Doing everything exactly opposite from "The Mainstream" is the same thing as doing everything exactly like "The Mainstream." You're still using What Everyone Else is Doing as your primary point of reference.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
In summary, it sounds like you're saying (and please correct me if I'm missing it - I don't want to put words in your mouth) that we just need big corporations to come up with innovative ways to go green which are cheaper than the traditional ways. And that we shouldn't be coercing corporations into "going green", we need them to do it on their own.
I mean, yeah, that all sounds good, but how do you do it?
Personally, I don't think there is a way to get everybody to cooperate when there are such big benefits to defecting. I think you need regulations.
The non-libertarian FAQ has a great example of why you'll never see that altruistic, cooperative behavior emerge out of mutual self-interest:QuoteCoordination problems are cases in which everyone agrees that a certain action would be best, but the free market cannot coordinate them into taking that action.
As a thought experiment, let's consider aquaculture (fish farming) in a lake. Imagine a lake with a thousand identical fish farms owned by a thousand competing companies. Each fish farm earns a profit of $1000/month. For a while, all is well.
But each fish farm produces waste, which fouls the water in the lake. Let's say each fish farm produces enough pollution to lower productivity in the lake by $1/month.
A thousand fish farms produce enough waste to lower productivity by $1000/month, meaning none of the fish farms are making any money. Capitalism to the rescue: someone invents a complex filtering system that removes waste products. It costs $300/month to operate. All fish farms voluntarily install it, the pollution ends, and the fish farms are now making a profit of $700/month - still a respectable sum.
But one farmer (let's call him Steve) gets tired of spending the money to operate his filter. Now one fish farm worth of waste is polluting the lake, lowering productivity by $1. Steve earns $999 profit, and everyone else earns $699 profit.
Everyone else sees Steve is much more profitable than they are, because he's not spending the maintenance costs on his filter. They disconnect their filters too.
Once four hundred people disconnect their filters, Steve is earning $600/month - less than he would be if he and everyone else had kept their filters on! And the poor virtuous filter users are only making $300. Steve goes around to everyone, saying "Wait! We all need to make a voluntary pact to use filters! Otherwise, everyone's productivity goes down."
Everyone agrees with him, and they all sign the Filter Pact, except one person who is sort of a jerk. Let's call him Mike. Now everyone is back using filters again, except Mike. Mike earns $999/month, and everyone else earns $699/month. Slowly, people start thinking they too should be getting big bucks like Mike, and disconnect their filter for $300 extra profit...
A self-interested person never has any incentive to use a filter. A self-interested person has some incentive to sign a pact to make everyone use a filter, but in many cases has a stronger incentive to wait for everyone else to sign such a pact but opt out himself. This can lead to an undesirable equilibrium in which no one will sign such a pact.
The most profitable solution to this problem is for Steve to declare himself King of the Lake and threaten to initiate force against anyone who doesn't use a filter. This regulatory solution leads to greater total productivity for the thousand fish farms than a free market could.
The classic libertarian solution to this problem is to try to find a way to privatize the shared resource (in this case, the lake). I intentionally chose aquaculture for this example because privatization doesn't work. Even after the entire lake has been divided into parcels and sold to private landowners (waterowners?) the problem remains, since waste will spread from one parcel to another regardless of property boundaries.
I'm not sure we disagree as much as you think. I think the confusion may be due to my lack of clarification, or a difference in definition of "Defense of moral integrity."
It's actually pretty progressive tbh. Porn is a health crisis because it has a lot if common themes that worm into your head. And effects how you sex and treat people.
But I mean. Instead of declaring it a crisis I'd just fund some of the making love tasteful porn. Or you know. Tell people that porn is an industry that caters to anything so see the subliminal messages in each genera and choose your poison
And as always fuck pedos.
Leaving the pedos aside, obviously, there is no argument for criminalization of porn involving consenting adults.
I feel that porn of ANY kind is the commidification of human beings and therefore immoral, but for one reason or another, my morals are not binding on other human beings.
Also, today I learned from a customer that the governor of Tennessee VETOED THE BIBLE!
I thought he just vetoed a bill to make the Bible the official state book of Tennessee, but the customer corrected me, and I understand now that the governor did, in fact veto the Bible.
However, think of this test as designed by a Hoover Institute academic to paint everyone as "out of touch rich coastal elitists who listen to fancy music and watch documentaries on Netflix" except REAL MURICANS who vote Republican while drinking cheap beer, driving their pickup truck around.
So, not directly related to this particular test, but on the subject of bubbles: went to see Midnight Special (which I highly recommend) with The Man From Texas and I had to ask him afterwards about when the movie is supposed to be set, because look at all these landlines and old CRT TVs, but they're saying dates like 2011. He had to explain to me that in the poor-but-not-Hunger-Games-poor parts of the south this is still completely normal. Of course, this was news to me because where I live poor-but-not-starving folks have garbage cellphones and itty bitty HD sets or no TV at all.
3 seems like it defines poor.
3 does define poor, but you get penalized if you, essentially, MADE yourself poor by getting edumacated, or got a little edumacated and couldn't find a job, thus being unable to pay bills that let you live on your own. Because that kind of poverty doesn't count. Because reasons.
However, I don't think this is about "penalties", and I don't think it's about the "kind" of poor one happens to be. Even if you've gone to college and made yourself poor that way, you're still going to experience the world as someone who can't pay their bills and perhaps drink cheap beer, regardless of "reasons".