• 0 Posts
  • 74 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 27th, 2023

help-circle
  • No, I think I’m far enough on the left to be aware of capitalist propaganda. In all fairness to you, my statement did not treat the subject with the appropriate nuance the subject should require.

    The DDR was socialist. However, it was state socialism, which in my opinion is not ideal and not something we should strive to replicate. Yes, the means of production were “owned by the people,” but the state tasks itself with protecting the people. And therein lies the problem with state socialism - the state is easily commandeered by a corrupt minority who then uses the governmental apparatus to run an authoritarian regime. Precisely what happened in the DDR and the USSR.

    We should be able to recognize the imperfections in prior socialist attempts, without immediately calling it “capitalist NGO propaganda.”










  • I’m not sure that person meant that the obese should be made to pay more in automobile taxes specifically, but rather in health insurance premiums, or some other kind of fat excise tax.

    I’m of the opinion that, assuming that a licensed medical provider has performed an appropriate evaluation that excludes the diagnosis of an underlying metabolic disorder that specifically causes one to be obese, there should be remuneration made to the health system for the consequences rendered by their behavioral decisions.

    Theres already precedent for this with tobacco use.








  • The thing about law though, is that it’s just a framework of written social contracts between rational parties agreeing to abide by the terms and consequences.

    Reality is a bit different.

    Texas could halt physical transport of goods/services. Refuse to buy US imports. Stop collecting tax revenue. Gun down federal employees that don’t swear Texan allegiance.

    It doesn’t really matter what legal papers say, when it comes to actions.

    Sure - there may be consequences for such “illegal” state actions, and the documented illegality would be articulated as official justification after administering such consequences.

    But that also only matters if Texas is defeated … in the unlikely event they “win,” - they’d write their own narrative with legal justification.


  • Texas has made an issue over their independence and God-given right to be Texas, in defense of their the right to own chattel slavery since their first secession. From Mexico. In 1836.

    Texas reconfirmed their desire to die on the hill of their divine right to own people, by seceding from the US in 1861.

    After the civil war, Texas was a haven for the Confederates - and their ideology has been fomenting ever since

    They’ve been talking of secession openly since at least the 1990s.

    I think this is the first time since the civil war that other states have involved their national guards in support of a hotbed issue that could lead to a secession.

    Edit: correction to grammatical error.