#Free Market vs. Regulation

[omegaphilosophia]

Economic Ethics

Economic ethics is the study of moral principles governing economic activity, examining how individuals, businesses, and governments should act in the marketplace. It addresses questions about fairness, justice, and responsibility in economic systems and considers how economic policies and business practices align with ethical values.

1. Core Questions in Economic Ethics

Economic ethics tackles moral dilemmas such as:

Is wealth inequality morally justifiable?

Should businesses prioritize profit over social responsibility?

Do governments have an ethical duty to intervene in markets?

How should economic policies address poverty, labor rights, and environmental sustainability?

2. Ethical Theories in Economics

Different philosophical perspectives influence how we view economic ethics:

Utilitarianism: Economic policies should aim to maximize overall happiness and well-being. A free market is ethical if it leads to the greatest good for the greatest number.

Libertarianism: Individual freedom and property rights are paramount. Markets should be free from government intervention as long as they respect voluntary exchange.

Rawlsian Justice: John Rawls argues that economic systems should be designed to benefit the least advantaged in society.

Marxist Ethics: Criticizes capitalism for exploitation and inequality, advocating for an economy based on collective ownership and social justice.

Virtue Ethics: Businesses and economic actors should cultivate honesty, fairness, and responsibility in their dealings.

3. Ethical Issues in Economic Systems

Economic ethics applies to many areas, including:

A. Wealth and Inequality

Should governments impose wealth taxes to reduce inequality?

Is extreme wealth accumulation morally acceptable, or should resources be more evenly distributed?

B. Labor and Workplace Ethics

Are businesses morally required to provide fair wages and working conditions?

Should companies be held responsible for outsourcing jobs to countries with poor labor standards?

C. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Should companies focus solely on profit, or do they have a duty to protect the environment, pay fair wages, and support social causes?

Are businesses obligated to reduce their carbon footprint?

D. Market Failures and Government Intervention

Should governments regulate industries to prevent market failures like environmental damage or financial crises?

Is universal healthcare or free education an ethical obligation of the state?

4. Ethics of Economic Policies

Governments shape economies through laws and policies, raising ethical concerns:

Taxation: Is it ethical for the rich to be taxed at higher rates to fund public services?

Welfare: Should the state provide a universal basic income (UBI) to eliminate poverty?

Global Trade: Are wealthy nations obligated to assist developing countries, or does free trade suffice?

5. The Future of Economic Ethics

New challenges in economic ethics include:

The rise of automation and AI, which may displace human workers.

The gig economy, where workers have less job security.

Cryptocurrency and financial ethics, including fairness in decentralized finance.

Conclusion

Economic ethics is essential for creating just, sustainable, and fair economic systems. While markets and businesses drive prosperity, they must be guided by ethical principles to ensure they serve society’s well-being rather than exploit it.

[somanystars]

in the secret good s16 of supernatural tfw 2.0 would go to a grocery store

NOT a conveniance store

a grocery store

-sam would get jack into the cart (jack just teleports in) and then pushes him down the aisles super fast. he loved doing it with dean as a kid and now he gets to do it with jack. they nearly run over dean at one point and dean tells them off for it, calling them a public nuisance ("like you're one to talk" "shut UP sam") and as revenge they wait until dean and cas are standing right next to each other and run at dean like they're jousting. dean falls trying not to get run over, into cas who is ofc an Angelic Tank and doesn't even flinch when he catches dean. cue the most flustered man in existence in front of the knock-off cereal brands bc my god he never learned to emotionally regulate.

-you would think sam and dean would be the ones arguing about healthy vs tasty food. wrong. sam knows his brother is a stubborn ass and just sneaks healthy food into the cart. (he has a system. he also has a farmer's market he runs off to once in a while.) dean and CAS on the other hand are bickering in every. single. aisle about every. single. item. cas is trying to make sure heart disease doesn't kill the man who refused to kill God. dean is trying to exercise his new found free will. this is flirting for them.

-jack finds an employee restocking an aisle and strikes up a conversation with them. this of course leads to him helping restock a whole section of the aisle because "of course i helped them! i wasn't doing anything else!" eventually they end up seated on the floor criss cross applesauce talking about the DEEPEST MOST RANDOM SHIT. anyways jack likes them so much they win the lottery the next day.

-cas wanders into the freezers because it's "refreshing." dean only realizes this when he pulls a a carton of milk out of the fridge and sees cas staring back at him. he ALMOST pulls out his gun.

-obligatory "sam gets hit on by an older woman" thing but he is ENGAGED and flashes his engagement ring (eileen proposed to him because fuck gender roles because i said so. he cried. dean will deny it but he cried when eileen asked him for sam's hand. gd now i wanna write that. fuck.) anyways this does not stop the older woman and sam sighs. cas rescues him.

-cas accidentally leaves the store with his coat loaded with random stuff. dean sighs and concludes that stealing from a chain grocery store is not the worst thing they've ever done.

-cas sees that the last thing of an item dean wanted sitting in an unattended cart and...takes it out. and gets accosted by a person because yeah that's their cart but cas sacrificed heaven and his life and his wings for humanity (read: singular human but still) and thinks he can have the last jar of strawberry jam. dean hears them from 2 aisles over and sighs.

okay now. if this gets to 100 notes ill write+post a full fic to ao3

[kde-plasma-official]

whats the status of like. using linux on a phone. it feels like there are two parallel universes, one that kde lives in where people use linux on phones, and one where if you google linux phones you discover theyre almost usable but they can barely make phone calls or send texts and they only run on like 4 models of phone

don't have much experience with linux on phone so anyone please correct me if i'm wrong but

one of the problems with phones is that every vendor and manufacturer adds their own proprietary driver blob to it and these have to be extracted and integrated into the kernel in order for the hardware to function.

as companies don't like to share their magic of "how does plastic slab make light", reverse engineering all your hardware is quite a difficult task. Sometimes there just isn't a driver for the camera of a phone model yet because no one was able to make it work.

So naturally, this takes a lot of time and tech is evolving fast so by the time a phone is completely compatible, next generations are already out and your new model obsolete.

Also important to note: most of this work is made by volunteers, people with a love for programming who put a lot of their own time into these things, most of them after their daytime jobs as a hobby.

Of course, there are companies and associations out there who build linux phones for a living. But the consumer hardware providers, like Pinephone, Fairphone and others out there aren't as big and don't have this much of a lobby behind them so they can't get their prices cheap. Also the manufacturers are actively working against our right to repair so we need more activism.

To make the phones still affordable (and because of said above driver issues) they have to use older hardware, sometimes even used phones from other manufacturers that they have to fix up, so you can't really expect a modern experience. At least you can revive some older phones. As everything Linux.

Then there's the software providers who many of are non-profits. KDE has Plasma Mobile, Canonical works on Ubuntu Touch, Debian has the Mobian Project and among some others there's also the Arch Linux ARM Project.

That's right baby, ARM. We're not talking about your fancy PC or ThinkPad with their sometimes even up to 64-bit processors. No no no, this is the future, fucking chrome jellyfishes and everything.

This is the stuff Apple just started building their fancy line of over-priced and over-engineered Fisher-Price laptop-desktops on and Microsoft started (Windows 10X), discontinued and beat into the smush of ChatGPT Nano Bing Open AI chips in all your new surface hp dell asus laptops.

What I was trying to say is, that program support even for the market dominating monopoles out there is still limited and.... (from my own experience from the workplace) buggy. Which, in these times of enshittification is a bad news. And the good projects you gotta emulate afterwards anyways so yay extra steps!

Speaking of extra steps: In order to turn their phone into a true freedom phone, users need to free themselves off their phones warranty, lose their shackles of not gaining root access, installing a custom recovery onto their phone (like TWRP for example), and also have more technical know-how as the typical user, which doesn't quite sounds commercial-ready to me.

So is there no hope at all?

Fret not, my friend!

If we can't put the Linux into the phone, why don't we put the phone around the Linux? You know... Like a container?

Thanks to EU regulations-

(US consumers, please buy the European versions of your phones! They are sometimes a bit more expensive, but used models of the same generation or one below usually still have warranty, are around the same price as over there in Freedom Valley, and (another side tangent incoming - because of better European consumer protection laws) sometimes have other advantages, such as faster charging and data transfer (USB-C vs lightning ports) or less bloated systems)

- it is made easier now to virtualize Linux on your phone.

You can download a terminal emulator, create a headless Linux VM and get A VNC client running. This comes with a performance limit though, as a app with standard user permissions is containerized inside of Android itself so it can't use the whole hardware.

If you have root access on your phone, you can assign more RAM and CPU to your VM.

Also things like SDL just released a new version so emulation is getting better.

And didn't you hear the news? You can run other things inside a VM on an iPhone now! Yup, and I got Debian with Xfce running on my Xiaomi phone. Didn't do much with it tho. Also Windows XP and playing Sims 1 on mobile. Was fun, but battery draining. Maybe something more for tablets for now.

Things will get interesting now that Google officially is a monopoly. It funds a lot of that stuff.

I really want a Steam Deck.

Steam phones would be cool.

[azspot]

So regulators are no longer allowed to regulate, but, thanks to DMCA 1201, corporations can just make up rules out of thin air and give them the force of both criminal and civil statute. The government can't govern, but corporations can.

Apple vs the “free market”

[ptitolier]

When the Market Sanctions Ideology: Tesla's Collapse and the Political Drift of Billionaires

Source: El Manifesto, February 6, 2025 edition, article by Annaflavia Merluzzi.

According to an investigation published in El Manifesto, Tesla sales are plummeting across Europe, with dramatic declines in Germany (-59%), France (-63%), and Norway (-38%). While these figures reflect a broader slowdown in the electric vehicle market, they also reveal a political dynamic: the growing rejection of Elon Musk and his ideological alignment with the far right.

This collapse is not merely an economic sanction—it raises a larger question: can capitalism exist independently of democracy, or will democracy ultimately reassert control?

Reactionary Capital: When the Market Sanctions Ideology

Tesla’s downfall in Germany and across Europe is more than just an economic issue. It highlights a broader phenomenon: the rejection of a capitalism that no longer limits itself to production but seeks to impose a political vision on the world.

Traditionally, the far right has been hostile to both environmentalism and technological progress. At first glance, this makes it a paradoxical ally for a billionaire leading an electric vehicle company. However, Elon Musk’s financial backing of Alice Weidel and the German far-right party AfD reveals another dimension of this alliance: a rejection of ecological transition when framed within a democratic and social context.

A Capitalism That No Longer Hides

Musk embodies a shift in contemporary capitalism: wealth is no longer just about accumulation—it is now a tool for financing reactionary political movements that oppose environmental regulations, social rights, and inclusive policies.

This trend reflects a broader phenomenon in which certain billionaires, rather than remaining neutral market players, become direct political actors. Their strategy aligns with an old fantasy of elite secession: controlling a captive market, securing an electorate aligned with their vision, and developing technologies that ensure their total autonomy from the rest of society.

The Market as a Battleground

But this project faces a fundamental paradox: if billionaires attempt to shape politics, consumers, in turn, can politicize their consumption. The European boycott of Tesla illustrates how the market itself can become an ideological battlefield. Consumers, far from being passive economic participants, are expressing a rejection of a corporate model where ideology takes precedence over innovation.

The philosopher Karl Polanyi identified this tension in the 20th century: the free market only functions as long as society accepts it. When a company oversteps its role and becomes a tool of ideological domination, it risks being rejected by society. The market, far from being an autonomous entity, is always embedded within a moral and political framework.

A New Form of Resistance?

The Tesla case reminds us that in a world where billionaires seek to shape public policy while bypassing democratic processes, citizens can respond economically. When voting appears ineffective against the influence of wealth in politics, boycotting becomes a powerful tool of resistance.

We may be witnessing the emergence of an inverted ethical capitalism: one not dictated by corporate promises of sustainability, but by consumers sanctioning ideological deviations among the ultra-wealthy. If this trend continues, it could redefine the relationship between capitalism and democracy—reminding us that economics cannot be detached from the values it claims to serve.

Also worth reading: Check out my series "Democracy VS Capitalism" on Medium, where I explore the tensions between economic power and democratic institutions:

Coming in mid-February: A three-part series on climate denial fake news, scientific manipulation, collective paralysis, and the secession of the wealthy. Why are some billionaires sabotaging climate action while preparing their escape? Stay tuned.

P'tit Tôlier

Essayist & Popularizer. I analyze the world through accessible philosophical essays. Complex ideas, explained simply—to help us think about our times.

[just-some-troglodyte]

some types of Socialism

Red Socialism: the baseline that Karl Marx wrote his "funny, little" book about. The most well known variant of socialism. No need to explain what it's all about.

Blue Socialism: Liberal Market Socialism , clipped to LibMarkSoc is an economically Center-Left to LeftUnity, civically liberal and culturally Left to Center-Right ideology that fuses liberal economic views with a radical interpretation of liberal concepts, which are now also used as a justification to base the economy on co-operatives, mutuals, associations, foundations, paritarian institutions, social enterprises, self-employment, family businesses and, in some cases, freelancing and state-owned enterprises, which is done by "overthrowing" bosses, seen as equally authoritarian as kings and dictators. Liberal Market Socialism differs from some branches of Liberal Socialism as private enterprises bigger than family-owned businesses are legally banned, as there is less focus on social and common ownership and as it takes a more revolutionary and violent approach to the socialisation of firms, opposed to the more reformist Liberal Socialism; this is justified by saying that society could go back to capitalism if the state doesn't take action.

Orange Socialism: Social Libertarian Market Socialism, clipped to SocBertMarkSoc, is a libleft ideology that leans culturally left. He advocates for a decentralized government, co-ops, and social welfare. SocBertMarkSoc believes that both negative liberty (ie freedom to do stuff) and positive liberty (ie freedom from forces (such as poverty, bad health, pollution)) are equally important and therefore libertarian ideology should be reformed to view liberty & justice as being free from all forms of domination instead of only freedom from the state. Socbertmarksoc tends to agree with libertarian market socialism on most issues, but disagrees on economics and welfare, believing that a welfare state (ideally a UBI) and some forms of regulation are needed to guarantee positive liberties.

Pink Socialism, or Rainbow Socialism, is a variant of socialism with LGBT+ rights as a core principle. It believes Socialism is compatible and desirable with LGBT+ rights. 🏳️‍🌈⚧️

Green Socialism: Eco-socialism (also known as socialist ecology, ecological materialism, or revolutionary ecology) is an ideology merging aspects of socialism with that of green politics, ecology and alter-globalization or anti-globalization.

Communalism: Communalism is an ideology that wants the complete collectivization of all property – private or personal – that inhabits a far-left area outside the political compass. This means that all that can be shared will be shared (toothbrushes, means of production, funko pops, magnets, houses, medieval torture devices, etc…). The Anabaptists are a Christian denomination who have acquired a lot of the left-wing tendencies present in the Bible. Most significant among these beliefs is the belief that all of their followers should share their possessions with each other. This belief has shown through in the Münster rebellion, in which a group of radical Anabaptists in northern Germany attempted to form a new society based on sharing their newly collectivized property, regardless of whether it was public or private.

Anarcho-Communism: Anarcho-Communism (AnCom) is an anarchist socialist and usually culturally progressive ideology inhabiting the bottom left corner of the political compass. It believes in the abolition of the state and all structures of capital, leading to a stateless, classless, and post-monetary society based on Direct Democracy. Some forms of Anarcho-Communism are heavily influenced by Anarcho-Egoism and radical individualism, believing Anarcho-Communism to be the best social system for the realization of individual freedom (although this is HIGHLY contended within various anarchist groups, especially on the debate of morality, ethics, individual freedoms, identity politics, localism vs internationalism, freedom of speech, and organization). Many AnComs view Anarcho-Communism as a way of reconciling the gap between the individual and society. Although even this is highly contested.

purple socialism: Paleolibertarian Socialism is a traditionalist, civically libertarian and economically left-wing ideology that is a culturally right version of Libertarian Socialism. It believes that preserving tradition must be done through the apparatus of a worker-owned economy and a small state. It is very similar to Conservative Socialism but is libertarian. This ideology may or may not be nationalist. A more extreme form of this would be National Anarchism or Reactionary Libertarian Socialism. It may or may not support a monarchy, but the ideology is still significantly more conservative than most followers of libertarian socialism.

Yellow Socialism is an  economically centre-left,  authoritarian-leaning and  culturally right-leaning (later  Reactionary) ideology created by French politician Pierre Biétry as a reaction to  "red socialism" which was growing prominent in Europe during the late 19th century. This form of socialism is characterized by unions working with groups of businesses, with workers having a greater profit through negotiations between unions and business groups, all of which would operate under a strong authoritarian government.

[capitalism-is-a-psychopathy]

The Hidden Perils of Schadenfreude in Capitalist Societies

Schadenfreude, the pleasure derived from another’s misfortune, is not just a psychological curiosity. It is a symptom of deeper societal issues, particularly within capitalist frameworks. This paper explores how schadenfreude reflects the dangers of capitalism, especially when it fosters extractive rather than inclusive institutions.

The Allure of Schadenfreude

In capitalist societies, competition is king. Success is often measured by the failure of others. This environment breeds schadenfreude, as individuals find satisfaction in the downfall of competitors. It is a natural byproduct of a system that prioritizes individual gain over collective well-being.

Inclusive vs. Extractive Institutions

Inclusive institutions promote shared prosperity. They ensure equal opportunities and distribute resources fairly. Extractive institutions, however, concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few. They thrive on inequality and foster environments where schadenfreude flourishes. Capitalism, when unchecked, tends to favor extractive institutions.

Evidence of Extractive Tendencies

Research shows that societies with high levels of inequality experience more schadenfreude. This is because extractive institutions exacerbate disparities, leading to resentment and a desire to see others fail. The free market, without regulation, often leads to such disparities, as it rewards those who can exploit the system most effectively.

Pre-bunking Criticisms

Critics argue that capitalism drives innovation and growth. While true, this does not negate the need for inclusivity. Innovation should not come at the cost of societal well-being. Inclusive institutions can harness the benefits of capitalism while mitigating its dangers.

Calls to Action

To combat the dangers of extractive institutions, we must advocate for policies that promote inclusivity. This includes fair taxation, accessible education, and robust social safety nets. By doing so, we can reduce the prevalence of schadenfreude and foster a more equitable society.

Conclusion

Schadenfreude is more than a fleeting emotion; it is a reflection of systemic issues within capitalist societies. By understanding the role of inclusive versus extractive institutions, we can address the root causes of inequality and build a more just world. The choice is ours: to revel in another’s downfall or to rise together.

[sasquapossum]

Dark Ages People

There are multiple stories making the rounds about people being denied organ transplants due to lack of vaccinations. Let’s be perfectly clear: this is the parents’ fault, not the hospitals’. Transplantable organs are a tremendously precious resources, usually representing a great loss to another family, and the hospitals absolutely have the right to set rules that ensure their most beneficial deployment. The appearance of all these stories at the same time, right now, even seems a bit orchestrated. Not like that doesn’t happen all the time. One point many have made is that it’s absurd to trust science and medicine about transplants but not about vaccines. It’s nonsense, and I want to expand on that because it’s a pattern that “conservatives” seem to apply to many things besides medicine.

The next obvious case would be science and technology. It’s trivial to observe that science is the soil in which technology is grown. These folks love technology as much as anyone. Their fucking guns are artifacts of technology, and often quite advanced technology at that. Many of them have huge TVs and latest-model phones, play video games and use social media, tout cryptocurrency and so-called AI, and lastly they seem to love surveillance or military technology. And yet, somehow, they want the kill the science on which all of these things are based. Maybe some of them believe that developing new technology is a matter of throwing money at it instead of piecing together disparate bits of fundamental research. It’s easy to see how the mega-rich ones believe that, because to a first approximation that is how they made their fortunes, but it makes less sense for the deplorable in the street and it’s still a deeply stupid idea. We would develop more new technology with more funding for basic research and less for its application (exploitation) than the other way around.

Less obvious is how they do this with economics. They love to tout the benefits of free markets (which we don’t have) and simplified economic models that are no more than pedagogical tools (”supply and demand!”) but they don’t know real economics. They ignore various kinds of asymmetry, market failures, irrational behavior, transaction costs, or the issues around regulation vs. relying on torts to solve everything. Or maybe they want us to ignore those things but exploit them for their own benefit. It’s either deeply stupid or deeply disingenuous, and practically there’s little difference.

There's more, especially around politics and theories of governance, but that's probably enough examples. My theory - and something I’ve said many times before - is that they just don’t care about inconsistency. They’re missing that gene, that muscle, that whatever. They are entirely enthralled by their central narrative, and in a very real way define truth as that which fits the narrative. What seems like an inconsistency or even an outright lie to a rational person observing reality just isn’t to them. They can hold two strictly contrary beliefs in their heads simultaneously and feel no tension. They feel absolutely no shame or guilt over it. It’s similar to how they approach morality BTW. I believe that acts carry moral weight and people only secondarily. They believe that people carry moral weight and acts hardly even matter. But I digress.

The key point I want to close with is that, in dealing with them, it’s important to remember that their most fundamental ways of thinking about the world are not the same as ours. They’re not Enlightenment people. (Some of their secular prophets, such as Curtis Yarvin, are even explicitly anti-Enlightenment BTW.) They really don’t believe in empiricism and scientific method. They’re Dark Ages people, trying to bring all of us into a new Dark Age.

P.S. Yes, I know the discourse around “dark ages” as a concept. If my use of the term bothers you, consider that it might be applicable now even if not in original context.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This day in history

Tomorrow, (November 20), I'm at the Simsbury, CT Public Library at 7PM presenting my new novel The Lost Cause, a preapocalyptic tale of hope in the climate emergency.

#15yrsago Regulator to hear Bell Canada network throttling case https://web.archive.org/web/20090123005142/http://saveournet.ca/content/media-advisory-crtc-make-landmark-decision-internet-freedom

#15yrsago Apple to Mac owners: throw away your monitor if Hollywood says so https://web.archive.org/web/20081204010203/http://www.tuaw.com/2008/11/19/macbook-pro-users-getting-bitten-by-hdcp/

#15yrsago Liberation: a magical road-novel about America in collapse, Bradbury meets Kerouac https://memex.craphound.com/2008/11/19/liberation-a-magical-road-novel-about-america-in-collapse-bradbury-meets-kerouac/

#10yrsago Tropes vs Women in Video Games: Ms. Male Character https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqYLfm1rWA

#10yrsago Vi Hart explains logarithms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-7tcTIrers

#10yrsago Jack Womack’s Random Acts of Senseless Violence: apocalypse in a young girl’s diary https://memex.craphound.com/2013/11/19/jack-womacks-random-acts-of-senseless-violence-apocalypse-in-a-young-girls-diary/

#10yrsago Complete meal cooking with a hotel coffee-maker https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/11/15/245442083/coffee-maker-cooking-brew-up-your-next-dinner

#5yrsago Concealed Carry scammers spent $2m on gunhumper scare-ads on Facebook during the 2018 midterms https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-ads-political-concealed-online/

#5yrsago Finns to Trump: We don’t rake our forests https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46256296

#5yrsago Apple’s CEO: tech regulation is “inevitable” https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apples-tim-cook-says-tech-regulation-inevitable-because-free-market-isnt-working-2018-11-18

#5yrsago Pope condemns the “wealthy few” who hoard the riches that “belongs to all” https://apnews.com/article/c183ed8b9269499ea0f537d9e8a9f2b6

#5yrsago Sheryl Sandberg’s fingerprints are all over every one of Facebook’s scandals https://newrepublic.com/article/152320/punctured-myth-sheryl-sandberg

#5yrsago How to use science fiction to teach tech ethics https://cfiesler.medium.com/the-black-mirror-writers-room-teaching-technology-ethics-through-speculation-f1a9e2deccf4

#5yrsago Insurer won’t pay murdered gunshot victim’s family because he didn’t disclose his high blood-sugar https://web.archive.org/web/20201108114908/https://www.news24.com/fin24/Companies/Financial-Services/momentum-we-rejected-r24m-life-insurance-claim-for-the-sake-of-our-other-clients-20181119

#5yrsago Trump’s FCC seems to have ended the practice of releasing its ISP speed-tests, leaving Americans in the dark about what they’re paying for https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/ajit-pai-isnt-saying-whether-isps-deliver-the-broadband-speeds-you-pay-for/

#5yrsago Ford CEO frankly admits that the car of the future is a surveillance device that you pay to spy on you https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/11/13/ford-motor-credit-data-new-revenue/1967077002/

[alarajrogers]

Alara's List Of Games She Cannot Design Because She Is Not A Game Designer

None of these exist as anything other than high concept, and if you wanna rip one off, feel free, but give me credit for the original concept.

"Rat Man" game except with Portal IP stripped out of it. I wanted, years ago, to see a game about the Rat Man, which turns his schizophrenia into a game mechanic. In Portal lore, Rat Man, a paranoid schizophrenic who worked at Aperture Science, was the only survivor of GLaDOS' deadly neurotoxin, because his paranoia led him to flee. I wanted to have a character who successfully escaped an evil computer due to being paranoid. He has meds with him. If he takes the meds, he doesn't hallucinate, he sees the world as it is, he is better able to control his emotions (extreme terror can lead to a heart attack). But, he is less likely to notice threats. Without his meds, his inanimate comfort object talks to him so he is less lonely (extreme loneliness can cause depression, which slows all reaction time), and gives him warnings about threats before he can see them. Also, he sees the threats faster. He also sees a lot of threats that don't actually exist, which causes him to burn through his health faster. So the player has to trade off between taking meds for greater health and calm, vs not taking meds for greater reaction time and higher mood (without meds he is terrified all the time but he has his talking friend, who fills him with determination and strength of will, because his friend wants him to survive. With meds, his friend is an inanimate object and he's all alone.)

Something where you get to weaponize gravity against threats, like, you're on a space station where the artificial gravity is shut down, and your first and best big upgrade is getting the remote that turns on the gravity plating in the bulkheads. Gravity plating is in all bulkheads so you can make gravity happen on your left, then after your enemies are all drawn to your left, switch it off there and turn it on to the right, making them all fall the width of the room.

Bad Bitches, where you (or you and 2 friends in co-op mode) play female dogs getting into trouble in the trash cans and pantries in your house, while your owner patrols and tries to catch you being bad.

Mini Fridgy, where your mom is a jerk who has hidden all the snacks in the house in various mini-fridges, pantries and lockers in your house, and you have to run around eating the snacks and dodging your mom. Done in retro 80's mode because that's when I came up with this game. There is absolutely no pro-social or "health conscious" model here, you are a kid who wants snacks.

An RPG where you are a human who died and was sent to a world mostly populated by cute talking animals who are very sheltered and have basically the emotional regulation of 8 year olds. Also magic works here and responds to emotion, positive or negative, so friendship really is magic, a bunny rabbit throwing a Karen tantrum at the market because they didn't have the lettuce they wanted could turn into a poltergeist throwing everything around if you don't talk her down, and killing a sapient being turns anyone who does it into a monster. You can be a monster hunter, a monster reformer (this is dangerous as shit), a peacemaker, a farmer, a shopkeeper, whatever. Kind of like Animal Crossing in some ways, but with some MLP kind of shit mixed in.

Prison Break (not the actual title): Another story about cute animals. They are in prison for murder, arson, grand theft, etc, and so are you. Build alliances with your fellow prisoners, don't get shivved by that bunny with a knife, and, eventually, organize a prison break. You can kill people in this game but if it's not self defense you better make sure the wardens can't figure out it was you. And by people I mean adorable small animals who are disrespecting you.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Moral Philosophy of Markets

Markets play a fundamental role in organizing economic activity, but their moral implications are widely debated. The moral philosophy of markets explores whether markets are inherently ethical, how they should be regulated, and what obligations economic actors have toward society. This inquiry intersects with utilitarianism, libertarianism, virtue ethics, and theories of justice.

1. Are Markets Morally Justifiable?

Markets operate on the principle of voluntary exchange, where individuals act in their self-interest. But does self-interest align with morality?

Utilitarian View: Markets increase overall welfare by efficiently allocating resources, promoting innovation, and reducing scarcity. If markets maximize happiness, they are morally justified.

Libertarian Perspective: Free markets respect individual liberty, allowing people to make their own choices without government interference. This perspective values freedom over outcomes.

Virtue Ethics: Aristotle and other virtue ethicists would argue that markets should cultivate ethical behavior, not just economic efficiency. Markets that incentivize greed or deception may be morally questionable.

2. Market Failures and Ethical Concerns

Markets are not perfect, and their failures raise ethical questions:

Negative Externalities: When businesses pollute the environment or exploit workers, they impose costs on society without compensation. Who is responsible for these harms?

Economic Inequality: Does a just market system allow extreme disparities in wealth? Should governments redistribute resources to create fairness?

Commodification of Morality: Should healthcare, education, or even human organs be bought and sold? Markets can conflict with moral values when some goods shouldn’t have a price tag.

3. Ethical Regulation: Free Market vs. Controlled Market

Should markets be left alone or ethically constrained?

Rawlsian Justice: John Rawls argues for economic systems that ensure fairness by prioritizing the well-being of the least advantaged.

Social Responsibility: Corporations have duties beyond profit, such as environmental sustainability, ethical labor practices, and fair wages.

Government’s Role: Laws and policies are necessary to prevent market abuses, but excessive intervention can stifle innovation and individual freedom.

4. Alternative Market Models

Different economic systems propose various moral approaches to markets:

Capitalism: Focuses on free enterprise and individual ownership but raises concerns about inequality and exploitation.

Socialism: Seeks to reduce wealth disparities but may limit personal freedom and innovation.

Mixed Economies: Attempt to balance free markets with social safety nets, creating a moral compromise between efficiency and equity.

5. The Future of Ethical Markets

With the rise of automation, globalization, and climate change, moral questions about markets are evolving:

Should AI and automation replace human labor if it causes mass unemployment?

Do businesses have an obligation to fight climate change, even if it reduces profits?

Is wealth accumulation ethical, or should markets be structured to prevent extreme inequality?

Conclusion: Can Markets Be Moral?

Markets are not inherently moral or immoral—their ethical standing depends on how they are structured and regulated. A just market system must balance efficiency, fairness, and human well-being, ensuring that economic growth does not come at the cost of exploitation or societal harm.

[3416]

(very sorry for being long winded, i appreciate your takes being so rational <3) the more i think the more i wish our first round matchup had been anyone else like even the panthers would’ve beat this…the narrative around the bruins and leafs is just far too personal and emotionally charged to the old men who’ve lived through every series between the two in the past few decades and each time the frustration just piles on worse and finds a new person to be directed at. this is half inspired by the post you just reblogged but it’s kind of unbelievable to watch in real time sports analysts and media figureheads be swayed enough by the narrative around mitch (which has little to do with actually reality and more to do with him being who everyone decided was the easiest to mount decades worth of frustration onto) to actually be commenting on this stuff on like…live broadcasts and in public spaces. idk it’s just upsetting that the team is all so aware of it…auston’s quote in his exit about it bringing everyone down was the worst like…i can’t imagine how it is for mitch if it’s affecting the people around him. idk it’s unfortunate that this is going to be the conversation on loop until something happens and even then

AGREE TO ALL OF THIS. i'm not a big enough sports fan in general to observe the patterns of fans and how other teams and markets treat their star players, but like... this just feels so damn absurd. i know mitch has been a scapegoat for some reason or another basically every offseason since he signed his last deal, and no one has the ability to step back from the situation and see WHY that deal happened the way it did so they just blame the person whose name is on it, lol. it's silly. it's the culmination of lots of heartbreak. i think people would be saying all of this even if we lost to the panthers because they were saying similar things last year.

i do think it's important to think about the fact that this time of year is free fall as far as 'insiders' and analysts go. there's nothing to do.. most people aren't even discussing that stuff yet. even mitch saying they'd start talking about this week probably like... there's no way for elliotte friedman or any bitch out here acting like mitch is Probably gonna be okay with waiving and going bc "everyone" hates him to know ANYTHING at all, lol. all of their statements are prefaced with a whole lot of 'i think's and 'maybe's and it's so silly to listen to them talk just bc they like the sound of their own voice and their own specific news cycle for the year is coming to an end. i'm not sure what the leafs are going to do about mitch... i feel like friday's conference is gonna have me leaning one way or another abt a potential extension this summer vs letting him play into the year, but like. it is so fucking infuriating that he's become the scapegoat for it all when he IS the leafs. he's the heart of the team. he's the hometown boy. it's so baffling to me that he has to take the fall for it all rn and for grown mens inability to regulate emotion or use their brains. like no i don't have to accept that everyone processes losses of a fucking sports team differently if that method includes spewing vitriol or being a nasty person about your own specific team.

[libbylayla1984]

The Fragmented Future of AI Regulation: A World Divided

The Battle for Global AI Governance

In November 2023, China, the United States, and the European Union surprised the world by signing a joint communiqué, pledging strong international cooperation in addressing the challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI). The document highlighted the risks of "frontier" AI, exemplified by advanced generative models like ChatGPT, including the potential for disinformation and serious cybersecurity and biotechnology risks. This signaled a growing consensus among major powers on the need for regulation.

However, despite the rhetoric, the reality on the ground suggests a future of fragmentation and competition rather than cooperation.

As multinational communiqués and bilateral talks take place, an international framework for regulating AI seems to be taking shape. But a closer look at recent executive orders, legislation, and regulations in the United States, China, and the EU reveals divergent approaches and conflicting interests. This divergence in legal regimes will hinder cooperation on critical aspects such as access to semiconductors, technical standards, and the regulation of data and algorithms.

The result is a fragmented landscape of warring regulatory blocs, undermining the lofty goal of harnessing AI for the common good.

Cold Reality vs. Ambitious Plans

While optimists propose closer international management of AI through the creation of an international panel similar to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the reality is far from ideal. The great powers may publicly express their desire for cooperation, but their actions tell a different story. The emergence of divergent legal regimes and conflicting interests points to a future of fragmentation and competition rather than unified global governance.

The Chip War: A High-Stakes Battle

The ongoing duel between China and the United States over global semiconductor markets is a prime example of conflict in the AI landscape. Export controls on advanced chips and chip-making technology have become a battleground, with both countries imposing restrictions. This competition erodes free trade, sets destabilizing precedents in international trade law, and fuels geopolitical tensions.

The chip war is just one aspect of the broader contest over AI's necessary components, which extends to technical standards and data regulation.

Technical Standards: A Divided Landscape

Technical standards play a crucial role in enabling the use and interoperability of major technologies. The proliferation of AI has heightened the importance of standards to ensure compatibility and market access. Currently, bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union and the International Organization for Standardization negotiate these standards.

However, China's growing influence in these bodies, coupled with its efforts to promote its own standards through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, is challenging the dominance of the United States and Europe. This divergence in standards will impede the diffusion of new AI tools and hinder global solutions to shared challenges.

Data: The Currency of AI

Data is the lifeblood of AI, and access to different types of data has become a competitive battleground. Conflict over data flows and data localization is shaping how data moves across national borders. The United States, once a proponent of free data flows, is now moving in the opposite direction, while China and India have enacted domestic legislation mandating data localization.

This divergence in data regulation will impede the development of global solutions and exacerbate geopolitical tensions.

Algorithmic Transparency: A Contested Terrain

The disclosure of algorithms that underlie AI systems is another area of contention. Different countries have varying approaches to regulating algorithmic transparency, with the EU's proposed AI Act requiring firms to provide government agencies access to certain models, while the United States has a more complex and inconsistent approach. As countries seek to regulate algorithms, they are likely to prohibit firms from sharing this information with other governments, further fragmenting the regulatory landscape.

The vision of a unified global governance regime for AI is being undermined by geopolitical realities. The emerging legal order is characterized by fragmentation, competition, and suspicion among major powers. This fragmentation poses risks, allowing dangerous AI models to be developed and disseminated as instruments of geopolitical conflict.

It also hampers the ability to gather information, assess risks, and develop global solutions. Without a collective effort to regulate AI, the world risks losing the potential benefits of this transformative technology and succumbing to the pitfalls of a divided landscape.

[futurebird]

Which best describes you?

Do you generally feel like you can be open about your political views and your vision for what the future could be like? Or do you often feel social pressure not to go to far? Social pressure to NOT say something like "Capitalism isn't working." for example? For this poll let's define: (Colors do not mean anything. Just to make it easier to read.) far left - Leftist socialist, communist or anarchist politics. People should be able to govern themselves. All of the people. Anti-racist, anti-ableist, anti-sexist, anti-transphobic and anti-homophobic. Capitalism is failing and new systems of power are needed to survive climate change and to better take care of each other. Markets do not magically solve every problem.

left-leaning - Generally dislikes racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. Capitalism generally works, but through electing the right people, peaceful protest, and regulations it should be possible to fix the problems we face such as climate change. right-leaning - Capitalism generally works, but regulations and corruption have given some of the wrong sorts of people too much power. If climate change is a problem a free enough market will take care of it. Our culture is the source of our values and this should inform political decisions. It's important that the right sort of people are in charge. far-right - Christian values are the foundation of a moral culture and when we have leadership informed by these values we can address any problems that might arise. Racism, sexism and homophobia are mostly things of the past and people talk about these topics too much, this is the real problem. Capitalism is the best system we've found, and those who work hard are rewarded by God. No one will fit perfectly into any of these categories and I'm certain that they are imperfect. I just wanted to be a little more explicit about what the terms meant so that someone who was, say, a huge HRC fan wouldn't think "I'm far left" -- I am interested in criticism to make the categories better for future polls and will read and ingest any such suggestions with seriousness. As for "feel like I can be open about it most of the time" vs. often feel like I can't be totally open about it" this isn't just about online conversations -- but in your life generally. Obviously, everyone has been in a situation where mentioning your political views was... not a good idea at least once or twice... and I hope everyone has had moments where they felt free to speak. This is about how you feel most of the time. Do you feel like you are holding back? Trying to not set other people off by being too radical? Do you worry you might not be taken as seriously or have trouble finding work if you were more open? etc.

[uboat53]

I've read and seen a few things recently that have sparked a thought, LONG RANT (TM) time while I work it out?

INTRODUCTION

So, about a week ago, I read a piece on Tumblr by Cory Doctorow in which he argues that the right side of the American political spectrum has become so enamored of property rights that it cannot focus on human rights. I also recently watched a clip of George Carlin on Real Time With Bill Maher from some time ago talking about the situation after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in which Bill Maher made the following point:

"…as if, in the middle of this crisis where so many people are dying already, what we need to do is shoot Tyrone because he's getting out of Circuit City with some soggy tweeters."

I'll link both of these at the bottom if you're interested in checking them out, they're both fascinating reads/listens on their own.

The thought this sparked in me is this: one cannot successfully promote human rights if they are placed equal to property rights, and this is the fundamental problem with any attempt that the right-wing, be it the MAGA movement, the conventional right, or the libertarian right, to make people's lives better. This gets a bit into the weeds, but let me work through this because I think it's important.

CAPITALISM VS. CAPITALISM

The first thing we have to address is the term "capitalism" which gets thrown around by the right and the left with barely a care in the world. The thing is, they mean two different things when they say it.

When the right says "capitalism", they really mean free-markets. In other words, their capitalism is just the economic idea that supply and demand will determine a natural cost for any good or service and that any other form of intervention will distort that natural cycle. Based on my experience, this is what most Americans think of when they think of the word capitalism.

When the left says "capitalism", on the other hand, they're talking about an economic, philosophical, and political system in which capital is prioritized over labor. For example, it can mean that capital is taxed at lower rates than labor and laws prioritize the protection of capital over the protection of labor. They've had a hard time talking to people about this because, well, that's not what most people think of when they hear the word capitalism and people on the left tend to be terrible communicators in general which is a whole other issue.

The reason I focus on this is because I'm going to be focusing on the left's version of "capitalism". Unfortunately, I don't have a better word for it, so I wanted to very clear what I meant before I started. We're talking about a system where capital is prioritized over labor, not a system of supply and demand.

RENT SEEKING

Before we discuss things in a bit more detail, there's one more concept that I need everyone to have in their heads. One of the main reasons why unregulated markets tend to spiral into oligarchies is a phenomenon known as "rent seeking". Rent seeking is, according to the Wikipedia article, "the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth." This can happen by manipulating regulations, but it can also happen simply by using the power of property to lock out competition.

Here's the Wikipedia article itself if you're interested.

Let's take, for example, someone who owns land. A person who develops capital and wealth by improving that land is not rent seeking, but a person who simply owns the land and charges for its use is. This person adds nothing to the collective wealth of a society and simply siphons the existing wealth into their own pocket by virtue of the ownership of property.

In any functional, real-world economy, there will always be some degree of rent seeking, but when capital is valued over labor, then rent seeking can grow to the point where it threatens the stability of the system. Not only are rent seekers unproductive, they actively drain resources from productive activities, making them particularly damaging to the prosperity of a society.

PREFERENCE FOR CAPITAL OVER LABOR

I mentioned a system that values capital over labor, so let me expand a bit on that. In our system, the highest long-term capital gains rate, the rate at which capital gains are taxed, is 20% for high income individuals. The highest income tax rate is 37%. I should note that "long-term" isn't actually all that long, you only have to hold an asset for a year for it to fall under this bracket.

In other words, if you make over $44,726 (as of the 2023 tax year), you're better off making that income as a capital gain than by working for it.

This is the most obvious thing I mean by a preference for capital over labor, but there are hundreds of small and hidden ways that we favor capital as well. There are tax incentives that state and local governments give to capital investment, there is the fact that wage theft is overwhelmingly the largest crime in dollar value in the United States yet is rarely prosecuted, and there is the proliferation in the last few decades of right-to-work laws which were designed to undermine unions with no similar effort to undermine groups that advocate for capital.

I could go on and on and on but the basic conclusion is this: in hundreds of ways both large and small over the last several decades, the United States has systematically advantaged capital and disadvantaged labor to the point where it is far more advantageous to own capital and even rent seek than it is to work.

THE ECONOMIC PROBLEM WITH ABSOLUTE PROPERTY RIGHTS

Now to property rights. If we look carefully, our system which advantages capital also advantages rent seeking as it does not discriminate between the productive and unproductive use of capital. There are certainly limits, a machine that is unused provides little profit, but things like land, buildings, and even machinery can provide profits to their owners even when those owners take little or no effort to improve them.

In fact, there are many investments in which rent seeking, perversely, may be MORE profitable than productive improvement due to the costs of improvement. In economic theory this is impossible as other productive investments would exist that could provide greater profit due to their productivity. In the real-world, however, inefficiencies exist that mean that this is often not the case.

In a healthy society, these inefficiencies would be addressed by regulation and policy, but a belief in absolute property rights prevent these remedies. When taxation and other, similar, methods are off the table, it makes it impossible to correct for these inefficiencies. This leads to a situation where more and more wealth is eventually captured by unproductive assets and activities, diminishing the overall wealth of society and, thus, diminishing human well being.

THE HUMAN PROBLEM WITH ABSOLUTE PROPERTY RIGHTS

The other problem with property is the simple question of what happens when someone does not have enough of it to meet their material needs? Certainly not everyone needs an X-box, but there are people, for example, who need life saving or even just health preserving care but cannot afford it. I think the rights to life and health can generally be accepted as the most basic of human rights, so how to achieve them?

Well, in just about every system that has ever been able to meet these needs, the solution is simple: property is taken in some form or another from those who have more than enough to meet their needs and used to help those who do not have enough do so. This is true for just about every type of civilization that has ever existed, from simple tribal groups to the modern administrative state, and every failure to meet those human rights stems from a failure to redistribute resources to meet them.

However, once property rights are elevated to the same level as human rights or higher, then this it no longer becomes possible to satisfy human rights. At the most basic level, human rights require some form of currency in order to meet and, if it is not possible to take that currency, it is no longer possible to satisfy those rights.

I should note that there are some who claim that this should be voluntary rather than mandatory, but I think it's a fair point to make that no voluntary system has ever come close to doing as much to meet basic human rights as mandatory systems have and the onus is on anyone who argues this to provide evidence that this is even possible.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE RIGHT

Once you put all of this together, the fundamental problem with the way the right-wing of our political system places property rights equal to human rights becomes clear. A system in which no private property can be taken in a legal way creates a scenario in which rent seeking siphons more and more wealth from the productive economy AND there is no way to use this wealth to meet the material human rights needs of those who will be immiserated by this condition.

I should note that I'm not caricaturing the position of the right here, the belief that property rights are equivalent to human rights is a widespread one. You can see it, for example, when the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire declares that publicly produced, free insulin is equivalent to the enslavement of African-Americans because it interferes with the property rights of pharmaceutical companies or simply the monomaniacal Republican focus on tax cuts and opposition to tax increases to "let people keep what they earn" as the solution to just about every problem.

In every case, for those on the right, property rights have not only become equal to human rights, they have become THE human right.

CONCLUSION

As I said, I'm still fleshing this out, but I think it's clear that treating property as an inalienable right prevents us from addressing basic human rights such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If you've got any thoughts or questions, I'd be very interested to hear them. I hope you enjoyed this or at least found it thought provoking.

ADDENDUM

If you're interested, here is the Cory Doctorow piece I read that discusses this issue from a different perspective.

And this is the episode of Real Time with Bill Maher that I mentioned earlier.

[zindagistevia25]

Is Your Sweetener Vegan? Choose Zindagi Stevia – A Natural, Sugar-Free Alternative

Is your sweetener really vegan? Discover the truth behind plant-based sweeteners and why Zindagi Stevia is the best stevia sweetener for your cruelty-free lifestyle.

Introduction: Sugar, Sweeteners, and Vegan Living

Veganism isn't simply a matter of not consuming meat and dairy—it's an entire lifestyle. And the thing is, even sugar can be a sneaky non-vegan. Whoa, right?

Which is why it’s really critical for anyone leading a plant-based lifestyle to take a closer look at what is sweetening their food. Whether you’re having a cup of coffee, making some cookies, or adding a smoothie to your menu, the question is—is your sweetener vegan?

Understanding Vegan Sweeteners

What Makes a Sweetener Non-Vegan?

You would think that sweeteners would be vegan-friendly. But the truth is that some are processed using bone char (yes, animal bones), specifically some white sugars. Others can contain additives like gelatin or milk derivatives. That's why vegan sweeteners need to be selected with care.

Common Ingredients to Watch Out For

Look out for hidden animal-based additives such as:

Bone char (used in sugar refining)

Gelatin

Shellac (from bugs)

Honey or dairy-derived flavors

Is Stevia Vegan? Let’s Break It Down

Stevia is a naturally occurring sweet plant in South America. The leaves are very sweet—200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar! The active component, which is steviol glycoside, gives stevia its sweetness boost.

Does Stevia Fit a Plant-Based Lifestyle?

Yes—stevia is a plant, and the majority of stevia products can be vegan. But here's the catch: it all depends on the processing. Some companies employ animal-based agents in the process of refinement, which can render the final product non-vegan. So, selecting the stevia brand that says, it is vegan-free is the best choice in the market.

Processing Matters: The Key to Identifying Vegan-Friendly Stevia

When choosing stevia, look for:

Labels that say “vegan certified”

Brands that are transparent about their production process

Natural, minimal processing techniques

Zindagi Stevia – The Game Changer?

Zindagi Stevia is a natural, zero-calorie, vegan sweetener made from high-quality stevia leaves. It is designed specifically for health-conscious individuals and plant-based eaters.

Why It Stands Out as the Best Stevia Sweetener

Here’s what makes Zindagi a star:

100% plant-based

No artificial additives

No sugar alcohols

Free from chemicals and allergens

Vegan and cruelty-free certified

Is Zindagi Stevia Safe for Vegans? Absolutely!

Zindagi checks all the vegan-friendly boxes. It’s one of the few stevia brands that is transparent about its clean, plant-based formulation, making it the best stevia brand for vegans.

Comparing Vegan vs Non-Vegan Sweeteners

Common Non-Vegan Sweeteners: What to Avoid

Some sweeteners to avoid if you’re vegan:

White sugar (refined with bone char to decolorize and get the crystal white color)

Some brands of brown sugar

Honey (animal-derived)

Aspartame (contains phenylalanine)

Cruelty-Free Sweeteners: The Better Option

Go for sweeteners that are:

Labeled “vegan”

Plant-derived (like stevia, coconut sugar, agave, and maple syrup)

Processed without animal products

The Benefits of Plant-Based Sweeteners Like Zindagi

Zindagi offers all the sweetness without the baggage. You get:

Zero calories

No blood sugar spikes

No animal cruelty

A completely natural sweet taste

Health Benefits of Choosing Plant-Based Sweeteners

Supports weight management

Helps regulate blood sugar

Improves oral health (no tooth decay!)

Suitable for diabetics and fitness enthusiasts

How to Find a Vegan Sugar Substitute

Reading the Labels: What to Look For

Be label-savvy. Watch for:

“Vegan” logos

Minimum Ingredients on the label

Clear company transparency

Certifications That Matter

Vegan written on the label.

Non-GMO

All Natural on the label.

Best Ways to Use Zindagi Stevia in Your Diet

From Morning Coffee to Baking: Sweetening Your Life the Vegan Way

Zindagi is versatile! Use it in:

Coffee or tea

Smoothies

Porridge or oats

Homemade desserts

Salad dressings and sauces

More Delicious Ways to Use Zindagi Stevia in Your Daily Life

Beyond your usual tea and coffee, Zindagi Stevia opens the door to a world of creative, guilt-free indulgence. Whether you’re a passionate home cook or a quick-meal kind of person, here are a few more vegan-friendly ways to incorporate this natural sugar substitute into your lifestyle:

Stevia-sweetened vegan smoothies Begin your morning with a refreshing fruit mixture of fruits, plant milk, oats, and a sprinkle of Zindagi Stevia. It gives just the right sweetness without drowning the natural flavor. The top picks are:

Banana + peanut butter + oat milk + stevia Mixed berries + spinach + almond milk + chia + stevia Mango + coconut milk + turmeric + stevia

Homemade Vegan Ice Cream No special equipment needed! Blend frozen bananas with a splash of almond milk, cocoa powder, vanilla extract, and Zindagi Stevia. Freeze and enjoy creamy, plant-based ice cream with no added sugar.

Vegan Baked Goods From cookies to muffins and even pancakes, stevia is a great fit for most baking recipes. Just keep in mind, a little goes a long way! Replace sugar with Zindagi Stevia using a stevia-to-sugar conversion chart.

Stevia-sweetened lemonade Treat yourself to a cool glass of vegan lemonade with fresh lemon juice, cold water, and a sprinkle of Zindagi Stevia for all-natural sweetness—no sugar, just pure, guilt-free pleasure!

Chia puddings Treat yourself to a silky vegan chia pudding composed of plant-based milk, chia seeds, and Zindagi Stevia for an all-natural sweetness—great for a healthy, sugar-free breakfast or snack!

Sugar-free granola bars Whisk up tasty vegan granola bars with oats, nuts, dried fruits, and Zindagi Stevia—tastefully sweet, totally sugar-free, and just right for a healthy, on-the-go snack!

The Science Behind Stevia: Why It’s More Than Just Sweet

Zero Glycemic Impact Stevia does not increase blood glucose levels, so it is perfect for diabetics and anyone who is careful about their sugar consumption. This is a big plus for individuals with metabolic disorders looking to keep their lifestyle vegan and low-sugar.

No Calories, All Flavor As opposed to honey or syrups, which still contain calories, stevia is actually zero-calorie. Zindagi Stevia, in fact, is perfect for calorie-watchful consumers and health-conscious vegans.

Gut-Friendly Sweetening Unlike artificial sweeteners that may cause bloating or digestive discomfort, stevia is gentler on the gut. Zindagi’s formulation avoids sugar alcohols like xylitol, which often upset sensitive stomachs.

Eco-Friendly and Ethical: Stevia’s Sustainability Bonus

Zindagi Stevia isn’t just better for your body—it’s better for the planet too.

Less Water, Less Waste Stevia production utilizes much less water and land than cane sugar, making it a sustainable and agriculture-friendly option. That makes it not just vegan but also green.

Small Carbon Footprint Since Zindagi adopts a clean, minimal processing technique, the carbon footprint of manufacturing is far less compared to conventional sugar or fake sweeteners.

Fair and Transparent Sourcing Zindagi collaborates with humane farmers and maintains a cruelty-free supply chain. That's a double benefit for those who lead a vegan and socially conscious lifestyle.

How Stevia Stacks Up Against Other Vegan Sweeteners

l is Better

While many sugar substitutes are marketed as “diet-friendly,” not all of them are safe or ethical for vegan use.

Artificial Doesn’t Mean Healthy

Ingredients such as saccharin and aspartame might be zero-calorie, but have side effects along the way. Chronic usage of artificial sweeteners has been linked to:

Headaches

Imbalance in hormones

Stomach discomfort

Potential neurological issues

Natural Always Wins

Zindagi Stevia, on the other hand, as a natural plant-based sweetener, bypasses all that trouble. It provides real sweetness minus the suspicious science.

A Word on Artificial Sweeteners: Why Natural is Better

While many sugar substitutes are marketed as “diet-friendly,” not all of them are safe or ethical for vegan use.

Artificial Doesn’t Mean Healthy

Ingredients such as saccharin and aspartame might be zero-calorie, but have side effects along the way. Chronic usage of artificial sweeteners has been linked to:

Headaches

Imbalance in hormones

Stomach discomfort

Potential neurological issues

Natural Always Wins

Zindagi Stevia, on the other hand, as a natural plant-based sweetener, bypasses all that trouble. It provides real sweetness minus the suspicious science.

Conclusion: Sweeten Kindly, Choose Wisely

Choosing a sweetener is not a matter of taste—it's finding a choice that aligns with your values and lifestyle. Regardless of whether you're a newcomer to the world of vegan or a dedicated plant-based fanatic, Zindagi Stevia gives you a safe, healthy, and moral alternative to sweeten your foods and drinks.

With its zero-calorie designation, all-plant ingredients, and cruelty-free principles, Zindagi is simplifying it more than ever before to be on track without sacrificing the taste. It's not just the finest stevia sweetener, but a conscientious choice for those that care about a more compassionate, improved world.

Make every bite and sip count. With Zindagi Stevia, you don't have to sacrifice taste, ethics, or wellness.

Did You Know This About Stevia?

Stevia is FDA approved, made from non-GMO plants, and undergoes no animal testing.

Bonus Vegan & Stevia Facts

Q1. What sweeteners are vegan-friendly?

A. Stevia, agave syrup, maple syrup, coconut sugar, and monk fruit are excellent vegan-friendly options.

Q2. Is stevia a good sugar alternative for vegans?

A. Yes! Especially when it’s processed ethically and derived naturally, like Zindagi Stevia.

Q3. How do I replace sugar on a vegan diet?

A. Look for certified vegan sweetener alternatives like stevia, maple syrup, or coconut sugar. Zindagi Stevia is particularly great due to its zero calories and versatility.

Q4. Does Zindagi Stevia use any animal-derived ingredients?

A. No. Zindagi Stevia is 100% vegan and cruelty-free with no hidden animal by-products.

Q5. What is the best sugar-free sweetener for a vegan diet?

A. Zindagi Stevia stands out for its purity, transparency, and ethical processing, making it ideal for a vegan lifestyle.

Q6. How is stevia processed to ensure it’s vegan?

A. Ethical stevia brands like Zindagi avoid animal-based processing agents, ensuring the product remains plant-based from leaf to spoon