I defend capitalism because it is the most equitable and productive economic system that has ever existed, lifting more people out of poverty than ever before.

Free markets create space for those who don’t fit in. As an autistic person, I appreciate a world where I can find a way to survive other than convincing a committee that I deserve to exist.

I don’t deserve billionaires per se, but I have nothing against their existence and I think that a billionaire under capitalism is more fair and more likely to have fairly and productively achieved their wealth than a billionaire under any other system.

And if you don’t think the other systems have billionaires, you’re blind.

Under a free market, one gets rich by providing value. Economic relations are mutually consensual. That’s the definition.

What is called “capitalism” these days is, generally speaking, the places where the free market has broken down. Slaves aren’t a free market scenario. Only having one available job isn’t a free market scenario. Big corporations controlling the government to prevent their competition from surviving or arising isn’t a free market scenario.

All the “worst aspects of capitalism” that people complain about are exactly the aspects of the world that most resemble capitalism’s alternatives like anarchy and centralized command economies.

We need more free market, not less. We need to let people buy a pack of cigarettes and then sell them for $2 a pop to make a profit, not kill them for doing this.

The anti-capitalist hate is the result of decades of anti-working class propaganda that has made generations of people dedicated to destroying the very thing that gives them hope and possibility in the world.

Biggest psy op in history, as Marx himself would be the first to recognize if he were alive and commenting today. I defend capitalism NOT because I want to fit in, but because it is the right thing to do.

A live cow

The A in USA stands for “America”

It’s more like Biden isn’t mentally competent and Harris is running for President with no primary votes.

I’ve never seen an interaction like that and I’ve lived in this country 40 years

You got something against vitamin D, buddy??

Yes. It only takes one party to initiate violence involving two parties.

This is why it is necessary to be prepared for violence even if one never initiates violence.

Violence is for situations when one’s choice of other resolution methods is gone. Such situations do exist.

This is true of everyday people. But a small percentage of people are psychopaths, who are perfectly happy to be violent whenever they can get away with it.

A seriously deprived scenario will make others violent, but there is always a subset that is violent even in comfortable situations.

Thinking that it is better to cause harm o an attacker rather than permitting the attacker to harm oneself is not a dystopian attitude.

A place in which it is possible that someone might try to hurt you isn’t a dystopia. It’s a natural part of reality.

A place in which no aggression exists is, however, a utopia.

There’s a difference between “violent crime exists” and “violent crime is so prevalent that regular citizens need to carry around an implement designed to kill people quickly while they go about their daily lives.”

Only if you haven’t yet experienced violent crime.

I carry a weapon because of one violent encounter I experienced in 2009.

I decided that I never want it to happen again, so I am content to carry a weapon for the 1/1000000 times that it happens.

I’ve had hundreds of thousands of encounters with strangers and only one of them involved the stranger trying to seriously hurt me. That one was enough to change my view on the nature of reality.

Crashes don’t have to be prevalent in one’s life in order to wear a seatbelt.

People should be confined to boxes full of packing foam. This reduces the variable and permits police to control the situation more easily.

No he’s saying that weapons permit people to be equally strong.

Without weapons, big people get to control smaller people. With weapons, a person gets to modify their own susceptibility to being controlled.

I’m guessing you’re a rather large person if you don’t understand this.

No, being limited in self defense to the power of your body is a pre-civilized state. Asking women to punch people to defend themselves is nature rules. That’s where whoever’s biggest gets to take advantage of people.

Well not if you aren’t armed. If you are armed, you do get to kill people.

An armed society is a polite society.

Actually increasing the level of possible violence (and also the uncertainty of violent outcomes) does lead to a reduction in aggression. You have to be willing to think it through though.

My car isn’t driverless, but I as the driver have less control than ever before.

It’s an EV, and it will not shift to drive or reverse if the charging cable is attached.

Great for preventing me from destroying a charger. Terrible for getting away from someone trying to mug me.

Far too much of the safety features these days assume an environment in which all harm is accidental. This comes at the cost of safety in environments where someone is trying to harm another person.

Listen to the soundtrack, then compose something new

Read lots of literature. Find fiction that you enjoy and read it every day.

When humans do it, it’s called “confabulation”