• 39 Posts
  • 1.97K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 12th, 2024

help-circle






  • Actually, i’ve considered that economic justice automatically leads to social justice.

    Consider this: In the US, lots of things are heavily looked down upon, such as having sex before marriage (if you are in the unfortunate situation to have grown up in a christian area), but if you can earn money with it (e.g. onlyfans), your parents/neighbors might let you get away with it. After all, if you’re making money with it, surely you must be doing something right. Money rules, after all.

    This is an example where economic prosperity actually leads to social liberty. It’s messed up, but i’ve actually seen this example happen. It might work.







  • No companies over 100 million in revenue. Every single one gets split.

    I think this is a simplistic view. Sure, it would help, but not much, and only temporarily.

    Because then the next thing that happens is that you have shell companies, indirect usage contracts, and a lot of messed up complicated complex systems to circumvent the rules. I mean, that’s already what’s happening, if you consider how companies avoid taxation by shuffling money abroad, but it could be even worse.

    I think that the fate of a country, or (avoiding the term “country” because it’s too closely related to Nationalism) region or group of people is largely dependent on the nature and quality of the people and their ability and more important willingness to do good for the group. Like, if you have assholes in your society, no matter what law you come up with, assholes will always find a way to enrich themselves by fucking up society. No rule can prevent that. You really just need well-meaning people at the top to make rules and decisions. That’s not something you can avoid by just implementing a different rule-book, because who makes sure these rules are actually followed? You need people for that too, and there it starts being a circular problem. I think.







  • I had read a conspiracy theory somewhere that “freebirth” is all about being “anti-establishment”.

    In this picture, everything that has to do with the federal government (including being a “certified” medical personal) are seen as being “top-down”, and it’s “seeking independence” to reject that. That’s why they don’t even want any medical professional to see the baby, because they’re worried that the baby is going to be implanted a chip to make it adhere to future state ideology or sth, and that can only be avoided by basically giving birth at home and not even telling the state that a pregnancy is about to happen (so they can’t forcefully transfer the woman to a hospital), so there’s a bit of secrecy about it too.


    Personal comment/interpretation: I mean, it’s interesting to watch how these ideas of “anarchy” and “self-determination” unfold here. It’s very interesting to see how the same idea of “wanting to be independent” can manifest itself in completely different, and often opposite, ways. It’s like if somebody told you that the establishment is bad, and you’ve heard these words your whole life, how do you know it’s not true? How do you go to a hospital if everybody around you is wary of that and says they might want to poison you or idk what? How does a medical system (that is financed by the state) build the trust that it is actually safe to go there? How do you reach the people that don’t know you yet?