Andrew Rogers

So basically they want to have an ability to vote for redistributing someone else' money to themselves?

What is the difference between them?

whom are we talking about?

Bearded guy - marx or the sharia promoter?

Wishful thinking... This is going on in UK, Germany, France... I am not saying that all migrants are bad people on personal level, but they are a part of very nasty ideology. Same if you would teleport to 1940s Germany and meet a Nazi officer in a bar, probably you might be able to talk to him and find him to be a normal human being, yet still he would be a part of a deadly ideology.

LOL ISIS was defeated like a year ago.

Haven't been to Sweden, but have been to UK and Germany - major cities are filled with migrants. Less then half of people where are of a native origin. You might argue, that migrants are good people and truly most of them are, but they are not native, they don't see the host country as their homeland, they will not defend it. Moreover, there is an aggressive Islamist minority of migrants that seem to be almost unpunishable, for exmaple acid attacks in the UK, rape-gangs, etc.

Sounds like a cult-thinking to me. It has been tried multiple times and always failed miserably, why do you think this time it might be any different? It was predicted by Karl Marx - appeared to be bullshit. You don't seem to understand how free market works - you can make a profit only by serving your fellow people. In your analogy, the cell is self-centered, but in order to get food for itself, it has to serve other cells. A farmer doesn't get up at 6 o'clock in the morning to milk his cows, so that you would have fresh milk. He is doing it to get money to feed his family, which he gets by serving you fresh milk. So you propose that instead of people voting with their wallets on what good and services they need, should there be some anointed bureaucrat deciding?

From history we usually see that when a nation turns from "orange capitalism" to "green socialism" - it either collapses on itself or is taken over by barbarians, like Sweden. Therefor "level green" certainly is achievable, when a nation has more wealth, then it needs, but it seems more of a terminal stage, not something desirable.

Look at the whole generation. Well, that's how the system of free market capitalism work - you earn as much, as other people value your work. No more, no less. Such power usually lies in the hand of the government, much, much less in corporations. Therefor - less government - less possibility to damage you.

Was this "level green" ever sustained in real world? Where, when? If not, then maybe it is just an illusion? You do have a few logical fallacies here.

I think that color representation chart is bullshit and has little to do with reality. It might be representative as a concept of a life cycle, i.e. after "green", instead of going to live in a turquoise eternal bliss, the society is taken over by red/blue barbarians, as it happened in Rome and is now happening the western Europe.

Corrupt politicians sure have a big say in this. So was I ! Got swayed to the center by the right's stupid 'war on drugs' thing. Currently I see that both left and right are equally crazy and corrupt.

Check the UN poverty statistics, it is happening, or at least compare how you live and how your great grandfather did. Maybe listen to Milton Friedman? - "A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

In such case they certainly need to be liable for the harm they did.

I think it should be left for voluntarily negotiations. But usually employees are payed for their work and don't get a say in how to run the company, while shareholders have bough their shares and, therefor, are partial owners of the company, so they do have a say in how to run it.

I heard of that as a socialist talking point, yet I do not think that's how it works in real life, if we are talking about free market capitalism, i.e. where wealth is created by offering people goods and services, rather then crony capitalism, where the oligarchs are in cahoots with the politicians, that force people to buy their stuff involuntarily.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by "social and capital" distribution. Yes, I know this tactic of asking minor, irrelevant questions in an attempt to show your counterpart as incompetent. Yet in this case your suggestion was really very wage, so asking for clarification seemed reasonable.

Yes, that's certainly a valid point. Maybe the patent laws should be reevaluated, for example granting not a 20 year, but a 10 year patent. On the other hand, if you would abolish patents all together, companies would not have a motive to invest in any drug development. Look at CBD, since it can not be patented, companies are not doing research on it and are not trying to register it as a drug.

You are looking at wealth as if it is finite. As if 100 gold coins have fallen from the sky onto 100 people, yet one person took 90 and the rest got 0.1 coin each. I don't think how it works in real life, where wealth is not static. It is created and it also diminished all the time, so you have to recreate it to stay at the same level. So if you shoot all the billionaires, steal their wealth, squander it and now you're dirt poor, as it happened in the soviet union.

Could you be more specific. What board, who would be the 40% social, how would they be elected, etc?

Could you maybe name a specific example that we can dissect?

A rather lame manipulation - if my pov differs from your, therefor I was shaped by propaganda and conditioning. How can a corporation be stealing from me? Via corrupt politicians, who force me to by "green electricity" at a higher rate. Or by corporations stiffing competitors and, therefor, being able to keep the prices high. Solution - more free marker and less government involvement. I don't see how paying extra taxed would automatically result in a better wellbeing of others.

Why just tax billionaires out of existence? Why not ship them off to Siberia, or just shoot them and redistribute their property, as it was done in Russia, China, etc. ?

Don't you think that currently it is much easier for big corporations to buy off a few politicians, then a whole bunch of people? Yes, people can be wrong, yes, they can made stupid decisions. But so can, and often do, politicians.