Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "glasses that can find where you live" video.

@thesenamesaretaken you don't need the government for that.
1
@KarimTemple What should be good buddy?
1
@cluddlesclaimscraniums6841 I may ask in return, are you absolutely insane at the point of letting the same governments responsible for more than 100M deaths in WW1/WW2 control our morals? The real problem was never "big corporations", if you just don't give money to them they cannot do literally nothing (and, contrary to the state, they will not put weapons in your head to force you to pay them like taxes).
1
@cluddlesclaimscraniums6841 My response was just cutted by youtube, so I think I'm not allowed to give it to you hah. But in summary of what I said before, I don't think the same governments who klled 100M people in the WW1/WW2 events are able to determine someone's else morals, giving this kind of power to them is what I call 'being nuts'. But whatever.
1
 @KarimTemple You want what kind of explanation, an ethical one, a technical one, what?
1
@KarimTemple From where you got that? Obviously there is such a thing as illegal without a government (and of course, I hope you understand that with 'government' I'm accepting the commonsensical identification of the state). Societies existed much before states, and they had their own internal rules and laws that made living possible, they also had morals which need to objectively predate any government. You are being absurd with this kind of point.
1
@KarimTemple I think I am being misunderstood, then. I don't believe the <state> is needed, not the government. I said the <government> is not needed because of this comment: ``` By "shouldn't be happening" do you mean it should be illegal to do this? You'll have to contend with all the people who don't want the government interfering with the free market. ``` This is a comment of such a kind that refers to people that are opposed to the state governments not interfering with the free market, not <any kind of imaginable government>, that's why I specified I am assuming the commonsense notion of government (as state, which most people assume it is the same pragmatically in discourse).
1
@KarimTemple I absolutely believe free markets are capable of self regulating tho, I just <also> believe that laws can be enforced by non state governments in communities if this is what they want.
1
@cluddlesclaimscraniums6841 > I don't disagree that governments certainly are not on the moral high ground but relative to companies they are. Again, I really don't think companies killed 100M people sending them to wars. Literally there was nothing human as destructive in the last 1 thousand years as the modern state for humanity (I'm being hyperbolic, but it is probably true as well), and it is still causing murder and destruction worldwide. Also I like the argument of "those are not the same thing" because it was "other government", but this can be said the same for all companies that you are generalizing, the difference is that the state still has the same level of destruction power (as we know for all the nukes and military) and the same kind of psychopats in control as before, they are just more chill nowadays. The most destructive company cannot do more harm than the most willingfully destructive state, because, you know, some nukes and literally the world is doomed. And finally, while companies need money people give to them to survive (literally), the state survives through armed and indirect robbery in mass scale (which we call 'taxes' and 'inflation', in order) and don't need that kind of support, so the destructive power is also unbounded by the normal market limitations, they have """unlimited""" money supply to do warfare in the worst case scenario.
1
@KarimTemple No, I never said "municipal governments", I think governments can have a wide range of possibilities in what they are, not only what you understand as government (like 'federal' or 'state' governments). A government can be as tiny as a neighborhood, or even a house, it depends on the organization of the society around it, I am a defensor of organic societies over state based ones. But regarding your last question, yes, I think municipalities are better at understanding business, because generally speaking the larger is your scope the harder to predict the whole consequences of your actions in the short, medium and long term, so a governance happening at a smaller scale will be more controlled even if it go wrong.
1
@KarimTemple This is also false, to an extent. There's nothing compared to the modern state government's influences in the world, so the smallest state (like a 'municipal state') will affect dozens of thousands of lifes in the best case (it is better than a larger one that affects even more, of course). A big company can affect much more than a small one, obviously, but it also don't have the power to <enforce> a certain kind of regulation or behavior for over peoples wants, companies need money to survive and the money comes from the people themselves (so even the largest company has more limits to what it can do compared to a state). But I agree that smaller companies are better for the overhall common good, that's also why I despise the modern state with bailouts, regulations and all the environment it creates that makes giant corporations a possibility.
1
@KarimTemple Yeah, this is what I meant. Maybe "smaller" is a trigger word for you, so understand it as "intervenes less or nothing in society". It is a well stablished economic fact that megacorporations can only exist in an environment that benefits them and where they have a political advantage for, most of the giant corporations literally started to get giant because they had direct contracts and benefits with the state (think about hershey's, think about pepsi, microsoft and even space-x to some extent). When they go bankrupt they also have the "power of bailouts" to save them from their poor economic choices, the sustainability of such business is directly tied to the state.
1