Alcohol has also just been more prevalent in human cultures dating back to prehistory. Some of the earliest evidence we have of permanent human settlements were breweries, theorized to have been built by people who still lived semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyles. That would mean that humans first started making permanent settlements and doing large-scale agriculture only to produce alcohol, and still mainly relied on hunting and gathering for their caloric needs. Other drugs / intoxicants have been used by humans for at least as long, but none have been so central to the development of civilization and culture than alcohol.

There are some billionaire governors, and some of them are paradoxically progressives who call for taxing billionaires. I just think they’re afraid of the guillotines coming out and are trying to get out ahead of a revolution they think might be on the horizon.

Plenty of species self-destruct. The difference with humans is that we’re aware of our own self-destruction and are continuing it anyway.

This video by More Perfect Union talks about them at length. If I remember right, it is literally required by law to be cheaper overall (25% savings across the board) with a default pricing of cost plus 1% and a variable pricing model where common staples like eggs and milk are sold at a loss and it’s made up for on more niche items. They’re tax-subsidized through the military, and it’s an incredibly tiny portion of the budget. Some locations operate at a loss but they’re not allowed to close any stores so that’s why they need the subsidies.

So in short, yes, government run shops are cheaper because they’re tax-subsidized, and are not required to profit or even break even. Personally I don’t see any problem with government operating grocery stores at a loss to provide the working class with affordable groceries and having the rich foot the bill. In fact, I’d say that’s the whole point.

If you’re thinking that means government run grocery stores are unrealistic keep in mind that they already exist for the military. They’re called commissaries and they sell groceries for significantly cheaper prices than private grocery stores, but they are open only to service-members and their families. We are perfectly capable of providing robust social services, but the state wants to keep it exclusive so they have an incentive for people living in poverty to join the military.

It’s what the kids these days are calling “friend-slop,” which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s just that most of the value comes from creating zany situations for your coop pals to get into and let hilarity ensue. It’s a bit like a lot of card games in that way, it’s simple because it mostly just has to get out of the players’ way and allow social interaction to happen.

Asking an LLM to cite its sources is like asking a street-drug dealer where the drugs are grown/manufactured. They don’t know, and if they did they wouldn’t tell you.

dont know how web designer as a industry is doing now.

Bereft with AI slop following sweeping layoffs, so not well.

Modern states suspend the rights of individuals to lifer or liberty as a punishment for breaking a rule. Rules like “don’t rape people”.

They also do it for rules like “wrong skin color,” “wrong country of origin,” “wrong sexuality or gender identity,” “born into poverty and stole food,” “suffering from drug addiction,” or even “possessed a completely harmless drug like weed.” And the punishment is often the total depravation of rights and forced labor tantamount to slavery.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike from stealing loaves of bread.”

At least in theory, you can move to another nation or campaign for better treatment in essentially all modern states, exempting a small group of pariah states that still mostly don’t rape people as punishment.

This wasn’t a good argument in feudal society when peasants could leave and find another Lord or live on their own, and it’s not a good argument now. Choice is pointless when all your choices share the same constraints.

Not a single person I’ve seen has so much as suggested any mechanism whatsoever that would keep “self organizing collectives” from becoming fetit pools of bigotry and violence. We know that will happen because such groups arise in every nation already, but their impact is curbed specifically by the power of the state.

What mechanism prevents states from becoming fetid pools of bigotry and violence, and how has it been working so far? The power of the state does not curb this behavior, it curbs its rivals while engaging in that very behavior themselves by maintaining a monopoly on violence.

“Get rid of the government and we’ll all do the right thing” is libertarian bullshit to cover their glee at taking things away from others. If you aren’t a pro-rape libertarian, figure out how your proposed system would protect the vulnerable at least as well as modern states do.

Anarchy is not the lack of government, it’s horizontal governance. Hierarchy is not necessary for community policing or restorative justice. I’m not an American Libertarian which is an irrational ideology, as it wants capitalism without the state, which is impossible because capitalism is enforced by the state. Without the state protecting private property there can be no capitalism.

What stops a self-organizing collective from becoming racist, sexist, transohobic, and pro-rape?

What stops a state from becoming the same?

Modern states at least have the benefit of a basic theory that they cannot simply un-person people who live within their borders.

What are you talking about? Most modern states routinely strip people within and outside of their borders of rights, deport, murder, or enslave them.

Without the backing of the Israeli state they would not be so untouchable.

Anarchy is a great ideal, but there are some things governments do that we shouldn’t trust to self-organizing collectives.

What makes states more trustworthy than self-organizing collectives?

They’re making an effort to make them illegal too.

I think it important to distinguish between a free trade market, which should be largely unregulated. People should be able to buy and sell goods on an open market.

Capital markets, or ownership and control of wealth should be heavily regulated.

Huh, what’s interesting about this is that you’ve basically arrived at a communist/anarchist idea on your own, but are describing it using Libertarian / Neoliberal Capitalist terminology. You’re describing different types of property and saying that one type should be regulated and the other type shouldn’t. Anti-capitalists distinguish between private property (the means of production privately owned and involved in an economic enterprise employing wage labor (i.e. factories, offices, farms)) and personal property (consumer goods or goods produced by an individual (i.e. books, art, jewelry)), and believe that the former should be abolished (or one could say regulated to require collective ownership of such property by the workers) while the latter should be unregulated or lightly regulated.

In short, you’ve independently come to the same conclusion that anarchists and communists came to, but are describing it in a strange way.

Can someone provide some sources for that 35k number? It’s just too outlandish for me to accept it so easily. Iran is an authoritarian theocratic dictatorship but atrocity propaganda is still a very real thing that western media does to justify foreign interventions. Both can be true; the Iranian regime can be murdering its citizens and the western reporting can be fluffing the numbers to manufacture consent for the war.

Nice, more instructions to send to revolutionaries in Myanmar.

My home is always in a superposition of completely spotless to hoarder home filled with garbage until observed in one of the two states.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It’s wild that he’s referencing this document in opposition to those seeking to alter or abolish their government - believing it has become destructive of our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - in order to make it more likely to effect their safety and happiness. Progressives are acting in the spirit of those values which saw the American revolution take place by acting perfectly in line with what the Declaration of Independence clearly states is our right.

The SDF is still around defending AANES in one of the most conflict-ridden regions of the world. They call themselves Democratic Confederalists rather than anarchists, but they are the nearest long-standing polity to anarchist ideals.

But without private property no one can accumulate wealth by exploiting the labor of others. I haven’t ruined the point of the wealth tax, I’ve preempted the need for it.