conspiracy theories pretty silly too, but there is one fundamental principle the industry operates on: if something threatens the future of your product, you neutralize it (by any means necessary). The first move is often buying up patents—sometimes under duress, which isn't just physical pressure, but attacks on reputation and status—and then comes the discrediting of research and endless lawsuits... You wouldn't believe how many trivial, basic patents Microsoft owns (patents that cover things used every single day, like XML) -
just imagine what would happen if someone made a move that actually threatened them:?

Marketing has this massive subconscious pull on people that's almost impossible to resist consciously, especially with kids. Just think about how many food commercials pop up during a single TV show, and how much that makes you crave a snack (and so on)...

Regarding the sci-fi stuff—think about it—if NASA can send a robot to Mars that navigates itself, imagine how much effort it would take to write a program that drives a tractor through a field automatically 🙂? Why hasn't it happened yet? Simply because, right now, it costs more than just having a farmer drive the thing. But technology isn't stagnant; it evolves fast and prices drop constantly. It's really just a matter of time before those things become "practical" by capitalist standards.
As for Marx—well, manual labor jobs have basically already vanished—it's pretty obvious at this point. There's already a tool for just about everything; we're just in the process of moving those machines toward full automation. You can see exactly where we're headed...

Look, I’m not out here preaching some impossible utopia; I’m just touching on things that aren't quite so 👍
Is it really that naive to assume that if you give someone total freedom, they’ll be smart enough to realize that whatever they do to others will eventually loop back around to them? Even Jesus was making that point two thousand years ago—you don't need to be an Einstein to grasp that basic concept.🙂

As for prejudices, they’re part of everyone. They stem from individual reasoning, and whether those biases turn out to be right or wrong is something we'll just have to leave to natural selection to figure out. But in a functioning social system, there’s simply no room for that kind of stuff. That part seems pretty obvious to me.

The mods will decide. 🙂

and what's your take on why they send them so infrequently? because man, that stuff costs a fortune.

quieteagle16 said:Man, I just love the "Google argument." 😁
The reason Googlet is such a phenomenon is because it hit a very specific window of opportunity (do a little Googlet search on the topic if you're curious 🙂 ) and nailed it. But under the rules of the free market, you might think you could build an internet service that offers some groundbreaking new feature and keep it all to yourself—but that's just not how it works. Look at what happened with Yahoo—Microsoft and Googlet both moved in to grab pieces of it just to solidify their monopolies. Look at YouTube, or Blogger (Googlet bought them 🙂). Now Googlet basically has a monopoly on internet marketing (which Microsoft is desperately trying to counter by eyeing up Yahoo). The bottom line is that this is a game played by the "big boys," and small entrepreneurs are mostly just left to pick up the crumbs...
I find conspiracy theories pretty silly too, but there is one fundamental principle the industry operates on: if something threatens the future of your product, you neutralize it (by any means necessary). The first move is often buying up patents—sometimes under duress, which isn't just physical pressure, but attacks on reputation and status—and then comes the discrediting of research and endless lawsuits... You wouldn't believe how many trivial, basic patents Microsoft owns (patents that cover things used every single day, like XML) -
just imagine what would happen if someone made a move that actually threatened them:?

Marketing has this massive subconscious pull on people that's almost impossible to resist consciously, especially with kids. Just think about how many food commercials pop up during a single TV show, and how much that makes you crave a snack (and so on)...

Regarding the sci-fi stuff—think about it—if NASA can send a robot to Mars that navigates itself, imagine how much effort it would take to write a program that drives a tractor through a field automatically 🙂? Why hasn't it happened yet? Simply because, right now, it costs more than just having a farmer drive the thing. But technology isn't stagnant; it evolves fast and prices drop constantly. It's really just a matter of time before those things become "practical" by capitalist standards.
As for Marx—well, manual labor jobs have basically already vanished—it's pretty obvious at this point. There's already a tool for just about everything; we're just in the process of moving those machines toward full automation. You can see exactly where we're headed...

Look, I’m not out here preaching some impossible utopia; I’m just touching on things that aren't quite so 👍
Is it really that naive to assume that if you give someone total freedom, they’ll be smart enough to realize that whatever they do to others will eventually loop back around to them? Even Jesus was making that point two thousand years ago—you don't need to be an Einstein to grasp that basic concept.🙂

As for prejudices, they’re part of everyone. They stem from individual reasoning, and whether those biases turn out to be right or wrong is something we'll just have to leave to natural selection to figure out. But in a functioning social system, there’s simply no room for that kind of stuff. That part seems pretty obvious to me.

The mods will decide. 🙂

I agree with this once you solve the problem of scarcity, you’ve essentially solved all economic inequality, and you’ve probably smoothed out most other issues too. but we are still a long way off from Star Trek replicators... or perpetual motion machines

quieteagle16 said:Man, I just love the "Google argument." 😁
The reason Googlet is such a phenomenon is because it hit a very specific window of opportunity (do a little Googlet search on the topic if you're curious 🙂 ) and nailed it. But under the rules of the free market, you might think you could build an internet service that offers some groundbreaking new feature and keep it all to yourself—but that's just not how it works. Look at what happened with Yahoo—Microsoft and Googlet both moved in to grab pieces of it just to solidify their monopolies. Look at YouTube, or Blogger (Googlet bought them 🙂). Now Googlet basically has a monopoly on internet marketing (which Microsoft is desperately trying to counter by eyeing up Yahoo). The bottom line is that this is a game played by the "big boys," and small entrepreneurs are mostly just left to pick up the crumbs...
I find conspiracy theories pretty silly too, but there is one fundamental principle the industry operates on: if something threatens the future of your product, you neutralize it (by any means necessary). The first move is often buying up patents—sometimes under duress, which isn't just physical pressure, but attacks on reputation and status—and then comes the discrediting of research and endless lawsuits... You wouldn't believe how many trivial, basic patents Microsoft owns (patents that cover things used every single day, like XML) -
just imagine what would happen if someone made a move that actually threatened them:?

Marketing has this massive subconscious pull on people that's almost impossible to resist consciously, especially with kids. Just think about how many food commercials pop up during a single TV show, and how much that makes you crave a snack (and so on)...

Regarding the sci-fi stuff—think about it—if NASA can send a robot to Mars that navigates itself, imagine how much effort it would take to write a program that drives a tractor through a field automatically 🙂? Why hasn't it happened yet? Simply because, right now, it costs more than just having a farmer drive the thing. But technology isn't stagnant; it evolves fast and prices drop constantly. It's really just a matter of time before those things become "practical" by capitalist standards.
As for Marx—well, manual labor jobs have basically already vanished—it's pretty obvious at this point. There's already a tool for just about everything; we're just in the process of moving those machines toward full automation. You can see exactly where we're headed...

Look, I’m not out here preaching some impossible utopia; I’m just touching on things that aren't quite so 👍
Is it really that naive to assume that if you give someone total freedom, they’ll be smart enough to realize that whatever they do to others will eventually loop back around to them? Even Jesus was making that point two thousand years ago—you don't need to be an Einstein to grasp that basic concept.🙂

As for prejudices, they’re part of everyone. They stem from individual reasoning, and whether those biases turn out to be right or wrong is something we'll just have to leave to natural selection to figure out. But in a functioning social system, there’s simply no room for that kind of stuff. That part seems pretty obvious to me.

The mods will decide. 🙂

Jesus, Einstein, natural selection... well, that's quite the convenient little group you've assembled there.🙂

as soon as you introduce scarcity, you introduce people who fight...
how do you actually make it so people stop fighting?