I completely disagree. Your average factory worker may be technically competent at their job, but if you just gave them a set of written instructions they would struggle to complete it correctly. Hell about 20% of the kids I went to college with struggled with basic reading and writing comprehension (with it jumping to even 30% in my engineering classes) it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest of that rate was higher, and more severe out in the general US population.

I find it is a really easy way to sus out suckers, like crypto.

This is horseshit. The fact of the matter is that we don't really know what a second Trump presidency will look like, or what particular foreign policies it will bring, because Trump is incredibly ideologically incoherent, even among right-wing nutjobs.

Yes let's go talk to 'Cubans' (are you really Cuban if you haven't lived there in 60 years?) in Florida, who have completely mythologized their actions and suffering at this point.

Also, dude literally has an American flag in the background of his picture, very not serious person

I wonder how long it will take for them to actually make back as much money as they lost. You know, actually be 'profitable'.

Look, all I'm saying is they missed a PRIME chibi in a giant hat moment, and I am incredibly disappointed.

What you are asking for is a vastly different thing than 'I want the government to stay out of my business unless I am harming someone'. Every worker council constitutes an aspect of government, and if their judgements are legally binding, an element of the state. All of those determinations can and should be made by the workers directly involved in their production, however enforcement of those decisions and arbitration of those conflicts may require the use of the state apparatus.

Mostly you just seem confused.

Not to dogpile further, but you are, like most liberals (of which a libertarian is just yet another flavor of), getting into the weeds of policy without even figuring out the basics of even simplistic political philosophy, because so much of it has been taken for granted in your life.

Let's take this seemly simple statement "I want the government to generally leave me alone as long as I am not doing anything to harm anybody."

This is impossible, the statement of an idealist constitutionalist, which has no bearing on reality whatsoever. Why is this? Well, because someone has to define what constitutes 'harm'. If it is not you, then someone else will, which means that you can't leave government to passively sit. Well then, who can dictate what constitutes 'harm'? Of course the people who agree to the constitutional contract. Ok then, at what point do you get to decide your constitutional contract? What happens if two different constitutional agreements definitions of 'harm' are at odds with each other? Who is the arbiter then? How is that arbiter decided? What if there is a disagreement with the arbiter? How is that conflict settled? Even this seemingly simple statement is fraught with issues.

These are things that can and have been argued and in some cases 'solved' by liberal bourgeoisie democracy for centuries to decades at this point. However libertarians, especially 'leftist' libertarians, get so caught up in policy that they have no structure for actually figuring out very real basic political and social science issues. I'm not saying ML theory has it 'solved' but it's foundations, such as "The state apparatus exists to monopolize violence, all other aspects of it are secondary, the key is appropriate that violence for the betterment of the industrial working class, the only class that can hope to transition us out of the necessity of states as it is the only class that is likely to effectively replicate the means of production and bring about an ideology, culture and production basis for universal post-scarcity, which will dissolve the need for a state to monopolize violence" has a better understanding of what the state does, how it actually functions, and what is likely necessary in order to dissolve it as a human institution.

There are tech libertarians that also believe their ideology and technology will bring about this post scarcity society as well, but they, as a bourgeoisie class, do not actually replicate the means of production, and have far more material incentive to engage in and profligate M-M market conditions which do not lead to lessening of global poverty, post scarcity and the withering of the state, which is why despite being nominally 'progressive' they are prone to strong ideological reactionary backlash.

It's because nobody is anything at 14. It's quite literally politics as aesthetic. Literally never trust teenagers to be consistently principled on anything going into the future, because those principles are purely ideal.

Basically any towing company that deals exclusively in cash

Dedededededededede

This is Ben Garrison's wife, they were never going to vote Democrat. Fucking learn some context before making stupid assumptions and maybe you will actually learn something someday.

No, as long as it doesn't keep happening no one will give a shit (ho ho).

The Irish literally weren't 'white' until the 1970's, dunce.

Jesus Christ I'm probably whiter than you, stop whinging you cracker.

No, they are dealing with rational actors, it's just there is no rational reason for the U.S. to actually negotiate in good faith, because they never suffer consequences for their actions. They just aren't humane actors.

Weird, I know I'm not that old, but 'literature' other than like, Bell Hooks, was a nerd dude thing, while pop fiction was feminized. I read both because I just love reading whatever.

This was one of the reasons I personally abandoned the notion of professional anthropology, because well I found that the most useful form of it was to study western culture, and the most accurate critics were nearly always some flavor of Marxists. The issue is the only way to make any money is to exploit Native groups or literally work for the State department. Or fight the administration in a continually losing battle for funding. None of which particularly interested me.

Depends on the anthropologist, era, and what culture/society they are talking about. Some societies don't have strictly distinct relationships between family/extendedfamily/tribe, and some have vert strict hierarchies within extended families that create the traditional idea of 'clans'.

Early structuralists were very keen on creating the distinction between 'kin-groups and tribes', but it stopped being in vogue around the 1960's. Still important work, but not considered as 'essential to understanding the development of civilization from the Platonic model'.

The issue is that it can get messy pretty quickly, because the whole idea of strictly genetic family relations comes mostly out of herding cultures, whereas other cultures, especially hunter-gatherers, had traditions like, "When you are with us, your name is Jon, who was my grandfather, which means you are my grandfather and that you have the obligation/privilege to take care of my family if something happens to me". Which means that when the anthropologist comes around you call that dude "Jon, my grandfather" even though he is clearly the same age or even younger than you, and maybe married/sleeping with your daughter and the anthropologist has to care enough to figure out what is actually going on.

It's because Americans have been trained to think fascism is spectacular (a myth pushed by fascists themselves) so the mundane nature of everyday fascism doesn't really affect them.