AKingsbury / is on Nostr

"bb2f2544e27c8da5539e47530b27a2811ff3d1da77f98e6955e64a4887f9e8983c3af7e88de35af62045885e911125d0c2c295c06a6341fe541f018b5619d839"

Last Notes

2024-08-20 07:07:32

- reply

@npub1csg…pfvq
No, my phrasing remains accurate.

2024-03-09 02:39:02

- reply

@npub17lj…kekj
Regulators prevent the Open Insulin Project from bringing safe, affordable insulin to the masses.
The nanny state lied about more things than anyone can count, including nutrition, WMDs, and its own history.
Socialism absolutely does take part of my paycheck and claims to use it to pay for healthcare.
Capitalists pursuing their own self-interest wanted to sell me cheap, effective COVID tests; the CDC stood in their way.

2024-03-03 17:56:22

- reply

@npub1g0t…tvm4
Yes, you keep saying none of this is novel; not sure why, though.
So despite the fact that the public is going to pay for this stuff (it's DEFINITELY not free, if you think it is I'll show you something called "taxes"), we shouldn't get any choices? Choices are good when we pay for stuff individually, but when we ALL pay for it...choice then becomes bad?

2024-03-03 17:33:53

- reply

@npub1g0t…tvm4
Okay, so those things would DEFINITELY be part of the market. That's how you get employees. You hire them, and pay them.

2024-03-03 15:13:30

- reply

@npub1g0t…tvm4
I'm afraid I'm still not clear. Are you saying that, if there is a public interest in something, choice is bad because it degrades efficiency and efficiency is more important than choice?

2024-03-03 14:04:16

- reply

@npub1g0t…tvm4
So as long as there are issues that concern the public....choice is bad? That's the claim?

2024-03-03 10:34:21

- reply

@npub1g0t…tvm4
"choice is good where there aren't other issues to contend with"
I'm unaware of any situation at all where there are no other issues to contend with. Those other issues are part of what makes choice desirable.

2024-03-03 10:16:02

- reply

@npub1g0t…tvm4
Is it better to have a system with multiple providers, where they are trying to sell you more things and you can choose whether to buy them or not? Or a system with ONE provider giving everyone the same "solution", and you can either take it or take a hike, and pay for it either way?

2024-02-24 02:00:00

- reply

@npub1wpj…7m4z @npub1hln…kemr
Okay; I never claimed corporations are people. I said they make things FOR people; you, for example. To claim that corporations don't provide people with goods and services is just absurd.

2024-02-24 01:35:18

- reply

@npub1wpj…7m4z @npub1hln…kemr
You say "capitalism will cease to function". How? What, specifically, will happen that means that people will be unable somehow to own their own property and/or exchange goods and services voluntarily?
That's putting aside the issue with your ecological argument; people can and have created immense value with an almost absurdly small ecological impact.

2024-02-23 21:35:53

- reply

@npub1wpj…7m4z @npub1hln…kemr
People often accuse capitalism of relying on "infinite growth" or having to keep growing. That is a misconception. Capitalism only tells us that the means of production and other property should generally be privately owned, and that people should be able to buy and sell goods and services freely. Many people CHOOSE to pursue profit, but others do not. The pursuit of monetary gain is not demanded in any way by capitalism.

2024-02-23 21:29:53

- reply

@npub1wpj…7m4z @npub1hln…kemr
Capitalism is also just a tool. It can't do anything by itself, it's not autonomous, it hasn't got a mind, it isn't self-aware. It can't end the world.

2024-01-28 17:27:26

- reply

@npub1qag…9gyn @npub1zh0…egwm
It sure is easy to come up with a list of things for other people to do and label anyone who doesn't do them as "the enemy".