Caveat: Indoors. However, since indoors is typically a private space, the degree of surveillance depends on the owner of the space. Civilians can only compel government agencies to make sure that government buildings do not enable tracking. We won't be able to stop Walmart, they can always play the security card which trumps privacy every time.
I see it as proof that a subcontinent doesn’t necessarily need to be centralized into a single country. Colonization unnecessarily made that happen, and there’s no going back now.
At the end of the day Capitalism and Communism have nothing to do with authoritarianism and liberalism/democracy. An authoritarian capitalist country is a perfectly valid type of government as there has never existed a 'pure' capitalistic governed country.
Proven outcomes in the real world matter, not hypotheticals in a textbook. Can you provide clear examples of successful communist nations where you would be willing to live and raise children, or is this just pseudo-intellectualism?
All communist nations have implemented the same exact narrow subset of the ideology that we know as Marxism-Leninism.
The reason being that everyone else who tried something more e.g. democratic generally got crushed. So the commies that ended up running countries in the real world were the most ruthless, hyper-violent ones.
Right. To me the conclusion is that communist theory is fatally flawed. Real world application shows that every real, practical communist system will rely on hyper-violence and ruthlessness to preserve itself. Therefore the average person is better off in a capitalist system than a communist one. Can you refute this conclusion?
Bitcoin behaves exactly like a fiat currency would if driven completely by market forces. It's a good thought experiment in what the exchange rate would look like if the currency value is purely derived from demand and supply.
No, it behaves like a speculative asset. The price goes up as long as the number of people who believe it will go up increases, causing more people to buy it. Once the supply of greater fools is exhausted, there is no reason for anybody to hold it because it's price isn't going up, so they sell to find something else that goes up. This causes more people to sell so they don't lose more until the price falls to the non-speculative utility of the asset, which is 0.
If you let ideology trump facts, why are you surprised when the "other side" does the same? Those who believe in facts watch both in horror from the sidelines.
reply