The Minister of Human Capital reminded the population that whoever blocks the street will not get paid any money on their social plans
Why? Because people were and have historically been forced to march/protest here by social organizations. No one can force you to march. The social organizations will be audited (because the picketer leaders STEAL the money they manage and instead of giving the plan to the people, they keep it for themselves, THAT’S WHY THE INTERMEDIARIES HAVE TO BE TERMINATED AND THE PLAN MUST BE TERMINATED). GO DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT.
REMEMBER: Social organizations (the intermediaries of the Polo Obrero, Movimiento Evita, Barrios de pie, etc.) do not have the power to remove plans.
Demonstrating is a right, but it is also a right to move freely through Argentine territory to go to the workplace/manage health/security emergencies/etc.
Those who promote, instigate, organize or participate in the street blockages will lose all types of dialogue with the Ministry of Human Capital.
The only ones who are not going to get paid for their social plan are those who go to the march and block the street/roads: The one who blocks the street does not get paid.
Beneficiaries of social plans can REPORT to 138 if their plan is cut for not attending a march or if they are threatened with cutting it. Also through the MI ARGENTINA app.
He’s taking over a country drained by kirchnerism for years, of course people are hungry…
This recipe repeats all over latin america, left governments fuck the country over for 10+years, the moment they get voted out. Hur Durr it’s all because this new guy… Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia. The only reason Brasil didn’t suffer from this is because their economy is much stronger than the rest of Latin America.
Evolution of Chile, Argentina and Venezuela’s GDP per capita. Chavez was president from 1999 to 2013, Bachelet (Chile) was president from 2006 to 2010 (as well as later, after this graph), the Kirchner ruled in Argentina from 2003 to late 2015.
I don’t think anyone is going to argue that the left is perfect, but most leftist governments in South America in the last two decades have been positive, with Maduro’s being a pretty blatant exception.
So, in the mind of this one anarcho-capitalist, you should only have the right to protest if you have enough money. My surprise is limitless and my jaw has broken the whole floor.
only rich assholes being protected by the fascists think it's a good idea for the government to charge people to protest.. fascists have no beliefs.. they have power and the ability to bully anyone who disagrees with them..
I’m for legalizing all drugs but some drugs like cocaine should come with meeting with a therapist to see if you are doing the right thing for what ails you.
Not all drugs are medicinal and this is legalization for recreational use. It’s okay to enjoy a drug recreationally.
It is important to deal with any public health problems that arise from potentially more people being exposed to a highly addictive substance. But it’s quite clear this point that prohibition doesn’t work, so it’s much better to devote resources towards helping those with addictions.
I think a careful balance needs to be found somehow.
Speaking only from my own experience: I have never touched C, and that is undoubtedly because of its legal status…while I smoked for more than half my life, undoubtedly because of the tobacco industry’s highly effective influence through the 20th Century.
I remember when cigarette brands were ubiquitous at sports events and media. Race cars, movie stars, sport stars, soldiers…pubs, clubs, planes, trains and automobiles. It was everywhere - killing people in horrificly slow and painful ways, making everything and everyone stink, staining our hands, clothes, walls, teeth and facial hair, littering our town centres and countrysides alike. And this was all happening with our eyes wide open - it wasn’t ignorance. It’s only through decades of government intervention through health campaigns, law changes and huge taxation that the tobacco industry’s grip finally weakened enough for us all to realise the horror we had walked into with our eyes open. Slowly, some parts of the world have managed to walk it back and smoking is now in the minority, but you only have to look at vaping to see how ready corporate greed is to take advantage of our influential children.
I’m not saying the above to scare people into thinking legalising cocaine would be the same - I am just highlighting what happens when the corporate world is allowed to act with impunity. I don’t think it’d be long before cocaine was back in coca cola.
On the other hand, “the war on drugs” seems to do more harm than good.
So can we trust governments to properly litigate and control legal and responsible distribution? I don’t know the answer, and I have no solutions…but the stakes are high - and so while I hope for change, I am also wary of it.
I dare say that this 10% dip is more or less negated by the higher interest rate so the total cost of ownership for the regular folks who don’t have all the cash upfront would be equal if not higher from before.
Yep that’s generally how housing prices work in Germany, since rent is heavily controlled and fixed interest rate loans are readily available, the value of a property adjusts depending on the current “cost” of a loan
What terrifies me is how things will progress in the future, when you are in an active working age you can afford that rent but when you get to pension, the income of many people will plummet substantially and I can only imagine that a lot won’t be able to afford paying their rents especially in big cities. And I am extremely disappointed that government after government does very little if anything to alleviate this situation. Especially in Germany when the majority don’t own their own places, this will be devastating.
Not to mention that increasing rent and purchase prices benefit very few and definitely not the economy, when people have progressively less disposable income at the end of the month. It is also bad for the young people who would be hard pressed to live with their parents for longer because of the high rent prices.
People. Cocaine is not maryjanes. You can get addicted badly to cocaine. There’s tons of neurological effects that will cause you to not function proplerly in society. By all means smoke your ganja but don’t equate hard drugs with it.
Lots of highly addicting stuff is legal, I don’t care if people do cocaine. Make it legal and safely accessible so drug addicts can participate in society and not have to fund cartels
Yes, light and legal drugs are not okay as well. They too may cause severe health (including mental health) issues, as well as addiction.
THC, alcohol, nicotine and even caffeine cause significant and measurable harm, and you’ll be much better off by restricting them long-term, unless you have medical indications to consume them.
If you need any of them to relax or to have a good party or to stay productive, remember it is NOT sustainable and actively harmful and something has to be done about the way you organize your life. You can’t go on like this forever, it will get you eventually
Yeah it’s always the same thing. “Guys, you can smoke cigarettes, but weed will fry your brains and leave you completely useless to society. Legalizing would be a disaster”.
Idk, it seems like a pretty big jump in addiction potential. I don’t hear of too many people going into sex work to support their alcohol and cannabis habits.
I do support at least decriminalization of all drugs though. As long as it coincides with adequate education, harm reduction, and therapy resources.
I have a completely different problem with cocaine. Namely that it is extremely exploitive to the people who grow the coca. It takes about two acres of coca plants to produce just one kilo of cocaine. Obviously, that means the people who farm it are paid virtually nothing and live on starvation wages. If it’s really cheap in Switzerland, that makes it worse.
On top of that, coca plantations are responsible for huge amounts of deforestation in an area of the world that should not be deforested.
However- hundreds of thousands of people are working in coca plantations and own small coca farms and if this all ended, they wouldn’t even have the meagre wages they make from coca farming. So I don’t know what the solution here is.
Nobody is saying that people should start taking cocaine. Just that you shouldn’t get your life ruined by having it / using it.
Also, knowing that what your getting isn’t mixed with mdma, amphetamines, ketamine and being able to properly monitor your dosage instead of guesstimating the purity and doing brain arithmetic is very helpful.
There’s a major difference in having the person who sells it to you wanting you to quit vs wanting you to consume more.
What consenting adults do with their body is their own business.
Bodily autonomy is an all or nothing thing. Whether you’re talking about abortion, gender affirming surgery, taking a dick in the ass and in the mouth at the same time, or shooting meth into your dick. It’s all the same thing.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but this brings up the next round of tough questions:
If your bodily autonomy is absolute, fine, but what happens when your choices and their impact start to spill beyond your own personal life?
If you want to go wild with hard drugs, okay fine, whatever. But when you need medical attention because of that decision, should insurance providers or the state be obligated to spend in order to treat you?
When your addiction costs you your job and support network, should the collective taxpayer have to subsidize your poor life choices?
I don’t mind the notion that individuals should have final say over what happens to their bodies, but that sort of assumption of responsibility, at some point, cuts both ways…and the flip side of some of these decisions would suggest that the individual should bear all consequences of their decisions…which seems unlikely in practice. We’re not going to see an addict rushed to an ER and the hospital toss them out into the street saying, “This was your decision! Sorry!”
And the mitigation measures seem equally unlikely to fly with the “strict bodily autonomy” crowd: increased insurance premiums or exception clauses in policies in order to keep expenses reined in for the rest of the policy holders/taxpayers who aren’t using their strict autonomy in a way that adversely affects others.
While it’s fine to conceptually discuss these decisions in a vacuum where it only affects the individual, in real life application, these decisions have impacts outside the individual in almost every case, which fundamentally shift the discussion.
I struggle with this line of thinking because there are so many legal things people can do to increase their probability of being a burden in the national healthcare system. Alcohol, junk food, working too much, gambling too maybe. I can’t wrap my head around a system that would be “fair” and not fall into a black mirror episode dystopian “good citizen” points system. I’d rather just pay more than my fair share, knowingly subsidise people who make bad choices, and not live in the dystopian society.
Theres a separate argument about the drugs increasing crime probability that I also don’t buy entirely. Those crimes are crimes already, so making these other “precrimes” also crimes seems a bit weird - not to mention wildly ineffective at reducing harm or use of the substances in question. I’m sure we can identify books and films that increase future criminal probability too.
Bodily autonomy does hold some water for me as an argument, but for me it’s more about finding a way to minimise societal harm while maximally hurting the businesses profiting from these dark economies we have created through prohibition. But this brings up another round of tough questions: do we do this for all substances? Forever? Is this really the path of least societal harm? (I honestly don’t know)
There are plenty of “hard drugs” you can do with very little damage to your body. Cocaine is not one of them. In fact, it’s one of the worst things you can do for your heart.
Swiss guys, sitting on piles of cash and cocaine: “man, I don’t get it: everyone has cocaine, lambos and other stuff, what the fuss is about? Let’s just legalize all the shit, everyone has it anyway!”
“real coke” is just as bad as amphetamines. They’re both hardcore stimulants that can cause huge psychological addictions due to the huge amount of dopamine that they release.
Uhh. Cocaine is demonstrably more dangerous than amphetamines or opiates. Cocaine is cardiotoxic at any amount, and the damage is cumulative. Neither of the other two do that.
Half of the US is on rx amps daily, and they aren’t dying if heart attacks left and right.
telegraph.co.uk
Hot