Guy2020

Wow, I can't believe the "free market" argument is being used to justify top military leaders serving other countries. I guess we aren't a country anymore. Just one big (free) market.

Truly late stage capitalism here.

Sounds like your friends are simply unmotivated to voluntarily work for a system they believe is corrupt.

Laziness has always been a capitalist codeword for "noncompliant worker."

Also, you have to look at the bigger picture here. We can't just put our blinders on and ignore the conditions of this natural UBI experiment, as you are putting it. There was no sense that with this UBI--it wasn't--they were going to be productive members of some socialist society. No, it was a moment where people felt like it was their turn to exploit a system that has been exploiting them since they were children.

I agree with the sentiment that in this context, under the current conditions created by corporate capitalism, UBI would be a horrible idea. It would be better for the people in the long run if they --we--we're out in the streets than packed away in some small rat hole of an apartment, suckling on the corporate dole.

The government is broke. They will just have to take on more debt to make the proposed business "reparations." I think it's all gone. There's nothing that can fix what has happened to this nation... from the criminal monetary policies to this situation...America is gone.

If that's your position, then people will begin resorting to violence. Your property is only secured by force. Put the people in desperate situations and they will no longer play by the rules which put them at an extreme disadvantage.

This is the lesson every corrupt nation learns the hard way. We agree to the laws of the nation to secure peace, but when that peace becomes oppressive, when that peace means slavery to the oligarchy, that peace is no longer peace but silent war.

The people will not tolerate this extreme inequality anymore.

Edit: to those claiming what I've said is "hateful" or incendiary...this is simply the truth -- as proven by history. Don't shoot the messenger.

You: The government messed it up. The government needs to fix it.

Government: Absolutely! We too would also like to become a larger socialist entity that puts everyone on the dole. We will fix it all for you! Just give us complete control!

If that was the case, then why aren't our schools teaching white supremacy and nationalism? Isn't the opposite the case?

Also, what's wrong with nationalism? Isn't it better to have nations who are interested in the well being of their people as opposed to a world controlled by globalist corporations?

It seems to me like the people have been conditioned against nationalism and towards globalism which favors corporate control.

"Fascism," "democracy," what's the difference? There's always an elite class pulling the strings. The world has always been a mess. The only thing that is dying is our illusions.

Edit: for those that downvote me, go tell the millions living in violent poverty how magical democracy is. There will always be a show. What matters is who's putting on the show.

It's the Borg hive mind.

> Outlawing unproven medical claims, and actually enforce the law?

Would faith based approaches fall under your definition of "unproven medical claims?"

I get what you are saying, but if someone wants to take their chances on some "quackery," shouldn't it be their right to do so? Obviously this individual knew that he was engaging in alternative medicine that is not recognized by the mainstream.

I don't believe in this particular alternative medicine, but I don't believe established science understands everything in this world and believe individuals should retain the right to explore alternative perspectives.

Thanks!

> The argument here at best is for good, proven information to be available

I believe going to a doctor is the way of accessing "proven information."

> eradicating quack therapies based on false claims that don't work because they unfortunately put people (like this man) at risk.

What would the mechanism for "eradicating" these "quack therapies" look like?

> the supposedly-evil "big pharma"

Well, can we really say big pharma isn't evil to some degree - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/?

Is there a way to read the full paper? Seems like a fascinating read. ( not sure what it has to do with tech though )

Ultimately, individuals are responsible for their choices in "free societies." I don't want to live in a world where all information is regulated by the government.

This is a good story about poor choices made by an individual, but I hope it is not fodder for any attempt at regulating what free people choose to do with their lives. I think we need to do a better job at educating people on the dangers of freedom...what do you guys think? Perhaps we need some sort of "media literacy" education at the primary school level that trains people in evaluating sources of information ( which seems to be reserved for the university level in many cases, unfortunately ).

My thoughts are with the family of this man.

Edit: Wow, I'm surprised at the negative response to my comment. What is so controversial about my views here?

I suppose we would have to reason about the intention/function of the press. As far as I understand, freedom of the press was about the dissemination of ideas. In a democratic republic, the people must have a means of circulating information about various issues so that voters can cast informed votes.

It could be argued that the modern press spreads confusion and is less about the dissemination of ideas for the purpose of informing the voting public; however, the history of the press is not a glorious one. The press has always been a mess.

Nonetheless, I think, as you say, the "slow press" is more in line with the idea of informing the public. The "continuous press" is more about pushing propaganda and conditioning the public...in my view.

When journalism is paid for primarily by corporate sponsors, the premise of "objective journalism" is absurd. People have to pay for their news if they wish to have the slightest hope of it being objective, but with the ubiquity of free content, paying for journalism now seems like an unwelcome deviation from the norm in the eyes of many. Ad sponsored journalism, and media in general, has poisoned the well. When you are used to getting something for free, it feels wrong when you have to pay for it. This cripples alternative media that isn't reliant on corporate sponsors...thus the ecosystem for "objective journalism" is weak.

The current environment, with respect to the aforementioned incentives, makes objectivity difficult -- not to mention the political/economic instability which adds tons of fuel on this fire.

Capitalists want to increase their wealth. They have a well defined role in society. Our government is supposed to be a counterbalance to them...but the two have become intertwined, hence the problem.

In my view, the will of the people is not being reflected in the government due to corruption.

Ok...the main point is that there is a shadow government that shapes our culture and people's perceptions through mass media and by corrupting influential people for the purpose of endorsing certain ideas/products. In that work, Bernays details these types of "shadow governments."

What good are books if we can't direct people at them? That book makes my case. The fact that Bernays was a major advisor for the media complex of America makes the book an even more significant piece of evidence for my position.

It's funny how people dismiss things so readily by labeling them "conspiracy theory." I just can't imagine looking at a world with such great wealth inequality and coming to the conclusion that this is an equal playing field where everyone exerts the same influence on the evolution of humanity.

Are you saying there are no mechanisms that allow wealthy people to influence human behavior on a large scale? Please read "Propaganda" by Edward Bernays.

Because the truth is painful. People don't want to believe things are bad. People will fight tooth and nail to hold onto their perception that we are living in some sort of utopia and that everything is sunshine and rainbows.

I don't blame people that want to look the other way...it's not a pleasant sight.

I attribute this to anti-social tendencies rising due to technology addiction. People are getting worse at social interaction. When you spend so much time in front of a screen, it has to have some effect on your ability to socialize.

That's my take anyway.

This, but also people used to see having a family as being the meaning of their lives. In the modern world, the alternative meaning of life invention is the Career™. This alone, that people have been influenced to believe a career is a replacement for having a family, is highly suspect of "top-down" influence. We don't even have the perspective of how ridiculous career driven culture is.

I never said the past was a utopia...I was commenting on the modern disincentives for having children.

Yes... other comment, see this one please.

Most of us are not willing participants in this "cult." We're dragged along by the nose.

Some people have extraordinary wealth and they have the ability to set economic incentives, policies, and cultural influences for certain types of behavior to emerge. There's a hierarchy to our societies, there are people with great power and people with little to no power. I guess the greatest magic trick of the modern world is to make people believe such things do not exist.

Children have become more of a burden than a benefit in many ways. We once had much use for our children. When people were more independent and everyone pretty much had a small business, children were seen as the life blood of that business. Now, we are pretty much expected to fill a role at some large corporation -- which Japan is the greatest example of. Also, the family centered culture has changed to a work centered culture. It used to be a mark of shame not to have a large family -- you were seen as a "dead end."

I don't think these changes are natural, given how little control people have over their lives. This stuff is being pushed from the top.

I have dyslexia. The best way I can explain it is that when I read, it's more like I'm sampling from a probability distribution than actually seeing what's on the page. This is why I have difficulty spelling too...because I'm not sure which way something is spelled, i.e., when I sample from the spelling distribution, multiple competing items come out and I don't know which one is the correct one.

This website isn't accurate for me per say...but I guess it does capture the "hazy" feeling when I read.

I do believe us dyslexics have significantly different brains. I get along with dyslexics more than neurotypicals. We seem to have a strange bond. I suppose we're more "abstract" thinkers...in the sense that we are used to reasoning about spaces instead of particular instances...owing to the probabilistic nature of our minds...but maybe I'm using the wrong language here.