The idea that a functional society can arise from a population that only does what it wants is, let's say, unlikely. It removes checks and balances, so there is not really anything that prevents someone with huge resources to become a tyrant. What happens if someone with billions of dollars ignores the NAP to get their way? They can fund a private army, I can't, so how can I prevent them from aggressing against me? Without a state law enforcement and legal system, there is no entity that can stop them. We would regress to a society of warlords, dukes and serfs.
Likewise it makes the country as a whole more vulnerable to enemies. If there is no central state to run the military, just a rag tag collection of powerful, self-interested groups, then could they successfully repel an invasion? What if they are bribed with power by the oppressors, and facilitate the invasion? Look at colonisation in Africa and the Americas to see examples of how that played out. Tribes played off against each other for the benefit of the highly coordinated invaders.
Libertarianism is a user-pays society, where if you can't pay and can't generate income (even if it's no fault of your own) then you better hope someone takes pity on you and you receive charity, or else your remaining option is to just die. Our current system is a playground for the rich and a crushing, lifelong burden for the rest as we compete for relative scraps, Libertarianism would dial that up to 11.
Note that I live in a country where although government has its problems, there is quite a bit of pro-worker and pro-citizen law on the books, and government institutions are generally seen as competent and are trusted. If that wasn't the case then perhaps Libertarianism would seem more appealing.
So they fucking should be, although being libertarian is only marginally less embarrassing anyway
I still can't believe they're legal. Interacting with your phone while driving is against the law but for some reason when it's a part of your dashboard it's a-ok?
Performing surgery on someone and putting up a sheet of drywall have very different stakes
Nah it wouldn't be that, those sorts of land acknowledgements are very common in Melbourne, especially in the Arts, that would have been perceived as utterly uncontroversial by the MSO
That's the dictionary definition perhaps, but not what they're pushing for. Conservatives talk about small government etc, but really it's about rewarding the ingroups and punishing the outgroups.
They want to revert reproductive rights, with the government tracking periods and investigating women's bodies. That's weird af. They love the police state and mass surveillance, recording people's messages and web activities is hugely creepy. It's weird if a person snoops on you like that, and it's weird if the government does it. They care way too much about what's between your legs and which gender you sleep with, again, weird.
Edit: also just to add there is good weird and bad weird. Good weird is being yourself despite what the mainstream does, bad weird is forcing your viewpoints on others
Based. We need all the union influence we can get in tech, particularly game dev. Make the MBAs in suits sweat a bit.
The president of the United States affects the rest of the world but we don't have a say in who it is, so I don't know what you expect from us foreigners? Perhaps my country which is a staunch US ally and a fraction of the size should launch a coup?
Sort your shit out, America, because nobody is in a position to do it for you. We're making jokes because it seems unreal that things have gotten this far and because there is no real way for us to influence US domestic politics.
Fair enough, but isn't it reasonable to want the president of the United States to be someone who doesn't fall apart after 9pm?
Yeah this is reporting on the feedback from a focus group of like 20 people conducted by some Latino TV station... Not sure how representative that is of the wider electorate...
Please tell me, scientifically, why you are so sure that people of faith are wrong?
Because they all offer competing and mutually exclusive hypotheses.
Christianity tells us that the one true path to salvation is by accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour.
Hinduism tells us that our next life will take place in this world, based on our actions in this life.
Islam tells us that Mohammed is the one true prophet.
Buddhism says that there are no prophets, enlightenment only comes from within.
They make contradictory claims, so by definition they can't all be right, and they typically claim that they are correct and the other explanations are false, so even if one religion is correct, the rest (comprising of the majority of the faithful) must be wrong.
Google Messages definitely supports dual SIM, I have a physical SIM and an eSIM in my device and you can choose which one it sends from on a message by message basis
Dismantling the regime. If someone said we need to eliminate the Chinese Communist regime, would you think they want to destroy the entirety of China?
Pretty ironic seeing Rolling Stone of all publications displaying a disapproving stance on drug use
Well, one of Australia's high profile war criminals was punished with a cushy media executive job
It's not good at all for society. It's slavery with the addition of a heightened risk of death, all to serve the whims of guys in suits far from the battlefield.
Previous commenter thinking it's a good thing because it will whip the rabble into shape is delirious. These are peoples sons and daughters that we would be sending off to die in the mud. Shameful.