Billionaires Should Not Exist

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby Urwrongx1000 » Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:53 am

Jakob wrote:Well Dorky that's not how companies work. You have shareholders, and quite frequently, the creator of a company holds a majority of the shares. If such a company acquires a worth of three billion dollars, what do you propose to do, force the owners to give away a part of his company? I dont think that's going to make for a functional economy. Incentive and confidence is quite crucial.

On the contrary, the way of evolution is for types to evolve into extremes and subdivide. This is kind of the tendency we are seeing in terms of wealthy and not so wealthy humanoids, and it is generally a result of technology.
Technology costs a lot of money to produce and causes greater concentrations of wealth, causing greater investments still and so the scientific part of evolution progresses. I honestly think we have just started down this road.

The thing is though that this doesnt need to be bad for anyone. It depends on the ideas going around about what to do with great wealth, what kind of philanthropy is fashionable. Philanthropy has been misunderstood since the advent of socialism - it has become something done out of pity rather than out of a natural will to bestow virtue.

What is the basic premise on which your moral idea is built, meaning: what is the human species, what is its essence, that it would need to have its wealth controlled -- to which end must it be controlled? "happiness"? So are we defined in terms of a happiness that arises out of an even distribution of goods? I dont think that there is proof of this in nature; we rather see that great differences are preferable as long as there is no great poverty.

In other words, poverty, not wealth is the problem.

And no, there is no such thing as relative poverty. Its a matter of living quality.
As long as no one is lacking basic provisions, there isnt a moral reason to be found to object to other people having enormous wealth.
It is just a matter of how the wealth is handled.

So the question really is: who should be wealthy? What should be rewarded? Thats the only question the masses have any power to answer.

Well said
Urwrongx1000
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4415
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby phoneutria » Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:46 am

yeah great post FC

and a lot of the perceived problems in the US
like companies sending their manufacturing offshore
and hiring illegal workers
for salaries and work conditions that seem inadequate
for US standards
you have to understand
that these salaries and work conditions
are in fact a huge improvement
when compared to their previous salaries and work conditions
these are people being lifted from extreme miserableness
there will come a time in which nobody is miserable anymore
and there will come a time when nobody dirt poor anymore
and when that time comes
these people will no longer be willing to work for these salaries
and these work conditions
same as it happened in the first world
it will happen to them
in order to retain their work force
the companies will have to increase salaries
and then the world as a whole
will continue to push its average higher
even if locally the conditions may seem to be getting worse
these issues in the US
are just the local effect of things getting better and better elsewhere
so if your main political drive is to help the poor
have some fucking heart
brace the local negative effects for a while
and allow for the time it takes
for people who are in much much worse conditions than you
to catch up
it is not as bad as it seems
stop watching the news
User avatar
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 4141
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby d0rkyd00d » Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:54 pm

Jakob wrote:Well Dorky that's not how companies work. You have shareholders, and quite frequently, the creator of a company holds a majority of the shares. If such a company acquires a worth of three billion dollars, what do you propose to do, force the owners to give away a part of his company? I dont think that's going to make for a functional economy. Incentive and confidence is quite crucial.


Yes Jakob, that's exactly what I am proposing we do, we tax the individual for the gain in net worth. If they have to sell shares to generate the cash to pay for the taxes, so be it. If we have to re-write laws to ensure business owners maintain control over their business without having a 10% majority stake, so be it. If the shares have to be redistributed amongst employees of the company, so be it. I hear this recycled argument, that "incentive and confidence is quite crucial." I think that's a meritless claim, so I'll make one of my own. I'll bet people like Steve Jobs and Elon Musk would do what they do even if reaching a billion dollar net worth wasn't feasible. Inventive entrepreneurs like these are not driven by greed or profits, as difficult as that might be for other business owners, who are, to understand. But also, these aren't the only individuals who are "rewarded" for their brilliance and ideas. So is Kim Kardashian, with her $1Bn in sales in her mobile app. How much of a value add was that for society?

Jakob wrote:On the contrary, the way of evolution is for types to evolve into extremes and subdivide. This is kind of the tendency we are seeing in terms of wealthy and not so wealthy humanoids, and it is generally a result of technology.
Technology costs a lot of money to produce and causes greater concentrations of wealth, causing greater investments still and so the scientific part of evolution progresses. I honestly think we have just started down this road.


And why would you want this evolution to be "owned" by a sliver of the population? How is that not a "technocracy?"

Jakob wrote:The thing is though that this doesnt need to be bad for anyone. It depends on the ideas going around about what to do with great wealth, what kind of philanthropy is fashionable. Philanthropy has been misunderstood since the advent of socialism - it has become something done out of pity rather than out of a natural will to bestow virtue.


There is the argument that the beggars at the table should be ecstatic when the 600 pound man throws down scraps to one lucky group. But I would argue I would rather give the majority of people more money to do with it what they wish, rather than relying on the philanthropy of the select few who own most of the wealth. Wouldn't you?

Jakob wrote:What is the basic premise on which your moral idea is built, meaning: what is the human species, what is its essence, that it would need to have its wealth controlled -- to which end must it be controlled? "happiness"? So are we defined in terms of a happiness that arises out of an even distribution of goods? I dont think that there is proof of this in nature; we rather see that great differences are preferable as long as there is no great poverty.


My basic premise is that there is no rationale for one individual homosapien to have the exponential amounts of wealth more than another homo sapien. In the context of political power, nobody on the board disagrees, having another Alexander the Great situation, or "globalism" as the folks here like to call it, is not desirable. But suddenly, when the individual has earned that kind of political power and influence via capitalism, all is well. I suppose it is okay for a few men to own the world, so long as they've done it via capitalist means.

Jakob wrote:In other words, poverty, not wealth is the problem.


I think what you're trying to say is wealth is not the creator of poverty. But let's be real, poverty is a problem. And there are ample resources to fix it. This is just an obvious path that is buttressed by what I think are other good reasons.

And no, there is no such thing as relative poverty. Its a matter of living quality.
As long as no one is lacking basic provisions, there isnt a moral reason to be found to object to other people having enormous wealth.
It is just a matter of how the wealth is handled.

So the question really is: who should be wealthy? What should be rewarded? Thats the only question the masses have any power to answer.

[/quote]

There is such thing as wealth disparity, so "relative poverty" is just a synonym. My argument, which full disclosure I have not done enough research yet to support, is that you are incorrect: it is not just the bottom baseline of living quality, but also the visible disparity to those living in such conditions. If somebody is living in an apartment infested with roaches, on groceries paid for by the government, with a cell phone, I still think that individual's angst will be as high as if they were a street urchin from the 1850's, if they can see how disparate the wealth is within their country. How could that not breed resentment with their fellow countryman, rational or not? I think most great political thinkers, including many of the authors of our Constitution, realized this.
"So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." -Voltaire

"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for thinking as you do."
-Bertrand Russell
d0rkyd00d
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby Silhouette » Sat Jan 02, 2021 7:24 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:So you actually envision over 600 national elections every year to decide if each billionaire has acted socially responsible? That seems amazingly unrealistic and would completely nullify the intent - TooMuchInformation for people to responsibly digest.

"So you actually envision..."
No. You can't help putting words and assumptions into my mouth based on your biased pre-conceptions, can you.

First of all, national elections don't require 100% participation.
Second of all, there is only one way in which billionaires acquire billions, which is paying workers less than they earn the billionaire, to the extent that the billion is able to amass such ridiculous levels of wealth.
If you're a billionaire, by default you've done that (as does every for-profit capitalist owner), unless all your workers are somehow billionaires too because you've all been working many orders of magnitude more productively than everyone else outside of the company. Yeh, right.
You only need to vote on whether these hugely rich capitalists deserve to take as much from the work of employees as they do - one vote that covers over 600 billionaires and every other capitalist as well.

obsrvr524 wrote:So no privacy for competing corporations - open books - open designs - no intellectual property - no competition strategy. Have you watched ANY of what has been happening in the US televised Congress where politicians attempt to compete? They end up deceiving even more than if the public wasn't watching. And you want to add 600 more to that even though hardly anyone in the US watches the 400 they already have. You are talking about extremely massive deception campaigns involving secret, illegal cabals. No one would end up knowing anything about the truth concerning any person involved. And the strict politicians would get even less attention so free to deceive even more.

Intellectual property - the act of withholding insights that could help everyone, for just one company to benefit from? This is a bad thing.
It's not like you can't have your name on your own innovation, and build a reputation from which you'll benefit.
But once you've come up with a helpful insight, for god's sake share it so we can all benefit.
The only competition that there should be between businesses is the ability of its individuals to produce better with all else equal. Actual meritocracy with equality of opportunity. Level the playing field to let the true talent emerge, and wherever tricks of the trade that get talent ahead are able to be shared - share them.

You're trying to argue that capitalists will cheat regardless, so that we might as well keep the current kind of cheating rather than exchange it for something else that could be worse.
If there's corruption amongst capitalists, open books will show where the money's going so that everyone can see plain as day.

obsrvr524 wrote:What makes you think "workers" would be any better than anyone else? They are not going to be the brightest available. They are going to have the exact same incentives as anyone else. Do you really think getting MORE idiots into the power game is going to improve anything at all?

Right, the anti-democracy argument.

Yes, society is comprised of many idiots. Yet they are the ones effected by their society's economy, and a lot of their idiocy is founded on a lack of objective data, because e.g. the books are not open, things are hidden.
Why ask somebody when you can ask a rich guy, right? Coz, y'know, that somebody is probably just an idiot and there's no way a rich guy can be. More money = less of an idiot, right?

obsrvr524 wrote:
Silhouette wrote:Instead of one farce of a general election to worry about every few years, after which it's back to enacting their poor policies.

So instead you have 1000 elections EVERY year. People wouldn't have time to do anything else with their lives except listen to political speeches. Who would do the work? They elect representatives for a reason - so they all don't have to go do it themselves - 330.000.000 members of US Congress. They can't even get 400 to work together.

Keep trying to blow it all out of proportion, just to conclude it's out of proportion.
As above, it's all voluntary, and you don't have to have individually examine each specific case when there's broader issues that span all of them.

obsrvr524 wrote:Billionaires ARE "regular people" who merely found a way to gain a lot of money. But if they all have to be politicians as well as CEOs then secret cabals is the ONLY possible outcome. And who pays for their campaign? Advertisers would become the political CEOs you are talking about. Advertisers who decide who gets the better representation deal. They certainly wouldn't try to cheat in their own favor. People in the US just don't do that. Well - "workers" obviously don't. But there aren't going to be any workers so that doesn't matter.

Yes billionaires are regular people, and they get their vote too.
They can fit in what they want to vote for just like anyone else. No "hiring someone else to do it for you" like they're used to.
With open information, advertising campaigns are redundant. What are they going to say? "Don't bother looking at the facts, listen to this ambient/popular music and look at these models posing". Advertising is the practice of manipulating people to think irrationally - you can only get away with it as far as the rational options are concealed.

obsrvr524 wrote:Throughout the entire world wherever there is socialism/communism quality and service goes down - very far down. They have no reason to do any better - so they don't - welcome Venezuela.

Sure, the only way to ensure quality is to keep things hidden from the public so that the mechanics of their exploitation can quietly function behind closed doors. It's a great argument for slavery too - because the only alternative is Venezuela and only after it crashed, right?

obsrvr524 wrote:You DO realize that Europe has backed away from socialism? They realized that they must have more capitalism - not totally in either direction. But certainly not 330.000.000 people trying to vote on 1000 corporate leaders every year. That is just ridiculous.

Europe has backed away from leftist populism and towards rightist populist issues. That's the only sphere they feel any connection to, because everything else (e.g. economics) is so opaque and mysterious. Keep them fighting with each other about opinions on how much empathy is optimal, and quietly carry on with all the neo-liberalism in the background.

Europe successfully showcases the best nations on all the important metrics, and they're all highly "socialised" (actually "social democracy", not socialism) i.e. they take care of their citizens. The only thing turning them against that is that everyone else wants to immigrate there and away from countries that don't offer more social democracy, and that puts a strain on the model - that it's too good relative to everywhere else being too bad.

Again you're just trying to turn it into something ridiculous just to call it ridiculous - a common tactic of politicians, used to great effect when it comes to getting the public to act against their best interests. Great job.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby Silhouette » Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:03 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:Yes, all I'm asking for is a retraction of this statement:
Silhouette wrote:You're already rewarding excellence by giving the wealthy so much money that they are so wealthy.

Explained perfectly well here:
Silhouette wrote:You realise trading is a give and take? The bit where money goes to them such that they acquire their billions is where you give it to them, and they take it.
The other side of the trade is they give you goods/services and you take them.

So I think we have an answer to the below.
Silhouette wrote:I think we can safely conclude you're trolling if you don't get this basic piece of common sense, so ball's in your court. If you still don't get it, I can safely assume you're being intentionally dumb to waste both our time. Or unintentionally? :\ Let's hope not!

Trolling has never made any sense to me, unless you truly have absolutely no sense of self-worth that the only thing that can give you any satisfaction is to waste the time of others to feel important. I hope you feel accomplished, Pedro.

d0rkyd00d wrote:Yes Jakob, that's exactly what I am proposing we do, we tax the individual for the gain in net worth.

I'd propose that we solve the problem at its source as a higher priority than reversing the effects.

Employers get so wealthy from being able to pay the people who do their work less than what these employees earn the employer.
If employers weren't able to get away with that to such ridiculous extents that they can emerge with billions at the end of it, then there'd be much less need to tax them.

Jakob wrote:the way of evolution is for types to evolve into extremes and subdivide. This is kind of the tendency we are seeing in terms of wealthy and not so wealthy humanoids, and it is generally a result of technology.

It's an interesting interpretation to put wealth inequality down to evolution.
It implies that the more wealthy consistently possess traits that distinctly set them apart from the less wealthy: traits aside from what sets them apart - their wealth.
It's not a new thing for human society to be divided between those with power and those without, and yet empires keep falling.
A failure as grounds for evolution?

Jakob wrote:So the question really is: who should be wealthy? What should be rewarded? Thats the only question the masses have any power to answer.

And by how much.
Those who should be wealthy should be the ones literally doing the most work, and rewarded in proportion to the degree that they work more, and not due to circumstantial advantages. Equality of opportunity doesn't end up in equality of outcome - that's obvious. When somebody is clearly head and shoulders above the rest, you see them at work and concede "yeah fair enough", because they're clearly adding x amount of value more than others and deserve x times more reward. Equality of opportunity is going to result in that kind of inequality, and rewards should match that kind of inequality. The masses have the power to judge this insofar as they have vision of it and objective measures at their disposal.

To what degree does the current model fit this ideal? Not to no degree whatsoever, for sure. But to think it's close is a joke.

Jakob wrote:In other words, poverty, not wealth is the problem.

And no, there is no such thing as relative poverty. Its a matter of living quality.
As long as no one is lacking basic provisions, there isnt a moral reason to be found to object to other people having enormous wealth.

I cover this in an earlier post here:

Silhouette wrote:People can be as rich as they like with no issue, so long as there aren't any people suffering from a lack of basic physiological needs, and so long as richness can't translate to political power (such as being able to just move their money abroad, or away from critical supply lines of basic physiological needs etc.)

So yes, today there's an issue with wealth inequality being as wide as it is.
Way, way more could be being done by billionaires (and even millionaires and less) to address these issues, instead of them struggling to spend the all the ridiculous amounts of money that they're earning on themselves. Even investing it back into business would be better spending on all the gross luxuries that they learn to take for granted, for which they're socially rewarded in line with culturally deemed "success".
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:38 pm

Silhouette, you seem woefully lacking in an understanding of how and why democratic republics work - which explains why you think communism works.

You seem to think that everyone in the population should just be able to vote on everything. Why not? Is there a limit? And if so how is that limit to be decided - when is the public NOT asked to vote on a decision?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby Silhouette » Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:56 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Silhouette, you seem woefully lacking in an understanding of how and why democratic republics work - which explains why you think communism works.

You're going to have to back up that one there, buddy.
I could claim just the same about you if I wanted.

obsrvr524 wrote:You seem to think that everyone in the population should just be able to vote on everything. Why not? Is there a limit? And if so how is that limit to be decided - when is the public NOT asked to vote on a decision?

Why must there be limits?
Surely you're aware of the distinction between indirect democracy and direct democracy?
Maybe you should tell polling companies to slow down because there's a limit to how much they should be asking the public.
Why should the public be asked not to vote on a decision?
I agree that the public shouldn't be expected to come up with meaningful decisions when they're ill-informed. That's why we open up transparency to get the truth out into the open.
Inform people -> maximise the rationality that they can contribute -> let them vote.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Jan 02, 2021 9:12 pm

Silhouette wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:Silhouette, you seem woefully lacking in an understanding of how and why democratic republics work - which explains why you think communism works.

You're going to have to back up that one there, buddy.

I expect to do just that. I do not expect you to see that I have but that is the disease - not the vaccination.

Silhouette wrote:Why should the public be asked not to vote on a decision?

So there we have it.

Silhouette wrote:I agree that the public shouldn't be expected to come up with meaningful decisions when they're ill-informed. That's why we open up transparency to get the truth out into the open.
Inform people -> maximise the rationality that they can contribute -> let them vote.

So you are saying that people who are NOT well informed should not vote? - Should not be "allowed" to vote?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby Silhouette » Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:09 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:I expect to do just that. I do not expect you to see that I have but that is the disease - not the vaccination.

So there we have it.

This means precisely nothing.

obsrvr524 wrote:So you are saying that people who are NOT well informed should not vote? - Should not be "allowed" to vote?

"So you are saying..." <proceeds to inject biased preconceptions despite repeated suggestions not to>

obsrvr, is this going to be yet another failed attempt to get anywhere?

I said we shouldn't expect outcomes to be meaningful when people are not informed.
This is not the same as saying people shouldn't not vote if they are not well informed.
Please seriously consider reading carefully before responding, and if you do, don't put words in my mouth, and if you're not sure - ask without assuming. <-- My message to you for way too long by now.

I'm saying inform people, so that when they do vote, it will be more meaningful. Don't keep ownership all in the dark, under cloak and dagger (private).
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:20 pm

Just as a side note - putting a "?" after an assertion implies a question - "Is that what you mean to say?" I think most people know that. A simple "no because..." would be appropriate.

Silhouette wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:So you are saying that people who are NOT well informed should not vote? - Should not be "allowed" to vote?

I said we shouldn't expect outcomes to be meaningful when people are not informed.
This is not the same as saying people shouldn't not vote if they are not well informed.

I understand that you would prefer that people be well informed before they vote. But that has never happened and probably will never happen - not that it shouldn't be aimed toward - it certainly should be.

So in the meantime, while people are still not well informed - how should that be handled in a vastly large society?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby Silhouette » Sat Jan 02, 2021 10:48 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:Just as a side note - putting a "?" after an assertion implies a question - "Is that what you mean to say?" I think most people know that. A simple "no because..." would be appropriate.

Completely in line with what I said.
Thanks for the patronisation though, it really helps - especially when it's completely unwarranted.
I said if you're not sure, ask WITHOUT ASSUMING. Read the goddamn words.
"Please seriously consider reading carefully before responding". Like I said.

obsrvr524 wrote:I understand that you would prefer that people be well informed before they vote. But that has never happened and probably will never happen - not that it shouldn't be aimed toward - it certainly should be.

Great then we agree.
People being well informed before they vote certainly should be what should be aimed toward.

obsrvr524 wrote:So in the meantime, while people are still not well informed - how should that be handled in a vastly large society?

Inform them as much as possible as soon as possible.

Open the books.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby obsrvr524 » Sat Jan 02, 2021 11:06 pm

Silhouette wrote:Inform them as much as possible as soon as possible.

Open the books.

Again you suggest that there be no confidentiality among competitors.

But more than that (and more to my point) - Everyone knows everything about everyone else? Doesn't that strike you as a bit overwhelming of a task to accomplish before you begin voting?


And I asked specifically (because that task is actually impossible) - WHAT DO THEY DO IN THE MEAN TIME? Everything just stops while tons of books and updates are handed out to 330 million people?

Silhouette wrote:Inform them as soon as possible as much as possible

That is already happening - "as much as possible" is the whole issue.

People are not going to be fully informed - so what do they do?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby Silhouette » Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:01 am

obsrvr524 wrote:Again you suggest that there be no confidentiality among competitors.

And I do so again.
Compete on equal ground, like basically every other form of competition ever (that isn't considered unfair).

obsrvr524 wrote:But more than that (and more to my point) - Everyone knows everything about everyone else? Doesn't that strike you as a bit overwhelming of a task to accomplish before you begin voting?

"The more you know the better", doesn't need "everyone knows all". Wisdom of the informed crowd.

obsrvr524 wrote:And I asked specifically (because that task is actually impossible) - WHAT DO THEY DO IN THE MEAN TIME? Everything just stops while tons of books and updates are handed out to 330 million people?

They carry on until everything is out on the internet.
You know how people are - if there's unveiled secrets they'll fall over each other to get them as fast as possible and tell others as soon as they can!
The wait won't be long...
And you can inform yourself as much as you want - just as long as you're able to do so by your own devices.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4552
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Billionaires Should Not Exist

Postby obsrvr524 » Sun Jan 03, 2021 12:20 am

Silhouette wrote:They carry on until everything is out on the internet.

Oh I see. It is all about getting it ALL on the internet - like THAT isn't trouble in the make.

Silhouette wrote:You know how people are - if there's unveiled secrets they'll fall over each other to get them as fast as possible and tell others as soon as they can!
The wait won't be long...
And you can inform yourself as much as you want - just as long as you're able to do so by your own devices.

So "continue just as they are" - interesting advice coming from you.

And how do they handle all of those misinformation issues?
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users