Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
5
@WandererUber The state ultimately has the final say. The free market is an illusion it maintains, but it can just boss people around if it feels like it.
@Griffith it's not an illusion if de facto you have more room to maneuver as a company without state interference. The foundation of white society is agreeing to some chivalrous principle and not breaking it.
Decaying states inevitably DO break the principles, but this only accelerates their demise.
There is a very real practical difference between "well in theory they could pass laws and elect judges and ignore rulings and do whatever they wanted, if such a faction has control of the government, so this might all go away" and "they just demonstrated that they are actively sabotaging a free market company because it didn't give them what they wanted. It all went away." The latter is a strong top signal
Decaying states inevitably DO break the principles, but this only accelerates their demise.
There is a very real practical difference between "well in theory they could pass laws and elect judges and ignore rulings and do whatever they wanted, if such a faction has control of the government, so this might all go away" and "they just demonstrated that they are actively sabotaging a free market company because it didn't give them what they wanted. It all went away." The latter is a strong top signal
@WandererUber @Griffith I feel like a lot of people don't understand that governments have always reserved a huge amount of power to be exercised for war.
If you see what they have told companies they must do during say, WW2, I don't think this in any sense exceeds that.
If you see what they have told companies they must do during say, WW2, I don't think this in any sense exceeds that.
@sickburnbro @Griffith guy who never heard of Carl Schmitt might have his mind blown by this.
It's materially different to exercise war powers in a large scale mobilization than to force a company to support autonomous AI weaponry and mass surveillance, which nobody actually likes, to potentially theoretically be useful in military actions that are extremely unpopular right now.
I'm not going to step-by-step explain how the climate of public consensus differs from WWII to now, you can fill in the blanks on this one yourself.
In the end, it's literally the difference I outlined before. You can do all sorts of word-twisting games to demonstrate that in theory the capability has always been there or maybe even been executed to the same degree on any number of arbitrary scale, but that doesn't change the facts
It's materially different to exercise war powers in a large scale mobilization than to force a company to support autonomous AI weaponry and mass surveillance, which nobody actually likes, to potentially theoretically be useful in military actions that are extremely unpopular right now.
I'm not going to step-by-step explain how the climate of public consensus differs from WWII to now, you can fill in the blanks on this one yourself.
In the end, it's literally the difference I outlined before. You can do all sorts of word-twisting games to demonstrate that in theory the capability has always been there or maybe even been executed to the same degree on any number of arbitrary scale, but that doesn't change the facts
@WandererUber @Griffith Yes, I can see you are very high on your horse. We'll revisit this in 3 months.
Replies
1
@sickburnbro @Griffith About what? You never make any predictions, so what would you even be right about?