I admit I am misusing the term “cartel” here, given that it refers to a group of independent interests acting cooperatively, not a single entity. And legally recognized corporations already attempt to form cartels whenever possible, which is the entire purpose of anti-trust law.

And I agree that govt legislations each have their own definitions for what constitutes a “corporation”, but it’s the same for “marriage”. Yet we wouldn’t say marriage only exists if you have a govt.

I don’t think it’s useful or interesting to end the discussion at “a govt defines a corporation, therefore a corporation doesn’t exist without a govt”. Because I maintain that if the US govt disappeared, all the entities you currently consider “US-based corporations” would not disappear. Similarly, corporations currently operate internationally in many different countries with many different legislative requirements and many different definitions of “corporation”. Yet we don’t think of them as existing exclusively in the context of any one of those countries.

A corporation can never do that - government laws set out very clearly who controls what

Corporations do have infighting, and Hostile Takeovers do happen, and we are in agreement that ONLY reason they’re not bloodier is because of governments enforcing their laws. But also, I shouldn’t have made “cartel” analagous to “corporation”, since the analogy for a cartel civil war would be multiple businesses or corporations having a falling out.

But we also already have a sordid history of US “corporations” operating outside the laws of other countries, oftentimes with the help of the US military. So how do we square that circle?

But you understand that everything you linked are examples of why a govt can’t actually print infinitely and can’t just pay interest to rich people…right?

Also it’s a red flag to me that all of your sources are youtube videos.

The purpose of government securities is not to fund spending but to give the rich a safe place to park their capital with interest.

You have a source on this? I find it difficult to believe that it is ever a good idea to just take out a loan for the sake of making the interest payments. Especially using public funds, that sounds pretty close to embezzlement.

Rather, a country’s budget should always make use of debt, because its reputation has value and should be invested, not left sitting on the table.

There’s no formal structure, shares or board meetings

This is an arbitrary list of things and I don’t agree that all corporations have all of these, but I guarantee most cartels have a formal structure, a clear description of ownership, and what qualifies as board of leaders. Most wouldn’t be able to function without it.

sometimes they do just descend into civil war

They compete with rival cartels in all the same ways corporations would if they could (or already do when they can get away with it).

They’re businesses

I’m curious why you’re willing to call them businesses but not corporations.

Corporations try to all the time. It’s only through an effective use of law that they don’t. And lately, it hasn’t been very effective.

But also a government can’t print “unlimited currency”. Eventually it would be worthless. They are effectively only permitted to print currency proportional to what their creditors allow.

Drug cartels do all the things any corporation would happily do without laws to restrict them. So I don’t see any distinction and I don’t believe a govt is necessary for a corporation to exist. Just like with any other crime by any other citizen, a govt uses its monopoly on violence to prevent corporations from doing harm.

Lol I don’t know what you want man, i didn’t realize this was one of those “digging my heels in because I don’t know how to be wrong” threads. I’ll let you do your thing, peace.

Who is “we”? I’m responding to your top level comment. You just asked the creator of an exclusively client-side app whether they support encryption. Not only is it reasonable for me to assume you mean client side encryption, it’s unreasonable for you to ask for server side encryption, because there is no server. It’s a BYOBackend situation.

Now if you’re asking for client-side encryption, something like Keepass where the file itself is encrypted, you have to use some form of auth to decrypt it on use, and you can store this file using whatever backend you want, that’s perfectly reasonable. I would still consider that encrypted at rest, but at least you could maybe separate encrypted reads from writes and limit the attack surface in the event of a breach.

All phones are already disk encrypted these days. If you want disk encryption on your PC, you should enable it. Otherwise, it’s the responsibility of whatever backend you choose to handle encryption over the network.

He truly was

I would be happy with one guideline: taxpayers should see and feel the impact of their tax dollars.

It feels like that’s currently not a priority at all. The govt can just hand the money to some middleman who pockets 90% for a job worth 10%, and no one checks on it. DOGE was the pinnacle of this practice; honestly felt like Elon and Trump said “hey, you know what would be funny?”

Honestly don’t know if that’s worse than the protestant message that “god is omnipotent, all knowing, created good and evil, created you in his image, loves you and wants you to go to heaven, buuuuuut sorry, he can’t unless you “freely” choose to accept him into your heart. Yep, the heart he made, the mind he gave you, yeah, those are going to send you to hell. Nothing he can do about it, it’s on you. Totally not a weird, abusive, logically inconsistent relationship we have with him.”

Then stack on top of that “the woman should serve the man in the same way the church serves the Lord”. Just problematic all the way down.

If it was as simple as, “the man hates the woman just as god hates us” then the next step is easy. Fuck that guy, I’m out.

Are you giving random strangers legal permission to pentest you? That’s bold.