throwwyacc

That isn't exactly related to what we're taking about. I'm not saying stopping the use of oil is bad, I'm saying it requires changes for the individual

Yes oil companies have lobbied, you also have people in industry that aren't going to vote to remove their own jobs either. Makes it tricky. I don't think we should have allowed companies to get away with this btw but historically I'm not sure public support would be there

Yes but you still need to implement that change. You have to change millions of people's houses to switch their type of heating And replace cars, etc It will require huge changes for individuals, you can't just turn off the big oil companies as nice as it would be to have a simple fix

Ah damn good point forgot leftists had actually lost their minds and forgot that abstaining from voting is basically endorsing whoever wins

Sorry but are you implying Biden is going to make America money by selling weapons to Israel, and also make money by sending aid to Gaza?

I asked for your ideal system. I was saying further that communism would have a hard time here. But please do explain for market socialism/whatever you prefer

Sorry when I say business replace with whatever name you want for the organisation you'd replace it with. My point being, lets say I want a place that makes a new kind of product that I have an idea for. Now 10 other people have ideas for other products, not necessarily in the same sector If the market can't decide, and government doesn't exist. Then how do we decide what gets resources allocated? Do we do direct democracy?

I'm more interested in your system than communism though of course, as communism seems impractical

And please don't tell me "maybe you should talk to them or try to understand". I literally am, but communists seem far to quick to just say "capitalism bad" and call it a day, or somehow worse "I don't know how it'll work, we'll work that out after the revolution"

If you don't have any scripts that rely on branch name it should be pretty trivial actually. But I wouldn't be shocked if you had a few dozen scripts that nobody has looked at in the last century lol

Is this a bot?

Just on the risk point. To reduce the scope a bit

People not having the assents to start large businesses is of course a thing. You need to be quite lucky to start a business to begin with, I wouldn't dispute that and I hate the dumb thing the right does where they assume everyone can start a successful business

However I would like to know, in your ideal system where would the starting capital come from? And how do we decide which businesses should have capital allocated to them? Your comment on "communism has no government" would make this seemingly quite difficult

Ah yes the UN famous Western media outlet

Isn't this only the case in github? All my repos are based from master, and I would assume that's because I init on the command line and push up to the remote?

I don't consider it bad for people to make a profit off my work though. They're always risking something in order for me to be in a position to make profits to begin with. If they weren't I wouldn't need the employer, I'd just have a risk free business that I'd run myself

I don't think the oil companies are a failure of capitalism either. I understand how it looks that way, as they do some real sketchy stuff in the name of profit. But at the end of the day our governments should be regulating them to death, but they aren't and the reason sadly enough is likely that the average citizen simply doesn't care. In countries where an actual majority of the population care you see much better results Even under full on communism you could still run in to this issue anyway. Oil is a big industry for a reason, it's really useful and relatively cheap you could easily see a communist society choosing to use it ignoring the downsides

I think capitalism's flaws are obvious, which I like. Because we can easily rectify them with government regulation Do you have an example of a flaw of capitalism that can't be solved? Other than just the idea that profiting off someone else's labour is wrong, as I think that's really more of a philosophical question that I don't think 90% of people would agree with

See that isn't very consistent is it? If you hold non voting stock you can't vote on company decisions. But the company does now need to pay you a dividend, which according to you would be immoral as it would mean a third party is profiting from their labour correct?