Baron Pedro 🔺

Left wingers finding out a baby is gonna grow up poor

Libertarians believe that it is morally justified to use violence to defend your property.

@terrifiedone And it was enforced by the state with punishment of starvation or slavery for those that reject it

@thetechnocrat0 It was designed by Amazon.

People should have their basic needs met.

@AMichelr @cremieuxrecueil No it doesn't lmao it just proves that neither party is a victim, you haven't proved war is bad, like I said war is the only method to reach peace when there is conflicting claims. Also doing it in 1521 or 1846 does not make it better or worse what kind of morality is that 😭

@thetechnocrat0 @cremieuxrecueil That actually proves the point: conquest by force is wrong regardless of who does it. The difference is the US did it in 1846, not 1521, and was supposed to know better. They even had a constitution that said so…

A lot of nationalism is ridiculous, but this one has always felt the most ridiculous. Mexico doesn't govern nearly a third of its territory. It can't even knock off drug smugglers! Why should Mexico get to have more? So that even more land can be in a state of perma-crime?

@terrifiedone The only one forcing you to the wage cage is the state

@thetechnocrat0 Being forced to choose between the wage cage and hunger is a systemic one

@terrifiedone I know the difference, being hungry is an individual issue, being raped by the government is a systemic one

@thetechnocrat0 Doesn’t know the difference between individual and systemic issues 💔💔💔

My basic need is that my property not be stolen from me and reallocated to you.

There is only two economic systems, capitalism and rape.

@AMichelr @cremieuxrecueil Nice red herring, you didn't like the question I asked so you completely ignored it and went on a tangent because you know that if you had answered you would have to say that Mexico claims were also illegitimate

@thetechnocrat0 @cremieuxrecueil The aggressor provoked the conflict, occupied Mexico City, then paid $15M to dress up a land grab as a transaction. Even Grant called it unjust. The ‘ownership requires control’ argument also cuts both ways, since the US couldn’t pacify the Comanche in that same territory

@AMichelr @cremieuxrecueil Yes you just described a war congrats? How do you think Mexico appears in the first place?

@thetechnocrat0 @cremieuxrecueil “They had a war”. Wow, great way on portraying invading and taking over territory. What’s next? God wanted us to have from east to west? Lol

Because they had a war, both countries claimed the same thing and because there is no higher judicial body to settle the dispute it was settled through war, that is how nations settle disputes since ever, even the natives settled with war. Do you reall need me to explain why wars happen?

@thetechnocrat0 @cremieuxrecueil So if it wasn't stealing why then they forced to sign a deal and pay something to change the optics?

You are not him, lil bro

@AMichelr @cremieuxrecueil It's not stealing because you are not controlling it, ownership requires some level of control or constant relationship, if claiming something is enough then I can claim anything and say that those that don't agree are stealing

@cremieuxrecueil So it is ok to steal if they are not using/controlling it? Great logic

"Only traded and showed their tech to them" would have never worked for 2 reasons: first, we did that for like 200-300 years before we started colonizing everything, second, "countries" like Mali were full of riches like gold, but instead of using it for development, they continued being tribalists and not developing at all. The idea of "just give them tech" is a modern one that forgets that civilization requires a certain spirit to be able to develop cities, two people under the same situation can end up with very different results.

Censorship is when someone makes an ai video of you going on the trash can. Always remember the night of the long knifes when Hitler made ai videos of all his opponents going into trash cans 😔✊

@AkaeiCodes @coud_ren007 @tackangel @amorphous714 This doesn't break CFAA in any way, Valorant using their anti cheat to block unauthorized access doesn't break the CFAA, you can't sue Valorant because your shitty hardware hack doesn't handle industry standards like IOMMU

@coud_ren007 @tackangel @amorphous714 CFAA mainly, I'm honestly not sure why Riot thought it was okay to do. It's not something you can waive in the terms of service either. Maybe they know something I don't.

legal got in touch lmao

This was a nice video but i think it has a few issues I will try to correct (both pro capitalism and pro marxism): I think that the lemonade stand example does not really "prove" surplus value as Lavader thinks it does. Even taking his best example of the CEO at the beach or shareholders who have never visited the factory, I think he is missing something important that happens when value and price are mixed up. The problem with MentisWave’s original analogy is that it was too simplistic. It said, "At the end of the day, they sell 30 dollars, and that is the end of the story". Looking at this simplistic view, yes, surplus value was extracted. However, the problem is that reality is more complex. Today it is $30, tomorrow it is $29.99, then it is $15, or even $40. Now that we see this dynamism, we must ask: is this really surplus being stolen, or is there more at play? The answer, I think, is that there is indeed something more subtle at play, and that is ownership. Imagine the following situation: every day, the IP address of everyone online changed. If you wanted to download a picture of a cat every day, you would have to search through all IP addresses. You would likely see multiple copies online for sale, but you would not know whether they were trustworthy. One day, a person creates the first URL. They buy cats.com and rent it out to someone selling pictures of cats. Now, instead of randomly searching online every day for pictures of cats, you have cats.com. You test it, and it is safe. Instead of searching every day, you can go there in seconds, and as long as you continue to trust the website, you can download pictures of cats. So, the question is: did the person who bought and rented cats.com create value? If you accept Marxism, the answer is obviously no. But for those who do not accept it, and even in an intuitive form most people, do think that the person renting out the URL created value. This is not because of what they did, but because of what they saved you from doing. Every time you go to cats.com, you are not randomly searching online. The same applies to anything else. Every time you go to work at a lemonade stand or a factory, the time you spend doing your task is the time you spend not doing everything else, and it is the time the clients did not spend searching for it everywhere else. The value is in the ownership of said asset. Now, looking at the wine critique, the problem with Lavader’s critique is that he forgets about the general rate of profit from Volume 3. From a capitalist perspective, which is what Marx is analyzing, every second he is waiting for wine to age is a second lost that he could be profiting in other ventures. His investment is tied up until sold, so that is why wine increases with time. It is not about the abstract value, which Marx sees as the true source of value of something, but about how the capitalist mode of production prices things.