MentalM

> Maybe the problem is that your ideas don't withstand any academic scrutiny

My ideas do withstand the reality. Unlike their so called "sound researches" or "well-reasoned arguments".

So negative karma? I was banned on several platforms simply for saying that all available to me evidences point out that covid was developed in the lab, while ALL the scientist licked the communist China's boots and said that it is SCIENTIFICALLY impossible. So what does the karma means in front of the truth?

> Still beats the alternative of corrupt career politicians.

Are you sure? After the covid and position of the scientific community on it's origin it is evident that most scientist are ready to do the exact things that corrupt career politicians are doing, but for free, purely for the love of the game.

That is true.

The problem is not in that they are divorced from the real world. The problem is in the model that science get financial support, which leads to the existence of filtering that eliminates from the science anyone who is not far-left loyal dog and supporter of the "current thing".

> No. Capitalism is supposed to be a rejection of this kind of central planning attitude

It is not. Capitalism allow you to have any attitude, and you totally can sit in an armchair and think around about how it would be grate if all the people give away their chips to you because that would be more effective.

The distinction in the action. Capitalism only allow you to outbuy an average 80 IQ call of duty enjoyer of their chips. Under socialism the same thought process lead to government decree that banns personal computers selling, and your average call of duty enjoyer will have two weak to send their old pc to Sam Altman to decide if there is in it any useful chips or not. Because Sam Altman decided that that is the more effective way to redistribute the chips, so obey or be ready to gulag, you dirty bourgeois pig.

> At scale, markets are not zero sum and failures sink all boats.

At scale, this boats sink somewhere, not disappeared into the void. And yeas, markets are not zero sum, amount of goods may increase and may decrease, and we should let agents that decrease them fail.

> Without the bailout there would be no more banks

> and a hundred million of people left on the ice

That is not true. There would be a lot of banks and people would have lost only part of their money.

Why? I think it is the most important thing. How can you get peak performance from the men, when they physiologically stop caring about all that important for capitalization stuff when they chasing the woman?

> how not getting enough trim in your younger years makes you especially vulnerable to these schemes once you acquire power and wealth?

I don't sure there is any connection. It is the same things regardless of your popularity in younger years.

That type of profession chooses you, not you chooses the profession.

Computers were introduced overnight. One Monday the engineer went to work, and bang! There is a computer waiting for him, deal with it or go find another job. People at that time not joked around, were too busy building affordable houses, medicine, education, groceries and childcare. No way they would put up with some snowflakes who has some "beliefs" get in the way of creating all that societal goods.

How would you possibly prove that AI is necessary for a job when someone has been doing the job successfully for years before AI?

Same for computers and engineering.

During the medieval period and the Renaissance you totally could do art that had nothing to do with church and royals. In the Soviet Union you could not.

There is a famous quote of the judge on the Brodsky trial (1964): "Who have appointed you to be a Poet?". Аfter he sad that Soviet Government did no appointed him to be a Poet, he was sent in the gulag for 5 years. That is how "art" worked in the USSR.

> So the right is incentivized to protect this industry even if it becomes obsolescent and is no longer the most economical or practical way to generate at least much of our energy needs (electricity).

I think in that case industries that will became most economical or practical way to generate electricity simply will start funding the right.

That is not how it works.

First, you for decades pay 5-10 times more for energy to subsidize every single green energy project... and then oopsie woopsie you still buy Russian gas and dependent on the evil coutries.

> But maybe we decide that boiling orphans isn't an industry we want as a society, and legislate consequences for doing so.

And in the same way we have decided that the screens for children IS an industry we want as a society.

Before there was Lenin, after there was Khrushchev, both explicitly considered art that is not pro-government communist propaganda as thing that should not exist.

> Soviet Union was one of last countries with true art.

There was no art, only pro-government communist propaganda. In Soviet Union there was even popular saying regardless culture, that Stalin took over a Russia of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and Chekhov, and left it with the Union of Soviet Writers.

> Hollywood got devalued because people prefer spending time on Youtube/TikTok/Instagram/Reddit/Discord/Video Games/Hacker News/etc.

Hollywood got devalued because it is spending more money than before to get worse results than before.

> By whom?

By the relatively small group of armed leftist activists ready to use violence until their goal would be achieved.

By what measurements? It seems most of Europe has such unrestricted government that it is borderline fascism.

> Most of the time, they eliminate voting, not make it compulsory.

No, that is totally not true.

Even North Korea doesn't eliminate voting. People there still vote, just very controllable by the government. Compulsory voting is one of the instruments that makes voting more controllable for the government. Voting in North Korea is mandatory.

By what logic it is supposed to stop descent into authoritarianism? Сompulsory voting is an instrument to build authoritarianism, not to prevent it.

> with incredibly high trust

A am not sure that is true.

> that failed state

Aren't literally every country doing the same?

> The FBI will occasionally seize a domain after a court order

Aren't that is about the same?

Sounds pretty humiliating.

I mean the protesters say that Macron IS the far right, so from their perspective there is no way the protests will make things worse.

> You mean, young people hold the power? Or young people will decide that they hold the power?

Young people will decide that they hold the power and take it.

> Well whoever holds the power, I hope they agree that we all have rights.

Yeah, rights to go f.ck yourself. Agreeability on other peoples rights strongly correlate with how much that rights would cost.

> Do you just mean "don't subsidise their care through tax?

Pretty much exactly that.

> Both sound quite influential unless you want to make them non-people for being old.

Unless it is your main problem and the biggest cost item.

> productive people tend also to have some amount of foresight

Guess what they will see with that foresight when there are several times more old people who take away most of their earned through sweat and blood resources?

> Process of what?

Social reorganization

> We could solve world hunger right now with our advances in technology and [corporate] central planning

Thera are not even a correlation, but straight cause‑and‑effect relation between practice of "our advances in technology and [corporate] central planning" and the hunger