Wow, you seriously still believe that corporations compete with eachother in the healthcare sector despite the fact that most insurance companies have a “network” specifically so that they don’t have to compete with eachother? How is healthcare a competitive market that drives towards efficiency exactly? The more you privatise healthcare the lower life expectancy you get and the higher you all pay!
If you think private healthcare is more efficient than single payer healthcare when EVERY PIECE OF DATA WE HAVE says the opposite then I think that says more about you than it does about the government.
Damn, you’d have to be completely brain dead to still believe anything is more efficient than single payer healthcare. The US has the worst outcomes for the highest cost in terms of life expectancy. Same with roads, utilities, schools etc… the more you privatise the more expensive things get for a lower quality product.
A well regulated, competitive market is good for many things, but for others it’s atrocious. An unregulated market has never produced good outcomes on any scale larger than the board of directors.
If you’re seriously summarizing the libertarian agenda then I can’t believe any one over 14 could hold these ideas unless they were VERY sheltered from reality.
I like what you’re saying and I agree with it fundamentally. I wish it is possible to have the majority of crops be direct to consumer. I KNOW everyone is happier when they have a real personal relationship with the products they consume. That’s even part of what marketing abuses when it anthropomorphises brands.
I’m personally pessimistic on that front though, I think it can’t happen in modern capitalism for two major reasons. Number one, I don’t think the majority of the population of Western nations, let alone the world, can tolerate even a moderate increase in food prices without creating massive instability. I know what the “middle men” jack up prices considerably on almost everything, but the staples: wheat and meat in my part of the world, simply cannot be sold cheaper by smaller operations than grocery store prices (in part due to the regulatory capture so prevalent in modern capitalism). Number two, of the people that CAN tolerate the increase, I don’t think modern capitalism would allow their profits to be undercut by a significant shift towards small producers selling direct to customers. They have a few tools that I just don’t think most people are prepared to live without like comfort and consistency. I can get plums, cauliflower, tomatoes, broccoli ANYTIME OF YEAR at reasonably consistent prices. The idea that people will have to pay more AND change to seasonal eating habits where they just can’t get certain things most of the year? I think we’re too far into the comfort of bourgeois decadence, excuse my communist language, to tolerate the change.
I will say I have enjoyed this discussion and I certainly agree that I mischaracterised you by initially latching onto a throwaway “ew bugs” comment.
Using sustainable practices “they only eat a little” is totally valid. The way we farm now… A pest outbreak will ravage a monoculture crop.
I know there are great alternatives, but they all have higher labour requirements. Modern capitalism can’t tolerate that. If we can find a better solution now we can mitigate the damage before we end capitalism. After that we can definitely switch to more labour intensive sustainable practices. I’m not an accelerationist so I’m not rushing to end the current world order before trying to make all the improvements we can.
It was a wild guess and I was hoping someone smarter than me would correct me ❤️
In my defense the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park came from wildly different eras so Carboniferous super bugs can still fit in!
I’m not fighting you. It’s just you’re acting as if the reason we research pesticides isn’t because we need it to protect our food source.
I’m not even saying that there isn’t some possible alternative, I’m just saying monoculture grains is how humanity gets most of its calories right now. It’s how we currently survive. That requires pesticides. These pesticides are far less damaging to the world than the current ones in use right now. It’s in the research phase too, so it’s not like we’re committing to this specific idea. Everyone knows there are pros and cons, the scientists doing the research do too. You’re not the first person to realise that this will trap all small insects. Just a reminder that our current solution kills all insects and this one is better. The fact it doesn’t harm bees is already a massive improvement.
Everyone should be welcome and encouraged to research any idea that’s better than our current ideas in any way. Any knowledge is good knowledge.
As for your preferred ideas? There are lots of ways to help be part of a future that includes what you feel is the best solution. That being said, none of them include being disingenuous about why we use pesticides in the first place. I don’t know why that was contentious to you. We don’t kill bugs because they’re gross, we kill them because they eat our food.
In the Jurassic period there were giant insects like dragonflies with 4ft wingspan. Turns out THIS is how we get to Jurassic park
It’s not because they’re gross, it’s because they eat our food. And we grow monocultures so it’s a perfect breeding ground for pests. Also if you read the article the new pesticide is physical and doesn’t harm large predatory insects.
The government simply doesn’t understand technology. If someone said “I bought a book, but after 6 years the publisher came in and stole my copy and burned it” they can understand that. But a single player game, which is in many ways the same as a book, these old politicians just think “spoiled millennials just want free stuff handed to them. Stop playing games and grow up”. No one would say that about a book.
I want to be able to enjoy my private, legally purchased, leisure activity without the risk that the publisher steals it from me through deceptive practices. Is that really too much to ask for?
Oh my god YES. Don’t accidentally snitch on someone doing you a solid.
What an awful video! You should be ashamed! I should be ashamed just for watching it!
Yes, when you dismiss everything these jobs require as “not skills” then anything can be unskilled labour. Yeah of course working safely in an industrial environment isn’t a skill, even babies can do it, that’s why conservatives everywhere are trying to bring back child labour!
I like the presentation of the video, very level headed and measured discussion.
TL;DR: 1. The video misses that the Barbie movie criticises the patriarchy/hierarchal structures both before AND after the Ken takeover 2. Fight your own fights against the patriarchy, not other people’s fights. Fighting other people’s fights undermines their agency. 3. Support the fights that others choose for themselves against the patriarchy/hierarchal structures. We each win when we all win
I have a hard time with any discussion of patriarchy and the Barbie movie that fails to mention that the movie criticizes the patriarchy/hierarchal structures from two points, both before AND after Ken brings patriarchy back to Barbie Land. The before “patriarchy” does a great job showing the hierarchy of Barbies, the fact that Kens are allowed limited power in the barbiearchy but they’re always second class citizens, the fact that the most shunned person in Barbie Land is a Barbie that doesn’t conform, showing that hierarchal structures place non-conformists LOWER than other second class citizens.
Barbie’s existential crisis doesn’t start because the mom has bad self image, it starts when the projection of that self image prevents Barbie from conforming to the social norms. It’s NOT OKAY for a Barbie to look, feel, and behave in a non-conforming way.
I won’t add to the critique of patriarchy during the Ken mojodojocasa house portion of the movie because the video does great work.
Second, I also disagree with his solution that men should fight women’s battles for them because men have the power. Men don’t dismantle the patriarchy when they stand up for women, they REPRODUCE IT! The idea that women simply can’t get what they want without men IS the patriarchy and flies in the face of all major feminist movements where women FOUGHT the patriarchy and WON on their own rights. Men dismantle the patriarchy when we fight for our OWN rights and against our own disenfranchisement caused by the patriarchy rights like:
Where men, women and various intersections of marginalised groups help eachother is by supporting eachother’s fights, not by fighting on other people’s behalf.
A simplistic example is you’re at a party and you see a man hitting on a woman. Perhaps you think he’s being obnoxious. Telling him to stop takes away the woman’s agency. You DON’T know what she wants. Maybe she likes the guy but he drank a bit more than he should have before having the courage to act on her signals. It’s when SHE says no, or is clearly uncomfortable that you support her and step in. Currently in society a woman in more likely to be visibly uncomfortable than say no outright, partially because she doesn’t trust that people around her will support her. Changing that means everyone feels safe being their true selves because they know they will have support against hateful, abusive, oppressive, or non-consentual behaviors that are currently accepted and rewarded by the patriarchy.
The other part is to chastise people who reinforce the patriarchy. A man who says women can’t be engineers, or that a male nurse is a fg, or a woman who calls her boyfriend a pssy for being vulnerable are all reinforcing the patriarchy in harmful ways. Same with a boss who says that he’s looking for a South East Asian nanny because they are the best nannies, or he needs a gay friend for his wife so she gets off his back. The patriarchy marginalises many minority groups so it’s important to see it in all its aspects. Letting these people know that what they’re doing sucks helps set the social contract and free everyone from oppressive hierarchal structures.
LMAO, that’s a MADE UP job. It literally doesn’t exist. The amount of mandatory safety training from working in any factory environment excessedes that. That’s before you can start learning how to use the production software and automation that the company uses to measure productivity. Finally you have to do the actual task and learn the processes and exceptions that have made it so that the job isn’t cost effective to automate in the first place.
Now that’s a big company environment. Big companies are the only ones with the economies of scale required so that your can even have employees that only do one thing. At a small company everyone has to wear many hats and there is no such thing as an person that does only one job “you could learn in 10min”
It’s easy to imagine “unskilled labour” when you make it up in your head. What sucks is when you then use it to dehumanize and underpay real humans because of your made up fantasy of unskilled labour.
That’s fair.
It’s funny, conservatives seem to be able to make Canada shittier no matter what. We try to get dental care in the provinces but they’ll stop it’s implementation. So now we have to pay extra to get the private sector to fund it, and they win again since we just privatised some of our healthcare.
I doubt it. The provincial governments already run massive “health insurance” programs in Canada, this would not have been an impossible task to add a small dental program that only covers a fraction of the population to that.
Private “health insurance” cannot be cheaper than public. You have expenses which are the cost of people going to the dentist. And you have revenues, which are paid for through taxes. The only math that changes is that private insurance also adds profit for shareholders on top.
This is purely about privatizing Canadian healthcare.
Montreal is a long way from having the kind of culture where they can have no garbage cans AND no litter. Let’s just put some garbage cans in problem areas and reduce the trash problem.
Yeah there is definitely some strangeness going on since most Muslims consider all seafood halal
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/1919/is-all-seafood-halal
You can find other references, maybe Shia Muslims ban shellfish, I’m not sure but it’s certainly not the dominant sect of Islam.
Exactly. To me all the basics of life, the bottom tiers of Maslow’s pyramid can’t be privatised. Healthcare, utilities, education, infrastructure, social safety nets, you need those things as a PREREQUISITE to participation in the market. The market can’t provide its own prerequisites. If you don’t provide these things you simply cannot have a competitive free market in the first place.