bit-anarchist

This is a simplistic view over money and currencies in general. Money is a form of credit. It's an abstraction in the sense that it unifies preferences and signals under a single dimension. It's an approximation in the sense that, when you buy something for 20 bucks, it's not that the something is actually worth 20 bucks, but that you value 20 bucks (and, by extension, the other things you could buy with them) than the something.

In this regard, while it's kinda wrong to say "it costs money to care for people", caring for people is not free either - you have to spend something: time, labor, psyche, favors, etc. All of these can be acquired or replaced by trading with others (which is preferable to do through money): buying tools/machines, hiring workers/services, acquiring means to connect with others, and so on. Turns out money is just a more verifiable and simplified form of favors.

No, I'm saying UK already had to compromise, and Brazil doesn't have the same economic advantages as the UK did. In all, while I haven't stated it's 100% impossible, I haven't stated it's possible, even less so preferable.

You are ignoring the fact that NHS started compromised to allow the payment of UK's debt. And consider that Brazil's interest rates are already high.

Sorry for the late response, just read this.

Their original complaint wasn't about defining these groups (one can debate that classes are supposed to be more rigid than this), but the "collapse of all indenties" into these two buckets - which material dialectics calls for. It's a criticism specific towards Marxism and its notion of "no war but class war".

Not everything is up to inspection; elections are about gathering votes - not actually improving infrastructure - and conflicting interest often result in heavy and broad compromises; oversight/review boards often just do the bare minimum. Get rid of intellectual property, and everything will be public domain.

Furthermore, nothing prevents applying these oversights over public-private partnerships (which is just a fancy term for outsourcing). The government decides who gets hired and on what conditions, so it can just enforce transparency requirements.

As it should. Copyright shouldn't exist in the first place.

A better term might be "ambiguous". There are multiple ways of reading the expression "freely" here. Some may see it as "it's really trivial to do it", or "it's hard, but it's doable", or "it's legal to do it", for example. Some class systems don't have any legal way of moving up, at all.

> How do I freely become a capital owner? Do people just... give you large amounts of capital?

Depending of how you define some words, one could say that. Loans aren't particularly easy to get, have string attached, but they are available and can come from just about anywhere. Or you can just be lucky and have made a series of good investments. Unlikely, but possible. You don't need the party's approval to control capital so, for some, that counts as "freely".

> I don't think you know what "collapse" means. If anything, "separate" would be the word here?

They probably meant "collapse" in similar sense to wave collapse: collapsing the indeterminate sets of identities into two discrete and reduced ones.

Quite frankly, I don't see anything they need to defend. You are basically asking that all AI resources should be monopolistically owned by a democratically controlled private corp. Democratic or not, it's still a private corp and just as alienating.

> The law is not there to rehabilitate, it's there to punish and thereby deter.

Technically, it's neither. The law is there to state what ought to be. Even putting that aside, it's prescribed punishment's goal is to remediate and prevent violations of the law, so it has three simultaneous means: to restitute, to deter and to rehabilitate. The balance between the three is predicated on each's ability to satisfy the original goal of remediation and prevention, all the while not violating other laws and rights.

> We put people in jail as a result of them breaking the law, regardless.

A core principle of the rule of law is the principle of proportionality, which states that only the most legal amount of force is the materially sufficient enough to prevent a crime. If lower measures are sufficient to prevent a crime, jailing should not be prescribed, not only to respect the law but also to make good use of scarce resources, as prison overcrowding may not only reduce their effectiveness, but also open the door for downstream right violations.

What's the transgression here, though?

For your example to be trivially valid, the farmer would need to be entitled to the sun, but the sun is not property of aynone as of yet. There might be an argument to this (especially if more context is given), but, in this general case, I find it unlikely.

Still, even we accept your example as valid, what would be the equivalent to "sunlight"? Labor, maybe? But labor isn't something that is owned nor it's a persistent property of material resources, it's human-derived transformation. It's inconcrete by itself, even more so than light, more akin to work (in the technical physics sense). It just so happens that it "produces" a material outcome.

> The reason private property exists is not because land (for instance) can't be copied.

Both things can be true at the same time. Land being economically scarce necessarily means that whatever use is thrusted onto it will produce private exclusion. Today, we give this relationship of private exclusion the name of "property" or "private property", but that doesn't mean you have to formally recognized private ownership in law to suffer its effects - socialists regimes stand as a testament to that. Thus...

> They're both made up social constructs. One isn't more fundamental than the other.

The first sentence is reductive, while the second is innacurate, if not outright wrong. Physical property is primarily predicated on real scarcity, while intellectual property is purely predicated on social control, which, when analyzed more closely, lays claims (even if partially) of ownership over other resources, including peoples' bodies and mind. It's fair to say that one is more fundamental than the other.