Omg I read your comment and thought “what then? A playground slide?” I’m tired lol.

Of all the unprecendented things happening these days, this is not one of them. This is standard issue, 100y-old Red Scare garbage. Liberalism scares tyrants, so they always try this strat, and it’s always bound to lose.

I admit I am misusing the term “cartel” here, given that it refers to a group of independent interests acting cooperatively, not a single entity. And legally recognized corporations already attempt to form cartels whenever possible, which is the entire purpose of anti-trust law.

And I agree that govt legislations each have their own definitions for what constitutes a “corporation”, but it’s the same for “marriage”. Yet we wouldn’t say marriage only exists if you have a govt.

I don’t think it’s useful or interesting to end the discussion at “a govt defines a corporation, therefore a corporation doesn’t exist without a govt”. Because I maintain that if the US govt disappeared, all the entities you currently consider “US-based corporations” would not disappear. Similarly, corporations currently operate internationally in many different countries with many different legislative requirements and many different definitions of “corporation”. Yet we don’t think of them as existing exclusively in the context of any one of those countries.

A corporation can never do that - government laws set out very clearly who controls what

Corporations do have infighting, and Hostile Takeovers do happen, and we are in agreement that ONLY reason they’re not bloodier is because of governments enforcing their laws. But also, I shouldn’t have made “cartel” analagous to “corporation”, since the analogy for a cartel civil war would be multiple businesses or corporations having a falling out.

But we also already have a sordid history of US “corporations” operating outside the laws of other countries, oftentimes with the help of the US military. So how do we square that circle?

But you understand that everything you linked are examples of why a govt can’t actually print infinitely and can’t just pay interest to rich people…right?

Also it’s a red flag to me that all of your sources are youtube videos.

The purpose of government securities is not to fund spending but to give the rich a safe place to park their capital with interest.

You have a source on this? I find it difficult to believe that it is ever a good idea to just take out a loan for the sake of making the interest payments. Especially using public funds, that sounds pretty close to embezzlement.

Rather, a country’s budget should always make use of debt, because its reputation has value and should be invested, not left sitting on the table.

There’s no formal structure, shares or board meetings

This is an arbitrary list of things and I don’t agree that all corporations have all of these, but I guarantee most cartels have a formal structure, a clear description of ownership, and what qualifies as board of leaders. Most wouldn’t be able to function without it.

sometimes they do just descend into civil war

They compete with rival cartels in all the same ways corporations would if they could (or already do when they can get away with it).

They’re businesses

I’m curious why you’re willing to call them businesses but not corporations.

Corporations try to all the time. It’s only through an effective use of law that they don’t. And lately, it hasn’t been very effective.

But also a government can’t print “unlimited currency”. Eventually it would be worthless. They are effectively only permitted to print currency proportional to what their creditors allow.

Drug cartels do all the things any corporation would happily do without laws to restrict them. So I don’t see any distinction and I don’t believe a govt is necessary for a corporation to exist. Just like with any other crime by any other citizen, a govt uses its monopoly on violence to prevent corporations from doing harm.

On the one hand, murder is bad, but on the other hand I am full of hate and fear…

Lol I don’t know what you want man, i didn’t realize this was one of those “digging my heels in because I don’t know how to be wrong” threads. I’ll let you do your thing, peace.

Who is “we”? I’m responding to your top level comment. You just asked the creator of an exclusively client-side app whether they support encryption. Not only is it reasonable for me to assume you mean client side encryption, it’s unreasonable for you to ask for server side encryption, because there is no server. It’s a BYOBackend situation.

Now if you’re asking for client-side encryption, something like Keepass where the file itself is encrypted, you have to use some form of auth to decrypt it on use, and you can store this file using whatever backend you want, that’s perfectly reasonable. I would still consider that encrypted at rest, but at least you could maybe separate encrypted reads from writes and limit the attack surface in the event of a breach.

All phones are already disk encrypted these days. If you want disk encryption on your PC, you should enable it. Otherwise, it’s the responsibility of whatever backend you choose to handle encryption over the network.

He truly was

Agreed, but it does make sense from an evolutionary/anthropological perspective. The thing to keep in mind is: it’s perfectly rational for a person to act irrationally if it improves their survivability.

If your king declares that the country is now Catholic, and anyone who believes otherwise will be executed, then the people who survive are gonna be devout Catholics.

Rational Irrationality is real.

Looks like the Vatican is gonna need a regime change.

I don’t think anyone would read it to mean that. Also, he interviews just as many people on the left, but mostly people who are…just completely out there.

Shhh, Andrew works very hard to convince that side that they can trust him to do an interview. After the Shirley stuff, he needs something like this to be able to get back behind enemy lines.

How about we just give it a bit, eh?

The “Most Transparent President in History” everyone.

This is the first time they’ve done it in the face of an impending blue wave, though. I was actually considering just a few days ago that, given the polls, republicans removing trump might be their only chance (besides a full-on military coup) at retaining any shred of power through midterms. What’s left of the republican party will fall flat on its face without trump (as cults typically do), but they also can’t afford to keep him around because he’s so supremely unpopular.

They’ve really backed themselves into a corner. Now the question is: how overtly fascist are they willing to go? Is the impeachment just a hedge to try and survive midterms? Guess we’ll see…