Permanently Deleted
"Either we do it through the free market or we all die there are no other options because socialism is authoritarian which is bad even if it'll save billions of lives. You can't force people to stop destroying the world, that's wrong."
Corporations are people too and they have rights! Won't someone think of the billionaires?!
Libertarian Left
Why is it that everyone over there is correctly flaired, but liberals flair themselves Lib Left and Strasserists flair themselves Auth Left?
Also :funny-clown-hammer: for posting PCM
Literally everyone on that sub thinks lib left = worships Kamala Harris
That place used to be fun. It was succdem central, but fun. There were a few right wingers to act as punching bags. Then, as the sub got popular, punching bags had the idea of "using n-word to scare normies away". Dumb succdems agreed. Now it's indistinguishable from r/libertarian.
Funny how every time people do "ironic racism/sexism etc." it turns into an actual one real fast.
The same morons who are like "If a doctor is bad, no one will patronize them." Have they considered how much information is required to determine if a doctor is bad? That it's ex post facto? Cretins
I've always considered 'Western medicine' (a silly concept to be honest though) to be a separate entity from 'American medicine', because it's our medicine that gave us chiropractors and John Brinkley.
Chiropractors are still around despite there being no medical evidence of its efficacy and has potentially harmful effects for people with slipped discs, and John Brinkley operated for about 20 years and ran several hospitals.
Ultimately there's lots of unintelligent people who fall for this stuff all the time, and even though they're republicans they still deserve proper healthcare from a real doctor.
Okay re: Chiropractors, is that 100% verified or is there still debate? I thought this was common knowledge but then every doofus in my office started seeing chiropractors and it made me doubt myself a little.
There's probably lots of debate regarding it, but I can certainly tell you what my colleague's doctor told him; my colleague has a slipped disc that if it gets worse, could potentially paralyze him from the neck down. He asked his doctor if he should see a chiropractor and the doctor told him there's a 33% chance it'll do nothing, a 33% chance his condition will improve, and a 33% chance it'll get worse.
Chiropractors however are not medical doctors, and as far as I'm concerned that's where it stops. They can get a degree after studying aspects of the body like musculature and ligaments, but I wouldn't risk my health going to one.
100% bullshit outside maybe, maybe helping with muscular pain.
That said, many Chiropractors are actually competent mainstream physical therapists in technique who realised they could save hundreds of thousands of dollars by becoming chiropractors instead. Good luck finding which ones those are.
"-and we can see here on these cave paintings that the ancients blamed something they called the "marketing team" for the eventual collapse of their civilization. Truly fascinating."
"Actually that's a popular misconception, actually it was people for not buying those products. Even though the government, and at that point most people on the planet, could see this coming a mile away, their hands were tied. Were they to oppress corporations to save the planet? Nay, for corporations are people too and it is better for the world to cease to exist than to oppress even that one person. That's why we no longer go to that place that makes people glow and instead dutifully serve our cockroach overlords"
Because they're utopians who think reading Wikipedia articles and watching Youtube videos are a fine substitute for rigorous study of history
Historical basis? Dude come on if you squint really hard and bang your head multiple times, this primitive society vaguely resembles Anarcho Capitalism!
Children and people with a child's understanding of the world. Every single compass sub is a dumpster fire.
Someone ought to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this has the same downfall when talking about the "free market solution" to any problem that someone identifies. Which is, to really spell it out for the kids at home, how can people buy the free market solution if the free market hasn't built one yet? I'm supposed to buy the FMS if I actually care about solving this problem, but the FMS doesn't exist because no one would buy it. At what point is someone supposed to have generated the FMS? Does the theory just assume that in any sufficiently industrial society there will always exist the right person, with the right amount of capital, also experiencing the same problem as everyone else, to "solve" it? Of course it does. It's a bad theory; it is quite literal nonsense.
According to them the free market solution already exists, but it's all about making some kind of correct consumer decisions. It's all about your actions as an individual consumer rather than any sort of society wide change in resource distribution. The solutions to them are like buy organic fruits, buy an electric car, buy the products from the corporations who change their logo to a green one. It's all about you personally buying stuff. And if the environment collapses? Well that's because you didn't purchase the correct products you complete imbecile. Your fault.
Because the capitalists are super logical geniuses who would simply invent it if people wanted it
They have a bullshit response to this argument. They'll point out some pointless, expensive, green-washed products and say those are the the solution. If not enough people are buying those products it means the Free Market™ hasn't decided to solve this problem. They'll never acknowledge that the Free Market™ could make the wrong decision.
Let's be honest here: if people solved the global warming problem via a way that doesn't involve buying anything, instead imagine it went the other way around and corporations are hurt by this method instead because people stopped buying stuff, these same people would then change their tone entirely and claim these people are bad and they're doing bad things. Honestly? To these people the market must be involved in the process.
WSB is an excellent example of this: People were told to invest their money rather than waste it, and when they did in a frankly brilliant financial strategy, they were demonized and attempts were made to disenfranchise them. You're only allowed to proceed and succeed as they deem fit, they're the ones that have to outline for you your strategy.
People being persuaded into consumerism during covid from the same people who said ordinary folks are just wasting their money is another example as well.
"nobody wants to talk about those"
They're literally the only ones we've been allowed to talk about or legislate.
have there ever been any long term studies about if replacing gasoline cars with electric cars would even have enough of a viable environmental impact for it to matter
because my dumb dumb brain says the switch to manufacturing electric cars still involves massive industrial production of things like rubber, lubricants, lithium batteries, whatever else goes inside a car, plus I don't know how energy efficient those batteries are, and my commie brain has some kind of intuitive reflex saying electric cars are still just a bandaid for an infrastructure that still inherently lends itself towards environmental catastrophe, especially if manufacturers will probably engineer some kind of planned obsolescence into them
my commie senses say a more viable long term project would be scrapping car based transportation entirely in favor of more convenient mass transit and much better planned and managed resource allocation so we wouldn't be so reliant upon truckers always being on the road
Electric cars are generally more efficient and they cut down on localized pollution meaning they're generally better for the people living around where they're operating, but in terms of big-picture shit they are indeed basically meaningless because commuter cars make up such a tiny portion of overall greenhouse gas emissions and industrial pollution. Industry, agriculture, and logistics for raw materials and finished goods accounts for an overwhelming amount of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in general.
Electric vehicles certainly would be better than internal combustion engine ones, and one could certainly imagine they'd still have a place for last-mile logistics and some transportation even with a transport system reworked to favor mass-transit and rail logistics over cars and trucks, but they're completely meaningless on their own and the whole "jUsT bUy ElEcTrIc CaRs" shit is just another facet of the liberal consumption-as-the-only-acceptable-form-of-political-activity shit that seems to atomize everyone and turn every issue into an individual subjective moral choice rather than something that needs to be addressed systemically.
IT'S MY FREEDOM TO LET PEOPLE DIE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE
Me watching as an orangutan attempts to defend its home against a bulldozer:
The ape would not have needed to violate the NAP if it had engaged in peaceful, market-based solutions. Several years of performing for humans could easily have netted it sufficient funds to purchase this unproductive land from the rightful owner. :ancap-good:
