[–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

I have an anecdote, albeit a little old. Circa 2010 I was living in the US (WI). Traded an old bar fridge I didn't need to a friend for a 30-06 rifle. It was the first firearm I owned while living there. I then went to my local police and asked if there was any kind of registration process I should go through and they said nope, we don't care. Not saying you're wrong, just one experience I had.

When I bought a shotgun from a store after that I did have to wait 3 days, I presumed at the time because I wasn't a citizen.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    In competitive markets that's how it worked. What we have now are mega corporations who build monopolies by buying out the competition or sending them broke by brute force. Then once the corporation has a stranglehold they are free to cheapen their products and services and/or jack up prices knowing they have no competition. That's why formerly quality brands are constantly becoming poor quality trash.

    Inherited wealth leads to spoiled, privileged idiots who have grown up thinking they earned their lives through talent and hard work, when in reality they've just been failing upwards while the family money and connections have been covering their asses.

    In late stage capitalism, those idiots have amassed enough wealth and power to make them a genuine threat to all of us. If you can't see that happening already then I have to assume you're one of the many people who are just beyond help.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 21 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    The problem with capitalism is the high prices needed to pay for shareholder profits and executive bonuses. The key is to adopt some capitalistic programs but not so much that prices increase while quality of goods and services decrease in perpetuity.

    Oh, and also end inherited wealth, because it's antithetical to an egalitarian society.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 8 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    This privatisation lunacy has to end, and then be wound back. Services don't need to - and shouldn't be - profitable. Profit motivation inherently leads to poorer outcomes. They're things that benefit all of us, so we all chip in to pay for them. That's the whole point of government. It seems we need constant reminders of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    Poverty affects every part of life. I've never been wealthy, but for most of my life I could afford little luxuries for my family, like Dominos on cheap Tuesday, drives in the country, days at the beach, and weekend camping trips. I could even save a little money here and there.

    In the last few years I've started making more money than I ever have, but all those little things that made life worthwhile have simultaneously become out of reach. The only time we've splurged on eating out in the last year was Hungry Jack's for my daughters birthday dinner. We don't drive anywhere unnecessarily because we don't have excess fuel money. We can't afford to maintain the camping gear we have, let alone replace it as it wears out and breaks.

    Despite working a "professional" job and receiving numerous pay raises over the last 5 years, my quality of life has gotten significantly worse, and I suspect there are plenty of others around who feel the same way I do. Every year I'm a little bit worse off than I was the year before. Owning a house is off the table. The idea of a comfortable retirement is laughable. Travel is a dream I used to have. Hobbies aren't even worth considering unless they're completely free.

    I basically can't afford to life anymore. It affects everything. I no longer work to improve my life, because that doesn't seem possible. I work to avoid the terrible consequences of not working. My hopes and dreams have transitioned from working towards something better, to merely trying to stop things from getting worse.

    And the worst part is, I don't legitimately see any way that things are going to get better for people like me, with no real wealth and no inheritance on the way. We're in the late stages of the monopoly game. All the properties have been bought, houses and hotels built, and the dice never quite worked out for me. All I can do is keep passing go until I land on a square that's going to put me out of the game for good. It's time to flip the board and start again.

    That came out a bit whiny I guess. At least I have a wife who loves me, my health, and for now I can afford my landlord's mortgage. I know there are people out there far worse off than I am. But it baffles me that we have enough for everyone, but so many continue to live in poverty while a handful suck up so much despite contributing so little. If you consider our capitalist system for just a minute without resorting to those indoctrinated taglines, it's completely bizarre and illogical, and antithetical to that egalitarian society so many used to like to brag about.

  • source
  • An ethics question (aussie.zone)
    submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
     

    Hey all. Getting right to it:

    Last November, a majority of my wife's family voted trump. I immediately made known my disgust and that I had no interest in maintaining relationships with any of them. My wife is equally appalled, but family is important to her and she chooses to compartmentalise it for the sake of their relationships. That's her call. Typically, her mother comes to stay at our house for an extended period as we live far away, and this year I tolerated her being here for the sake of my wife.

    But now, thinking about the next visit and how bad things have gotten, I can't even stand the thought of having her in my house, let alone being in the same room as her. I really don't want her here at all, but I will again tolerate her for my wife's sake. However I think it's likely that I will make myself pretty scarce during that time.

    So the ethics question is - given that I expressed my distaste after the election but still remained cordial, is it ok, ethically speaking, to become more resentful as the consequences of their actions become more apparent? Or, given that what has happened since is pretty much out of everyone's hands, am I locked in to the level of hostility I showed immediately after?

    I guess the distilled version is - a person does X, I express disapproval. Is it ethical to express MORE disapproval as additional unforeseen consequences of X become apparent?

    Thanks for your thoughts!

    Edit to Clarify - My mother in law is not MAGA and I don't think she's enjoying any of it. She thinks we can "just not talk about it" and everything will be fine. However she has become more racist and judgemental (anti-trans etc) in recent years. Hates Joe Biden and Kamal Harris but can't or won't say why. Thanks for the responses so far and I'll try to respond, but I'm about to start work shortly.

    view more: next ›