• Socialism Has Never Worked?
    171 replies, posted
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855311]Nice meme! Human nature doesn't exit. People act and think differently based off of the material conditions theyre brought in. People are greedy and want to step over people because the material conditions of capitalism they grew up in taught them that, If people were brought in the material conditions of socialism, which puts more emphasis of social cooperation and such, theyll think like that instead.[/QUOTE] Capitalism works so well because it takes and guides natural human behavior, not because capitalism shapes human behavior itself. Take any lesson in economics and you'll know that capitalism is based entirely on mutual (and entirely natural) self-interest creating value. The only real social contract that is required is that you respect other people's property and have a system of law that enforces that respect. Go look at a list of common law countries (most commonly associated with capitalist democracies) vs a list of civil law countries (associated with socialism and systems like it) and you'll notice that common law countries almost universally have a better standard of living. Maybe we'll have a wonderful star-trek civilization when we have replicators and infinite energy, where man-kind can leave behind it's self-interest, but as it stands being raised a socialist doesn't suddenly make you less interested in your own well being. Its really the most basic law of human nature and in fact, all nature everywhere.
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855615]The socialist societies listed here failed literally because the "wtf we got to stop this!!!". Also, how is this an argument spoiler: it isnt[/QUOTE] The assumption that socialism failed because of "wtf we got to stop this!!!!" is nothing more than an attempt to victimize itself in order to shift the blame from the issues of socialism to foreign condemnation. Or maybe you're just mistaken about what "literally" means, and are saying something you don't mean to? By the way, telling people "this isn't an argument" isn't really an argument either. Might want to actually include your own attempt at it in your posts, apart from just stating that.
[QUOTE=ntzu;50855616]Capitalism works so well because it takes and guides natural human behavior, not because capitalism shapes human behavior itself. Take any lesson in economics and you'll know that capitalism is based entirely on mutual (and entirely natural) self-interest creating value. The only real social contract that is required is that you respect other people's property and have a system of law that enforces that respect. Go look at a list of common law countries (most commonly associated with capitalist democracies) vs a list of civil law countries (associated with socialism and systems like it) and you'll notice that common law countries almost universally have a better standard of living. Maybe we'll have a wonderful star-trek civilization when we have replicators and infinite energy, where man-kind can leave behind it's self-interest, but as it stands being raised a socialist doesn't suddenly make you less interested in your own well being. Its really the most basic law of human nature and in fact, all nature everywhere.[/QUOTE] Having a system that forces you to act in a capitalist manner does indeed shape human behavior. If you wanted to act socialist instead, that is not a "human behavior" that is supported by Capitalism.
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855496]This is not an argument[/QUOTE] most of them were short-lived statelets that formed in a power vacuum in the middle of a brutal civil war or the aftermath of a revolution also considering he's willing to bullshit about hungary and ignore the obvious flaws of one state (plus the fact he also cites yugoslavia, chile, and czechoslovakia as successful socialist societies) means he's obviously not considering quality of life at the least in terms of what makes a society "successful" [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] human behaviour is malleable to a limited extent the real reason socialist organised economies don't work is more down to math than anything else. the larger and more complex a society becomes the more difficult it is to maintain economic principles as espoused by socialist thought societies that are perfectly socialist and also large (1 billion+) aren't impossible because of human nature, it's because they are logistically unfeasible and unsustainable
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50855651]most of them were short-lived statelets that formed in a power vacuum in the middle of a brutal civil war or the aftermath of a revolution also considering he's willing to bullshit about hungary and ignore the obvious flaws of one state (plus the fact he also cites yugoslavia, chile, and czechoslovakia as successful socialist societies) means he's obviously not considering quality of life at the least in terms of what makes a society "successful" [editline]9th August 2016[/editline] human behaviour is malleable to a limited extent the real reason socialist organised economies don't work is more down to math than anything else. the larger and more complex a society becomes the more difficult it is to maintain economic principles as espoused by socialist thought societies that are perfectly socialist and also large (1 billion+) aren't impossible because of human nature, it's because they are logistically unfeasible and unsustainable[/QUOTE] Let's take one socialist republic here: Revolutionary Catalonia. Living standards improved, production improved, education improved, and all of these things improved under the system of Anarcho-Syndaclism. I'd argue quality of life here was better than say something like yugoslavia or hungary. Also, I would like it if you went into more detail about what socialist thought you mean when you say "socialist thought" since many socialist beliefs exist. And I also want full statistics and this 'math' that proves that it is unusable with a larger society.
[QUOTE=RB33;50855650]Having a system that forces you to act in a capitalist manner does indeed shape human behavior. If you wanted to act socialist instead, that is not a "human behavior" that is supported by Capitalism.[/QUOTE] Capitalism doesn't force you to do anything, nor does socialism. If you honestly believe that the place in which you are raised somehow alters or even suppresses the natural survival instinct of a human being, you're vastly underestimating just how much animal is still within us. Capitalism works because you can 'act' however you want, but you are guided to respect property and to preserve value for the future. Through your own self-interest, you pander to the self-interest of others. If you own and live in a house and intend to sell it in the future, you are naturally incentivized to keep that house in good repair, and even improve it to boost its value. If you live in a house but the government owns it, you are more incentivized to get as much of a free ride as you possibly can. Why would you keep it repaired or cleaned beyond what you need to live? It's simply not logical to put in work on a project in which you gain no return, this is basic decision making and logical deduction. You're honestly telling me that this wonderful people risen by the glowing tenants of socialism would universally go "Sure! I'll spend my labor and put in real effort to renovate this government owned housing JUST for the next guy that comes along"? The most basic tenant of capitalism is that when trading, with both parties are on equal footing, they will not trade unless it benefits them both, creating value. Tell me, is it logical to make a trade when you ultimately make a loss on it? If so, go ahead and send me one of those 200 dollar knife skins on steam, and ill give you a 9 cent skin. I'll be sure to thank you for it.
[QUOTE=ntzu;50855706]Capitalism doesn't force you to do anything, [/quote] Blatantly incorrect. If you do not work, you will starve to death. You are forced to engage in wave slavery. [quote] If you own and live in a house and intend to sell it in the future, you are naturally incentivized to keep that house in good repair, and even improve it to boost its value. If you live in a house but the government owns it, you are more incentivized to get as much of a free ride as you possibly can. Why would you keep it repaired or cleaned beyond what you need to live? It's simply not logical to put in work on a project in which you gain no return, this is basic decision making and logical deduction. [/quote] This makes no sense. Many people let their houses become a mess under capitalism. People fix a house up if they plan to sell it, but that says nothing about the house while the own it. [quote] You're honestly telling me that this wonderful people risen by the glowing tenants of socialism would universally go "Sure! I'll spend my labor and put in real effort to renovate this government owned housing JUST for the next guy that comes along"? [/quote] Do you think he's getting nothing out of this? His labour is going unrewarded?
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855746] Do you think he's getting nothing out of this? His labour is going unrewarded?[/QUOTE] People have directly implied that self-interest is not inherent human nature, are you saying that he is *gasp* incentivized by self-interest? Even as a socialist? That's my point, self-interest is king and capitalism does best because it directly panders to it and supports it. I'm sorry if you don't like that reality but it's the truth. [QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855746]This makes no sense. Many people let their houses become a mess under capitalism. People fix a house up if they plan to sell it, but that says nothing about the house while the own it.[/QUOTE] If you're basing this on say, the U.S. or the U.K., keep in mind that neither of these countries are pure examples of capitalism, alot of property issues especially have to do with government fiddling in the market (rent control), creating huge issues. [QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855746]Blatantly incorrect. If you do not work, you will starve to death. You are forced to engage in wave slavery.[/QUOTE] This is true everywhere, this is true even in nature. Are you saying that capitalism literally invented the need to eat and drink or something? You must work to survive, and whilst the nature of that work has changed (instead of hunting for food with spears, we sell our labor on the labor market and gain compensation in the form of notes that hold exchange value, which we then exchange for food and so on.) There is a reason why government run endeavours are usually overpriced and yet very low quality, and yet similar private ventures can get far more done with far less money: self-interest. Edit: Here actually, let me explain why rent control (an inherently socialist thing to do) is a problem. [t]http://www.lidderdale.com/econ/104/gifs/Fig3-4.gif[/t] Rent control is what you call a [I]'price ceiling'[/I], this prevents prices from rising beyond a certain level. This graph already explains it, but essentially: You see where those two lines meet? Simply put (and leaving a bunch out) that's where supply and demand come together to provide what people want. The price ceiling distorts this natural process and forces suppliers to supply less, and incentivizes consumers to buy more - this leaves what we call a [I]shortage[/I]. A shortage means that people who want housing, even if they can afford it, cannot get it as supply is simply too low. Additionally, a shortage also means that landlords do not need to pay as much attention to their properties as demand is artifically inflated, creating excess demand that allows even shitty properties to sell.
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855746][B]Blatantly incorrect. If you do not work, you will starve to death. You are forced to engage in wave slavery.[/B] This makes no sense. Many people let their houses become a mess under capitalism. People fix a house up if they plan to sell it, but that says nothing about the house while the own it. Do you think he's getting nothing out of this? His labour is going unrewarded?[/QUOTE] What is so bad about this? If you're not physically or mentally incapable you should have a goddamn job (assuming there are enough jobs in the first place). I'm all for socialist programs like welfare and shit that help people out who are searching for jobs, unable to work, or are stuck in a particularly tough place but you shouldn't get free shit just because you're alive.
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855746]Blatantly incorrect. If you do not work, you will starve to death. You are forced to engage in wave slavery. [/QUOTE] I'm sorry but I find the notion of "you have to [I]WORK[/I] to survive, it's so [B]horrible![/B]" somewhat comedic.
[QUOTE=ntzu;50855706]Capitalism doesn't force you to do anything.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Through your own self-interest, you pander to the self-interest of others.[/QUOTE] If it makes me follow my self-interest without me wanting to, it's forcing me. [QUOTE]The most basic tenant of capitalism is that when trading, with both parties are on equal footing, they will not trade unless it benefits them both, creating value. Tell me, is it logical to make a trade when you ultimately make a loss on it?[/QUOTE] This is Capitalism summarized. You make a loss because you have no other choice. Don't want to take a job, you don't want. Then go hungry and become homeless. You are then forced to take that job in order to avoid that. I want no one to be forced to take a job but do it because they gain from it.
Socialism is a fantastic idea on paper, but due to corruption and greed it produces much more unstable society and government than capitalism in my opinion.
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855746]Blatantly incorrect. If you do not work, you will starve to death. You are forced to engage in wave slavery.[/QUOTE] Since when does socialism magically feed people who don't work? You are more likely to starve to death in Venezuela than in most capitalist countries last time I checked, even if you do work
And yes, food, housing should be free to everyone. Socialism is better. Simply because Capitalism is incapable of doing that.
[QUOTE=ntzu;50855706]If you live in a house but the government owns it, you are more incentivized to get as much of a free ride as you possibly can. Why would you keep it repaired or cleaned beyond what you need to live? It's simply not logical to put in work on a project in which you gain no return, this is basic decision making and logical deduction.[/QUOTE] What? Yes it is logical. Just like it is logical to limit your own environmental footprint even if the consequences of pollution affect everyone regardless of their involvement in eco-friendly initiatives. You keep claiming self-interest is king, but it is blatantly false. Human beings are social animals for a reason, they achieve better results through cooperation. Sure, they may try to achieve dominance if they believe it will benefit them, but if cooperation yields better results people have the brain power to understand that and act accordingly. Whether they recognize opportunities of beneficial cooperation does depends heavily on their upbringing and environment. Just because you personally can't see it doesn't mean it's the case for all of us.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;50855840]Since when does socialism magically feed people who don't work? You are more likely to starve to death in Venezuela than in most capitalist countries last time I checked, even if you do work[/QUOTE] venezeula is a banana republic state, the workers dont own the means of production and society isnt commonly own. this meme needs to die. I'm not saying people that dont work should be automatically treated like kings, those who dont work only get the required amount needed to live (very barebones with no extra luxuries and such). If you want more, that is why you work.
[QUOTE=SirJon;50855783]I'm sorry but I find the notion of "you have to [I]WORK[/I] to survive, it's so [B]horrible![/B]" somewhat comedic.[/QUOTE] There's a pretty big difference between being exploited and getting a pittance in return and making a living. The issue lies in employers taking advantage of the demand for jobs to get as much as possible out of their employees, who have no choice but to comply if they want to have enough money to live. This is not about people wanting to sleep all day and play videogames instead of contributing to society, this is about people being taken advantage of and it kinda disgusts me that you'd make that comparison.
[QUOTE=RB33;50855794]You are then forced to take that job in order to avoid that. I want no one to be forced to take a job but do it because they gain from it.[/QUOTE] This thinking is directly supported by the global economy. You literally wouldn't even think to say this if you were living somewhere not linked to capitalism in any way. I would love to sit around all day and not be 'forced' to pander to my own self-interest, but alas I must occasionally peel my ass from my computer chair to get some food from the fridge, woe is me! You ALWAYS gain from a job, otherwise you simply wouldn't be there (or you're being actively forced to be there, ala ACTUAL slavery). You get paid, this gives you purchasing power in which you utilize at will to purchase food, water, housing, and other things that improve your quality of life. Even the poorest in America have a quality of life FAR beyond the people living in scrap huts in Africa; they more often than not have TV, microwaves, easy refrigeration, access to the internet, and other amenities. This isn't just a lucky coincidence, its directly linked to capitalism, why do you think many African nations are still living horribly despite the absolutely immense amount of aid money that has been pumped into them? Capitalism and our current interpretation of it is far from perfect, but the evidence is incredibly clear that capitalist nations, and those that uphold the tenants of capitalism, are almost always better off than other nations. [URL="http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking"]http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking [/URL] Take a look at this listing of nations based on their economic freedom, what do you notice? [QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855930]Poor people in America live better off specifically because of socialist-esque programs and movements. 8 hour work days, a higher min wage or even a min wage at all came from socialist thinking workers. If anything, Africa is capitalism in its purest form. Glorious ancapistan and sweatshops.[/QUOTE] Incorrect, many African nations are the way they are due to insufficient rule of law (which is required for proper economic growth and capitalism to actually work), and serious instability. It's difficult to be an entrepeneur and create genuine value when your factory and company can be swept out from under you at any moment due to regime change or even just a bunch of people with AK47's storming the place. Try to imagine Steve Jobs starting his business in Zimbabwe. Also, don't get me wrong, sometimes socialist programs can work quite well (even though they usually don't thanks to oh-so-reliable government oversight), but pure socialism is simply untenable. [QUOTE=_Axel;50855894]There's a pretty big difference between being exploited and getting a pittance in return and making a living. The issue lies in employers taking advantage of the demand for jobs to get as much as possible out of their employees, who have no choice but to comply if they want to have enough money to live. This is not about people wanting to sleep all day and play videogames instead of contributing to society, this is about people being taken advantage of and it kinda disgusts me that you'd make that comparison.[/QUOTE] I'm probably going to get lynched for this, but uh... remember the explanation I did on price ceilings? Well there's also a thing called a price floor, the minimum wage is one such price floor. [t]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NElepK_UTvo/UIPKd5-cDDI/AAAAAAAAAAs/9P2OwOUfkqw/s1600/figur3.gif[/t] When prices are established above market equilibrium, an excess supply is created (as in, excess labor). The rest should be clear.
Poor people in America live better off specifically because of socialist-esque programs and movements. 8 hour work days, a higher min wage or even a min wage at all came from socialist thinking workers. If anything, Africa is capitalism in its purest form. Glorious ancapistan and sweatshops.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50855950]Following your self interest [I]is human nature[/I]. Survival has been the #1 instinct of all animal species that have.. uhh, survived? Humans are no exception- civilization has made it more complicated but it still is what it was, people are now working together to survive, against other people mostly. Socialism's ideals are not fit for us as it is expected to act in unison and not strive for more for the greater good, which is against human nature; acquiring more resources ensures your survival, so is natural. Altruism makes this selfishness harder to detect, and sometimes forms dilemmas, which is also a trait that used to be beneficial for survival, but of the species. I am not advocating for these instincts and traits. They are obsolete. While we are a very advanced species where an individual can have a really unique character, a set of traits, but thinking that we have phased out of our roots is being dishonest. Capitalist society's work obligations are natural.[/QUOTE] Did you even read my point or am I going to have to repeat myself?
[QUOTE=ntzu;50855910]This thinking is directly supported by the global economy. You literally wouldn't even think to say this if you were living somewhere not linked to capitalism in any way. I would love to sit around all day and not be 'forced' to pander to my own self-interest, but alas I must occasionally peel my ass from my computer chair to get some food from the fridge, woe is me! You ALWAYS gain from a job, otherwise you simply wouldn't be there (or you're being actively forced to be there, ala ACTUAL slavery). You get paid, this gives you purchasing power in which you utilize at will to purchase food, water, housing, and other things that improve your quality of life.[/QUOTE] I'm still forced to work or I will be punished for it. That's restricting freedom, socialism removes the requirment of working makes you more free and you always work because you want to, not because you need to. You would still work because you are still not handed everything for free. Just now you can live without being worried by need to pay your food or housing.
So, above all, why is Mahno is listed as Socialist in the video?
[QUOTE=ntzu;50855706]Capitalism doesn't force you to do anything, nor does socialism. If you honestly believe that the place in which you are raised somehow alters or even suppresses the natural survival instinct of a human being, you're vastly underestimating just how much animal is still within us. Capitalism works because you can 'act' however you want, but you are guided to respect property and to preserve value for the future. Through your own self-interest, you pander to the self-interest of others. If you own and live in a house and intend to sell it in the future, you are naturally incentivized to keep that house in good repair, and even improve it to boost its value. [B]If you live in a house but the government owns it, you are more incentivized to get as much of a free ride as you possibly can. Why would you keep it repaired or cleaned beyond what you need to live? It's simply not logical to put in work on a project in which you gain no return, this is basic decision making and logical deduction. You're honestly telling me that this wonderful people risen by the glowing tenants of socialism would universally go "Sure! I'll spend my labor and put in real effort to renovate this government owned housing JUST for the next guy that comes along"? The most basic tenant of capitalism is that when trading, with both parties are on equal footing, they will not trade unless it benefits them both, creating value. Tell me, is it logical to make a trade when you ultimately make a loss on it?[/B] If so, go ahead and send me one of those 200 dollar knife skins on steam, and ill give you a 9 cent skin. I'll be sure to thank you for it.[/QUOTE] This is one of the biggest problems with government subsidized housing. You get entitled shits who just trash the place. It's no coincidence that the stronger the protections are for tenants, the higher the relative rent vs buy prices are. Yes, there are other factors. People on subsidized housing are often less educated, or otherwise less capable. Entitlement and general ignorance are [i]massive[/i] problems. Ask any landlord with more than 10-20 units about their experiences with section 8 tenants in the US. They will nearly universally tell you that they are fucking awful. You can't collect from them, the government pays for their lawyers, and their HUD representitives will try to fuck you using trumped up pretexts. It's nothing but high risk, with practically zero incentive, and they will almost never be punished for destroying a place. Taking on section 8 tenants costs you tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages, and the rents have to be substantially higher to insure against that. It's the exact same thing as insane interest rates for people with bad credit. The honest ones are paying for the dishonest ones. [QUOTE=ntzu;50855764]Here actually, let me explain why rent control (an inherently socialist thing to do) is a problem. [t]http://www.lidderdale.com/econ/104/gifs/Fig3-4.gif[/t] Rent control is what you call a [I]'price ceiling'[/I], this prevents prices from rising beyond a certain level. This graph already explains it, but essentially: You see where those two lines meet? Simply put (and leaving a bunch out) that's where supply and demand come together to provide what people want. The price ceiling distorts this natural process and forces suppliers to supply less, and incentivizes consumers to buy more - this leaves what we call a [I]shortage[/I]. A shortage means that people who want housing, even if they can afford it, cannot get it as supply is simply too low. Additionally, a shortage also means that landlords do not need to pay as much attention to their properties as demand is artifically inflated, creating excess demand that allows even shitty properties to sell.[/QUOTE] This is a major problem in places like NYC. It's no coincidence that rent control leads to slums. Landlords aren't running charities (with a few exceptions). Cutting out profitable market segments leads to stagnation. If you can't turn a profit, you either cut corners until you can, or you leave the market and go elsewhere. Cities that have simple and cheap zoning/permits consistently grow in pace with industry, even right after the housing crash. [quote]In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.[/quote]
[QUOTE=gufu;50855981]So, above all, why is Mahno is listed as Socialist in the video?[/QUOTE] anarchists believe him to be socialist
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50855974]? I didnt reply to you?[/QUOTE] Your post was more or less saying the same thing as another post I responded to.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50855950]Following your self interest [I]is human nature[/I]. Survival has been the #1 instinct of all animal species that have.. uhh, survived? Humans are no exception- civilization has made it more complicated but it still is what it was, people are now working together to survive, against other people mostly. Socialism's ideals are not fit for us as it is expected to act in unison and not strive for more for the greater good, which is against human nature; acquiring more resources ensures your survival, so is natural. Altruism makes this selfishness harder to detect, and sometimes forms dilemmas, which is also a trait that used to be beneficial for survival, but of the species. I am not advocating for these instincts and traits. They are obsolete. While we are a very advanced species where an individual can have a really unique character, a set of traits, but thinking that we have phased out of our roots is being dishonest. Capitalist society's work obligations are natural.[/QUOTE] I want to care about other people, not only blindly caring about myself. There isn't a need for survival today, we have move passed that stage of civilization. The only need for survival is caused by Capitalism today. Making people fight each other for their own sake instead of fighting together for the improvement of all.
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;50855988]anarchists believe him to be socialist[/QUOTE] Man, the guy just can't catch a break, can he?
[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;50855778]What is so bad about this? If you're not physically or mentally incapable you should have a goddamn job (assuming there are enough jobs in the first place)[/QUOTE] that's a whole lot of assumptions right there
[QUOTE=RB33;50855847]And yes, food, housing should be free to everyone. Socialism is better. Simply because Capitalism is incapable of doing that.[/QUOTE] It isn't incapable of doing that, it outright rejects doing that which isn't bad. Nobody is entitled to the things you said, just because it's necessary to survive. Everyone has to work for it. Nothing can be completely free in the first place anyways. If one person got those things for free, someone else had to pay for him. What you're saying sounds like enabling laziness sugar coated in naive altruism honestly. [QUOTE=_Axel;50855853]Human beings are social animals for a reason, they achieve better results through cooperation.[/QUOTE] Only that we don't live in the wild anymore. That's the only reason we became social animals. Because we weren't strong enough predators to survive alone. In this system we have created for ourselves (going to school, find a job, make money, buy the things you need), individuals don't need a group to survive. So whatever we have been before is pretty redundant in our new man-made ecosystem. And if you look at human history, the only reason we advanced so much is literally because of competition. [QUOTE=_Axel;50855894]There's a pretty big difference between being exploited and getting a pittance in return and making a living. The issue lies in employers taking advantage of the demand for jobs to get as much as possible out of their employees, who have no choice but to comply if they want to have enough money to live. This is not about people wanting to sleep all day and play videogames instead of contributing to society, this is about people being taken advantage of and it kinda disgusts me that you'd make that comparison.[/QUOTE] The answer is: Regulate capitalism. Not replace it with this overly idealistic system that hasn't worked so far.
[QUOTE=RB33;50855999]I want to care about other people, not blindly only care about myself. There isn't a need for survival today, we have move passed that stage of civilization. The only need for survival is caused by Capitalism today. Making people fight each other for their own sake instead of fighting together for the improvement of all.[/QUOTE] Capitalism is all about efficiently allocating resources to those who derive the most value from those resources. If your business is making losses, it means that you're taking valued (and limited) resources and devaluing them, as others do not want what you are creating. When this business eventually fails, its what economists call 'creative destruction'. The business fails yes, people go without jobs yes, but this frees up those resources (both physical and human) to be utilized by those who can more efficiently derive value from said resources. If Steve Jobs or Bill Gates didn't care for themselves, we wouldn't have Microsoft or Apple, and the operating system + browser you're using would not exist. This is entirely necessary, and the beauty of capitalism is that blindly caring for yourself means you must care about the needs of others as well.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.