I was referring to instances where the free market fails to provide basic services to rural communities where demand isn’t great enough to make a profit. In these instances the government has needed to step in to ensure that essential services like electricity, telecommunications, healthcare, and infrastructure are accessible to all citizens, regardless of location or economic viability.

I realize this has most likely already been covered or isn’t relevant to regulations. I haven’t read much of the topic.

In a free market, where demand is not great enough no supply will be, uh... supplied.

I don't know about being out of place, but the colors in the first example are way too subtle, especially in the era of screens where different screens can be wildly out of calibration.

Maybe nuking that system will cool their jets because that kind of revolution was their pie-in-the-sky goal long before Trump moved towards accomplishing it. — NOS4A2

Trump’s strategy is to pressure other nations into negotiations that prioritize U.S. interests. You think that's what most people want?

Millions of Americans peacefully protested the other day in the Hands Off event. Also, Bernie and AOC‘s oligarchy tour is nonviolent.

The survey indicates that most people think murdering Trump is at least somewhat justified. Yikes. And that was before he nuked the global financial/trade system.

If you’re suggesting that my post lacks substance I’ll have you know that the image is a meditation on freedom, violence, and authenticity in a world emptied of clear moral direction. It echoes Nietzsche’s self-authoring hero, Sartre’s free agent, Camus’ absurd man, and Baudrillard’s hyperreal cowboy — all wrapped in a squint and a poncho.

During the Cultural Revolution, Mao banished intellectuals to the countryside and decimated academic institutions, so that there would be no smart people around to challenge his power. Parallels here? — Joshs

Trump convinced Americans to elect him and Elon. No need to make us any stupider.

China today…
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/980315

Neither are cuts spending on research and innovation in medicine, AI, energy and all the other things that China is pulling farther and farther ahead of us on. — Joshs

Seems like you wouldn’t make these cuts if you were interested in revitalizing American industries.

I just glanced the article and posted a link as a reference for the Mar-a-Lago accord. Was wondering what others thought about it.

It seems like if that is the plan the Trump administration would be doing other things to support the industrial sector. Is that also happening?

Some believe the U.S. is strategically positioned to leverage tariff-induced chaos in order to push for a "Mar-a-Lago Accord" that could simultaneously weaken the dollar and preserve its status as the world's reserve currency, ultimately leading to re-industrialization. See something like:

https://www.nordea.com/en/news/mar-a-lago-accord-explained-a-new-era-for-the-dollar

Seems like a good trick if you could pull it off. Any nation that kissed the ring would become a vassal state.

Incorrect, again. It's not facticity, it's subjective. Those are also not facts of suffering, Buddhism and Eastern philosophy already addressed that. — Darkneos

Once upon a time, a young monk, eager to understand truth, approached his master and asked, "Master, what is the nature of reality?"

The master pointed to the towering mountain in the distance and said, "That is a mountain."

The monk was puzzled. "Of course, it is a mountain," he thought.

Years passed, and as the monk studied deeply, he began to see through illusions. He realized that the mountain was not a mountain—it was a collection of elements, ever-changing. There was no fixed essence of "mountain." Excited by this insight, he returned to his master.

"Master! I see now—the mountain is not a mountain!"

The master smiled but said nothing.

More years passed. The monk continued his practice, going beyond concepts and distinctions. Eventually, he returned, bowing deeply.

"Master, I see now… the mountain is once again a mountain."

The master laughed. "Now you truly understand."

I initially wrote:

“Isn't the "bold move" about tax cuts (strongly favoring the 1%) and not the debt?”

The government was funded by tariffs before income tax. That was before social security, Medicare, and other programs. It would certainly be a bold move to attempt ending all these programs.

Figures. — NOS4A2

I thought you might want to show where no tax for anybody who makes less than $150,000 a year is proposed. I couldn’t find it.

A bold move on the national debt?


Btw, I haven't heard of a proposal to eliminate taxes for those who make less than $150k a year.

The president’s proposals for tax cuts include no taxes on tips, no taxes on social security, no taxes on overtime, and more recently, no tax for anybody who makes less than $150,000 a year. — NOS4A2

:lol: That’s what he was promising before being elected.

The gamble is widely panned by economists. Yet Trump is the first president (as far as I can tell) to take such a bold move on the national debt, which one could argue was about to lead the country into insolvency or collapse. — NOS4A2

Isn't the "bold move" about tax cuts (strongly favoring the 1%) and not the debt?

Did you learn that on social media?

There goes the Donald Trump thread. — Mikie

Most of NOS’s posts anyway.

How did an anti-Trump “journalist” find himself on the Signal app, and leak the details of what was obviously a sensitive conversation? Smells to me like deep-state sabotage. — NOS4A2

Electing Trump was an act of sabotage?

A faith based belief in the existence of a moral force sounds theistic, suggesting that without this moral force, it wouldn't matter if we murdered. Meaning is implanted in this belief isn't it? — Hanover

I don't think I've ever considered the idea of a "moral force" before. It's an interesting concept, but after reflecting on it, I don't see how it provides the religious with a stronger moral foundation than the non-religious. Could you clarify your perspective? Are you suggesting that the non-religious lack a moral foundation or have a weaker one?

Both religious and non-religious people can have faith in a moral foundation. It makes no difference.

Things matter to God. — Hanover

How do you know that?

Still trying to wrap my head around someone pretending to care about distorting reality while relentlessly shrilling for a politician.

It simply makes no sense to speak of the world of forms, where the good exists outside the existence of humanity if you take a fully secular view of this. If a tree falls in the woods and there are no humans in existence anywhere, it does not matter. Mattering is a human concern. It is not a concern for whatever deer took a tree to the head.

On the other hand, if God says the tree falling in the woods matters (i.e. it is either good or bad), then it matters, even if there is no human anywhere to assess it. — Hanover

If mattering is a human concern and there are no humans in existence anywhere, how could what God says matter?

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said the “retaliatory animus” of Trump’s executive order against a similar law firm targeted is “clear on its face” and appears to violate constitutional restrictions on “viewpoint discrimination.”

Really highlights what Trump is about.

I can’t imagine the reality for someone who has shrilled so relentlessly over the years for any politician, much less for one like Trump.

Isn’t that ironic. You had to change and bold my words to your liking. — NOS4A2

Your reality involves searching for things like videos of weird individuals inserting their fingers in their ass and wiping them on Teslas, which you then post on a philosophy forum and joyfully call reality. In your reality, that incident captures the essence of the backlash against Musk.

Reflect on that for a minute.

the pure joy of rubbing MY reality in the faces of those who would otherwise refuse it — NOS4A2

Fixed.

Senators Justin Eichorn, Eric Lucero, Steve Drazkowski, Nathan Wesenberg, Glenn Gruenhagen take creepiness to another level (Mar 18, 2025):
SF 2589 as introduced - 94th Legislature (2025 - 2026) — jorndoe

MAGA Republicans advocating for American interests in a nutshell.

It is the belief in absolute authority whether human or divine and the imposition of dogma on others which is the problem. — Janus

There's a significant difference between faith in authority and forced obedience (imposition).

I tend to think that enlightenment values would more or less immunize someone from blind faith in authority because at the heart of it is the imperative to think for yourself. So how could Stalin effectively use enlightenment rhetoric to support totalitarian control?

When can we expect to see his tax records?

it's not that they [humanism, secularism, rationalism, and existentialism] are "tame" but that they are philosophical perspectives, not dogmatic ideologies. — Janus

No specific "atheistic ideology" was mentioned in your initial claim that atheistic ideologies are equally as dangerous as religious ideologies so I mentioned a few. Granted some are less ideological than others so I'll focus on what I think may be considered the most ideological.

Humanism has a consistent framework with a core set of beliefs that can guide action, it's prescriptive, and it can certainly foster a group identity. It may be 'tame' because it's open to revision, doesn't require strict adherence to specific doctrines, and encourages critical thinking and individual autonomy.

On the other hand, Stalin promoted humanist rhetoric while carrying out violent purges, and it seemed to effectively motivate the population. Fuck, I hate it when I'm wrong.

Worse, he’s hip deep in Taoism. :gasp:

My only point was that ideologies whether religious or not, being based on some dogma or other, are one of the main problems which plague humanity. — Janus

That wasn’t exactly your original point. You initially said that faith in God or some atheistic ideology (humanism, secularism, rationalism, or existentialism) were equally dangerous.

I guess humanism, secularism, rationalism, and existentialism are so tame that you don’t count them as ideologies and consider them merely philosophical perspectives. Yet you count religions as ideologies.

Hitler used religious rhetoric so how can that be counted as atheistic?

Marxism is an economic and political ideology, and socialism isn’t incompatible with religious belief.

Funny you reject the actual atheistic ideologies as ideologies and pretend that Nazism and Marxism are necessarily atheistic.

Can you show any instances humanism, secularism, rationalism, or existentialism being as equally dangerous as religions have been throughout history?

But of course you know that many religious people maintain that complete faith in God erases these fears and doubts. The Abraham story pushes this to the limit. Could a father feel any faith in God under such circumstances? — J

The Abraham story pushes the idea that unity with God is achieved through blind obedience. Unity with God is the carrot and obedience is the goal. Shouldn't unity with God be the goal?

What I meant about being obvious is that if a person and God are separate there will be fear and doubt, and if there’s no separation, if a person is ‘one with God’, there won’t be fear and doubt. What could be more obvious than that?