ideonek

I think that the point is that instances can choose thier own rules. Article is about an instance. Not about the entire platform.

I belive that what can be evolved needs to evolved and what can't evolve needs to revolve. I suspect we disagree on which is which. But I thing we would find some common grounds as well. I welcome the disruption. But as someone who was born in one of those "people's republic" I would prefer my revolution with less gulags.

I'm glad you understood me know, thank you. I adapted your approach to learning languages - speaking slow and laudly. It worked like a charm.

No if you have anti-trust law. In Europe state stopping someone from becoming to big is very normal. Do you remember that Microsoft was at risk of being forcebly splited into multiple companies over Internet Explorer being preinstaled? US just foritted those very needed state rights. There are plenty of capitalist that agree that regulations are needed. Some probleme are to big, and only state can fix them. No sain person is trying to fix global warning by deregulations. That's preaty much a prevailing opinion everywhere... outside US. But what's in US it's not capitalism. It's not even a rule of law at the moment it would seem.

I think it's a false dyhotomy. I think that "system" is a structured atrmpt to solve social problems - some of those are more efficiently solved by individuals and competotions, some are more efficiently solved by collective effort and collaboration. The dissaggreement between people about which system is better is mostly a categorization of those problem - if you believe almost non are in the first category. But it is a spectrum. Society with overwelmingly capitalist economy, strong social werfare and hard rules that prevents police from killing thieves over food, are not impossible. Those describe most European countries. I feel like people are taking what's broken in US and and point to it saying "this is capitalism". I don't believe it is. I think it's mostly lawlessness and the lack of rule of law. I think capitatalism at it best make most aggressive and predotory tactic both ilegal and inefficient. We just don't see a lot of capitalism at it's best recently.

I like to think I would less judgmental about people attepting to communicate with me in the only language I know. Maybe approach like that is the reason work is the only place where people spent time with you ;)

hmm, it can't eo owned indyvidualy. Can it be owned collectively? Can socialist country have borders? If it can, than I dont see what rules (not present in the capitalist country) would hard-stop it from expending those borders. If we use existing system from history as comparison, it's not all kisses and rosesses here as well.

If it can't have borders than we are talking the level of abstraction that I don't know how to discuss productively in the context of the twitt.

This part I don't get even as argument. What law would prevent one under socialism?

i understand the logic of "under capitalism -in theory - one could simply by every pice of land". I don't necessarily agree, but I understand. I don't see how it makes a difference if the invader is a socialist or capitalist country.

might is right == capitalism seams reductive

You're traversing dengerus path here. Spinning the need for "War On (I)nternal Terrorism" will be how they will finally get you all.

I think that idea is that a healthy, well-balanced capitalism (with working competition and anti-trust law) would make this imposible. It's a good argument agains cronyism and other broken form of psudo-capitalims... which most reasonable poeople would agree are bad regardless on theier political aligments. Capitalims shoudn't have monopolies. Period.

What a relief... Think about it.

That's a healthy approach.