From: fedora@fea.st   
      
   On Sun, 1 Feb 2026 10:06:31 -0800, Dude  wrote:   
      
   >On 2/1/2026 9:03 AM, Wilson wrote:   
   >> On 1/31/2026 4:44 PM, Dude wrote:   
   >>> On 1/31/2026 10:30 AM, dart200 wrote:   
   >>>> because billionaires don't have morals, and are slave to chasing what   
   >>>> they perceive as profit regardless of the effect of others   
   >>>>   
   >>>> there's a reason rich people can't make it into heaven   
   >>>>   
   >>>> cause we can't even build heaven when rich people exist   
   >>>>   
   >>> Because it's obvious that you are biased by even using the term "rich".   
   >>> There's a good reason people don't want to be equally poor.   
   >>   
   >> By global standards everyone here is rich.   
   >>   
   >> If there were somehow a sudden great leveling of worldwide wealth today   
   >> it would almost certainly result in the end of our civilization. Any   
   >> actual progress towards the improvement of living standards has always   
   >> come from innovation, which requires a degree of concentration of   
   >> wealth. Long-term overall improvement has never resulted from forced   
   >> redistribution.   
   >>   
   >> That doesn't mean we shouldn't help other people who need it. It does   
   >> however seem pretty obvious to me that assistance should never be from   
   >> any sort of centralized coercion.   
   >>   
   >> Forced redistribution is regressive and not progressive.   
   >>   
   >So, it looks like we have a few regresive on the list. We read about   
   >this in History class at college.   
   >   
   >Apparently, they want to get back to feudalism, where the King owns all   
   >the gold and land - where some lucky guy gets to sharecrop for a living.   
      
   Now there is a gold plated excuse for doing nothing (or going back to   
   1776).  When all else fails accuse them of feudalism.  But not   
   corporate feudalism.  We're trying to make recognition of that   
   nastiness go away.   
      
   >Back then, you were not even allowed to pick your own last name without   
   >the King's approval.   
   >   
   >Note:   
   >   
   >Once upon a time there was a guy called Will, who had a son they called   
   >Will's son, or Wilson. Another guy was also called Will, so he wanted to   
   >be called Will I Am. So, he became a Williams.   
   >   
   >They all decided to migrate from the land that was owned by the King of   
   >Saxony, so they went over to England, to the land that was owned by a   
   >King they called Harold, who was Godwinson with Williams and conquered   
   >the land called Anglia and kicked out the Picts.   
   >   
   >One Wilson became the Prime Minister of Britain and the other Archbishop   
   >of Canterbury.   
   >   
   >Good work! I love England!   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   --   
   Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain   
   Don't get political with me young man   
   or I'll tie you to a railroad track and   
   <<>> to <<>>   
   Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?   
   dares: Ned   
   does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)