Is morality objective or subjective?

[Iwannaplato]

Free Enterprise: that there is good for what ails you.

So, then you'd agree that anti-rust legislation is needed, since that protects free enterprise from the other end.

And you also need a hellava lot of courts to manage the contracts and the breaches of these. That takes a lot of state.

Or do you think oligarchies have free markets and enterprise?

Do you tink banks should be able to create money out of nothing and then invest it in the stock market? You know, the whole fiat fractional reserve banking .

Corporations were the first globalists and do not like nations' laws if they interfere with anything the corporations like to do? That is, they have inherent anti-democratic tendenices`? Concerns there? How do we prevent their intervention in the laws and elections of nations, including the US?

Should there be any regularion of surveillance capitalism? Who would do that?

Would you have any limits on how money controls politicians? Who would deal with that or should the market take care of that? The richest control the most politiicians.

[henry quirk]

So, then you'd agree that anti-rust legislation is needed, since that protects free enterprise from the other end.

There's nuthin' wrong with natural monopolies. It's the State-backed monopolies that are a problem.

*

And you also need a hellava lot of courts to manage the contracts and the breaches of these.

Nah. What you need are simpler contracts (and fewer courts).

*

That takes a lot of state.

Hush your mouth!

*

Or do you think oligarchies have free markets and enterprise?

Kill The State (as I say, hang the state-capitalists and -socialists) and you'll have unrestrained markets and Free Enterprise.

*

Do you tink banks should be able to create money out of nothing and then invest it in the stock market? You know, the whole fiat fractional reserve banking .

I say get back to gold (and dismantle the federal reserve).

*

Corporations were the first globalists and do not like nations' laws if they interfere with anything the corporations like to do? That is, they have inherent anti-democratic tendenices`? Concerns there? How do we prevent their intervention in the laws and elections of nations, including the US?

As I say: hang the state-capitalists and -socialists. Can't have corporations without corporatists (gotta hang the legislators too).

*

Should there be any regularion of surveillance capitalism? Who would do that?

Not sure what surveillance capitalism is. That's data mining and whatnot, yeah?

*

Would you have any limits on how money controls politicians?

Oh, you can throw as much gold as you like at legislators. Can't see how it'll do 'em much good as they, legislators, swing in the breeze.


My point is: before Free Enterprise (just folks transactin' without State oversight) can work large-scale, you gotta get rid of The State and the ones who profit off it.

[Iwannaplato]

There's nuthin' wrong with natural monopolies. It's the State-backed monopolies that are a problem.

So, you don't care about price collusion - which means that price is not connected to value or demand anymore, or the loss of free markets in an oligarchy or with monopolies?

*

And you also need a hellava lot of courts to manage the contracts and the breaches of these.

Nah. What you need are simpler contracts (and fewer courts).

It's still be billions of contracts and you need someone to decide if someone broke it.

*

That takes a lot of state.

Hush your mouth!

Sorry, but it's the harsh reality. You can have a lot less courts if you have nationalized industries. The government bureaucrats just make their decisions. No courts. (Do not assume that I am remotely interested in nationalized business). But once you have free markets, your need someone to decide on those things and contract law, lawyers and court processes follow in droves.

*

Or do you think oligarchies have free markets and enterprise?

Kill The State (as I say, hang the state-capitalists and -socialists) and you'll have unrestrained markets and Free Enterprise.

For ten minutes, then you will have oligarchies, an end to democracy and utter elite control. In fact we have been transitioning this way for decades.

*

Do you tink banks should be able to create money out of nothing and then invest it in the stock market? You know, the whole fiat fractional reserve banking .

I say get back to gold (and dismantle the federal reserve).

So, how much money do the banks get to create (causing inflation). Sure, get rid of the federal reserve, but what about banks being able to loan money they don't have. How many times per each dollar do they get to do this and how much inflation do they get to cause?

Corporations were the first globalists and do not like nations' laws if they interfere with anything the corporations like to do? That is, they have inherent anti-democratic tendenices`? Concerns there? How do we prevent their intervention in the laws and elections of nations, including the US?

As I say: hang the state-capitalists and -socialists. Can't have corporations without corporatists (gotta hang the legislators too).

*
You are against corporations?

Should there be any regularion of surveillance capitalism? Who would do that?

Not sure what surveillance capitalism is. That's data mining and whatnot, yeah?

*Sure, you know, where facebook and the others make their real money, the coming internet of things where everything thing we do is monitored by private actors. I mean, walking down the street, turning on a vaccuum cleaner, who we meet, every single thing. Who regulates that if not the state? The companies whill scream it is interference with free enterprise. And in a sense their dystopia will be/is free enterprise.

Would you have any limits on how money controls politicians?

Oh, you can throw as much gold as you like at legislators. Can't see how it'll do 'em much good as they, legislators, swing in the breeze.

You mean, if they accept it, they hang. Or, there are no legislators?

My point is: before Free Enterprise (just folks transactin' without State oversight) can work large-scale, you gotta get rid of The State and the ones who profit off of it.

But not the corporatoins that have been given extra rights by the government and can turn to governments all the time for favors and justice. They won't mind if there's no counterweight, if you completely get rid of the state. They'll just hire enforcers. McDonalds with hire a security company to collect debts, punish bad customers, punish late suppliers or anyone they think has breached a contract. Of course, some of their suppliers may be big enough to field troops. But none of us will.

[henry quirk]

So, you don't care about price collusion - which means that price is not connected to value or demand anymore,

You kill The State and some of that goes *poof*. There's always gonna be dirty dealers no matter what system you use or regs you impose. Simplify and make such shenanigans more difficult.

*

or the loss of free markets in an oligarchy or with monopolies?

As I say: I got no problem with natural monopolies. Without The State, monopolies have a natural scope. And they fall with the next big thing. As for oligarchies: hard to establish without The State.

*

It's still be billions of contracts and you need someone to decide if someone broke it.

Well, I said fewer courts, not no courts. And if the law is simple, then contracts are simple.

*

Sorry, but it's the harsh reality. You can have a lot less courts if you have nationalized industries. The government bureaucrats just make their decisions. No courts. (Do not assume that I am remotely interested in nationalized business). But once you have free markets, your need someone to decide on those things and contract law, lawyers and court processes follow in droves.

Simplify the law (and hang the lawyers). Privatize everything.

*

For ten minutes, then you will have oligarchies, an end to democracy and utter elite control. In fact we have been transitioning this way for decades.

You have that cuz you have The State. Hang the democrats. We'll always have elites: without The State they're limited to self-financin' their Dr. Evil plans.

*

So, how much money do the banks get to create (causing inflation).

Not one shiny penny. Hang the bankers.

*

what about banks being able to loan money they don't have.

If they ain't got it: they can't loan it.

*

How many times per each dollar do they get to do this and how much inflation do they get to cause?

Loan only what you got: create nuthin'.

*

You are against corporations?

As paper people? As insulation for actual people? Absolutely.

*

Sure, you know, where facebook and the others make their real money, the coming internet of things where everything thing we do is monitored by private actors. I mean, walking down the street, turning on a vaccuum cleaner, who we meet, every single thing. Who regulates that if not the state? The companies whill scream it is interference with free enterprise. And in a sense their dystopia will be/is free enterprise.

Ah, okay. Like with everything else I'm talkin' about here, we aren't gonna get relief by appealin' to The State (ask the pedo to babysit your kids, why don't you). And like everything else I'm talkin' about here, those platforms can only do what consumers allow. If, tomorrow, everyone dropped facebook, facebook ceases to be.

Of course, that ain't gonna happen anymore than folks will drop The State.

*

Or, there are no legislators?

Tell me: what do you think I mean when I say they'll swing in the breeze?

*

They'll just hire enforcers.

As they should: nuthin' wrong with collection agencies.

*

McDonalds with hire a security company to collect debts, punish bad customers, punish late suppliers or anyone they think has breached a contract.

As long as the business (not corporation) or it's proxy isn't unjustly takin' life, liberty, or property: I'm not seein' a problem.

*

none of us will.

Speak for yourself. I self-employ: I've dealt with welshers. And, no, I'm not disclosin' details.

[Iwannaplato]

You kill The State and some of that goes *poof*. There's always gonna be dirty dealers no matter what system you use or regs you impose. Simplify and make such shenanigans more difficult.

Price collusion is like 5 phone calls, one facebook private message group for ten minutes. Over a beer at a G7 meeting, 4 minutes while getting a group massage at a Bilderberg group meeting. Following by simultaneous happy endings. Price collusion, if there is no one to possibly slap your wrist, is easier than the easiest warehouse logistics problem. It's like deciding who will call for the Uber.

*

or the loss of free markets in an oligarchy or with monopolies?

As I say: I got no problem with natural monopolies. Without The State, monopolies have a natural scope. And they fall with the next big thing.

How could you possibly know this? Why would they fall? Their existence allows them to control R & D. Sure they might fall now and then, but while they are there no free market. And the next lottery winner company can eliminate free market also.

As for oligarchies: hard to establish without The State.

Come on. An oligarchy is when the state is overtaken by the private sector. No state and no restrictions on corporations, they are the state. And every single corporation is precisely not a democracy. They are regions of top down communism/fascism.

*

It's still be billions of contracts and you need someone to decide if someone broke it.

Well, I said fewer courts, not no courts. And if the law is simple, then contracts are simple.

Yes, but you are just waving a magic wand and saying they are simple. But a supplier and a receiver still need to know dates, payment, schedules, penalities, amounts of products. Absolutely none of that changes if there is no state. They still have to have the exact same expectations.

*

Sorry, but it's the harsh reality. You can have a lot less courts if you have nationalized industries. The government bureaucrats just make their decisions. No courts. (Do not assume that I am remotely interested in nationalized business). But once you have free markets, your need someone to decide on those things and contract law, lawyers and court processes follow in droves.

Simplify the law (and hang the lawyers). Privatize everything.

As I said none of that reduces needed clauses in a contract.

*

For ten minutes, then you will have oligarchies, an end to democracy and utter elite control. In fact we have been transitioning this way for decades.

You have that cuz you have The State.

Nope. Look at the East India Company. They ran countries, had armies. That's what would happen. No regulators, no state to protect patents and property. Corporations become states in every respect.

And it is the State that makes corporations corporations. They are granted priviledges by the state that we do not have. You think without a state they are just going give up that priviledge? Have you had much to do with CEOs and investors?

Hang the democrats. We'll always have elites: without The State they're limited to self-financin' their Dr. Evil plans.

They will be states. Really, they already are.

*

So, how much money do the banks get to create (causing inflation).

Not one shiny penny. Hang the bankers.

So, no loans?
*

what about banks being able to loan money they don't have.

If they ain't got it: they can't loan it.

that puts most of the capitalists with power against you, so good luck. You won't have liberals, socialists or centrists because of many of your ideas. And you just gave the finger to banks and wall st. They will quietly ignore this part.
*

You are against corporations?

As paper people? As insulation for actual people? Absolutely.

So, how do you get rid of corporations in your version of a free market?

*

Sure, you know, where facebook and the others make their real money, the coming internet of things where everything thing we do is monitored by private actors. I mean, walking down the street, turning on a vaccuum cleaner, who we meet, every single thing. Who regulates that if not the state? The companies whill scream it is interference with free enterprise. And in a sense their dystopia will be/is free enterprise.

Ah, okay. Like with everything else I'm talkin' about here, we aren't gonna get relief by appealin' to The State (ask the pedo to babysit your kids, why don't you). And like everything else I'm talkin' about here, those platforms can only do what consumers allow. If, tomorrow, everyone dropped facebook, facebook ceases to be.

Yeah and if the sun farts a blue whale appears in my pocket. I can make up stuff also.

Of course, that ain't gonna happen anymore than folks will drop The State.

Ah, thank you.

*

Or, there are no legislators?

Tell me: what do you think I mean when I say they'll swing in the breeze?

I didn't know if it was the ones you didn't like or all of them. Hence the question.

It's be the wild west for a while. The largest corporations, some of whose names people don't know, will take over, eat the smaller ones and wield de facto state power.

Your position is ironically like Marx's or really Engel's withering away of the state. Of course it sounds like you want a pure coup, and Marx assumed there would be an interim state. But you both have a magical sense about what happens when there is a power vaccuum.

Ask any drug dealer what happens when a drug lord goes down.
Ask any honest CEO in a private conversation what his company would do if there was no state to enforce contract law, protect property and patents and protect him or her from other companies rapacious industrial espionage, copyright violations, theft, sabotage and more.

A thousand Putins, Maos, Mussolinis would be created the moment the state was gone.

*

They'll just hire enforcers.

As they should: nuthin' wrong with collection agencies.

Private armies. And a collection agency means nothing without a state. You gotta go fuck people up and they would.

*

McDonalds with hire a security company to collect debts, punish bad customers, punish late suppliers or anyone they think has breached a contract.

As long as the business (not corporation) or it's proxy isn't unjustly takin' life, liberty, or property: I'm not seein' a problem.

I feel like I am talking to a child and I don't usually with you. Justice? There would be no state. Power and justice would be money based only. Not even a pretense of anything else. They already kill people unjustly, now it would be open season.

Speak for yourself. I self-employ: I've dealt with welshers. And, no, I'm not disclosin' details.

You have no dealt with a corporate with a private army that figures it's worth taking that busines out from under you, or indenturing you or driving you off the map of being seen by customers. You think they would hesitate to run a protection racket and show up at your door once a month. Who's going to fucking stop them? And if you want to say taxes are a protection racket ask someone who the mob has been tapping if it ends up being the same thing really, so peachy.

[henry quirk]

Price collusion is like 5 phone calls, one facebook private message group for ten minutes. Over a beer at a G7 meeting, 4 minutes while getting a group massage at a Bilderberg group meeting. Following by simultaneous happy endings. Price collusion, if there is no one to possibly slap your wrist, is easier than the easiest warehouse logistics problem. It's like deciding who will call for the Uber.

So, how do we deal with such things now?

*

Why would they fall?

Joe's widgets has had a lock on widgets for a century. Stan comes along with his start up makin' a better widget and he sells 'em at slightly lower price than Joe's. At the very least: Joe's has sumthin' to worry about. At the most: Joe's ain't a monopoly any more.

*

Their existence allows them to control R & D.

Theirs, yeah. Not the other guy's.

*

while they are there no free market.

When supported by The State, you're right. No State means no protections from just competition.

*

And the next lottery winner company can eliminate free market also.

Lottery winner company?

*

An oligarchy is when the state is overtaken by the private sector.

Sure, but I'm talkin' about a hypothetical were there is no State to hijack.

*

No state and no restrictions on corporations,

Why? You have the law (each is a free person with an inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property). You have local constabularies to investigate claims of violation. You have local courts to hear those claims, review evidence, hear the defense against those claims, and render a decision. No State is needed: only proxies.

*

And every single corporation is precisely not a democracy.

Stop allowin' them to be paper persons and it doesn't matter how they organize internally. (can't be violatin' life, liberty, or property, though...that there is the Grand Poobah of no-noes.

*

Yes, but you are just waving a magic wand and saying they are simple.

They are. All this -- dates, payment, schedules, penalities, amounts of products -- ought not take up more than five pages, handwritten. If it does, somebody is tryin' to hoodwink the other guy.

*

Absolutely none of that changes if there is no state. They still have to have the exact same expectations.

Exactly. I'm just sayin' you don't need The State.

*

Nope. Look at the East India Company.

Yep. You look at 'em...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

...they bought The State, bought privilege, bought favor.

*

They ran countries, had armies. That's what would happen. No regulators, no state to protect patents and property. Corporations become states in every respect.

That's an ancap's wet dream. Me: I'm not an ancap.

*

And it is the State that makes corporations corporations.

Yep. So, without The State they're....?

*

They are granted priviledges by the state that we do not have.

Yep. So, without The State they're....?

*

You think without a state they are just going give up that priviledge?

I think without The State to back 'em they'll go down swingin'.

*

Have you had much to do with CEOs and investors?

My customers are shysters. I know what's what.

*

They will be states. Really, they already are.

No, they're customers. They buy legislative favor. I'm tellin' ya: hang the legislators.

*

So, no loans?

As long as it's real money, why not have lending?

*

that puts most of the capitalists with power against you, so good luck. You won't have liberals, socialists or centrists because of many of your ideas. And you just gave the finger to banks and wall st. They will quietly ignore this part.

All those folks dislike me now (I'm not popular amongst State-lovers [see pretty much any conversation I've had with anyone, in-forum). As I say: nobody wants to drop The State (mostly cuz they're well hypnotized into thinkin' The State is necessary).

*

So, how do you get rid of corporations in your version of a free market?

As you say: it is the State that makes corporations corporations. So, without The State they're....?

*

Yeah and if the sun farts a blue whale appears in my pocket. I can make up stuff also.

Nuthin' to be done about hypnotzed garbage eaters except navigate around 'em.

*

the ones you didn't like or all of them

They're one and the same.

*

It's be the wild west for a while.

Yep. That would be a good thing. Dispense with the status quo.

*

withering away of the state

I'd rather burn it at the stake.

*

you both have a magical sense about what happens when there is a power vaccuum.

I don't. I know exactly what would happen. As I say: I'm not an ancap.

*

Ask any honest CEO in a private conversation what his company would do if there was no state to enforce contract law, protect property and patents and protect him or her from other companies rapacious industrial espionage, copyright violations, theft, sabotage and more.

As I say: I'm no ancap. He'd have the same protections as anyone by way of the constabulary and the courts.

*

A thousand Putins, Maos, Mussolinis would be created the moment the state was gone.

That's why you go with proxies (constabulary, courts, border patrol, and militia) to keep such figures down.

*

I feel like I am talking to a child

And I feel like I'm talkin' to one of them hypnotized folks I mentioned earlier. So quick to defend The State as the best or only way.

(Seems to me we're hijackin' the thread...mebbe we oughta take this conversation elsewhere)

[Iwannaplato]

So, how do we deal with such things now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing_cases
Of course, governments now are near oligharchies in the west, so I don't think it's going well. But to just end the State is not to just let the fox guard the henhouse (that's what it's like now, but the fox needs to pretend, in the daytime, that he's doing a decent job). Getting rid of the state is to get rid of the henhouse and have no guards.

Why would they fall?

Joe's widgets has had a lock on widgets for a century. Stan comes along with his start up makin' a better widget and he sells 'em at slightly lower price than Joe's. At the very least: Joe's has sumthin' to worry about. At the most: Joe's ain't a monopoly any more.

Nice, a century with someone who can set any price they like and also, given there is no government to get in his way, bully suppliers into not selling Stan metal, flood media that it owns with other monopolies, with lies about Stan, his Widget, or hell just put some child porn on Stan's computer, bye bye, come in later and get his diagrams.

*

Their existence allows them to control R & D.

Theirs, yeah. Not the other guy's

The mulibillion corp against some sharp engineer in Idaho? Sure, some loner people will come up with something, though much more rarely and when they do they find themselves in a cell beside STan or at the bottom of a river or blackmailed into giving up their idea and so on.

*
no

while they are there no free market.

When supported by The State, you're right. No State means no protections from just competition.

It means no protection from what will be more or less warlords. You think without a state Microsoft won't act like a state. It'll have an army, no reason not to break laws, near total information, the ability to high experts skilled at destroying competition. It's be like when the English army when into France and roamed the countryside raping and killing and taking what it needed. Only global. Of course, we not far from that.

It'll all be nice then is radical speculation at the very very best. And I see nothing out there now that supports this hallucination.

I get the way you respond to these things. Once the State is gone, none of those patterns will continue. I think that's denial at a high level and I'm happy to stop pingponging it. So, I will.

Look, to me it sounds like you have a nice dream. But I think it implicitly includes the idea that corporations will somehow not automatically fill the power gap with all the tools states have. It would be poor business not to. And they would, and they are already, just not with the complete freedom you are yearning for. And these States, the freed corporations, are not democratic, they are not patriotic, they are not respecters of persons. They are warlords with a PR army and then a real one also.

But defunding the police is working well, you could use that as an argument.

Here's what the conversation would be like from a little entrepreneur with his widget and the corporate rep..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX-9wXFQRgA&t=217s

The little guys, they'll get their milkshakes drunk. If we're lucky we'll have feudalism. More likely some disgusting transhuman dystopia.

[henry quirk]

Well, that was an odd place to break off. About 3/4 of my post was left unanswered/unchallenged.

But, I can't make a man talk with me when he doesn't want to.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, that was an odd place to break off. About 3/4 of my post was left unanswered/unchallenged.

But, I can't make a man talk with me when he doesn't want to.

Well, I responded to 25% of your post and you responded here to 0% of mine. Even the part that explains why I didn't respond to more, which it seems you missed.

I'll paraphrase, and say it again. I detected a pattern.
Once the state is gone all the problems will go away. as an answer to any objection.
I think that's magical thinking.
I can't prove this miracle won't happen. Perhaps corporations are just like surly teenagers. Once their parents are killed in a car crash, they realize they don't care about power. They've just been rebelling.

But I see no reason to believe it, nor one presented in your posts.
It can feel pretty useless if in a discussion someone says and they lived happily ever after for every point.
Of course I use my intuition also. For many things. But if everything comes down to your intuition that without a state everything will be peachy, there's nothing to discuss.
It's not a problem.
Our posts are there for anyone to read. Perhaps someone else will come along and back up with a reasoned argument what looks to me like your wishful thinking.

[Belinda]

Henry deplores Uncle Sam . There's a Simpson's episode all about how Homer is seduced by that attitude.

[henry quirk]

I detected a pattern.

You made an assumption. And becuz you assumed, you stopped readin'. Here's a taste of what you missed...

You have the law (each is a free person with an inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property). You have local constabularies to investigate claims of violation. You have local courts to hear those claims, review evidence, hear the defense against those claims, and render a decision. No State is needed: only proxies.

*

He'd have the same protections as anyone by way of the constabulary and the courts.

*

That's why you go with proxies (constabulary, courts, border patrol, and militia) to keep such figures down.

You assumed no State equals no structure. You make a lot of assumptions...about me, about folks in general, about The State, about alternatives to The State. As I say...

I feel like I'm talkin' to one of them hypnotized folks I mentioned earlier. So quick to defend The State as the best or only way.

Anyway...

-----

Henry deplores Uncle Sam

I do indeed hate The State. Why do you love it?

-----

As I said...

Seems to me we're hijackin' the thread...mebbe we oughta take this conversation elsewhere

...I insist on it cuz I'm done here.

[Iwannaplato]

I detected a pattern.

You made an assumption.

I detected a pattern. No assumption there. It happened again and again. I'm glad you went ahead and finally justified something. How long does one have to wait? Then you chide me for not responding to you....enough, while not responding to me at all. I had said why I stopped, you could have said. Oh, but I did that later in the post. But what you chose to do was to pretend it wasn't happening and make it about me. I get tired of these games, I do. I realized I was tired of getting that same answer, had written something already, posted that with my complaint and explanation about why. Maybe next time you'll start with a justification included. I'll be more optimistic about what's coming in that context.

Maybe I'll come back later and look at your justification another time. I'll enjoy a little pout and responded to some other posts.

[henry quirk]

Maybe I'll come back later and look at your justification another time.

meh...the moment passed...as I say: I'm done here.

[Iwannaplato]

Maybe I'll come back later and look at your justification another time.

meh...the moment passed...as I say: I'm done here.

Ah, your window of justification is tiny. I'm honored it was flashed at me.

[Iwannaplato]

You have the law (each is a free person with an inalienable right to his, and no other's, life, liberty, and property). You have local constabularies to investigate claims of violation. You have local courts to hear those claims, review evidence, hear the defense against those claims, and render a decision. No State is needed: only proxies.

So, I take my claim against Facebook, or Exxon or, well you get the idea, to a local constabulary and local court? And if some giant corporation says, not interested in bothering with that claim? Or if they just simply bribe people? What stops this? Right now even governments have trouble getting companies to follow laws. How are these local constabularies going to do this?

You assumed no State equals no structure.

I assumed there would be structures, for example corporations. You repeatedly said, more or less, Once the state is gone, free enterprise works everything. Glad you have now introduced something else, which you don't call a State.

You make a lot of assumptions...about me, about folks in general, about The State, about alternatives to The State.

I asked a lot of questions. You assumed that because I didn't just accept that it would all work out, that you knew my thoughts on the whole range of possibilities. I was asking you. I'm glad you got around to a justification, for your own sake, even if it is very weak.

As I say...

I feel like I'm talkin' to one of them hypnotized folks I mentioned earlier. So quick to defend The State as the best or only way.

, That was an assumption also. If I challenge your ideas, I must like the current alternative. That's as dumb as assuming that if I criticize the democrats, I hate gays and love Trump. (and the opposite version of that)

This is such a common idiocy on the internet, AGain and again hypnotized people like yourself assume that if they are criticized or questioned or their version of reality is not accepted or their solutions are not accepted, then the person they are dealing with has the opposite view.

Not so bright, eh...

It happens with free will and determinism. If I point out problems with one position, most people assume I have the other position.
With theists vs. atheists
and so on.

Because it's all about teams to you shallow people.

If I am on your team, then I don't question you. And generally there are two teams. So, if I challenge your argument (or mostly in your case) the lack of then you know what my team is and you make idiotic statements like the one above.

Anyway...

Kudos for finally putting in a touch of a justification for your optimism. I don't think it's enough, but it shows that you did think about not just removing, but tweaking and adding.

But you went into high fart communication, so , toodloo....Catch you...well, nah.