Capitalism pits pharma against healthy people. Healthy people don't need pharma.

@nomebullyyou I can't believe Mr. Capitalism won't protect me from my enemies!

Capitalism doesn't "do" anything, it's a system that merely gives people the freedom to vote with their wallets.

If it's more profitable to make healthy people sick and keep them dependent on big pharma products, then that is the fault of the WEAK men who allow it, it's not up to an economic system to shield them.

Rise up, do the thing, if someone is knowingly making you sick, then you give them a terminal disease.

@nomebullyyou Take money out of the equation. If you want obedient slaves, is it in your interest that they're 100% healthy? Or would you gain more by repeatedly poisoning them so they're just strong enough to do their job (and too weak to revolt), but also require your medicine to survive in the long term? This has nothing to do with money or capitalism, let's not use leftist arguments to attack economic freedom.

@Based_Accelerationist So "economic freedom" is always good? Because my argument is specifically against the "economic freedom" to cause public ill and woe. I suppose I'm third position because I think collectivism can function with racial and religious homogeneity. Those are far off pipe dreams but I think steps can be taken towards those ends that would be better investments of time and energy than trying to make every libertarian who wants to fuck 13 year old girls happy.

@nomebullyyou So you're asking if freedom is always good? By "good" I assume you mean "good for the collective". It usually depends on how responsible the people are on average, but obviously freedom can also favor the individual over the group.

Anyway, the real question is: is there a good alternative to freedom? If people are too stupid/weak to defend their interests, should humanity give up on freedom?

You seem to be arguing for "racial/religious collectivism".

@nomebullyyou I on the other hand, do not believe a system can (or should) fix people. I believe in natural selection and that chaos (like death) are also desirable.

Death fixes people, it renews the species, which in turn tends to fix the system. It will inevitably collapse again, it's a cycle, but it works.

What you're suggesting delays the collapse by saving the weak, something I'm very much against, as it will either result in a more severe setback for the species, or in transhumanism.

@Based_Accelerationist Who gets to decide who's "weak", then? Babies are weak, but I don't want to discourage them.

But I get wanting to get the implosion and reordering going. There's been a hysterical rejection of all collectivism which I think is sort of dumb. And one race the human race is the flat earth of genetics. 50 Nigerians and 50 native Okinawans aren't capable of the same orders of civilization-building. Religious unity helps too, yes.

@nomebullyyou Nature already decided who's weak, it tends to be those who submit to others, even to their own detriment, this behavior usually means they can't/won't survive on their own. That weakness is the source of corruption and it consumes itself, unless AI/robots enter the mix.

I personally fail to see any rejection of collectivism whatsoever, when that ideology is all there is today. The Left is collectivist by nature and the Right wants the same collectivism, but to their benefit.

@Based_Accelerationist You didn't think the libertarians trying to argue out of roads being more efficient to own in common was a desperate rejection of collectivism? Didn't that cope a thon go on for years? Is it still ongoing? I have a rich and prosperous 3D life so I miss a lot of deets.