The concept of private prisons basically proves why people who don't understand capitalism shouldn't engage in it.
The entire advantage of capitalism over socialism is that customer choice forces you to make better products, and everything else stems from that. If you only have one grocery store, one school system, one health insurer, one employer in town, it doesn't matter how bad they get, you'll be their slave forever. This is particularly true if the person making the decisions at those institutions doesn't profit from them doing well.
In a private prison system, there's no choice, you can't just switch prisons if you don't like the one you're in. This is the worst system of all, as there's still the profit incentive, without competition keeping it in check.
I think you could do a private prison system well. Maybe let the prisoners choose their prison, with major disincentives for prison owners if prisoners escape. Maybe pay them for every day their newly-released inmates stay out of jail, encouraging rehab programs that actually work. Those would align what's good for the owner with what's good for society, which is all that capitalism is ultimately all about.
Except it does? Capitalist countries don’t seem to have any famines. You could argue that for profit prisons are similar to gulags in some ways but the important differences are so vast it’s hard to compare them honestly.
Capitalist countries don't have famines at home. That's different from "capitalism prevents famines". Capitalism is happy to cause hunger, inflict death, or imprison people if it's profitable for capitalists, that's baked into the structure of the structure of the system. There's no systemic feature of capitalism that directs capital generating activity unless it violates natural and human rights.
Massively capitalist in what way? They have a long history of price controls and nationalization and their current military junta is trying to nationalize the uranium industry. How could you even imagine a free market operating in a country that has a revolving door government that alternates between military dictatorships and transitional officials?
I have never had a successful experience getting someone to try something better, but different. In my experience, people fight for the enshittification they know.
Asking someone to install Signal is already the end of the world, trying it sounds like starting a PhD. I'm not even talking about thinking about using it as a replacement for WhatsApp.
Really, people just don't care. Which I find sad, of course.
Consider that Paul's misogynist (albeit commonplace for the time) views on women have probably been responsible for the abuse, rape and killing of more women than men were killed in the Crusades, and his views on slavery were used to justify the practice for centuries, including in its most brutal manifestation in the US.
The Crusades and Inquisition, bad as they were, were also limited in space and time. Paul's words have arguably done damage across the entirety of Christendom to this day.
This is a rather unbalanced perspective that lacks a shred of evidence. I can't imagine that you've actually read his letters, because if you had you'd know his stance on the role of a husband is not remotely what you've described.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (1 Timothy 2:11–15)
It doesn't really matter what Paul says on the role of the husband, when he makes explicit his belief that women should be subservient because of some ontological inferiority on their part through Eve, and that the only value a woman has is in childbearing.
Saying a slave should obey their master doesn't ameliorate the moral evil that is slavery, and saying a husband should "love their wives as Christ loved the church" doesn't ameliorate misogyny. Paul doesn't believe men and women are equal, nor that they deserve equal rights, and thus neither has Christendom for most of its existence.
And the evidence is everywhere, in the two thousand years of law and culture based on the religion. Christian opposition to womens' rights and suffrage, divorce and non-heterosexual relationships. Laws forbidding women to work or own property, judges deciding that rape cannot exist within marriage because a woman's duty is to please her husband, husbands abusing their wives when they don't "know their place." And of course banning women from any position of power in the church. All of these are the consequences of Pauline principles.
Having read the Bible several times through, I don't see any disagreement between Jesus and Paul. This is further supported by the fact that the original disciples/apostles accepted Paul's teachings. And if there were a disagreement on the nature of salvation I assume things like circumcision would have taken a back seat to that debate, yet that is not what we find in either Acts or any of the letters of the apostles in the New Testament. So, I think the view that Paul somehow subverted Christianity is a self-deceiving one designed to reinforce previously-held beliefs.
You can’t guarantee anonymity if you also get the prompts which could contain data that breaks anonymity. With an UUID you then have an pretty personal identfier
And you can bet (pun intended) someone will create them on purpose if they can make profit from it
reply