think4yourself

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

He can claim it because he understands what a monopoly is. A monopoly exists only if one single company has COMPLETE possession or control of a particular product or servive.

There are currently almost 9 million species on Earth. In order for ANY species to have a monopoly over other species, that species would have to have COMPLETE possesion or COMPLETE control over EVERY single other species and resource on Earth. Not only has that never happened, it can never happen.

How could any species ever have COMPLETE control over every other species and resource? We can't even reach the deepest parts of the oceans. How can we control ANY of the species or resources at the bottom of the oceans?

What about the most remote areas of the many jungles? Places no humans have ever seen much less controlled? What about all the species that live underground? What about all the resources that are beyond our reach? We don't posses or control those.

What about all the many bacterias and single-celled organisms? When has any species controlled every single bacteria/virus/germ on the planet? Millions of people died because we did NOT have control over the Covid virus.

Monopoly doesn't simply mean that we are the dominant species. Or that we are at the top of the food chain. Or that we have a lot of control over SOME species and SOME resources. Monopoly means that we would have to have COMPLETE control over EVERY species and EVERY resource on Earth.

That's not even close to being possible.

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

The fact that the "average person" can't "go get an invester to hand over millions of dollars to start a business" is a total red herring.

Neither Ayn Rand, nor the free market system, require that any "average person" be able to start million dollar businesses in order for the system to function and to prevent monopolies from existing. The only thing required is that SOME individual, or SOME group of individuals, be able to start that million dollar business. In the U.S. alone, million dollar businesses of all types are started all the time (there are more than 1.1 million of them). Where do you think all the million dollar, and even billion dollar, companies that exist today within the free market system came from in the first place? It wasn't magic. They didn't materialize out of thin air. At some point in time, every one of them was started from scratch. Many of them required millions of dollars of investments and yet that didn't prevented them from existing.

Every single week, millions of individuals (yes, millions), invest approximately $200 billion dollars into the U.S. economy alone. That's $200B of NEW investments EVERY single week. (I don't know if you're honestly interested in understanding whether or not monopolies can exist in a free market system, but if you are, you might want to read that last sentence again.)

Some of these millions of individuals are made up of medium income and wealthy individuals that invest for themselves. Or more often, they are represented by thousands of company pension plans, union pension plans, mutual funds, bond funds, hedge funds, venture capital firms, regular banks, commercial banks, credit unions, savings and loans, small/medium/large private and publicly traded corporations, university endowments, etc., etc., etc.

None of these individuals and/or institutions would hesitate to invest thousands, millions, or even tens of millions of dollars if they were to judge that there is money to be made as a return on their investment. In other words, there is NEVER a lack of investment capital IF there is a good idea for a business and sufficient demand to start that new business. (If the business idea is no good or sufficient demand doesn't exist, then the notion of a monopoly is irrelevant and meaningless. You can't have a monopoly for something that no one wants.)

The proof: In the U.S., every single week there is a HUGE excess of investment capital, above and beyond what could EVER be needed to start ANY and EVERY new business that is worth starting. So much so that EVERY single week approximately $100 billion dollars is invested into the publicly traded markets. That's $100 billion dollars that makes its way into the public markets PER WEEK because it could't find a viable business to invest in. That's why the stock, bond and commodities markets have always gone up (over the long term) and why they will ALWAYS keep going up (over the long term). Free market economies are exceedingly powerful at generating capital. They are non-stop, capital generating machines!

So Ayn Rand is exactly correct:
• Since the free market never EVEN COMES CLOSE to lacking sufficient capital to fund EVERY single business that is worth funding and
• since most of the millions of individuals who have money/capital to invest WANT (quite naturally) to make as much of a return on their money/capital as they can and
• since in a free market economy these millions of individuals are FREE to use/invest their money as they see fit, then
no monopoly can ever exist in a free market economy unless the government meddles in the economy and creates it.

-------

A free market economy is synonymous with "capitalism" because generating capital is essential to how it functions. More importantly, its unmatched ability to generate CAPITAL combined with its inherent FREEDOM to deploy that capital is why a free market economy is the most efficient and, therefore, the greatest prosperity creating economic system ever devised.

The PRACTICAL justification for a free market economy is that it creates greater PROSPERITY for those who live and function within it than any other type of economic system that humans have created (compare America's prosperity to that of ANY other country in the world).

The MORAL justification for a free market economy is that it is the ONLY economic system based on the FREEDOM of those who live and function within it.

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

You gave a detailed explanation and that's good, but unfortunately it seems that you didn't watch the video carefully.
The thug hit the victim in the HEAD with a bottle!! That IS an imminent threat! People have been killed by being struck in the head with a hard object like a bottle or a rock. The bottle hit the man so hard that he even checked the palm of his hand for blood! If you watch the video closely you can easily see that the thug threw the large (liquor?) bottle with all his force. If the bottle had hit the man straight on his right temple, which was fully exposed, instead of a glancing hit on his left side, it could easily have killed him or caused a severe head injury. In other words, it was only LUCK that kept the man from being severely injured or worse.
If someone has ALREADY hit you in the head with a bottle or any other potentially LETHAL object, the law does NOT require you to wait and see if he has another bottle or object that he can hit with, especially if they continue to attack you (as the thug did in this case). At that point, the PERSON (not the bottle) becomes an imminent threat to your life because his own actions have demonstrated that he is willing to strike you with deadly force. For this reason, you can absolutely defend yourself by any means, including by the use of violence.
In this particular instance, if the man had stood his ground and responded with violence, it absolutely would have been a clear case of self-defense. It has nothing to do with being or not being a "tough guy." It's about having enough respect for yourself and for your very life that you are NOT willing to let someone PUT YOUR LIFE at risk without defending yourself.
(BTW, there's also the question of justice. If you run away and call the police, by the time the police get there the thug could have easily gotten away. But if you defend your life and subdue him, including by violence, and THEN call the police, you insure justice for yourself (the thug tried to KILL you!!) and justice for the woman that the thug was attacking. You also make sure that he's unlikely to make a victim of someone else in the future.)

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

Yes, you're right. And actually, a person doesn't even have to watch the video all that carefully to grasp this: In the first part, the narrator states "In 2022, the Nobel Prize in physics proved that distance is a lie." Then in the second part (and this is the misleading part) he goes on to state "But what happens when that rule applies to entire universes? The Many Interacting Worlds hypothesis, suggests our timeline is physically entangled with a paralle one..."

There are so many flaws in that second part it's astonishing (especially for a presentation on physics).
1. He states "when that rule applies to" with NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that the rule CAN in fact be VALIDLY applied to entire universes.
2. He refers to "entire universes" with no proof that alternate universes even exist, just a full on ASSUMPTION that they do.
3. By his own admission it's a HYPOTHESIS, which means it's hasn't been proven.
4. This "hypothesis SUGGESTS our timeline..."
Apparently science (physics no less) has been reduced to: 1. no evidence is required, 2. assumptions can form the core of your argument, 3. merely referring to a hypothesis can justify all manner of speculation, 4. science isn't about drawing valid conclusions from verifiable evidence, it's now only about what a hypothesis "suggests."

Unfortunately this pattern can be seen in many "scientific" videos, tv shows, documentaries, news casts, etc:
First make a statement that appears to make sense (that may or may not be factual) about some relatively small observation. Then subtlely move on to making all manner of wild, unproven, speculative claims on a much bigger scale (like "entire universes"). The first statement (whether it is true or false) is meant to give the "appearance of science" to the outlandish claims that follow. Thus making them more likely to be accepted as true and scientific by the viewer, listener or reader.

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

It's obviously true that "small changes can lead to big effects," but the fact that a small change can have a big effect doesn't change the fact that your arsenic analogy is completely invalid and consequently your argument as well.

(I've never used Chat-GPT, not even once. Nor did I use any other AI. BTW, when a person's arguments can stand on their own merits, they don't feel the need to resort to erroneous speculations and silly name calling.)

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

The chart you posted is not a valid counterargument to the argument made in the video you were responding to:
1. The man in the video stated that the lag he's alleging takes 400 to 800 years to manifest. The chart you posted spans only 130 years. It's logically impossible to either prove or disprove something that is alleged to take 400 to 800 years to fully take place by examining (either in a chart or in any other form) data that spans a mere 130 years.
2. Even if the chart had spanned a sufficient amount of time, it would still be part of an invalid counterargument because the chart plots a line chart over a bar chart. To show that the trend in variable1 lags the trend in variable2 or that the trend in variable2 lags the trend in variable1, both sets of data have to be plotted as line charts. Bar charts display data as discreet units and consequently they don't demonstrate either trends, or changes in trends.
A person could try to "guesstimate" the trend, as well as the changes in the trend by merely "eyeballing" it. But that would be like conducting an experiment where you needed to know the weight of a substance prior to the start of the experiment and then compare it to the weight of that same substance after the experiment was finished. And you decided to just hold the substance in your hand and then conclude "Yeah I'm sure that weighs 28 grams." And then afterwards, "Yeah I'm pretty sure that weighs 24 grams so there was a loss of 4 grams."
A person could do that, of course, but then they couldn't claim to be making a scientifically sound argument.

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

The percentage increase you referred to (50%) is insignificant because the original quantity is so tiny (3 one hundredth of one percent). An analogy:
There's a pier that starts at the shore and extends 200 yards into the ocean (in other words, it's a very big pier). At some given time, there is one solitary average-sized man standing on the pier. Moments later a second average-sized man walks out onto the pier. The second man has now increased the weight that the pier is bearing by 100%. Is the pier going to collapse or be damaged because the weight was increased by 100%? Of course not, because the original weight on the pier was so tiny relative to the total size of the pier. In fact with a pier this big you could increase the weight by 1000% and it would make no difference whatsoever.
This is the point that the woman in the video of the original post was making. The total mass of all the CO2 in the atmosphere is so tiny relative to the total mass of the entire atmosphere, that you could increase it by 100%, 200%, 300% or more and the tiny difference it would make would be insignificant. Why? Because even with these increases, there would STILL be a very tiny amount of CO2 relative to the entire atmosphere. The amount of nitrogen, oxygen and argon in the atmosphere will always DWARF the CO2 by such a huge margin that it will be physically impossible for CO2 to have the kind of effect that is alleged by those who believe in man made global warming. Just like it's physically impossible for the weight of only two men to collapse a 200 yard long pier.
BTW, the tiny insignificant difference it would make would be, on balance, a (tiny) positive and not a negative. More CO2 means more plants because they consume CO2. This benefits plants (obviously), but it also benefits herbivores and carnivores. In other words, it benefits the entire environment. And even a small benefit is still a benefit.
BTW #2, even if increases in the tiny amount of CO2 "somehow" caused some warming of the planet, this too would be a positive. Every year on average, about 4.5 million people die from cold-related conditions, compared to about 600,000 deaths attributed to heat. That's almost 8 times greater. This makes cold by far the leading cause of temperature-related fatalities. Global warming could only be considered a bad thing if one actually believes that FEWER human beings dying is a bad thing.

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

Your analogy (a very small percentage of arsenic in the body is similar to a very small percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere) is completely invalid:
Arsenic, even in very small quantities, is poisonous to the human body and therefore damaging to it. But CO2, on the other hand, in very small quantities is actually beneficial to the environment. (More CO2 is good for plants and leads to more plants because plants consume CO2. More plants is good for herbivores because herbivores eat plants. More herbivores is good for carnivores because carnivores eat herbivores. In short, CO2 is not just beneficial, it is beneficial to the ENTIRE environment.)
Even when referring to tiny quantities, the rules of logic make it IMPOSSIBLE to construct a VALID analogy from something that is poisonous and damaging to something that is salutary and beneficial. (Unless you had been trying to make the point that increases in CO2 make a big difference that is BENEFICIAL to the environment. But clearly, that's not the point you were trying to make.)
Because you chose an analogy that is completely invalid, your entire argument is equally invalid.

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

She's not naked, she's wearing a colorful strapless dress. At the end you hear someone off camera say "I think that's the one," suggesting that they had made many failed attempts. So then they FINALLY get it right only to have the woman (mom?) walk into their shot and spoil it. A (reasonable) guess: The emoji was probably to cover up the woman's spoiling of their success not to cover up nudity.

I'm with you on Mrs. Doubtfire. A (unreasonable) guess: She's the ghost of Robin Williams who feels there are more laughs to be experienced before finally moving on?? ;-)

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

There's no nudity. The woman is wearing a colorful strapless dress. At the end (after the girls are successful) you hear someone off camera say "I think that's the one." The girls are very young. Probably, they made many failed attempts before finally getting it right only to have the woman (mom?) walk into their shot and spoil it. The emoji was probably to cover up the woman's spoiling of their success.

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

@NatureChapter I pretty sure that is NOT how you pick someone's brain! 🙃

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

@Rainmaker1973 This cute little bunny gives 'Bed AND Breakfast' a whole new meaning. 🥬🥬🐇🥬🥬

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

@AnimalGeoLife I've heard of brown nosing, but the one in the back is taking it way too literally...

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

@grok
No Grok, the joke is entirely about the woman standing at the very front of the video (i.e. the woman closest to the camera that filmed the video). She's facing away from us and is wearing nothing but a VERY SHORT gray dress or shirt. She is recording the plane's take-off with her phone.

So, as the pilot flies the plane over everyone, she raises her phone and tilts her head back to get a better recording of the plane as it goes over her. When she does this she raises her arms up and this causes her very short dress/shirt to ride way up on her body thereby revealing almost all of her scantily clad booty.

The joke, therefore, is that the pilot "behaved badly" (tongue squarely in cheek, or is that cheeks?) because he "made" her expose her sexy behind for the rest of us to see. ;-)

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

@sciencegirl I'm going to go out on a ledge here and say that putting seeds and fruit out for little wild creatures to eat is for the birds.
🍊🍎🍑🥜🌰🫐🍏 🐦 🐦‍⬛

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

@Dalbodog He's way too little to be anyone's wingman! 🤍🪽

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

@Rainmaker1973 Two albino fawns born to the same deer mom?? Hmm...

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

@Puppieslover Just like with a lot of web sites, someone made it really difficult to del-eat that cookie. 🙃

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

@Yoda4ever The girls said 'A little help please!' The seagull answered 'Sure, no problem. Here, have yourselves a ball 🏐 ladies.'

[think4yourself @GuidedByReason]

@GuGi263 'When it comes to love, I want a slow hand...' 🦚 🐢