Comments by "Ficus-lovin\x27 Capybara N\x27 pals • 🌟 • 25 yrs ago" (@YourCapybaraAmigo_17yrsago) on "How American Fishermen Lost The Right To Fish" video.

This is disgusting. Nobody should have to pay a high fee just to access fishing grounds!!!
327
I say that the entire Wal ton family fortune should be confiscated save 2% and redistributed in equal shares to everyone under a certain income threshold in this country. They are nothing but robber barons and I just think it's disgusting that we allow single families and single individuals and single companies to amass the kind of wealth that we do. It's it's literally beyond insane. It's a madness that seems to have no end.
244
God tell me about it. Will the feudalism never end???? Good god... Can't even escape the landlords by jumping into the ocean now
63
What a great line. Kinda sums everything up right there
58
@TrogdorBurnin8or were they truly at risk of being overfished?? Okay for sake of argument let's presume they were. In that case then I would try to make it as fair as possible and give everyone a maximum individual quota that's equal for everyone. Large commercial trawlers should also be limited or banned if stock is believed to be at risk. Certainly there shouldn't be any fees just to access the water though. They already pay their fee for their commercial fishing license so why isn't that enough?
18
@TheAmericanAmerican indeed. For the time being feudalism is alive and well. Yuk.
16
Unfortunately corporate dominance seems to be the cancer in every industry. I'm sure bike shops are no exception. One solution is for local county supervisors to limit corporate expansion within their jurisdiction. But will they? I highly doubt it. God they suck so hard
16
@JusticeAlways I guess for me I don't mind the idea of wealth per se, I suppose it's human nature that some people will be very attached to the idea of making money, some people are in love with money, I don't think that's healthy but that is certainly part of our reality, but if everything is profited to the max, people lose. Removing the excessive profit motive on many things is important. So at a minimum expanding the not-for-profit sector is vital. That's where I start. Providing a public alternative to every need and some wants is what I want to see.
14
Yes!!!! I hate this!!!!!! I want an alternative!!!
8
@bluehero-96 😂 you're harder than me
4
@JusticeAlways you're an MM2?? Nuclear or conventional? what ship? Active??
4
@radishpineapple74 let me know if YT didn't post my reply to you. It does that a lot when I have a non-mainstrem opinion.
4
@Telmach neh neh listen- I said everyone /under/ a certain income threshold... Say 50K. Now do the math Mr Wizard. Not so piddly now issit?? Sure sure maybe you can't retire off of it but I mean.... You can buy one hell of a fancy dinner, rent a VUDU, and offset your rent by at least 10% with it- maybe even more! NOW we're talking. FAT TIMES HERE WE COME!!!!
3
100%%%
3
Hey MPU, can you remove and clear out your banned words list? I'm trying to post a comment and there's nothing offensive in it and it keeps being kicked off by the censorbot. Very frustrating.
2
@Telmach yes please you're doing awesome. Do proceed. Fine work Jeeves that's fine work Let's say we'll give equal shares to all those under 40K
2
@gakulon rent should be very reasonable. If all rent was pegged to income then homelessness due to rent alone would never happen. What's wrong with setting rent at a set fraction of one's income with or without a maximum local cap?? Say 15 or 20%? And/or cap all rents of each type of property at a local max?? Ie $600 for a 1 bdrm, $700 for a two bdrm.... And so on. So, the way it would work is- all perspective renters would be required to provide 20% of their income as rent up to these maximum amounts. On the rare occasion a perspective tenant will not be able to cover the mortgage payment of the landlord with their 20% (for example, $700 might be 20% for someone, but the mortgage is $1000), a LL can be allowed to request the full amount, but not more than 25% above their monthly mortgage; ie $1250 for a $1000 mortgage. So you see, under this system rent costs are kept as reasonable as possible and a pretty healthy profit margin included for non-paid-off units but not an extreme one. It's win-win. I so hate using the fng market as a limitation because it doesn't work very well for the bottom 50%. Intentional regulations IMO are almost always the better way.
2
@Telmach looks like yt blocked yet another reply to you. Fun times I said "Stealing?? Is it that tho??" I said that I would support some forms of aggressive income redistribution if we ever had the means. I'm not saying take it all, but a good economic reset point with some redistribution is what I would love to see, with asset limits going forward (say 150M), although I doubt that will ever happen in our lifetime.
2
@gakulon yes that is correct I meant to imply I support that. Actual modern public housing would solve most homelessness and real rent control on the private market would do the rest , plus some other rental reforms. You bet.
2
Resources managed in common can be well-managed if all do their part. Privatization of public resources is often harmful if not very harmful.
2
I want to thank you for bringing this up because I've had friends that are CNAs before and I can only imagine how much you guys are taking advantage of and mistreated. Until understaffing is a class A felony companies will keep getting away with it. I feel it's a crime because it puts both workers and patients at risk. Healthcare in this country will always be a disaster for many people because it's so ruthlessly for-profit. Even if we don't take the profit motive completely out of it, at a minimum far stronger regulations are needed.
2
Look I try to be open-minded but I fail to see any upside of the catch share program
1
@judylandry302 (abc) you ok there??? Obviously this is something that's unlikely to happen in our lifetime but yes under certain circumstances I would certainly support the confiscation of excessive private wealth and the redistribution along lower income lines. Will it happen? Almost certainly not, but what I would support it? Uh yeah. And I'm not even against wealth per se but I am against excessive wealth and I'm def against Walmart, that fkg cancer of a megastore chain that has put half of the country out of business and makes untold zillions yet has scumbag floorwalkers literally run after desperate homeless people or poor people taking formula or basics home to their babies (or themselves).
1
@murraymadness4674 yep I totally agree. People say the stock market is important because when people buy stocks that helps the company grow but.... Idk. Why does shareholding matter again?? Why should non-seed money shares return a lifetime payout for a single investment?? Am I missing something?? See I draw a difference between seed money investing which can be important and ongoing shareholding. I'm not sure I agree with ongoing shareholding but I can see why seed money investing is necessary in some cases. I mean if somebody has a good idea for business they will need startup capital and if they can't get that from a bank loan they're going to have to get it from an investor. Ok fine- that's a fair use ... But ongoing shares??? Not sure that's really defensible. If it is I'd like to hear an argument but I feel very sus about it.
1
@judylandry302 I think yt swallowed my reply to you.
1
@jonathanjones3126 lol. Maybe 5 if we're lucky.
1
@swervsplatt9672 I mean, no fees would be great but I don't mind minor fees provided they don't become excessive, but this system is a serious scam, they way traffic tickets and the car theft (tow) rackets are.
1
@Daveeeeeeyhowyoudoing if that is true that is indeed a serious drop. Of course it's vitally important that we preserve our natural resources for future generations. Regulating fishing like anything else makes sense as long as it's done fairly and not to greatly benefit just a few well-connected players. By the way that last part based on my observation is exactly what's been happening over the last 5 years in California in the medical and now fully legal cannabis industry. Not much I can do about at the moment but I am very concerned about.it. we used to have a great variety of small weed shops throughout this county now I see far less and many more professional, chain or well-heeled ones. This doesn't happen by accident. Ask anyone who's connected to the industry who isn't backed by deep pockets; they've probably been harassed, raided, or out and out shut down based on spurious or outright bogus reasons. I see it happening in my county and it seems to be more or less statewide, depending on one's local county tyrants. Selective regulation, spurious regulations, and unjust enforcement- THAT'S how they kill the little guy EVERY time; on purpose, maliciously. It's pretty appalling. Gangsterism doesn't just happen in organized crime, it happens every day in local, state, and federal jurisdictions.
1
@AceRasputin nah fam, I just don't like unfair pay to play schemes. As discussed I'm sure there are simple ways to protect our resources while ensuring access for everyone.
1
@lordgarion514 I agree that's bad but a better system needs to be found than more-or-less monopoly and extreme barriers to entry
1
I say get these parasitical middlemen out of this business!! How is this not organized crime!?!?
1
Environmental defense fund my ass. Those are lies and that's called greenwashing. It's all about THEFT! But what else are people like the Walton family on Wall Street good at? Their entire lives are built on mass theft from average people and small businesses and in the sick thing is for a small fee they can be protected by every politician in Congress for as long as they wish.
1
@IcculusTheProphet oh wow yt just swallowed my comment. Do u see it?
1
@IcculusTheProphet ugh. Yt is THE worst these days. All I was saying is I'm not worried about the commons not working out, you're always going to have those few people that don't do their part but that's balanced out by the majority being responsible.
1
@grmpEqweer lol I'm way ahead of you. I know all that but thanks - good to state it for the normies or newbies. Thing is shit jobs wouldn't even be so bad if they paid decent and everyone had healthcare, like that's just the bare minimum. We'll get there but it's going to take a fight because the power brokers hate people and don't want everyone to be "ok". Sucks goat balls but that's the world right now, so we educate organize and fight. We can solve all the world's problems by preservation, redistribution, repurposing, recycling and regeneration. That's my belief. And other left social movements will help too but that's where I start.
1
Yep. Sad to see. But of course billionaire interests get their way in Congress it only takes a few well-placed bribes or promises or campaign donations to get them guaranteed protection for decades from these political corporate slave servants. Just another dirty privatization scheme. I didn't know anything about this so thank you MPU for bringing it to my attention. Yeah they need to reverse this immediately. You got to love the greenwashing with the EDF. They really are shameless. The only fund they care about is a hedge fund. All non-seed money investing is corrupt and unethical and tantamount to theft and shouldn't be legally sanctioned in my opinion.
1
@radishpineapple74 property taxes support public schools, which should be generously supported, but not through property taxes alone, but through a combination of federal funding and other monies from the general fund. If PT should exist, and I'm not so sure they should, they should be less than what they are now, no more than 1%, and become optional after 5 or 10 years. At a minimum, no authority should ever be able to take your primary home if you can't or won't pay them; at least if you cant. Think about it, for perhaps a claimed debt of $10,000 they're going to take a home worth $400,000? I presume they then auction it and give you back the difference, but it's still a cruel inhumane process. And what if they don't give you back the difference? I haven't researched it specifically yet, so I'm not even sure if they do, which makes it all the more evil and criminal. But for the moment, for the sake of argument, let's say they do. Let's say you received the difference in money that they received from the sale. So you're not left completely penniless but I doubt you received the full value of what that home is worth from said sale, so now in addition to being temporarily homeless you have lost some value of your home most likely in some level of excess from your original alleged tax debt. IE, if your home was fully worth $400,000 but only sold for $310,000 and your tax debt was only $10,000, you have lost $80,000 above and beyond what you ever legally owed. If you owe me $500 would I be justified in taking your car worth $20,000, selling it and then giving you back the difference? That wouldn't be moral. Or even worse, not giving you the difference back at all? So that essentially I stole your car from you??? I took a huge asset from you for a tiny fraction of its actual worth- now that's a crime. People want to be out here literally screaming about poor people taking toothpaste and baby formula from Walmart or clothes from some random big box store, stores that could give away 80% of their inventory and still make a profit, absolutely minor meaningless street level petty theft from multi-millionaire stores and billionaire chains, but people don't seem to realize the massive amounts of government theft and crime that we have to live with every day. Even if those rules exist for the purposes you claim, it hasn't stopped anything. Billionaires and mega millionaires can still easily buy as much land or property as they want, and they are. Bill Gates owns more land than 60% of the population put together. Corporations own the rest. So if that was its purpose, it's not working. There are plenty of land monopolies out here. There are quasi- monopolies of property in rental housing, including SFDHs, by mega corporate bodies like Black Rock. The corporate mega-consolidation of all our essential resources is well underway. Land taxes may be fair if they are progressive and rise as a proportion based on the value and amount of land, but I would have to look into them further. Again, the same principle applies- they have no right to take the land if you're unable to pay these taxes. The land might be worth 2m, the tax that on it may be 20,000; they are in no way equal and then no moral universe does one equate to the other. Seizing your two most important assets, your land and/or home, is just another way publicly-funded criminals (govt bureaucrats) destroy you for sport and profit. It's certainly inhumane and causes a lot of harm to people. I imagine most people who haven't paid their recent property or land taxes do so more out of lack of ability than personal opposition. Anything to keep government thugs out of our lives is probably an expense most people would be willing to pay IF they could afford it. What hardship programs exist for those who literally just don't have the means at the moment? Are there any? I don't know the answer to this but I'm willing to bet the answer is no. How easy it is for a megabank to foreclose on one's home??? All too easy, as too many good people found out in the wake of 2008, and this is by design. Human well-being and personal property rights are a joke in a society administered by bloodthirsty tyrants who want material accumulation by any means necessary. It's far too easy to evict a rental tenant and with a little extra effort, a homeowning family, and this is very MUCH by design. Families' lives can be upended for years and years, their future renting or home purchasing ability can be seriously affected, so they stay in the cycle of homelessness and destabilization sometimes for decades but certainly for some years, unless they are fortunate and have a family to reach out to or get lucky in some way. As a humane person I find this wrong, I find this unjust, and I demand a different system of laws which haven't been bought-and-paid-for by big banks and corporate rental landlords, and supported by greedy ruthless local municipal government officials. We can discuss tenant and rental reform later but at a minimum homeowner and land-owning reform seems urgently needed.
1
I disagree that comments are not well managed
1
Just like any other natural resource, let's get the parasites out of it and then manage it responsibly so that everyone gets their fair share and the resource is maintained sustainably. Goddamn these b_stard corpos just won't quit.
1
Once again, stealing the commons for the 1% and the 0.01%. I don't know when this is going to end it just keeps getting worse all the time. I hope everyone realizes we are PAST the first Gilded Age by now. We are in the second even worse Gilded Age.
1
You know what shame on you get off this comment board. Yeah just go bro. THOSE ARE GOOD CONTROLS AND YOU'VE JUST SHOWN THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSCIENCE FOR OTHER PEOPLE. Efff OFFFF HARD
1