Aye, that's valid, it's just a different theory at that point
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/37346628
> This theory starts off with Capitalism as a base with strong government regulations, basically unlimited over-reach and no nominal taxation up front. In terms of politics, perfect democracy or lottocracy to taste. > > Companies are allowed to amass wealth as usual, with freedom to innovate. > > The kicker: a universal government competitor (UGC) for every novel company. Instead of acquiring nominal monetary taxation, the government takes half of all of the company's physical labor and resources, additionally sharing any patent rights the company owns. > > The universal government competitor operates entirely on the back of the existing company, until that company fails, then it will be funded through its own profits, until it fails. Any additional profit gained is used to fund public services and government duties. The UGC is free to set whatever prices it deems appropriate without risk of getting undercut. > > I think a key benefit is "no taxes": normal citizens will only pay taxes in terms of paying for products from the UGC while directly receiving a good or service for it in return. Companies will also always be forced to innovate and keep products safe. It will make billionaires difficult to create. > > This, like any other economic theory would be difficult to implement. However, I think it might be simple enough that most people could understand it, and attractive as a challenge for thirsty innovators that the masses might find it palatable. > > but idk, i just thought it up in the bath
Fair, never heard that one, but I can agree with not making new ones
This is the first time I'm hearing plow cemeteries, and I'm not sure I'm on board with that. People usually spend time there to deal with grief and losing a little bit more of a dead loved one would be incredibly painful for a lot of folks
Fuck golf courses though
Yeah, I try to every day
Some days are harder than others, I ain't perfect, I've caused probably as much harm as good, but I try my best
Also, for anyone reading through this thinking, "I shouldn't give them money because drugs"
I use drugs to cope with chronic pain so I can get through a workday
I'm skilled labor and make a decent salary
The only things separating me from a homeless person were some "fortunate" family deaths providing enough inheritance to put me through college at a good time and some lucky networking
We should all be more humble and less judgemental of eachother's choices
I've quite a few friends I've personally pulled out of homelessness, so I've seen how hard it is firsthand, I hope things are better for you
I subscribe to a policy of cautious altruism, like a lot of folks already said. I need to keep myself and my family safe so probably not allow in the house, but I'd give food water, the hose, soap, shampoo, clean towel, and a change of clothes if I can. Maybe even some cash if I have it around to spare.
If I have a shed or garage I'd allow them to use it to change clothes privately and offer to wash their clothes if safe. They may have residue of drugs like meth on their clothes that I'm unable handle.
I've also got a decent amount of privilege to share.
Be kind, be safe
This would be cute if former Governor Schneider of the Flint, Michigan water crisis didn't run as a nerd