Timothée Muller ⏚ / is on Nostr

Last Notes

2025-04-03 20:16:33

- reply

@nprofile…ms9m
I don't know about signatures, but filling out pdf forms works fine in firefox.

2025-04-03 20:16:33

- reply

@nprofile…ms9m
I don't know about signatures, but filling out pdf forms works fine in firefox.

2025-01-19 08:58:30

- reply

@nprofile…pv38
J'allais dire la même chose ! Mais la partie "semble être encore quelque chose" colle pas trop au personnage. 😅

2023-07-14 20:08:22

- reply

@npub1fzl…u422
Well all I have left to say is it works in France, and most other European countries. Come see for yourself 😉

2023-07-14 19:46:22

- reply

@npub1fzl…u422
Let's not draw hasty conclusions! Socialism is not the USSR. It was just another oligarchy which got its legitimacy from socialism. I admit it kinda gave socialism bad press. But no matter!
The safety net you mentioned is where everything lies. If every worker knows that whatever happens they'll get money to live decently if they get depression, a broken leg, or even full body paralysis, well then they're so much more at peace.
And all that without paying a dime to a private company! Just by having a bit of your paycheck redistributed for those in need (the percentage increasing with your revenue of course).
It's just solidarity : you help your fellow citizens when you can because you know they'll help you when you'll be in need.

2023-07-14 19:27:19

- reply

@npub1fzl…u422
It is voluntary in a democratic society. I personally live in a country where there are a communist party and and "New Anti-Capitalist Party", and it's totally fine. In the end it's up to voters to decide what kinda law they want.
And here as well the right-wing parties adhere to your mooch theory.
But I'd add that going full Adam Smith and letting the invisible hand of the market do its thing leads to the rich, who inherited their wealth, to sit on it and do nothing.
Who's really productive then?

2023-07-14 18:53:12

- reply

@npub1fzl…u422
If your definition of socialism is "playing the victim" then I guess that works.
My definition of socialism is caring for one another, realising that the well-being of each individual is in the interest of the whole society. And to do so we have to acknowledge inequalities and redistribute resources accordingly.
It's actually on par with what you said about "sparing somebody the consequences of their choices".
Well let me ask you something : what if the choices were not yours to make but you have to pay the consequences? Shouldn't your peers help write that wrong?