| The alternative that many of these eat the rich types propose is abject poverty and subsistence living, but they are too stupid to realize that when you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, you no longer have a productive society, and thus can no longer prosper. Redistribution is a morally evil doctrine, as well as impracticable, due to the economic calculation problem. There is something to be said about abolishing subsidies, regulations, and corporate welfare that allow them to have special privileges, but this is not the same as redistribution. |
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| Id give most that money away to medical research. Turn in all the information on the corruption going on in the companies I have shared in. End any and all grifts that the billionaire was responsible for. Before using the remaining funds to completely isolate myself from the world. Probably focus on writing. If I'm in a billionaires body that means I am no longer with my family or friends. Call me sentimental but id rather be with them instead of rich. I'd also probably submit myself to scientific research because if body swapping is a thing the damn well want to know how and why it happened |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
| I'll show my middle finger to humans and besides spending it on myself I'll spend the money trying to expose the horrors of factory farms and try to close them down, also donate to small organizations that rescue farm animals like chickens. |
| I don't despise billionaires, but I'd totally use my newfound wealth to research ways of making my waifu real. With their capital, my passion, and scientists' expertise, I think I could make that happen.  |
alexw1020Dec 19, 2024 7:48 AM
Reply to fleurbleue
BatoKusanagi said:
Personally, I don't hate billionaires
Even if they don't care about you and would most probably let you die if it gave them more money?Personally, I don't hate billionaires
| @fleurbleue Am I supposed to gate them because they don't care about me? Sounds tiresome and that would mean I'd be hate by most of the human race. |
on 
| if i’m Elon Musk- i kms if im anyone else- i turn a new leaf and start being a good person |
| 1) buy small homestead with fertile land so I can sustain myself. 2) fund the best lawyers to sue the shit out of corporations and the government on grounds of monopoly, conflict of interest, and violating human rights. hopefully, change some laws. fund movements to abolish lobbying, citizens united, and life terms in the supreme court. in my fantasy world, I'd also ensure that private stocks owned by active members of congress are temporarily withdrawn/frozen during their term, with particular attention on the oil and weapons industries. |
can't yuck my yum  |
| If somehow overnight I was given a billion dollars I'd be skeptical of it. I'd probably assume someone was using me to launder money or hide it from the cops or something. I'd probably sit on it for a bit first just to make sure I wouldn't get thrown in jail for being part of some operation. If I did confirm it was legit and safe to use, I'd probably just use it to enjoy myself. Buy a nice house, retire early, get some things I've always wanted. I'd like to own a brewery, and those take a long time before they've made enough money to pay off the initial investment, so not having to worry about it turning a profit would make things very comfy. I could safely invest in some things to make things better for people, but that can be difficult. Bill Gates spends all his working time just being in charge of a team that gives away his money in the way that would improve the most lives. I don't have that kind of drive. Also, if it was only one billion then it probably wouldn't be too hard to use up either. There's a lot of projects that cost more than that. Something like building a couple hospitals and keeping them staffed could easily eat up a billion. |
  |
| assuming this also means I'm in the same positions as one of these people (i.e, CEO of a successful business), I'd probably start by shifting the internal structure of my business to refocus on people over profits, slowly sabotaging my own stock prices. Then, just before the investors realize I'm actively sabotaging them, buy their shares to return control of the company to myself. With whatever remains, and the lessened new profits, I'd be funding political lobbies for things like single-payer healthcare, affordable housing legislation and creation, better funding for services like mass transit, the postal service, and public schools. |
 Dreams are worth fighting for |
| Embrace capitalism and thank the Gods for making me a rich asshole. |
 |
| Does it even matter? When Near Term Human Extinction inevitably arrives, nobody will survive it, no matter how much money they possess. |
| Here is my Pixiv account of my hentai drawings..... https://www.pixiv.net/en/users/104739065 Here is my blog.... https://theendofindustrialcivilization.blogspot.com/?m=1 |
| I don't despise most billionaires. If I were a billionaire I despised, I'd be some oligarch like Roman Abramovich who got wealthy through corrupt shell company dealings rather than Jeff Bezos who became rich by creating a company that provides a very useful service. But let's say I have become a billionaire, the kind I despise or don't. I think I'd want to know I made a positive difference in the world, so I'd want to allocate at least half my earnings to global effective charities like the Against Malaria Foundation or Helen Keller International's Vitamin A supplementation program. GiveWell estimates that effective charities can save a life for a cost of $3000-$5500. This would mean that an expenditure of one billion would save 150 thousand to 333 thousand lives. https://www.givewell.org/how-much-does-it-cost-to-save-a-life |
| Buy a few trinkets, buy things I’ll actually need, then donate the rest to charity, poor countries, hospitals, food banks, etc. I dunno what’d I do with allat money |
| (°<°) <(KA-KAW KA-KAW!) |
fleurbleue said: Do you sabotage that fortune and distribute it in a way that benefits society, or would you rather embrace that new life and enjoy it without a care for the poor? The question came to me as I was wondering what percentage of people hating billionaires would hypocritically change their mind if they suddenly become just as rich. It is hard to predict without it really happening, but I do hope that I'd have the guts to spend everything for good causes (but maybe keep just a few millions to make a few investments and live a relatively normal life from the interest). So what about you? What would be your plan if it happened to you? You can answer seriously or with a touch of humor, all answers are accepted! Leftists are so economically illiterate... First of all, no individual has billions of (US) dollars of fiat currency. Even the wealthiest own mere millions in actual cash. (Some as low as a few million.) Billionaires only have theoretical net worth, tied up in ownership of companies and other non-liquid assets. They cannot simply sell those things off (or give them away) without disrupting (or even crashing) the market. In other words, no one can spend that much cash to begin with. Purchases in the billion range are facilitated via asset exchange, not cash. Billionaires have benefited all of society (including the poor) and driven innovation and prosperity more than any government or redistribution of wealth ever could. Thanks to capitalism (basically the free exchange of goods and services, controlled by private individuals and groups rather than the state), humanity's standard of living has skyrocketed. In many ways, the poor of today are richer than the millionaires of the past, having access to things kings of old would never dream of. Even just decades ago, smartphones that cost a few hundred dollars now would have cost nearly a million then. And billionaires made all that happen more than anyone else has. They already made their contribution, so stop blaming them for the world's problems, and stop trying to place undue burdens on them that will only make matters worse. Of course a notable percentage of those who profess aversion to free enterprise would change their tune if they became financially successful themselves. Leftism is the creed of jealousy, after all. For the sake of argument, let's say you somehow had, say, a hundred billion in cash. Giving it away truly would sabotage that fortune, as, in addition to the fact that most of the things regular people would purchase would be quickly squandered, it would render it comparatively worthless in the market, devaluing currency and effectively making the general population poorer instead of richer. So much for benefiting society and caring for the poor... Now, if someone inherited billions (whether from family or the magic of the thread topic), that does technically mean they are not the ones who benefited society. (At least yet.) However, this is rare. The majority of billionaires earned their wealth. And yes, they did rightfully earn it, as it involved voluntary exchanges between consenting adults, with few exceptions. Without business owners making investments and innovating, those businesses wouldn't exist in the first place. Liberty is essential. Everyone should be (reasonably) free to make their own decisions, and accordingly be responsible for them. (That includes suffering the natural consequences of bad decisions.) As for me...let's see. Music is my passion, along with high fidelity audio gear. I would start companies related to the development and manufacture of audio equipment (loudspeakers, headphones, electronics, etc.), the production and release of music (like record labels and music studios and stores), and other artistic endeavors. Creating video games and animated series could be fun...but I'd prefer focusing on making music and visual art. (Things anyone can do...but they can be done at a much higher level when your resources like money and time are abundant.) I would not ignore philanthropy, but would take care to invest in causes that yield the optimal return for not only myself, but mankind...which may end up being businesses more often than charities. Funding technology, science and the like would be another priority. I've always had ideas for nifty inventions. I would be inclined to promote libertarian initiatives and oppose despotic ones...but I don't particularly care for the energy drain of political activism. Daviljoe193 said: Suicide in the middle of Wall Street, directly in front of the Charging Bull statue. I would want to cause as much sudden and instantaneous chaos as possible, even if the long-term effects are basically negligible. ...But why? Anyone can do that, so what's the point of not even trying to utilize so much money? Good thing I'm poor (How many times have you heard someone say that before?), so I actually have something to live for. I'll save thoughts like that for when I'm 90 and in a nursing home... and also rich. 😈 Because people who aren't poor have nothing to live for, apparently... LittleOwlbear said: Last thing I wanna do is come in contact with other shady billionaires and their crimes against minors, taking advantage of working people or any shit like that. Right...you just (seemingly) want to force everyone to live under socialism...it's not like socialist states ever took advantage of anyone. Clearly they were suppressing, stealing from, imprisoning and killing all those millions of people for their own good! </sarcasm> fleurbleue said: Well, just don't try to buy the consent after the deed like some billionaires like to do. If this is a reference to Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels, that was consensual. What he paid for was her silence on the matter. There is also no evidence he raped anyone; just accusations. Even when he was sued for related damages, they didn't have the evidence to criminally convict him of rape. While I'm at it, he is not a convicted felon either. (Being found guilty by a jury is not enough.) That won't be until he is sentenced by a judge and any appeals are dismissed. Considering he will be President next month, that may never happen, and they could go down in the history books as trumped-up charges. *ba dum tsh* fleurbleue said: If you are as much of a free speech absolutist as Elon Musk really is then we're all getting banned anyway. How would everyone get banned because of someone who favors free speech? Or are you saying Elon is a hypocrite who bans anyone he pleases? Either way, he certainly does not ban everyone. X/Twitter is less repressive than the other major social media networks. traed said: To live you only need a few million. You can survive on barely any money, really. I'd just use the money on scientific research and funding groups that are actually effective at doing something useful In other words, you would refrain from giving the money to the state? ;) and maybe id use lobbying power to eliminate lobbying Fighting fire with fire, I see. though not before Wait...you would try to become ruler of a country before doing the easier things? I bring about privacy measures and various increases in freedoms or just buy my own country and run it how I see fit I do hope you see the paradox here. If you run things how you see fit, that would interfere with others' privacy and freedom. I guess you only meant whichever level of privacy and freedom you deem suitable, while conveniently dispensing with the rest. At any rate, it doesn't seem plausible to outright buy a nation. till I can find the right people to help me create a utopia. Because with a billion bucks, you'll surely be able to create a utopia that no one with vastly more wealth has been able to. traed said: A benevolent dictator. It doesn't mean I'd be tyrannical or totalitarian. Dictatorship cannot be benevolent. It's literally coercing all citizens to live by your whims, punishing anyone who disobeys or speaks out, etc. You have to create a sustainable system before you can remove any hierarchal authority which would require assistance from political theorists, philosophers and legal experts. Removing hierarchal authority...you mean anarchy? Anarchy is impossible, as it would either be invaded by another government or turn into its own government. If you were to relinquish your (hypothetical) leadership, someone else would fill that power void. You don't need fancy experts to understand such obvious things. fleurbleue said: Well well, give enough money to traed and he becomes a dictator. fleurbleue said: That's what they always say at first! I'd give you a few years at best before you start to mistreat your dissidents.😜 lmao XD Give enough money to a leftist and they will become a dictator. Give enough money to a capitalist and they will become someone who continually benefits people's lives by bringing more things to the market. fleurbleue said: Even if they don't care about you and would most probably let you die if it gave them more money? No one is obligated to care about you or be responsible for your survival. You are responsible for yourself. (With the exception of parent-child relationships.) Besides, money is generally made by helping others. As I covered earlier, freer markets result in higher standards of living, so you are much more likely to thrive in a world that encourages economic freedom to the extent that some entrepreneurs bring products and services to the market that benefit so many people (and create so many jobs) they are able to become wealthy as a result. They have to care about others a fair amount to go to the trouble of developing those products and services, even if their primary motivation may be self-interest. No one is letting anyone else die per se in this context. There's also this thing called charity, which is widely available. fleurbleue said: If we all loved them they would laugh about it and makes ways to make even more money out of us. If they make more money, that means people are benefiting even more from their products and services, willingly paying for them; all the while, everyone becomes richer. (Remember, cash is not the only form of wealth. Having access to more affordable resources and improved technology is important too.) Zettaiken said: I am not that pathetic yet to complain about someone's success, doesn't matter if personal earnings or inherited. I'm genuinely proud of you. It takes strong character to respect everyone's right to self-determination. DreamWindow said: The alternative that many of these eat the rich types propose is abject poverty and subsistence living, but they are too stupid to realize that when you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, you no longer have a productive society, and thus can no longer prosper. Redistribution is a morally evil doctrine, as well as impracticable, due to the economic calculation problem. There is something to be said about abolishing subsidies, regulations, and corporate welfare that allow them to have special privileges, but this is not the same as redistribution. Yes, many of the problems commonly blamed on free markets are in reality caused by forces that oppose free markets, such as certain companies using the power of the state to give themselves advantages. So many businesses are prevented from even starting because of excessive regulations. GrimAtrament said: Id give most that money away to medical research. Turn in all the information on the corruption going on in the companies I have shared in. End any and all grifts that the billionaire was responsible for. Before using the remaining funds to completely isolate myself from the world. Probably focus on writing. If I'm in a billionaires body that means I am no longer with my family or friends. Call me sentimental but id rather be with them instead of rich. I'd also probably submit myself to scientific research because if body swapping is a thing the damn well want to know how and why it happened That's an interesting twist on the thread topic: instead of magically receiving billions, you're magically reincarnated as an existing billionaire. Dumb said: if i’m Elon Musk- i kms User name checks out. Elon is responsible for advancing civilization in multiple arenas, and is a champion of human rights and making the world more free and prosperous. NoelleIsSleepy said: fund the best lawyers to sue the shit out of corporations and the government on grounds of monopoly, conflict of interest, and violating human rights. Those are too vague. To win lawsuits, you need more specific charges. Timeline_man said: assuming this also means I'm in the same positions as one of these people (i.e, CEO of a successful business), I'd probably start by shifting the internal structure of my business to refocus on people over profits, slowly sabotaging my own stock prices. Then, just before the investors realize I'm actively sabotaging them, buy their shares to return control of the company to myself. With whatever remains, and the lessened new profits, I'd be funding political lobbies for things like single-payer healthcare, affordable housing legislation and creation, better funding for services like mass transit, the postal service, and public schools. Your misguided "people over profit" philosophy would eventually cause the business to go under...then the people you claim to care about wouldn't get paid at all. (Unless you donate your personal fortune to them...but it would likely mostly be shares in the company rather than cash. If you neglect profit, that would indeed sabotage stock prices, making your shares worth considerably less. Giving away shares in a dying company will hasten its demise as well.) You don't need to own all shares in a company to wield influence over it. (Elon Musk only owns roughly 20% of Tesla. It was around 13% earlier this year.) You can't just force investors to sell their shares...but once they notice you're actively harming the company, they could willingly do so, making the business fail even faster. Then again, plenty of CEOs are simply fired when they cause problems, given they don't own at least 51% of the shares. Profit is the very thing people need to pay for anything. Your worldview is counterintuitive, to say the least. As for putting money into the hands of governments (which are wildly inefficient and unaccountable), that is the absolute best way to waste it, make everything more expensive, and erode individual human rights. Either individuals have rights or no one has rights. And the only rights individuals have are the right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and defending them by any and all means necessary. These are rights to action, not reward. You do not have a right to receive anything at the expense of others, because that would mean they don't possess the aforementioned rights. Universal health care is a disaster anyway. https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/health-care-is-not-a-right/ |
SmugSatokoDec 23, 2024 11:28 AM
 |
| @SmugSatoko The way the op phased it made it sound like we were waking up in another person's body who was a billionaire. Also ew imagine trying to use pragur u for any discussion bother ew. |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus |
GrimAtrament said: Also ew imagine trying to use pragur u for any discussion bother ew. This is what is called an ad hominem fallacy: instead of presenting an argument, you merely attacked the entity making an argument. The information in the videos is accurate. If you disagree, then make your own argument and explain how you think something I (or the people in the videos) said is wrong. |
|
| I would donate most of the money to charity. |
 |
Reply to SmugSatoko
GrimAtrament said:
Also ew imagine trying to use pragur u for any discussion bother ew.
Also ew imagine trying to use pragur u for any discussion bother ew.
This is what is called an ad hominem fallacy: instead of presenting an argument, you merely attacked the entity making an argument.
The information in the videos is accurate. If you disagree, then make your own argument and explain how you think something I (or the people in the videos) said is wrong.
| @SmugSatoko pragur u is falsely pretending to be a university they are not one. They have falsifying several historical fact not to mention tried to push the idea that slavery isn't bad. So again I say brother ew. |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus |
GrimAtrament said: pragur u is falsely pretending to be a university they are not one. They never claimed to be an accredited university. There are all sorts of programs and organizations that call themselves "university" despite not being the official type. Regardless, accredited universities are not the only ones who can speak the truth. Two plus two equals four, no matter who says it. They have falsifying several historical fact This statement is so vague as to be useless...and it is irrelevant to the thread topic. not to mention tried to push the idea that slavery isn't bad. Citation needed. I don't believe you. Also irrelevant to the thread topic. So again I say brother ew. Again, all you have done here is make an ad hominem attack, which is not a valid argument. The matter at hand are the two videos I posted. Either respond to the information in them (I made the same basic points in my post, but the videos go into more detail) or concede you are unable to refute it. |
SmugSatokoDec 23, 2024 12:29 PM
|
| @SmugSatoko Oof, it's Christmas time and don't feel like starting any conflict, let's just say you're right and let's be happy with that. |
Reply to SmugSatoko
fleurbleue said:
Do you sabotage that fortune and distribute it in a way that benefits society, or would you rather embrace that new life and enjoy it without a care for the poor?
The question came to me as I was wondering what percentage of people hating billionaires would hypocritically change their mind if they suddenly become just as rich. It is hard to predict without it really happening, but I do hope that I'd have the guts to spend everything for good causes (but maybe keep just a few millions to make a few investments and live a relatively normal life from the interest).
So what about you? What would be your plan if it happened to you? You can answer seriously or with a touch of humor, all answers are accepted!
Do you sabotage that fortune and distribute it in a way that benefits society, or would you rather embrace that new life and enjoy it without a care for the poor?
The question came to me as I was wondering what percentage of people hating billionaires would hypocritically change their mind if they suddenly become just as rich. It is hard to predict without it really happening, but I do hope that I'd have the guts to spend everything for good causes (but maybe keep just a few millions to make a few investments and live a relatively normal life from the interest).
So what about you? What would be your plan if it happened to you? You can answer seriously or with a touch of humor, all answers are accepted!
Leftists are so economically illiterate...
First of all, no individual has billions of (US) dollars of fiat currency. Even the wealthiest own mere millions in actual cash. (Some as low as a few million.)
Billionaires only have theoretical net worth, tied up in ownership of companies and other non-liquid assets. They cannot simply sell those things off (or give them away) without disrupting (or even crashing) the market.
In other words, no one can spend that much cash to begin with. Purchases in the billion range are facilitated via asset exchange, not cash.
Billionaires have benefited all of society (including the poor) and driven innovation and prosperity more than any government or redistribution of wealth ever could.
Thanks to capitalism (basically the free exchange of goods and services, controlled by private individuals and groups rather than the state), humanity's standard of living has skyrocketed. In many ways, the poor of today are richer than the millionaires of the past, having access to things kings of old would never dream of. Even just decades ago, smartphones that cost a few hundred dollars now would have cost nearly a million then. And billionaires made all that happen more than anyone else has. They already made their contribution, so stop blaming them for the world's problems, and stop trying to place undue burdens on them that will only make matters worse.
Of course a notable percentage of those who profess aversion to free enterprise would change their tune if they became financially successful themselves. Leftism is the creed of jealousy, after all.
For the sake of argument, let's say you somehow had, say, a hundred billion in cash. Giving it away truly would sabotage that fortune, as, in addition to the fact that most of the things regular people would purchase would be quickly squandered, it would render it comparatively worthless in the market, devaluing currency and effectively making the general population poorer instead of richer. So much for benefiting society and caring for the poor...
Now, if someone inherited billions (whether from family or the magic of the thread topic), that does technically mean they are not the ones who benefited society. (At least yet.) However, this is rare. The majority of billionaires earned their wealth. And yes, they did rightfully earn it, as it involved voluntary exchanges between consenting adults, with few exceptions. Without business owners making investments and innovating, those businesses wouldn't exist in the first place.
Liberty is essential. Everyone should be (reasonably) free to make their own decisions, and accordingly be responsible for them. (That includes suffering the natural consequences of bad decisions.)
As for me...let's see. Music is my passion, along with high fidelity audio gear. I would start companies related to the development and manufacture of audio equipment (loudspeakers, headphones, electronics, etc.), the production and release of music (like record labels and music studios and stores), and other artistic endeavors. Creating video games and animated series could be fun...but I'd prefer focusing on making music and visual art. (Things anyone can do...but they can be done at a much higher level when your resources like money and time are abundant.)
I would not ignore philanthropy, but would take care to invest in causes that yield the optimal return for not only myself, but mankind...which may end up being businesses more often than charities.
Funding technology, science and the like would be another priority. I've always had ideas for nifty inventions.
I would be inclined to promote libertarian initiatives and oppose despotic ones...but I don't particularly care for the energy drain of political activism.
Daviljoe193 said:
Suicide in the middle of Wall Street, directly in front of the Charging Bull statue. I would want to cause as much sudden and instantaneous chaos as possible, even if the long-term effects are basically negligible.
Suicide in the middle of Wall Street, directly in front of the Charging Bull statue. I would want to cause as much sudden and instantaneous chaos as possible, even if the long-term effects are basically negligible.
...But why? Anyone can do that, so what's the point of not even trying to utilize so much money?
Good thing I'm poor (How many times have you heard someone say that before?), so I actually have something to live for. I'll save thoughts like that for when I'm 90 and in a nursing home... and also rich. 😈
Because people who aren't poor have nothing to live for, apparently...
LittleOwlbear said:
Last thing I wanna do is come in contact with other shady billionaires and their crimes against minors, taking advantage of working people or any shit like that.
Last thing I wanna do is come in contact with other shady billionaires and their crimes against minors, taking advantage of working people or any shit like that.
Right...you just (seemingly) want to force everyone to live under socialism...it's not like socialist states ever took advantage of anyone. Clearly they were suppressing, stealing from, imprisoning and killing all those millions of people for their own good! </sarcasm>
fleurbleue said:
Well, just don't try to buy the consent after the deed like some billionaires like to do.
Well, just don't try to buy the consent after the deed like some billionaires like to do.
If this is a reference to Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels, that was consensual. What he paid for was her silence on the matter.
There is also no evidence he raped anyone; just accusations. Even when he was sued for related damages, they didn't have the evidence to criminally convict him of rape.
While I'm at it, he is not a convicted felon either. (Being found guilty by a jury is not enough.) That won't be until he is sentenced by a judge and any appeals are dismissed. Considering he will be President next month, that may never happen, and they could go down in the history books as trumped-up charges. *ba dum tsh*
fleurbleue said:
If you are as much of a free speech absolutist as Elon Musk really is then we're all getting banned anyway.
If you are as much of a free speech absolutist as Elon Musk really is then we're all getting banned anyway.
How would everyone get banned because of someone who favors free speech? Or are you saying Elon is a hypocrite who bans anyone he pleases? Either way, he certainly does not ban everyone. X/Twitter is less repressive than the other major social media networks.
traed said:
To live you only need a few million.
To live you only need a few million.
You can survive on barely any money, really.
I'd just use the money on scientific research and funding groups that are actually effective at doing something useful
In other words, you would refrain from giving the money to the state? ;)
and maybe id use lobbying power to eliminate lobbying
Fighting fire with fire, I see.
though not before
Wait...you would try to become ruler of a country before doing the easier things?
I bring about privacy measures and various increases in freedoms or just buy my own country and run it how I see fit
I do hope you see the paradox here. If you run things how you see fit, that would interfere with others' privacy and freedom. I guess you only meant whichever level of privacy and freedom you deem suitable, while conveniently dispensing with the rest.
At any rate, it doesn't seem plausible to outright buy a nation.
till I can find the right people to help me create a utopia.
Because with a billion bucks, you'll surely be able to create a utopia that no one with vastly more wealth has been able to.
traed said:
A benevolent dictator. It doesn't mean I'd be tyrannical or totalitarian.
A benevolent dictator. It doesn't mean I'd be tyrannical or totalitarian.
Dictatorship cannot be benevolent. It's literally coercing all citizens to live by your whims, punishing anyone who disobeys or speaks out, etc.
You have to create a sustainable system before you can remove any hierarchal authority which would require assistance from political theorists, philosophers and legal experts.
Removing hierarchal authority...you mean anarchy? Anarchy is impossible, as it would either be invaded by another government or turn into its own government.
If you were to relinquish your (hypothetical) leadership, someone else would fill that power void. You don't need fancy experts to understand such obvious things.
fleurbleue said:
Well well, give enough money to traed and he becomes a dictator.
Well well, give enough money to traed and he becomes a dictator.
fleurbleue said:
That's what they always say at first! I'd give you a few years at best before you start to mistreat your dissidents.😜
That's what they always say at first! I'd give you a few years at best before you start to mistreat your dissidents.😜
lmao XD
Give enough money to a leftist and they will become a dictator.
Give enough money to a capitalist and they will become someone who continually benefits people's lives by bringing more things to the market.
fleurbleue said:
Even if they don't care about you and would most probably let you die if it gave them more money?
Even if they don't care about you and would most probably let you die if it gave them more money?
No one is obligated to care about you or be responsible for your survival. You are responsible for yourself. (With the exception of parent-child relationships.)
Besides, money is generally made by helping others. As I covered earlier, freer markets result in higher standards of living, so you are much more likely to thrive in a world that encourages economic freedom to the extent that some entrepreneurs bring products and services to the market that benefit so many people (and create so many jobs) they are able to become wealthy as a result. They have to care about others a fair amount to go to the trouble of developing those products and services, even if their primary motivation may be self-interest.
No one is letting anyone else die per se in this context. There's also this thing called charity, which is widely available.
fleurbleue said:
If we all loved them they would laugh about it and makes ways to make even more money out of us.
If we all loved them they would laugh about it and makes ways to make even more money out of us.
If they make more money, that means people are benefiting even more from their products and services, willingly paying for them; all the while, everyone becomes richer. (Remember, cash is not the only form of wealth. Having access to more affordable resources and improved technology is important too.)
Zettaiken said:
I am not that pathetic yet to complain about someone's success, doesn't matter if personal earnings or inherited.
I am not that pathetic yet to complain about someone's success, doesn't matter if personal earnings or inherited.
I'm genuinely proud of you. It takes strong character to respect everyone's right to self-determination.
DreamWindow said:
The alternative that many of these eat the rich types propose is abject poverty and subsistence living, but they are too stupid to realize that when you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, you no longer have a productive society, and thus can no longer prosper. Redistribution is a morally evil doctrine, as well as impracticable, due to the economic calculation problem. There is something to be said about abolishing subsidies, regulations, and corporate welfare that allow them to have special privileges, but this is not the same as redistribution.
The alternative that many of these eat the rich types propose is abject poverty and subsistence living, but they are too stupid to realize that when you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, you no longer have a productive society, and thus can no longer prosper. Redistribution is a morally evil doctrine, as well as impracticable, due to the economic calculation problem. There is something to be said about abolishing subsidies, regulations, and corporate welfare that allow them to have special privileges, but this is not the same as redistribution.
Yes, many of the problems commonly blamed on free markets are in reality caused by forces that oppose free markets, such as certain companies using the power of the state to give themselves advantages. So many businesses are prevented from even starting because of excessive regulations.
GrimAtrament said:
Id give most that money away to medical research. Turn in all the information on the corruption going on in the companies I have shared in. End any and all grifts that the billionaire was responsible for. Before using the remaining funds to completely isolate myself from the world. Probably focus on writing. If I'm in a billionaires body that means I am no longer with my family or friends. Call me sentimental but id rather be with them instead of rich.
I'd also probably submit myself to scientific research because if body swapping is a thing the damn well want to know how and why it happened
Id give most that money away to medical research. Turn in all the information on the corruption going on in the companies I have shared in. End any and all grifts that the billionaire was responsible for. Before using the remaining funds to completely isolate myself from the world. Probably focus on writing. If I'm in a billionaires body that means I am no longer with my family or friends. Call me sentimental but id rather be with them instead of rich.
I'd also probably submit myself to scientific research because if body swapping is a thing the damn well want to know how and why it happened
That's an interesting twist on the thread topic: instead of magically receiving billions, you're magically reincarnated as an existing billionaire.
Dumb said:
if i’m Elon Musk- i kms
if i’m Elon Musk- i kms
User name checks out. Elon is responsible for advancing civilization in multiple arenas, and is a champion of human rights and making the world more free and prosperous.
NoelleIsSleepy said:
fund the best lawyers to sue the shit out of corporations and the government on grounds of monopoly, conflict of interest, and violating human rights.
fund the best lawyers to sue the shit out of corporations and the government on grounds of monopoly, conflict of interest, and violating human rights.
Those are too vague. To win lawsuits, you need more specific charges.
Timeline_man said:
assuming this also means I'm in the same positions as one of these people (i.e, CEO of a successful business), I'd probably start by shifting the internal structure of my business to refocus on people over profits, slowly sabotaging my own stock prices. Then, just before the investors realize I'm actively sabotaging them, buy their shares to return control of the company to myself. With whatever remains, and the lessened new profits, I'd be funding political lobbies for things like single-payer healthcare, affordable housing legislation and creation, better funding for services like mass transit, the postal service, and public schools.
assuming this also means I'm in the same positions as one of these people (i.e, CEO of a successful business), I'd probably start by shifting the internal structure of my business to refocus on people over profits, slowly sabotaging my own stock prices. Then, just before the investors realize I'm actively sabotaging them, buy their shares to return control of the company to myself. With whatever remains, and the lessened new profits, I'd be funding political lobbies for things like single-payer healthcare, affordable housing legislation and creation, better funding for services like mass transit, the postal service, and public schools.
Your misguided "people over profit" philosophy would eventually cause the business to go under...then the people you claim to care about wouldn't get paid at all. (Unless you donate your personal fortune to them...but it would likely mostly be shares in the company rather than cash. If you neglect profit, that would indeed sabotage stock prices, making your shares worth considerably less. Giving away shares in a dying company will hasten its demise as well.)
You don't need to own all shares in a company to wield influence over it. (Elon Musk only owns roughly 20% of Tesla. It was around 13% earlier this year.) You can't just force investors to sell their shares...but once they notice you're actively harming the company, they could willingly do so, making the business fail even faster. Then again, plenty of CEOs are simply fired when they cause problems, given they don't own at least 51% of the shares.
Profit is the very thing people need to pay for anything. Your worldview is counterintuitive, to say the least.
As for putting money into the hands of governments (which are wildly inefficient and unaccountable), that is the absolute best way to waste it, make everything more expensive, and erode individual human rights.
Either individuals have rights or no one has rights. And the only rights individuals have are the right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and defending them by any and all means necessary. These are rights to action, not reward. You do not have a right to receive anything at the expense of others, because that would mean they don't possess the aforementioned rights. Universal health care is a disaster anyway.
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/health-care-is-not-a-right/
SmugSatoko said: I don't think you know what "profit" is. it's simply the money left after expenses. A company doesn't need to make billions in surplus cash to stay afloat, they simply don't. By owning all the stocks, I would be able to avoid having to answer for a "fiduciary duty" of having to provide better profits and stock prices for investors. People over profit philosophies work in business, because it reduces turnover rate and gives a workforce that actually gives a damn about the job. I know this much because I've worked for nonprofits in a variety of capacities. Doing things like offering pension programs and good insurance invests the employees in the company's success for the future, and we live in a world where valuing both employees and customers is good marketing all on its own. Being thrust into the position of someone who is already worth billions through these businesses, presumably, I think the company would have the funds to do it.Profit is the very thing people need to pay for anything. SmugSatoko said: That's not what lobbying is. I'd be participating in the cornball corruption that already exists, but trying to do something good with it.As for putting money into the hands of governments (which are wildly inefficient and unaccountable), that is the absolute best way to waste it, make everything more expensive, and erode individual human rights You "libertarian" types can't see past your own nose and it annoys me to no end that you can't see that people generally look out for each other when they have the means to. Tells me you've never been on either side of a Soup Kitchen, but brother I've been on both. |
| Dreams are worth fighting for |
Timeline_man said: I don't think you know what "profit" is. it's simply the money left after expenses. I assure you I do. People ultimately can't pay for anything if there is no profit in the world and only a net loss. A company doesn't need to make billions in surplus cash to stay afloat, they simply don't. Most don't...but with a company that large, even relatively small changes in policy can result in drastic outcomes. It's not as easy to operate a large business as you seem to think. By owning all the stocks, I would be able to avoid having to answer for a "fiduciary duty" of having to provide better profits and stock prices for investors. I'm not sure how you would expect to own all the stocks, for reasons I explained. People over profit philosophies work in business, because it reduces turnover rate and gives a workforce that actually gives a damn about the job. People over profit can mean different things. My point is that if you neglect profit too much or entirely, you won't be able to afford anything. Many businesses have small profit margins too. I know this much because I've worked for nonprofits in a variety of capacities. Nonprofits are funded by various means that don't apply to businesses in general. Doing things like offering pension programs and good insurance invests the employees in the company's success for the future, and we live in a world where valuing both employees and customers is good marketing all on its own. Being thrust into the position of someone who is already worth billions through these businesses, presumably, I think the company would have the funds to do it. I mean, it's perfectly acceptable to reduce profits somewhat to offer benefits that help employees. I wasn't arguing against that. In fact, those policies can potentially increase profits. That's not what lobbying is. I'd be participating in the cornball corruption that already exists, but trying to do something good with it. Nice try, but everything you listed involves putting more money into the hands of the government, by force. The fact that such a thing already exists is beside the point. You "libertarian" types can't see past your own nose and it annoys me to no end that you can't see that people generally look out for each other when they have the means to. Tells me you've never been on either side of a Soup Kitchen, but brother I've been on both. Voluntarily helping is fine; being forced to by the state (with the threat of possible imprisonment or death) is not. |
|
SmugSatoko said: You can survive on barely any money, really. Technically but I meant live reasonably comfortably and healthy as opposed to living in extravagant excess. I was just giving a rough estimate. Having housing can get expensive in itself buying it and property tax though depends where you want to live. Unless there is a particularly low cost living facility. Plus I was talking for a lifetime assuming a normal lifespan and if not cutting it short. Little factoid: Karl Marx was in favor of refusing to pay taxes in some conditions. Probably anarchists likely did as well but i cant be bothered checking right now and this message turned out pretty long SmugSatoko said: In other words, you would refrain from giving the money to the state? ;) Not inherently but yes when under case of being under a government that has abuse of power. Unfortunately when trillionaires and billionaires and millionaires do philanthropy even when it's sincere rather than money laundering and PR campaigns, they often fund ineffective groups for example the stuff Bill Gates would fund. Knowing that I could run research or at least be very selective how money is spent focusing on maximum output with the last drawbacks. SmugSatoko said: Wait...you would try to become ruler of a country before doing the easier things? No. I'm not sure how you read it that way. Everything after "or" was the alternative to the previous statement. SmugSatoko said: I do hope you see the paradox here. If you run things how you see fit, that would interfere with others' privacy and freedom. I guess you only meant whichever level of privacy and freedom you deem suitable, while conveniently dispensing with the rest. At any rate, it doesn't seem plausible to outright buy a nation. By "as I see fit" I meant whatever is reasonable since I have enough sense that if I can abuse it others can later too. Are you sure on that? You can buy land in mass. There also has been a few micro-nations people attempted but none gained any international recognition. SmugSatoko said: Removing hierarchal authority...you mean anarchy? Anarchy is impossible, as it would either be invaded by another government or turn into its own government. If you were to relinquish your (hypothetical) leadership, someone else would fill that power void. You don't need fancy experts to understand such obvious things. Yes, I think similar and have mentioned that before elsewhere. I haven't fully read into Anarchist theory a whole lot yet but I noticed some contradictions of semantics. Most forms of anarchism have a governing body of some kind but just one more democratic and localized or decentralized. So when they say no state they do not mean no government and no rules, they just mean no government that is centralized that rules top down, except for AnCaps since in that case businesses become like governments which rule top down. Similar as you yourself said you don't set up a functional system you would not only have no government you have nothing to replace it potentially creating a civil war or foreign invasion as the process that creates a government, that's not a good outcome. Even if there is a government existing prior it likely is a very corrupt one that could never on it's own while following the rules become more democratic. I have on various cases seen you argue on grounds of the US constitution which was literally the Founding Fathers creating a system, it's similar to that. I don't at the moment have answers to what system is best. Such as is it better to have elections or do lotteries or just involve everyone in every decision. Last of which which only works small scale SmugSatoko said: Because with a billion bucks, you'll surely be able to create a utopia that no one with vastly more wealth has been able to. They got that much wealth from stepping on other people and even the ones who did not are out of touch with others needs. There is a much higher rate of sociopathy and narcissistic personality disorder among the wealthy. So yes. SmugSatoko said: Dictatorship cannot be benevolent. It's literally coercing all citizens to live by your whims, punishing anyone who disobeys or speaks out, etc. A dictator is just a very central leadership. It doesn't inherently mean a totalitarian, a tyrant or even an authoritarian in every regard aside from the dictator aspect. It's just one who dictates. That is why the term benevolent dictator exists. Even if used as synonyms, they aren't really. In the extreme case a dictator even can be a negligent leader who literally doesn't enforce any laws or even collect taxes or anything. You would not likely see land sold off that has that many people living on it so I was more so talking about empty land people move into after so they would be living on the country I own thus following my rules by choice of moving there. I wouldn't disregard what people there say outright thus the desire for an effort of collecting public opinions and teams of experts. SmugSatoko said: Give enough money to a leftist and they will become a dictator. Give enough money to a capitalist and they will become someone who continually benefits people's lives by bringing more things to the market. The whole notion of "left" and "right" is overly simplistic. Better inform all the landlords they are dictators for owning land others live on then. Weird you say that after you clearly acknowledged I said I'd fund scientific research. Implying developing medicines and technologies to better people's lives. I also have things I'd personally like to see Id want made. Like I have wanted to design my own phone that others could use. Benito Mussolini spoke of "supercapitalism" for a reason. For purpose of fascism was to protect capitalist economy in opposition to socialism. Capitalist businesses backed Adolf Hitler including American ones like Texaco oil. Hitler himself was inspired by the antisemetic writings of Henry Ford. Ford himself had private police attack striking employees. Then of course there is likes of Pinochet. The people who invented and sold leaded gasoline as an anti-knocking agent knew it was toxic and deadly from the very beginning and kept it a secret. How many do you think have brain damage or died? The manufacturers of cigarettes knew they were addictive and deadly and kept it a secret trying to suppress info and counter it with false information. How many do you think died? Bayer quietly sold HIV infected meds in Asia. How many do you think died? No one can make decisions when they are not given a real choice to begin with. Speaking of smoking… Little factoid: Ayn Rand despite all evidence claimed smoking doesn't lead to cancer later died of lung cancer from her smoking. She also claimed be against welfare and willingly was on welfare herself. She also idolized a serial killer who dismembered a 12 year old girl. She also had a racist imperialistic mindset as well believing the US killing of Native Americans was justified because she claimed they had no notion of property, which is not even true. Would take me ages to dig up stuff on the likes of Murray Rothbard lol That guy was an idiot and a racist who wanted to create what in effect would be a white ethno state and he supported all sorts of immoral acts like cops beating people as an act of revenge of their assumed crime even if they didnt even see them do anything, or how he was for allowing intentionally not giving food to infants so that they starve to death. Yes, I'm not even making this up I've read things he's written. These sren't ad hominem because they directly relate to the self centered nature of their ideologies. I could reply to some other stuff you wrote but hands too cold to type |
traedDec 23, 2024 4:38 PM
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
SmugSatoko said: Genuinely what are you talking about? are you... talking about taxes? Because yeah, you need to pay taxes, that's part of participating in a society? I mean, I've never heard of a government forcing people to help with soup kitchens or homeless shelters.Voluntarily helping is fine; being forced to by the state (with the threat of possible imprisonment or death) is not. SmugSatoko said: I guess? But I was talking about effectively funding politicians to promise to work to expand public transit systems. I'm not an anarchist, I believe the existence of government is helpful, and that it can and should be used to better the lives of as many people as possible.Nice try, but everything you listed involves putting more money into the hands of the government, by force. The fact that such a thing already exists is beside the point. I know my plans are incredibly idealistic, this is already an absurd concept, It's not like I'll actually be Freaky Friday'd into Jeff Bezos next week or something. |
| Dreams are worth fighting for |
Reply to Rndmguypassingby
donate to charity and use it for myself
| @Rndmguypassingby id do the same. once i use it for myself (im frugal) ill just give it away to others. |
traed said: Technically but I meant live reasonably comfortably and healthy as opposed to living in extravagant excess. I was just giving a rough estimate. Having housing can get expensive in itself buying it and property tax though depends where you want to live. Unless there is a particularly low cost living facility. Plus I was talking for a lifetime assuming a normal lifespan and if not cutting it short. Even then, you can have a comfortable lifespan without ever making millions. Little factoid: Karl Marx was in favor of refusing to pay taxes in some conditions. Probably anarchists likely did as well but i cant be bothered checking right now and this message turned out pretty long He was also a professed anarchist...ironic since he paradoxically proposed giving so much power to the state, as if it would magically surrender that power when the time is right. Not inherently but yes when under case of being under a government that has abuse of power. I thought that's what government was. *smirk* (lol. I'm definitely not an anarchist, but that doesn't stop me from holding an overall negative view of the state.) Unfortunately when trillionaires ...Trillionaires? There hasn't been a single one yet. and billionaires and millionaires do philanthropy even when it's sincere rather than money laundering and PR campaigns, they often fund ineffective groups for example the stuff Bill Gates would fund. Knowing that I could run research or at least be very selective how money is spent focusing on maximum output with the last drawbacks. I would also be careful about those types of investments. No. I'm not sure how you read it that way. Everything after "or" was the alternative to the previous statement. Ah. This is why it's important to communicate clearly instead of using so many run-on sentences. By "as I see fit" I meant whatever is reasonable since I have enough sense that if I can abuse it others can later too. "Whatever is reasonable"...aka "You will do whatever I tell you because I am the dictator!" lolol Are you sure on that? You can buy land in mass. There also has been a few micro-nations people attempted but none gained any international recognition. You can certainly become leader of a nation...but outright buying one? I'll need to see real life examples. I think international recognition is part of what makes something a nation. Yes, I think similar and have mentioned that before elsewhere. I haven't fully read into Anarchist theory a whole lot yet but I noticed some contradictions of semantics. Most forms of anarchism have a governing body of some kind but just one more democratic and localized or decentralized. So when they say no state they do not mean no government and no rules, they just mean no government that is centralized that rules top down, except for AnCaps since in that case businesses become like governments which rule top down. The state and the government are synonymous, even if some try to deny it with semantics. Similar as you yourself said you don't set up a functional system you would not only have no government you have nothing to replace it potentially creating a civil war or foreign invasion as the process that creates a government, that's not a good outcome. Even if there is a government existing prior it likely is a very corrupt one that could never on it's own while following the rules become more democratic. I have on various cases seen you argue on grounds of the US constitution which was literally the Founding Fathers creating a system, it's similar to that. I don't at the moment have answers to what system is best. Such as is it better to have elections or do lotteries or just involve everyone in every decision. Last of which which only works small scale I get the feeling neither of us will ever become politicians. heh They got that much wealth from stepping on other people Citation needed. :P Wealth like that cannot be created in a capitalist society without benefiting millions of people. I went into detail about it already. and even the ones who did not are out of touch with others needs. There is a much higher rate of sociopathy and narcissistic personality disorder among the wealthy. So yes. Oh, okay. So if an innocent person like yourself were to magically get the wealth instead, you would create a utopia because, "Trust me, bro." Somehow I'm not convinced. A dictator is just a very central leadership. It doesn't inherently mean a totalitarian, a tyrant or even an authoritarian in every regard aside from the dictator aspect. It's just one who dictates. That is why the term benevolent dictator exists. Even if used as synonyms, they aren't really. In the extreme case a dictator even can be a negligent leader who literally doesn't enforce any laws or even collect taxes or anything. You would not likely see land sold off that has that many people living on it so I was more so talking about empty land people move into after so they would be living on the country I own thus following my rules by choice of moving there. I wouldn't disregard what people there say outright thus the desire for an effort of collecting public opinions and teams of experts. I would suggest doing a quick search on the definitions of dictator. (click) It's basically a single person with absolute political power over a country. You can't have that much control over people's lives while being benevolent. If you were benevolent, you would not be controlling them in such a way. The whole notion of "left" and "right" is overly simplistic. It doesn't help that some of the same terms (such as those) can mean opposite things depending on context. Better inform all the landlords they are dictators for owning land others live on then. I never said landlords were dictators. Not sure where you're getting all this from. Weird you say that after you clearly acknowledged I said I'd fund scientific research. Implying developing medicines and technologies to better people's lives. I also have things I'd personally like to see Id want made. Like I have wanted to design my own phone that others could use. Not sure what you find weird. There's nothing stopping a dictator from doing those things. Benito Mussolini spoke of "supercapitalism" for a reason. For purpose of fascism was to protect capitalist economy in opposition to socialism. Fascism is far removed from capitalism. I went into detail about this in a previous thread, as you may recall. Capitalist businesses backed Adolf Hitler including American ones like Texaco oil. To be fair, some of the motivation behind that was to combat communism. Hitler himself was inspired by the antisemetic writings of Henry Ford. Whaaat?! Someone read words and had ideas? *gasp* We can't be having any of that. Better ban all language before it's too late! Ford himself had private police attack striking employees. Given what happened, you worded this so mildly. The police and security guards straight-up murdered people with machine guns. I seriously hope you realize that is the complete opposite of libertarianism. Then of course there is likes of Pinochet. Care to elaborate? The people who invented and sold leaded gasoline as an anti-knocking agent knew it was toxic and deadly from the very beginning and kept it a secret. How many do you think have brain damage or died? I'm not advocating a completely free market where companies can just do things like sell lethal cyanide as food to unsuspecting customers. The manufacturers of cigarettes knew they were addictive and deadly and kept it a secret trying to suppress info and counter it with false information. How many do you think died? What of it? No one is forcing you to smoke. The negative effects of smoking are well-known now as well. Bayer quietly sold HIV infected meds in Asia. How many do you think died? Sounds like a serious crime to me. No one can make decisions when they are not given a real choice to begin with. If you take action before obtaining sufficient relevant information, that's on you. When I talk about voluntary exchanges and choices in this context, I am referring to people making decisions without being forced to by the state. Speaking of smoking… Little factoid: Ayn Rand despite all evidence claimed smoking doesn't lead to cancer later died of lung cancer from her smoking. She also claimed be against welfare and willingly was on welfare herself. She also idolized a serial killer who dismembered a 12 year old girl. She also had a racist imperialistic mindset as well believing the US killing of Native Americans was justified because she claimed they had no notion of property, which is not even true. Would take me ages to dig up stuff on the likes of Murray Rothbard lol That guy was an idiot and a racist who wanted to create what in effect would be a white ethno state and he supported all sorts of immoral acts like cops beating people as an act of revenge of their assumed crime even if they didnt even see them do anything, or how he was for allowing intentionally not giving food to infants so that they starve to death. Yes, I'm not even making this up I've read things he's written. These sren't ad hominem because they directly relate to the self centered nature of their ideologies. Little factoid: I am not those people. Not sure why you're even mentioning them. If you want better info on what my views tend to align with, check these out. https://www.libertarianism.org/what-is-a-libertarian https://www.lp.org/platform/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States I could reply to some other stuff you wrote but hands too cold to type Aww. lol. Sounds like you need a heater. There are $10 ceramic mini heaters that are surprisingly good. Timeline_man said: Genuinely what are you talking about? are you... talking about taxes? Because yeah, you need to pay taxes, that's part of participating in a society? I mean, I've never heard of a government forcing people to help with soup kitchens or homeless shelters. I don't know, what are you talking about? You're the one who said I can't see past my nose and made a soup kitchen analogy. You went from talking about forcing people to pay for things to talking about people voluntarily helping each other. As I said, I have no problem with the latter. The US did not have an income tax until the mid-1800s, yet they somehow had a society. (The government used to be funded by tariffs.) In my view, the only legitimate function of the state is to protect people's fundamental rights, and any taxation should only go toward that. (Animal rights too, to an extent.) Everyone should not be forced to pay for endless, out of control tax-funded causes the government couldn't possibly afford. Just look at the 36 trillion dollar US national debt. I lean toward abolishing income and property tax and focusing on sales tax and tariffs. That way, people's private lives aren't intruded upon (beyond obvious things like investigating violent crimes) and they can retain their natural rights. I'm especially sickened by property tax because it negates the very notion of owning property. No one should have to pay rent to the government to keep their property they already paid for. The government should be protecting people's property rights, not actively destroying them. So many things would be done with higher quality, efficiency and accountability if they were privatized and run by the free market anyway. No need to force everyone to pay for everything under the sun. I guess? But I was talking about effectively funding politicians to promise to work to expand public transit systems. In other words, forcing the public to pay for it, even if they don't use it. I'm not an anarchist, I believe the existence of government is helpful, I'm with you on that basic sentiment. and that it can and should be used to better the lives of as many people as possible. I believe I have sufficiently expressed why I think big government is a bad idea...but in case not: https://fee.org/articles/whats-so-bad-about-big-government-anyway/ |
SmugSatokoDec 24, 2024 5:33 AM
|
| Dump nuclear waste in public parks and cry about antisemitism when police tell me to stop. |
Mao said: If you have to shit, shit! If you have to fart, fart!  |
Reply to SmugSatoko
fleurbleue said:
Do you sabotage that fortune and distribute it in a way that benefits society, or would you rather embrace that new life and enjoy it without a care for the poor?
The question came to me as I was wondering what percentage of people hating billionaires would hypocritically change their mind if they suddenly become just as rich. It is hard to predict without it really happening, but I do hope that I'd have the guts to spend everything for good causes (but maybe keep just a few millions to make a few investments and live a relatively normal life from the interest).
So what about you? What would be your plan if it happened to you? You can answer seriously or with a touch of humor, all answers are accepted!
Do you sabotage that fortune and distribute it in a way that benefits society, or would you rather embrace that new life and enjoy it without a care for the poor?
The question came to me as I was wondering what percentage of people hating billionaires would hypocritically change their mind if they suddenly become just as rich. It is hard to predict without it really happening, but I do hope that I'd have the guts to spend everything for good causes (but maybe keep just a few millions to make a few investments and live a relatively normal life from the interest).
So what about you? What would be your plan if it happened to you? You can answer seriously or with a touch of humor, all answers are accepted!
Leftists are so economically illiterate...
First of all, no individual has billions of (US) dollars of fiat currency. Even the wealthiest own mere millions in actual cash. (Some as low as a few million.)
Billionaires only have theoretical net worth, tied up in ownership of companies and other non-liquid assets. They cannot simply sell those things off (or give them away) without disrupting (or even crashing) the market.
In other words, no one can spend that much cash to begin with. Purchases in the billion range are facilitated via asset exchange, not cash.
Billionaires have benefited all of society (including the poor) and driven innovation and prosperity more than any government or redistribution of wealth ever could.
Thanks to capitalism (basically the free exchange of goods and services, controlled by private individuals and groups rather than the state), humanity's standard of living has skyrocketed. In many ways, the poor of today are richer than the millionaires of the past, having access to things kings of old would never dream of. Even just decades ago, smartphones that cost a few hundred dollars now would have cost nearly a million then. And billionaires made all that happen more than anyone else has. They already made their contribution, so stop blaming them for the world's problems, and stop trying to place undue burdens on them that will only make matters worse.
Of course a notable percentage of those who profess aversion to free enterprise would change their tune if they became financially successful themselves. Leftism is the creed of jealousy, after all.
For the sake of argument, let's say you somehow had, say, a hundred billion in cash. Giving it away truly would sabotage that fortune, as, in addition to the fact that most of the things regular people would purchase would be quickly squandered, it would render it comparatively worthless in the market, devaluing currency and effectively making the general population poorer instead of richer. So much for benefiting society and caring for the poor...
Now, if someone inherited billions (whether from family or the magic of the thread topic), that does technically mean they are not the ones who benefited society. (At least yet.) However, this is rare. The majority of billionaires earned their wealth. And yes, they did rightfully earn it, as it involved voluntary exchanges between consenting adults, with few exceptions. Without business owners making investments and innovating, those businesses wouldn't exist in the first place.
Liberty is essential. Everyone should be (reasonably) free to make their own decisions, and accordingly be responsible for them. (That includes suffering the natural consequences of bad decisions.)
As for me...let's see. Music is my passion, along with high fidelity audio gear. I would start companies related to the development and manufacture of audio equipment (loudspeakers, headphones, electronics, etc.), the production and release of music (like record labels and music studios and stores), and other artistic endeavors. Creating video games and animated series could be fun...but I'd prefer focusing on making music and visual art. (Things anyone can do...but they can be done at a much higher level when your resources like money and time are abundant.)
I would not ignore philanthropy, but would take care to invest in causes that yield the optimal return for not only myself, but mankind...which may end up being businesses more often than charities.
Funding technology, science and the like would be another priority. I've always had ideas for nifty inventions.
I would be inclined to promote libertarian initiatives and oppose despotic ones...but I don't particularly care for the energy drain of political activism.
Daviljoe193 said:
Suicide in the middle of Wall Street, directly in front of the Charging Bull statue. I would want to cause as much sudden and instantaneous chaos as possible, even if the long-term effects are basically negligible.
Suicide in the middle of Wall Street, directly in front of the Charging Bull statue. I would want to cause as much sudden and instantaneous chaos as possible, even if the long-term effects are basically negligible.
...But why? Anyone can do that, so what's the point of not even trying to utilize so much money?
Good thing I'm poor (How many times have you heard someone say that before?), so I actually have something to live for. I'll save thoughts like that for when I'm 90 and in a nursing home... and also rich. 😈
Because people who aren't poor have nothing to live for, apparently...
LittleOwlbear said:
Last thing I wanna do is come in contact with other shady billionaires and their crimes against minors, taking advantage of working people or any shit like that.
Last thing I wanna do is come in contact with other shady billionaires and their crimes against minors, taking advantage of working people or any shit like that.
Right...you just (seemingly) want to force everyone to live under socialism...it's not like socialist states ever took advantage of anyone. Clearly they were suppressing, stealing from, imprisoning and killing all those millions of people for their own good! </sarcasm>
fleurbleue said:
Well, just don't try to buy the consent after the deed like some billionaires like to do.
Well, just don't try to buy the consent after the deed like some billionaires like to do.
If this is a reference to Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels, that was consensual. What he paid for was her silence on the matter.
There is also no evidence he raped anyone; just accusations. Even when he was sued for related damages, they didn't have the evidence to criminally convict him of rape.
While I'm at it, he is not a convicted felon either. (Being found guilty by a jury is not enough.) That won't be until he is sentenced by a judge and any appeals are dismissed. Considering he will be President next month, that may never happen, and they could go down in the history books as trumped-up charges. *ba dum tsh*
fleurbleue said:
If you are as much of a free speech absolutist as Elon Musk really is then we're all getting banned anyway.
If you are as much of a free speech absolutist as Elon Musk really is then we're all getting banned anyway.
How would everyone get banned because of someone who favors free speech? Or are you saying Elon is a hypocrite who bans anyone he pleases? Either way, he certainly does not ban everyone. X/Twitter is less repressive than the other major social media networks.
traed said:
To live you only need a few million.
To live you only need a few million.
You can survive on barely any money, really.
I'd just use the money on scientific research and funding groups that are actually effective at doing something useful
In other words, you would refrain from giving the money to the state? ;)
and maybe id use lobbying power to eliminate lobbying
Fighting fire with fire, I see.
though not before
Wait...you would try to become ruler of a country before doing the easier things?
I bring about privacy measures and various increases in freedoms or just buy my own country and run it how I see fit
I do hope you see the paradox here. If you run things how you see fit, that would interfere with others' privacy and freedom. I guess you only meant whichever level of privacy and freedom you deem suitable, while conveniently dispensing with the rest.
At any rate, it doesn't seem plausible to outright buy a nation.
till I can find the right people to help me create a utopia.
Because with a billion bucks, you'll surely be able to create a utopia that no one with vastly more wealth has been able to.
traed said:
A benevolent dictator. It doesn't mean I'd be tyrannical or totalitarian.
A benevolent dictator. It doesn't mean I'd be tyrannical or totalitarian.
Dictatorship cannot be benevolent. It's literally coercing all citizens to live by your whims, punishing anyone who disobeys or speaks out, etc.
You have to create a sustainable system before you can remove any hierarchal authority which would require assistance from political theorists, philosophers and legal experts.
Removing hierarchal authority...you mean anarchy? Anarchy is impossible, as it would either be invaded by another government or turn into its own government.
If you were to relinquish your (hypothetical) leadership, someone else would fill that power void. You don't need fancy experts to understand such obvious things.
fleurbleue said:
Well well, give enough money to traed and he becomes a dictator.
Well well, give enough money to traed and he becomes a dictator.
fleurbleue said:
That's what they always say at first! I'd give you a few years at best before you start to mistreat your dissidents.😜
That's what they always say at first! I'd give you a few years at best before you start to mistreat your dissidents.😜
lmao XD
Give enough money to a leftist and they will become a dictator.
Give enough money to a capitalist and they will become someone who continually benefits people's lives by bringing more things to the market.
fleurbleue said:
Even if they don't care about you and would most probably let you die if it gave them more money?
Even if they don't care about you and would most probably let you die if it gave them more money?
No one is obligated to care about you or be responsible for your survival. You are responsible for yourself. (With the exception of parent-child relationships.)
Besides, money is generally made by helping others. As I covered earlier, freer markets result in higher standards of living, so you are much more likely to thrive in a world that encourages economic freedom to the extent that some entrepreneurs bring products and services to the market that benefit so many people (and create so many jobs) they are able to become wealthy as a result. They have to care about others a fair amount to go to the trouble of developing those products and services, even if their primary motivation may be self-interest.
No one is letting anyone else die per se in this context. There's also this thing called charity, which is widely available.
fleurbleue said:
If we all loved them they would laugh about it and makes ways to make even more money out of us.
If we all loved them they would laugh about it and makes ways to make even more money out of us.
If they make more money, that means people are benefiting even more from their products and services, willingly paying for them; all the while, everyone becomes richer. (Remember, cash is not the only form of wealth. Having access to more affordable resources and improved technology is important too.)
Zettaiken said:
I am not that pathetic yet to complain about someone's success, doesn't matter if personal earnings or inherited.
I am not that pathetic yet to complain about someone's success, doesn't matter if personal earnings or inherited.
I'm genuinely proud of you. It takes strong character to respect everyone's right to self-determination.
DreamWindow said:
The alternative that many of these eat the rich types propose is abject poverty and subsistence living, but they are too stupid to realize that when you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, you no longer have a productive society, and thus can no longer prosper. Redistribution is a morally evil doctrine, as well as impracticable, due to the economic calculation problem. There is something to be said about abolishing subsidies, regulations, and corporate welfare that allow them to have special privileges, but this is not the same as redistribution.
The alternative that many of these eat the rich types propose is abject poverty and subsistence living, but they are too stupid to realize that when you kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, you no longer have a productive society, and thus can no longer prosper. Redistribution is a morally evil doctrine, as well as impracticable, due to the economic calculation problem. There is something to be said about abolishing subsidies, regulations, and corporate welfare that allow them to have special privileges, but this is not the same as redistribution.
Yes, many of the problems commonly blamed on free markets are in reality caused by forces that oppose free markets, such as certain companies using the power of the state to give themselves advantages. So many businesses are prevented from even starting because of excessive regulations.
GrimAtrament said:
Id give most that money away to medical research. Turn in all the information on the corruption going on in the companies I have shared in. End any and all grifts that the billionaire was responsible for. Before using the remaining funds to completely isolate myself from the world. Probably focus on writing. If I'm in a billionaires body that means I am no longer with my family or friends. Call me sentimental but id rather be with them instead of rich.
I'd also probably submit myself to scientific research because if body swapping is a thing the damn well want to know how and why it happened
Id give most that money away to medical research. Turn in all the information on the corruption going on in the companies I have shared in. End any and all grifts that the billionaire was responsible for. Before using the remaining funds to completely isolate myself from the world. Probably focus on writing. If I'm in a billionaires body that means I am no longer with my family or friends. Call me sentimental but id rather be with them instead of rich.
I'd also probably submit myself to scientific research because if body swapping is a thing the damn well want to know how and why it happened
That's an interesting twist on the thread topic: instead of magically receiving billions, you're magically reincarnated as an existing billionaire.
Dumb said:
if i’m Elon Musk- i kms
if i’m Elon Musk- i kms
User name checks out. Elon is responsible for advancing civilization in multiple arenas, and is a champion of human rights and making the world more free and prosperous.
NoelleIsSleepy said:
fund the best lawyers to sue the shit out of corporations and the government on grounds of monopoly, conflict of interest, and violating human rights.
fund the best lawyers to sue the shit out of corporations and the government on grounds of monopoly, conflict of interest, and violating human rights.
Those are too vague. To win lawsuits, you need more specific charges.
Timeline_man said:
assuming this also means I'm in the same positions as one of these people (i.e, CEO of a successful business), I'd probably start by shifting the internal structure of my business to refocus on people over profits, slowly sabotaging my own stock prices. Then, just before the investors realize I'm actively sabotaging them, buy their shares to return control of the company to myself. With whatever remains, and the lessened new profits, I'd be funding political lobbies for things like single-payer healthcare, affordable housing legislation and creation, better funding for services like mass transit, the postal service, and public schools.
assuming this also means I'm in the same positions as one of these people (i.e, CEO of a successful business), I'd probably start by shifting the internal structure of my business to refocus on people over profits, slowly sabotaging my own stock prices. Then, just before the investors realize I'm actively sabotaging them, buy their shares to return control of the company to myself. With whatever remains, and the lessened new profits, I'd be funding political lobbies for things like single-payer healthcare, affordable housing legislation and creation, better funding for services like mass transit, the postal service, and public schools.
Your misguided "people over profit" philosophy would eventually cause the business to go under...then the people you claim to care about wouldn't get paid at all. (Unless you donate your personal fortune to them...but it would likely mostly be shares in the company rather than cash. If you neglect profit, that would indeed sabotage stock prices, making your shares worth considerably less. Giving away shares in a dying company will hasten its demise as well.)
You don't need to own all shares in a company to wield influence over it. (Elon Musk only owns roughly 20% of Tesla. It was around 13% earlier this year.) You can't just force investors to sell their shares...but once they notice you're actively harming the company, they could willingly do so, making the business fail even faster. Then again, plenty of CEOs are simply fired when they cause problems, given they don't own at least 51% of the shares.
Profit is the very thing people need to pay for anything. Your worldview is counterintuitive, to say the least.
As for putting money into the hands of governments (which are wildly inefficient and unaccountable), that is the absolute best way to waste it, make everything more expensive, and erode individual human rights.
Either individuals have rights or no one has rights. And the only rights individuals have are the right to life, liberty, property, the pursuit of happiness, and defending them by any and all means necessary. These are rights to action, not reward. You do not have a right to receive anything at the expense of others, because that would mean they don't possess the aforementioned rights. Universal health care is a disaster anyway.
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights/health-care-is-not-a-right/
| @SmugSatoko well tldr. but brother, as much as you are entitled to your opinion, I'd be careful with the kind of information you consume, particularly before passing it off as facts. pragerU is not the most reliable source out there, and they have a particularly transparent agenda. you can use this website to find better (non-biased) sources for research and reporting, though it doesn't cover every source: https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ SmugSatoko said: Those are too vague. To win lawsuits, you need more specific charges. that's what my fancy lawyers are for |
NoelleIsSleepyDec 24, 2024 4:35 PM
| can't yuck my yum |
| The first thing I would do is give my family and friends money so they can live comfortably as well and then I would buy stuff for myself and go travel around the world. I would also invest into properties so that money will just keep on flowing in. I would like to donate money as well but I would need to find charities were I know all money is going to the cause and not only a portion of it. |
“Maybe nothing in this world happens by accident. As everything happens for a reason, our destiny slowly takes form.” - Rayleigh  |
NoelleIsSleepy said: well tldr. but brother, as much as you are entitled to your opinion, I'd be careful with the kind of information you consume, particularly before passing it off as facts. pragerU is not the most reliable source out there, and they have a particularly transparent agenda. you can use this website to find better (non-biased) sources for research and reporting, though it doesn't cover every source: https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ Yet another useless ad hominem reply with no substance, completely ignoring the actual information. "I didn't read what you said, but it's probably wrong because you mentioned a source I don't like." lmfao. Don't insult my intelligence. I would not have shared the damn videos if the information in them was not accurate. They just expanded on the points I already made. "Non-biased" my ass. Everyone is biased. I research sources from all over the map. It just so happens that the right is right on this issue. |
SmugSatokoDec 25, 2024 3:40 AM
|
| you mean like Jeff Besos ? I would probabyl buy a new computer and then I will buy ELDEN RING |
Reply to SmugSatoko
NoelleIsSleepy said:
well tldr. but brother, as much as you are entitled to your opinion, I'd be careful with the kind of information you consume, particularly before passing it off as facts. pragerU is not the most reliable source out there, and they have a particularly transparent agenda. you can use this website to find better (non-biased) sources for research and reporting, though it doesn't cover every source: https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
well tldr. but brother, as much as you are entitled to your opinion, I'd be careful with the kind of information you consume, particularly before passing it off as facts. pragerU is not the most reliable source out there, and they have a particularly transparent agenda. you can use this website to find better (non-biased) sources for research and reporting, though it doesn't cover every source: https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/
Yet another useless ad hominem reply with no substance, completely ignoring the actual information. "I didn't read what you said, but it's probably wrong because you mentioned a source I don't like." lmfao. Don't insult my intelligence. I would not have shared the damn videos if the information in them was not accurate. They just expanded on the points I already made.
"Non-biased" my ass. Everyone is biased. I research sources from all over the map. It just so happens that the right is right on this issue.
| @SmugSatoko ok dude if you say so lol |
| can't yuck my yum |
More topics from this board
» Worst philosophies ( 1 2 )JaniSIr - Sep 6 |
93 |
by XMGA030
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» What are you doing right now? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )-Mayhem- - Dec 25, 2020 |
1716 |
by Retro8bit
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» 100 yen shop (dollar store, euro store)kuroneko99 - Sep 6 |
17 |
by Retro8bit
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» All sentient beings share one consciousness?memeticmeme - Yesterday |
11 |
by Retro8bit
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» Thoughts on utopia?getah_karet - Aug 30 |
17 |
by Sawilagar
»»
14 minutes ago |