Inga ️‍🏳️‍🌈 @IngaLovinde@embracing.space

(publishing something that was in drafts for some time)

OK, time to try and make things clear.

I believe that nobody deserves to suffer or to struggle.
I believe that nobody should be forced to work in order to survive.
I believe that everybody should have their basic needs met regardless of what they do, if they do anything.
I believe that the current system destroys the planet.

I also believe that nobody "deserves" more than the other and that everybody should have their non-basic needs met (within reasonable limits), without being forced to work. Maybe this is called "equality".
Unfortunately, we, as a humanity, are not there yet. I hope that one day we will be, will reach that bright future.

Meanwhile there is a question: how to allocate limited resources, services and products, if it is known that their aggregated supply does not cover the aggregated reasonable demand?
I do not see any way to do that so that some "equality" definition is satisfied. Different people have different wants, and these are not always directly comparable.
I happen to think that the best solution to that is free markets; and that using free markets improves our odds of reaching the bright future, as soon as possible.

However, the system that we have now is not just "free markets".
Sure, it has some market elements in some of its aspects.
But at its core it is built on coercion.

People are coerced to work, coerced to accept whatever happens on that work, in order to survive, in order to have roof over their head.
Indigenous people are coerced to give up their land so that yet another pipeline could go through it.
The entire humanity is coerced to bear the environmental consequences of yet another barrel of oil extracted by someone so that someone else could drive their car.
Not to mention the actual murders.

This has nothing to do with free markets. If anything, it's what stops markets from being actually free.
Free market is when you can choose today to buy apples for X or oranges for Y or nothing at all.
Free market is when you can choose to work as a cashier for X or as a courier for Y or not to work at all.
Free market is when you can choose to buy a liter of gasoline for its actual market price or not to buy it.

When you are forced to choose to work as a cashier for a minimum wage or as a courier for a minimum wage, or die in the cold on the street, not being able to feed your children - there is nothing free in that choice.
When you can choose to buy a liter of gasoline for 10% of its actual _cost_, with the rest of the people subsidising the entire 90% for gasoline _you_ chose to buy (in the form of its environmental impact) - there is nothing free in _their_ choice.

And these problems are not even specific to our current system; at least some non-capitalistic systems had the very same problems (see next post).

But there is an obvious solution for how they can be fixed, without giving up on the markets which, again, I happen to think can make the whole situation better and get us to the bright future.
There should be an universal basic income (e.g. 50% of the entire GDP), so that people are not coerced to do something in order to survive; so that everybody will have access to shelter, food, healthcare, education, etc. (This will also drive the wages at jobs that are now the most taxing and the lowest paying up, much higher than the present minimum wage, because who would like to work there for scraps if they already have their basic needs met?)
And there should be environmental tax on things with negative externalities, matching these externalities (e.g. for every liter of oil extracted, the extractor should pay 10 euros in environmental tax which is then spend on, say, planting trees to offset for that amount of carbon; and then it's up to the market, whether it makes sense for the extractor to extract oil and try to sell it at a price high enough to make them a profit).

These views are purely utilitarian for me, I don't think these suggestions are fair or morally superior, I just think that they're a best tool to achieve the goal of ending human suffering right now and of improving human well-being in the future. It's not something set in stone, they can change if there are compelling arguments.
If you think these views are abhorrent, repulsive and indefensible, I would very much appreciate to hear why exactly.
If you have some practical counterarguments, we could discuss it sometime (not now though, right now I just don't have spoons for that).

It seems that a lot of people have this problem when they're into someone but do not know if the feeling is mutual, and do not want to ask to avoid being seen as creepy. So it could be that two persons are into each other but each is afraid of saying that in case it is not returned, and it leads to lost opportunities to both.

But I have a partial solution to that problem: https://t.me/MutualSympathyBot

And so the freedom of expression as a core principle of liberal democracy boils down to the following:

One from a privileged group can promote hatred and xenophobia towards already-marginalized group.

One from a marginalized group cannot take offense at that.

And one from a marginalized group cannot speak up against government's foreign policy.

And all people from a marginalized group are ignorant and ill-manered.

Such is a liberal democracy apparently.

Unpopular opinion.
Just that someone opposes USA does not make them a good person.
Just that some ruler opposes USA does not mean they're not a dictator, does not mean they do not oppress their own people, and does not mean people don't have a right to rise against that dictator.

Not sure why it is unpopular. I thought it is so obvious that it should go without saying.

Maybe it's time to post another photo...

Girled vegetables