Cethin

No, you dummy. The reason we use "are" with "you" is because it was originally plural. However, language is mutable and ever-changing. You is almost exclusively used as singular now, yet it keeps the plural "are". The point being, your statement that "they is" is wrong doesn't prove anything. We use the "wrong" grammar for words all the time and we don't care, until you can do it to hurt someone.

You are singularly really dumb.

I don't know why you're being downvoted. You're correct. Plural they is at least as old as Shakespeare. The notion that it's only singular is modern.

I don't know if you understand what protectionism is. Protectionism is favoring domestic production over foreign. I don't think it has anything to do with your comment. The way you're using it seems to be just not holding them accountable. That's just capitalism though. They buy the legislators who create the justice system.

I agree larger corporations should face more scrutiny or liability. I've never seen a Libertarian express this opinion though. The standard libertarian position is: "The larger company earned its money and should be free to spend it how they wish, including molding the system to its desires. The Market decided they're the most capable after all."

I haven't seen those originals disappear...

It happens. You probably wouldn't notice it, but it's constantly going on. It's particularly bad for niche product. Things like charging cables or whatever, the market is large enough to support multiple products, and there's only so far Amazon is willing to cut it and those are cost so little for anyone to make.

Neither should be the end goal, the goal should be leaving people alone so they can pursue happiness on their own.

A goal has to be something measurable, but sure. Yeah. That's basically what I said. Improve lives (meaning happiness). That essentially implies freedom to persue what you want. I don't know what else it could mean. However, it also need to include companies leaving people alone. The government isn't the only source of authority influencing peoples lives, and we need a government to protect them.

Obviously, I haven't dealt in specifics at all and I represented it in fairly extreme language to make a point. The idea I'm trying to convey is that I think less is more absolutely applies to the government, and we should strive to simplify it to where it's transparent enough that the average person actually understands what government does.

I largely agree, but I think the key point of why anarchism (aka, removing hierarchy, not no government) is the way I went is because, with hierarchy, those with resources will always buy an advantage. We need a government that actually represents the people, which means it needs to be made of the people, not lifelong legislators. Some of that should be direct democracy where it can be, but rotating representatives chosen from regular people who serve temporary terms, so they can't gather power, is ideal. As long as capital controls the government then capitalists will buy the system, and libertarians generally (not saying you specifically) argue this is part of the design and good, because they proved "they know best."

I have serious practical concerns with anarchism, but that is certainly the ideal.

You should have serious practical concerns with everything. My practical concerns with libertarianism is what led me to social anarchism. For example:

Consumer protections should largely be unnecessary if the market is sufficiently competitive, and ending protectionism should provide that...

Why? Why would ending protectionism necessarily demand competition? Without government stepping in, why wouldn't the largest companies create barriers that prevent competition? They can user their capital to undercut competitors until they can't remain solvent, then increase prices far above cost. They can also buy out competitors before they are real competition. They can use their market dominance to demand suppliers to show their product more prominently, or to only show their product.

There are far too many ways the dominant company can curtail competition, and we've seen it played out many times even with our current system that Libertarians want to remove the guardrails from. For example, items listed on Amazon that sell moderately well, Amazon creates knockoffs for. They then sell them at a cheaper price under the "Amazon Basic" name until the original is gone, and then they increase prices. This is what the free market looks like.

This is the kind of thing that led me to social anarchism. People are the important thing, not companies. We need a government that's empowered to protect people, but that let's people do what they want (assuming they don't hurt other people). Ideally also we remove hierarchy from the companies and have them owned by employees or the people also. Letting them treat humans as a human resource (which is crazy that HR can be called that and people don't see a problem) is the issue. Improving the lives of people should be the end goal, not profit.

No, I'm pretty sure he grasps that concept, and he thinks what he believes is that universal truth.

I am a bit left of center in the US and pretty centrist on a global scale, and I lean fairly libertarian. I'm left of most libertarian candidates in the US, supporting things like UBI as an alternative to welfare programs. So I think I have a decent perspective on what's left and right.

I started at your position a long time ago, when I was a teenager. I realized libertarians are full of shit, and eventually discovered a better descriptor of my beliefs was anarchist (in particular, social anarchist). I think the government shouldn't be telling people how to live or what they can or can't do. It should be there to protect people (emphasis; not corporations).

Libertarians (in the US at least) are really just anarcho-capitalists. They want freedom for businesses, but usually at the expense of freedom for people. They don't want protection for people from exploitation. They want businesses with enough money to be able to exert their authority as far as possible, to the extent of blocking competition and effectively creating slaves. (They'll argue they don't agree with slavery, but what's the difference between your employer owning your ability to live and slavery?)

It depends on where you draw the line for "the center." I'd agree it's leftist for America, but it's center-left on a global scale. You'll usually get some push back if you promote true leftist politics. Usually more agreement than dissent, but still some.

It's correct. If you choose to answer questions, you should tell the truth. That should be preceded, in bold, "don't fucking answer questions! If the police talk to you, shut the fuck up."

The name Harkonnen (though Finnish) was chosen because it sounds Russian. However, no, it isn't really a US VS Soviet story. It's about systems. It's about ecology, power, and freedom. If you only read Dune then I can see how you could think that, but the other books give you a lot more information.

Arrakis is terraformed, and this disrupts the ecosystem of Shai-hulud, which destroys spice production. It also destroys Fremen culture, with people teaching what the Fremen were like, but not really knowing.

Paul and, to an even further extent, Lato II are aggressive dictators. They destroys people's freedom, with the end goal to create people who can't be predicted who rebel, because that's the only way (that they can see) to guarantee freedom for humanity.

I addition to this, the Harkonnen are really just there as a subversion. Paul's grandfather, as he learns in Dune, is the Baron Harkonnen, so he is a Harkonnen. This really destroys any message about it being one side VS the other.

It's about systems. Paul was systematically bread. The Harkonnen and Atreides were used by the emperial system to maintain control and order (although this failed). The system of ecology keeps Arrakis in balance, and the people live in harmony with it. Systems of control prevent people from being free.

Would you agree that the dashboard of a car is UI? If so, isn't that just data visualization?

Well, we need to use tariffs until they sell us more goods! Obviously we're losing too many goods to them and not bringing enough in!