Blindsite

Socialism broadly is the desire for a system which allows every individual exactly as much autonomy, government influence, and ownership of their own labor as every other individual in that given society.

Lol replace "Socialism" with "Individualism" or "Individualist capitalism" and pretty much the definitions match. So socialism = Capitalism? Right I don't think capitalism means what you think it means.

Some of it certainly should be. I may draw the line differently than others, but broadly I would be totally for immediately abolishing all rent-seekers who produce nothing and leech off of others only by "owning" their means of basic survival such as hedge-fund managed housing for example.

I don't think you understand the implications of this. He who creates owns. So he who creates can create a license to rent or he can sell that right to another. So say Bob builds a house. Are you going to tell Bob he can't charge someone for using his creation? Do you even realize how bizarre that sounds? Now what if Bob wants to sell his house to Charlie? Just like one would sell any other widget. Again are you going to tell Charlie he can't charge for use of his purchase? That is what rent seeking is. If you banned rent seeking it would set a precedent to limit any monetary gain from any use of a created object. Are you going to ban Air BnB? What about subletting? Software licensing? Video rentals? Where does that ball of yarn end?

Also if you don't like monopolies why is it okay to use a monopoly on violence to tell someone else what to do or not do with their stuff in the first place?

How would an individual accrue these things?

So long as it was voluntary does it matter?

If this individual accrued these necessities of life, thus prohibiting others from accessing those necessities of life, wouldn't violence be the inevitable consequence of that from starving people who have lost all rationality from hunger?

Possibly but then no one forced those other people from selling their food stocks. This is essentially the same kind of debate Nestle is having with Canada. Nestle believes that no, people do not have a right to water and everything is for sale. However Canada's water is essentially collectively owned as part of Crown land and part of the commons. Technically Canada is still under British rule even though we're independent and self governing. Ergo all that collective land is technically owned by the Crown, in this case now King Charles. Thus is why you can go to any lake or river in Canada and the cost of the water is like $0.01/gal. Nestle tried to take advantage of this and there was a huge court battle. IIRC they were banned/fined. But yeah the core issue is are resources owned collectively or competed over? Also a nice middle ground might be a cooperative. Or you might do what the FN did and do away with the concept of owning raw resources entirely. You can't own water, dirt or land, just what you make. You could also make x territory a legal entity to prevent excess harvesting and pollution. Or just disassociate from those that didn't respect the earth. But yeah. So what if people are starving? If they have nothing to trade then they starve. This is where we get back into the gift economy bit.

As far as territory, how would an individual accrue territory and by what means would that individual maintain their claim? How would it benefit them to maintain it so, unless they plan on creating a family cult system?

Do you know how much land is required to run a farm? To grow grain crops like wheat, corn, oats, barely? You don't need to have a cult to need a ton of cubic. And maintanaince is simple: hire some people or get some volunteers. What if you wanted to start a homestead? Or start building a settlement? Also back in the day you could accrue it by just working the land. If you don't need the govt's permission then you just go out and claim an area of land and start developing it.

The inhibiting factor for land development is land taxes and aquisition. If any random person could find a spot of undeveloped land and start building you'd find a lot more homes built and stuff being made.

This is touching on an extremely important dynamic. Why do Westerners live in such privilege while the people living in their colonies do not? The answer here is not to redistribute, it’s to end the exploitation. I think Westerners are competent enough to sustain themselves and their cultures without the need to bleed people from across the world. I believe it’s possible that minimum standards of health greater than what even I have access to now (racketeers are between me and healthcare in my country) are achievable in every part of the world in a fairer system.

1. Being a third world country does not make one a 1st world country's colony. 2. Empire is BASED on exploitation. It's what drives the growth of empire and sustains it. What happened when the Roman empire stopped expanding? Political and economic corruption and eventual collapse. What's happening to the U.S. now that it can't just go and declare war on x country every half century? Systemic domestic instability. War is profitable. So is outsourcing. What would happen if outsourcing ended? Do you think customers would be okay with a sharp rise in product prices? No. What about exploiting prison labor instead? Wait that's just introducing debt slavery! Crime = loss in value = debt = exchanged for labor = debt slave.

This sounds pretty socialist to me.

I get that a lot lol. One moment I'll be criticized for being ultra right wing and the next I'll be called a socialist or a communist because I advocate for the voluntary redistribution and democratization of power and resources. Being an anarchist just means I value freedom and oppose compulsion. It doesn't mean I oppose either private ownership or money pooling and decentralizing power. In fact decentralizing power makes more sense because it empowers more people on an individualist level. More cooperation and economic competition.

I'd have to disagree with you somewhat. Competition is sometimes very necessary and it drives innovation and prices down. For example right now there are like 4 big telecom giants in Canada, probably less due to mergers. Which means there isn't all that much competition to drive down the price of internet or cell phone bills. Just a quick example there. I get where you're coming from wanting people on a community level to cooperate more but much like anything else whether something is harmful or helpful depends on dosage and context. If you're trying to unite a community ridden with poverty, backbiting and enmity you want less competition. If you're dealing with huge oligarchies and monopolies you want more. I'd also argue anything you need to live should be decentralized and produced in almost every home if possible, at least in every neighborhood. If you thought industry and food prices would be affected by this trade war then consider what it will do to pharmaceuticals when most of those are patented and made in the U.S. AND are all piped through a single warehouse on the east coast. Centralization and importation dependence like that is INSANE! Like if you're in BC you're basically getting your pills made in the U.S., imported to Canada, shipped to Halifax, sorted, then shipped all the way BACK to B.C. even if they were originallu produced in like OR or Cali or something. It's nuts. Which brings us back to producing food, medicine, waste reclaimation, resource production, medical, definitely need midwives (for a number of years moms were being flown out of my home town in order to give birth because there was no one on staff to deliver them. I'm from a small town. So yeah I think of these things), and other basic medical staff. Like things you need to keep you alive should NOT be imported from another province and definitely not from another country. They should be produced in your own town, preferably in your own home. In that regard I'm very much an individualist. That being said if everyone is growing a garden then that lends itself to trade. Also people will have different skill sets. So long as there is a seamstress, a blacksmith and a doctor in town, they can all fill the roles. The problem is when you have to import or export just to get basic stuff done. In that regard I can understand Trump's position. But, he forgets how Canada got it's independence. 😉. We didn't fight a war, we simply produced all our own stuff and became too expensive for the British homeland to support. Canadians are very independent and productive. And my point here is wanting to produce your own stuff and be self sustaining goes both ways which is why it needs to be decentralized. Like I said put the renewable power, water recycling and gardens in every home not just rich ones. Even getting rid of lawns would help. Being self sustaining shouldn't be a mark of the elites but a normal culture trait. And it doesn't have to be expensive either. It's mostly just a shift in how we behave and do things.

Like all this would create resource security, democratize production, and would promote individual liberty. But you can also see how it both increases competition while also brings people together and promotes a sense of community and cooperation. People would be competing less with each other and more creating more completion for big conglomerates. You want tomatoes you or your neighbors can grow those yourselves. You want grain, someone is probably growing that on the outskirts of town. There is no need to import daily resources. I mean I think that should be the goal.

The people who receive from the community but don't contribute to it when they could in my opinion are parasites. I'm not talking about the elderly and disabled who would if they could and deserve their dignity, of course, because that's all our destiny. If someone takes from their community without giving back to it, I would have a problem with them and probably insist that they get off their ass or leave probably with other people who care about them and would rather they straighten up. I don't think that kind of compulsion is unfair.

This sounds like a form of shunning or disassociation to me. And I think you are referring to CEOs of politicians and the like. But what would happen if such elite whales DID leave? What if everyone in the U.S. shunned say Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates? Do you think the shut down of Twitter, PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla and half a dozen other ventures wouldn't cause a bit of notice? Or all of Meta, including Facebook, Instagram and Oculus VR? Gates may not run Microsoft anymore but let's just say it shut down in his name or maybe he was shunned because of his support of vaccines and eugenics. Again either his "philanthropy" goes poof or his tech impact does. My point is even if you think someone just sits around gaining a passive income they are usually affecting more than you know. Moreover you have to consider what would be affected by their absence? Even if you don't like the person in question. I don't like Bill Gates. You probably don't like Elon Musk. But that's not the point. The point is if you shun someone for "leeching off society" what kind of hole is left when they are gone?

All this being said. This whole concept makes me think of ceiling an antisocial individual to an uninhabited island and making them fend for themselves for a time. Maybe something similar could be arranged. Want to get drunk and mooch of your parents all day? Get sent out into the forest with a knife and a week's rations or something. Want to be a useless douche of a politician? You are remanded to the Amish for a year. The problem is your idea, or mine, of who or what is considered leeching off society or of who isn't worthy is subjective. So creating legislation would also be subjective. Also who is this society? What are the standards of contributing? If contributing means economic contribution what about all those full time moms? Is non paid work of no value? What about parents loving their children. Does that consist of value? Like I said, subjective.

In a lot of cases, taxation is colonialism. I do not appreciate my tax dollars being spent on international murders, and I don't imagine most people would appreciate it either if they understood the extent of it. In any government using resources for oppression is intolerable. That being the case, not all tax dollars are used for the purposes of oppression. Taxes fund a multitude of necessary resources, services, and infrastructure in a way a profit-driven organization could not. One may not personally care about babies starving to death being prevented by a government program, but in situations that babies starve to death very negative consequences could arise that come around to affect them and others. In cases like these, I think it's appropriate to extract taxes from stupid, ignorant, or outright psychopathic people for the social good even if they are individually unable to understand it's not ok to allow babies to starve to death in a healthy society anywhere at any time. There is of course the matter of the effectiveness and cost of these programs which should of course be open to scrutiny and improvement on a democratic basis.

This basically sums up why I think one should be able to unsubscribe and/or direct where they want funds to be spent. You're right taxes are often not spent on what we want. And you're right taxes are often used to support social safety nets. However again you are justifying coersion. Look 50% of the U.S. budget goes to military spending. That means someone blatantly disagrees that babies dying is of greater concern than blowing shit up. And in either case you will have someone feel morally outraged. Either babies and others will die without medical treatment, food and shelter or there will be funds diverted from security and conquest to provide it. Either way you'll have someone thinking the other should be forced to give up coin to the opposing cause. So why not give both, and all, the choice? Also not everyone wants 50% to go to the military I'd wager.

I don't think most reasonable people need to be compelled to support their community, and as I mentioned above scrutiny is necessary.

I agree. Which is yet another reason I don't think taxation is ethical or necessary to create social safety nets.

However, I think plutocrats are unreasonable because they were never made to grow beyond the stage most of us do when we learn not everything belongs to us. They should be compelled to first be treated for their maladaptive development and then to join us in society when they understand why they should.

First of all this is one of those examples of the utilization of violence I was talking about. Oh there is x group of people that are not contributing for y reason so let's use force to make them do it. It doesn't matter if they're maladaptive greedy assholes! The point is you're making an excuse to initialize violence against someone who is otherwise engaging in voluntary consensual action. Their only crime is that they aren't doing what you want them to do. Furthermore you can't have a plutocrat without government and a monopoly on violence in the first place so your logic here is rather circular. Let's get rid of rule by money by creating a monopoly on violence which can then be subverted by the highest bidder. But without a monopoly on violence then there is nothing to bid on and/or there is greater competition.

Violence from whom? So much of liberal capitalism is completely constructed and depends entirely on participation of members who have faith in that system.

Government is by definition a monopoly on violence. What happens when you DON'T have faith in the system? Can you unsubscribe from democracy? Can you retract your vote? Can you withdraw consent? Can you unsubscribe from funding government services by not paying taxes? Wait no because if you don't pay taxes you're locked up and violence is initiated against you! By what right did the U.S. acquire all that land from the various First Nations? It either committed genocide or signed very one sided shady deals that it barely honors to this day. How did Britain acquire Ireland, Scotland and Whales and become the UK? Conquest straight up. Force of arms. Democracy is a new thing. And when Scotland wanted to run a democratic referendum for its independence England blocked it. So much for democracy. You think it would be any different in America? Your so called democratic system is just as corrupt what with the Electoral College. But this is beside the point. Democracy is a method to determine what to do with a monopoly on violence. In a voluntary society people are free to just leave. Leave the organization, forum, sports team, whatever. So as long as there is a centralization of all the guns and no one can opt out or refuse to pay taxes and support the system then yeah regardless of whether it's a royal edict or a democratic decision any law passed is an assertion of violence, veiled or not.

Look say you have 5 friends. If they all agree on a rule then yes arguably that's a law between them. But if someone disagrees then that person should still have the choice to leave the group and withdraw their support. It's NOT a law unless they agree. If the four remaining friends chain up the fifth and make him stay and compell obedience that's violence and unethical.

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would consider China a communist country if they're arguing in good faith.

Because their 1 party system is called the China Communist Party? And yes their system is trending towards authoritarianism but then the same happened in Russia/U.S.S.R. when communism was attempted there. Honestly I don't think communism can be a thing so long as human governance is used to moderate it. Maybe if you tried creating a DAO and an AI to objectively redistribute funds so there wouldn't be any ego involved it might work but so long as there are humans managing things there is always going to be a class dynamic and power-tripping, and therefore communism will fail. Best to get rid of government and distribute things from the get go. Less central planning more mesh networking etc. Marx didn't have the internet or computer code.

I totally agree with you on agreeing on definitions and terms. I also have had the experience of arguing at cross purposes because of a difference in accepted terminology. (ex. fascism, capitalism, corporatism, etc). As I'm reading through your response several terms and items jump out at me.

"There are no serious leftists advocating for confiscating handtools, computers, furniture, or other such pieces of individual property from the entire population and redistributing them equally. Although the definition can be construed this way, no one is arguing for that. "

I would have to contest this point. Does it matter if you demand that a man turn over a loaf of bread if you put in place food rationing or tax the price of that loaf of bread? Does it matter if a man has a his physical assets left alone if his liquid assets are limited or taken from him? I find it ironic that the left labels hiring someone as exploitation but denies that taxation is extortion. The same with denouncing economic monopolies but promoting government which is a monopoly on violence by definition. If power is to be distributed then everyone should be responsible for their own self defense and monopolies on violence should be dissolved with the same vigilance as economic monopolies. Where is the antitrust agency against governments?

"Private property, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists only where the means of labour and the external conditions of labour belong to private individuals. "

What? Labor = private individuals. He who creates owns. He who labors trades. This is why I find Marxism confusing. You don't get capital without mixing your labor with resources. You can't trade for some other product without gaining some kind of capital. Laborers = capitalists. Capitalists are not some upper class rich folks. If you plant seeds, till the ground and reap a harvest then that harvest you yield is your capital. if you sell that food you are a capitalist even if you are only making enough to keep your home running and to plant next years crop. Trade = capitalism. This whole paragraph makes NO sense! I'm just going to say that up front.

"From that moment new forces and new passions spring up in the bosom of society; but the old social organisation fetters them and keeps them down. It must be annihilated; it is annihilated. Its annihilation, the transformation of the individualised and scattered means of production into socially concentrated ones, of the pigmy property of the many into the huge property of the few, the expropriation of the great mass of the people from the soil, from the means of subsistence, and from the means of labour, this fearful and painful expropriation of the mass of the people forms the prelude to the history of capital…"

First of all centralization of wealth didn't just happen organically. Corporate charters are a product of the state. So is colonization. Seriously where would Big Pharma or Big Media be without patants and copyright? Where would modern economics be without limited liability? What if we stopped backing corporations up with government protectionism? "That guy copied my drug formula!" "That guy won't stop making free copies of my music album!" "That business copied my logo!" " Help I'm being sued for making a dangerous product and useless warning labels!" Don't get me started on private banks, the federal reserve or the IMF etc, all of which are ALSO businesses backed by government. Governments didn't just magically get money and land either. They literally stole it from other people for the most part through force of arms. So when you take monopolies on violence out of the picture and government protectionism out of the picture what are you left with? Self owned businesses backed by labor and trade, ie what Marx would call "laborers". Granted there can be centralizations of wealth but this can be countered by people just copying, innovating and undercutting others.

"Self-earned private property, that is based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, independent labouring individual with the conditions of his labour, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally free labour of others, i.e., on wage labour…"

Yeah this is another what? How is hiring and PAYING THEM free labor? You're out the cost of their pay cheque! They are literally trading their time and effort for money. How is that free labor either way? Moreover how is that exploitative? One could argue that one CAN exploit others by underpaying them but that's not what is being discussed here from what I understand. This seems to be a general statement about employment. So yeah, what?!?! Definitely a difference in terminology there.

"The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist private property. This is the first negation of individual private property, as founded on the labour of the proprietor. "

As explained before there is no "capitalist" vs "individual" private property. The individual IS a capitalist. Ergo there is just "private property." Much of this seems to be discussing class divisions but trying to create a difference in terms between those who trade in goods and services and those who produce those goods and services. To use an example. A farmer grows a crop. He then sells that crop to a traveling merchant caravan. The caravan then transports those food stuffs to a big town market where they are resold by grocers in the marketplace. When does one start being an elite? Is it the caravan owner? The marketplace vendors? Who?

"But capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him individual property based on the acquisition of the capitalist era: i.e., on cooperation and the possession in common of the land and of the means of production. (Chapter 32)"

You're going to have to explain that because that makes zero sense. None. Zip.

And in this case we are not discussing politics but rather economics. Should one's private property be seized and distributed among the masses? How much water, food, territory, can one accrue before one has to fear the public utilizing violence against them? Arguably the poorest person on welfare in a first world country is a king compared to someone living in a third world country. If you have access to a grocery store, electricity, running water and some kind of medical care regardless of how shitty or expensive it might be then you're better off than thousands of people the world over. Then factor in things like health standards. Do you have to boil your water to make sure it's clean to drink? Do you have to put up with insect or rat infestations? Do you have a working stove and fridge? And the. What if THOSE huddled masses wanted to take your riches away and redistribute then?

Look I'm not saying that having more money than one can spend is healthy personally or culturally. Honestly if I had a couple thousand dollars I'd be set. A million and I probably wouldn't know what to do with it all. But that's not the issue as I see it. Where is the cut off point if we sanction forced redistribution?

Now a GIFT economy is completely different. Honoring people for giving stuff away is not only a totally voluntary system but also changes the cultural dynamic from honoring people for having lots of stuff. It changes the focus from accumulation to contribution.

Both left and right can get behind open source software. Both can support the concept of gifting. Where I see the conflict is when it comes to using compulsion. No the common good does not outweigh individual liberty because what you do to the individual you do to the whole. Sacrificing individual liberty for the greater good is a myth. You can't have taxation without sacrificing privacy and security of the collective. If you sacrifice freedom of speech for the sake of avoiding public offense then you sacrifice public discourse and the values of democracy. If rewrite history to exclude unpleasant truths then you risk repeating it.

As above, so below, as within, so without. It applies to society, politics and economics as well.

I have no problem with distributing funds that are given freely. I have a problem with all property that is taken using violence. How is taxation different than colonialism? You have big guns, you see something you want and you abscond with it. How is that different than what any empire does? The fact you redistribute it is irrelevant if it's done involuntarily.

Most right wing conservatives I've talked to are concerned with family, security, economic stability and freedom. They don't care if you live in a commune or if you want to run a redistribution fund so long as no one is being compelled to contribute. Further more for any public project they are very interested in how it's going to be paid for and who it will be paid for by. These are admittedly important questions.

The socialist on the other hand seems to dismiss individual liberties in favor of the community. And in here lies the problem. It's not about profit. It's about consent. Look even if you got the most giving community minded individualists together the sticking point would still be consent. Did they choose to give you their money. Even if they support the project and ideals behind it. A conservative and a liberal both believe in supporting families but the conservative wants to keep their money to donate to a local charity whereas the liberal thinks it should be taxed and redistributed into a welfare fund. They both believe in the same thing but have different economic policies about how to achieve them.

How would you codify redistribution and public ownership without licensing agreements or by utilizing violence? Really I'm not sure how you get around private ownership without violence. Copyleft licensing is based on copyright and parenting and is based on the notion that he who creates owns, and therefore he that creates can also give it away. But you wouldn't have patents and copyright without private ownership.

And if there is no private ownership, say of land or water or natural resources, then what then? Can anyone utilize anything? Why own anything or pay taxes if you don't own anything? And we're back to the gift economy issue again. Contribute vs accrue. So why not start with making it voluntary to begin with?

Also please explain to me if all capitalism is right wing how a communist country like China is a capitalist powerhouse. Is China left wing or right wing from your perspective?

Uh no. Where are you getting these definitions?

The workers are private individuals, they own property privately. So even if they are part of a cooperative and each own a share of the company and all vote on its direction for example that's still capitalism. The means of production is still privately owned.

Socialism is defined as a society with social ownership. You can do this a couple different ways. You can use the GPL model and licence something free for everyone. You can do what Canada has done with its water and other crown assets and declare they belong to everyone (which is why Nestle is trying to exploit it and American Nestle food products are going to go up in price thanks to terrifs). You can tax everyone and redistribute the assets in services and public works (but this requires a monopoly on violence). Or your culture can simply declare some or many things just can't be owned. But the more collective ownership you have the more risk you run of dictatorship. No communist country has managed to pull off its classless ideal. In fact the closest examples I can think of are the First Nations with their various models of living in harmony with nature and not taking ownership of it in the first place. How can you own land if you constantly move around, let alone owning land in absentia. In fact I think Equador outlawed owning land in absentia outright so the concept isn't that radical. But my point is social ownership isn't just grabbing the means of production. A worker IS a capitalist. A business owner is a capitalist. A self employed independent contractor is a capitalist. Capitalism is not limited to big corporations and fat cats earning million dollar paycheques. Socializing ownership doesn't negate that.

When does one stop being a "worker" and start being a "capitalist"? When they start their own business? When they make more than $15/hr? When they hire their first employee? When they bring in more than poverty wages? When they earn $10k a month? 50k? 500k? 1M? When does an individual trading goods and services become a "capitalist"? When do these "capitalists" seize the means of production if not through trade? And how would you propose to decentralize said means of production without violence save by through trade and innovation once more?

In short how would you propose to achieve decentralized ownership without the use of a monopoly on violence?

Okay instead of walls of text speak plainly what do you mean?

• How do you define "capitalism"?
• How is it an ideology as opposed to an economic system?
• How would you define that ideology?
• To what historical references are you citing? Please provide links or some other form of citation.
• Liberalism is kind of broad. Are we talking the American definition, Canadian, classical liberal, time of the Enlightenment? What?

Look the problem with ideological folks like you is you go off on rants and never clearly define your terms. (I've talked to a couple different people like you so the whole wall of text thing is kind of familiar and I'll admit I do it myself from time to time but I do try to clearly define terms.) Then when people debate with you you get all worked up. I may or may not agree with you but I have no idea at this point since your terminology is all over the place.

In as much as I'm able to gather from what you're talking about yes there is a core ideological divide. Though I wouldn't say it's between rationalism and capitalism. More between democracy and imperialism, or decentralized and centralized power systems. Money is just one way to obtain and utilize power. But if your core goal is to build an empire as opposed to establish a decentralized cooperative say or some other egalitarian system then the structure your business takes will be massively different even if the same amount of money is accumulated. Capitalism isn't the problem it's what people are doing with it. Money is just power. So what are people doing with their power? Most people structure their families as dictatorships and their businesses as extensions of those familiesm. And a kingdom of empire is just a family with a lot of accumulated power. It takes quite a bit of thinking to get people to want to redistribute power out to the whole community. Or you have to start from the ground up. How do you structure your families and communities? How do you treat those around you? Do you take care of those around you or only look after your own? Potluck or private dinner? Basic stuff. So instead of getting angry about politics maybe try something smaller. Host a potluck dinner and invite a bunch of friends. Teach people about gardening and maybe get together to start a community garden or an initiative to help one another with various projects. Mutual support on a local level is just as much a part of decentralization as trying to wrench production back from big corporations. I mean if you grow your own food and make your own stuff won't that add up? But again you don't need to be all angry about it. Just help people.

So what? You don't like the voluntary exchange of goods and services? Trade = capitalism. Furthermore you'd rather trust the government than the average individual? Yeah I get the desire for socialized medical care and welfare. Whatever. But even countries with socialized public services have private sectors. So let's get more fundamental.

Capital = having money. Capitalism = engaging in trade, that is exchanging one asset or services for another for mutual benefit. Fascism != Capitalism. Government != Fascism Fascism = government + capitalism. More specifically there are certain hallmarks of fascism that sadly are showing up in western society. But capitalism alone does not equate to that. You don't get an authoritarian regime by engaging in trade. You need to pass laws in order to get that. You wouldn't even have corporations without government support.

So again I'm hesitant to throw in with the pro government movement when half of this whole fascism/corporate problem is government. I mean I'm against the whole monopoly on violence to begin with but saying voluntary interaction is bad but violence is good seems rather counterintuitive to me. You don't need government to decentralize things or return the means of production to the people or whatever but still such things should be voluntary. That's why open source is so revolutionary. It's essentially a gift economy and doesn't use transactions or violence. People give their time and labor away and everyone benefits. Code ensures transparency and decentralized distribution. Furthermore without patents and copyright from the private sector we wouldn't have copy left and open source software. Just some food for thought there.

I guess that means they don't have an XBox or play a lot of PC games? Maybe they prefer Nintendo or PlayStation?

I think Google justifies the whole process with ads. Sure it's all piracy but you come for the music, pirated or not, and they sell ads to you and someone gets paid revenue. I think YT would have an easier time of it if they improved gemini and integrated it as a DJ like spotify has its own music DJ.

Private contract work maybe? Or maybe try teaching or tutoring? Something you can arrange around an appointment shedule that can accomodate your needs. I feel you man. I'm disabled and living on welfare and no one wants to hire a legally blind epileptic that can't drive, it's just to much of a liability issue for them.

I don't think it's the amount but rather the context given the character development. If the character is always ecchi then it makes more sense. If you have a random sex scene then it doesn't quite make sense. That's true whether it's anime or a romance novel. In fact anime is often compared to literature, as opposed to other visual media like television because of it's advanced character development. I've got no problem with tons of fan service but I agree it has to be paired with good writing. I don't find excessive amounts of Plot bad so much as badly written story and plot, now that's cringe. So in essence I would disagree with the assertion that everyone hates fanservice but add the caveat that randomly throwing in a sex scene does not automatically improve things on its own either.