all 96 comments

[–]FatalDosesOfOsmosis 15 points16 points  (17 children)

You're very good at using many, overly dramatic, words to say nothing.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -2 points-1 points  (16 children)

I hope I haven't said nothing, but if that is how you read it then I suppose I can be aware to maybe be more substantial in what I say. However, what I am saying is not complex... I am really only sharing a few simple, core ideas, and that is for good reason - a simple message of core truths translates better in the public arena. I'm not here to develop grand theories, but to find an idea to move towards and then to take the necessary action to achieve it. I'm sorry that you think I have had say nothing, but maybe it is because you think I should be saying more, and not appreciating the benefit of core truths and a simple message. I don't know. But I'll keep in mind what you've said. Thanks.

[–]FatalDosesOfOsmosis 6 points7 points  (0 children)


[–]forevercountingbeans 0 points1 point  (14 children)

Is English your mother language?

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] 0 points1 point  (13 children)

Yes, I am English.

[–]forevercountingbeans 1 point2 points  (12 children)

Oh, I figured you were translating it.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

You'll have to expand on your point. I'm not following...

[–]forevercountingbeans 3 points4 points  (10 children)

Superfluous vernacular is usually indicative of a limited grasp of communication.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Is that the impression you get of me from reading my comments... that I have a limited grasp of communication? Sometimes in writing certain things it is not just about relaying information or arguments in the most concise form possible. Sometimes you are writing for other reasons... to make people feel something, maybe to inspire them, maybe to impact them, and so on. 'Superfluous' in that sense is more subjective. If you just want the bare bones of the argument then what I wrote could seem unnecessary. But if what I am writing has other objectives, then maybe there's cause for that bit more. After all, writing is an art, not a science.

[–]forevercountingbeans 2 points3 points  (3 children)

The only feeling that people are gaining when reading your writing is that your writing is odd, that's all I'm trying to say.

It's actually a well-established strength to use the least words possible to convey your message:


[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Well, it is feedback I will certainly consider. Although, you are the first person to say that my writing is odd, so I'll exercise some caution before taking it on board.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -1 points0 points  (4 children)

If you're just trying to have a dig at me then just cut to it and call me a shit-cunt or something. I don't mind. You don't need to beat around the bush with me. Hit me hard and hit me straight. I respect that more.

[–]forevercountingbeans 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I was actually asking a serious question. Reddit seems to have every single person in the United States who has gotten into over 6 figures of student loan debt in a degree that is not Medical or Law-oriented.

I was just wondering how that is possible, especially when there are limits to financial loans that you can receive.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I'm more confused now. What has your latest point got to do with my writing style?

[–]contestedhuman 5 points6 points  (1 child)

One problem: humans are not that evolved and a good many are dumb as shit. We’re a selfish species.

Good luck though I guess.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can be selfish and work together to achieve this. If an individual wants material security for their own selfish wishes with a total absence of concern for others, it would still remain the prudent think to work with others, because the only way for this to be achieved is through a collective effort, i.e. collective power to influence government.

[–]Writingontheball 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Look at every single country or civilization that has ever existed in all of human history. They all had hiarchies, war, oppression, struggle.

Wolves don't suddenly turn into sheep when there are abundant resources. Maybe the lowest on the totem pole will suffer less because there are more scraps to be had.

I actually think that's where we're at now. If you live in any developed nation with a roof over your head, indoor plumbing and a full belly you're living better than most people throughout history could dream of.

Even if you couldn't pay your electric this month or your phone just got shut off, etc.

[–]galorin 9 points10 points  (54 children)

not only for their own personal fulfilment, but also for the betterment of our species.

Many of the people who hoard resources, accept bribes and payoffs, the ~1% that hold the majority of the world's wealth.. For them, their own personal fulfilment is to cause suffering of others, to take advantage, to make sure that no one is equal to them.

The ones that you need to challenge, are not the poor and the destitute. The ones you need to challenge, are the ones who will not budge from their position of power.

[–]scuzzo500 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Slightly disagree with this. Most of the ultra powerful/really rich people I've met and come to know aren't as concerned with causing suffering. They're mostly too involved in their own lives to think that others may be suffering. They definitely take advantage and try to make sure no one else is equal to them. But I've found it's motivated more by their desire to one-up their social group.
I think that there's a lot of social engineering that goes directly to keep poor people poor. It's just built into the system we live under and most people don't even notice it. Elections are difficult for poor people to go and vote in, crappy food is addictive and dirt cheap, poor people generally are encouraged to give a higher percentage of their income as charity, and even managing money is engineered to keep poor people from gaining more money. I agree with the basic idea you and the o.p. have. We, as a society have enough stuff and it's time to stop getting more stuff. The 1%ers actively game the system to enable and enrich themselves. My own ¢.02 is that it's a social problem that needs grass roots activism.

[–]galorin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's a broad brush to be sure, but capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with equality.

The cause of pain and suffering to be rich, does not necessarily require malice directed at an individual. As you say, they are wrapped up in themselves, and thus blind to how their actions, or the actions of those further down the chain of command, impact others negatively.

They are so out of touch that you get statements like that of Tim Gurner, that think the poor can't afford a house just because they spend their money elsewhere. That attitude is more prevalent than you may think.

[–]grimreapersdtr 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Meh. My father was a CEO at one point. Complete narcissist with total control over his children for much of his life. They don’t care about people “beneath” them, and almost enjoy watching those “beneath” them suffer.

[–]scuzzo500 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This doesn't surprise me. There have been a few studies that looked at the psychological profiles of CEOs and found most of them to be high functioning sociopaths.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -3 points-2 points  (49 children)

What better way is there to challenge those with power and authority than to have an empowered, informed, united population? The power that we have is in our numbers, but that requires togetherness. Bickering over fine points keeps us divided, and, therefore, powerless. Imagine if every individual in the world who currently is struggling to survive all wrote to their government and demanded, say, a universal basic income? Imagine if every individual in the world who currently is struggling to survive signed a petition to their government demanding a universal basic income? Imagine these same struggling people uniting and voting for a party that represents these ideals? Imagine these same struggling people all boycotting the products and services of an unethical corporation? Where is their power then?

[–]galorin 1 point2 points  (10 children)

What you are describing is socialism.


I generally don't have an issue with socialism. I live in the UK and we have a far better system for helping the impoverished than America has. We have the NHS, which is paid into by all, to provide healthcare, free at the point of access to all. Specifically, I live in Scotland, where all NHS-prescribed prescriptions are free.

Socialism in and of itself is not bad, a worthy goal. But to achieve that, well that is where things become messy. A Universal Basic Income would need to spread the globe, what good is it if a Canadian has a UBI, but someone in Democratic Republic of Congo is still forced to procure conflict diamonds, or the board of Nestle decides that their dividends are more important than clean water?

What about those people who cannot vote, due to their regime, living under a dictator or are so oppressed that even suggesting change gets them thrown in prison, or executed for dissent? You are looking at a war like the world has never seen to bring countries in line with your idea of UBI.

The US government could fix Flint if they wanted to. Remove 1% of funding for their military industrial complex and direct it squarely at Flint, and they would have drinkable water again.

Your ideas would, by necessity, need to be worldwide. Otherwise inequality will fuel the fires of anger and dissent.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -4 points-3 points  (9 children)

Very good points. At this point in time I can't imagine how systems could be implemented in developing nations. I think the best approach at present is to achieve this in the West and create a model that other nations can replicate in their own. We might be able to provide assistance and guidance, but it should be achieved through the people of the nations. What I will contend is that this is socialism. There is no hope of achieving material security for all human beings on a platform of socialism, because you basically have half of the world in opposition to you. What I am seeking is a compromise... a middle way between these ideas and capitalism. This is important, not just for achieving the ideas (always best to work with than against to accomplish something), but for the very existence of our species. We just can't afford anything like revolution anymore. If we keep battling to achieve our aims then we are going to severely run amuck.

[–]Giant2005 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Wrong answer.

The only way of pulling anything like that off on a global basis is by conquering all of those countries that disagree with you.

I really don't see why you think a UBI is going to be more widely accepted than simple socialism though... People are obviously always going to be more willing to give their money to the unemployed, starving, and injured; than to literally every single human being regardless of their need. Not only is it cheaper, but it would be absolutely heartbreaking to know that I am working my ass off for scraps, only to have some of my money given to Bill Gates for no particular reason at all.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -1 points0 points  (6 children)

I don't think UBI need be distributed to all, only available to all. I don't imagine many affluent individuals applying for UBI, except for the scrooges out there.

Why do we need to conquer nations for UBI to be implemented? Is that how capitalism has spread and is spreading? People in other nations aren't stupid. If they see a model working for other nations then they will take the appropriate action to implement it. It might take time, and, of course, in some nations there are huge obstacles, that maybe can be assisted with, maybe not. But it's really no different to capitalism in that sense. You made the argument that some nations having UBI would create more anger and divide... but that hasn't happened with capitalism.

I think UBI would be more widely accepted than simple socialism because it ends the struggle for survival (for most... addicts who spend their UBI on drugs might continue the struggle, as an example) with immediate effect. All the worry, anxiety, desperation, struggle over with, just like that. No worries about being able to afford food, or to pay the bills. Freedom. How people use this platform will vary, but I think most human beings have ideas, dreams, passions, interests, as well as the incentive to earn more so that they can have more. UBI is not and could not be the end goal, but just a platform.

[–]Writingontheball 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually that is how capitalism is spread.

[–]Giant2005 0 points1 point  (4 children)

It sounds to me like you are advocating socialism, not a UBI.

Let me clarify the difference for you. A UBI is an income given to everyone regardless of whether they are in need or not - each and every person receives the same stipend. That UBI essentially becomes the new zero for every human being. Socilaism is the welfare state. It is intended to provide to those in need and only those in need.

As for why there would be a need to conquer the other nations for it to be implemented, it is because it cannot work any other way. A UBI is tremendously expensive - it would at least double the expenses of every single nation. Doubling the expenses requires doubling the taxes. Doubling the taxes disproportionately harms those with the most money, compelling them to move their money to another country which has much more reasonable taxes. That money being removed from the country results in less industry and less taxable revenue for that country than what it had prior to deciding to throw out every economic principle.

You need to conquer those other countries first so that you can compel them to do the same thing and essentially remove all ability for the wealthy to find a safe haven from the extreme taxes they would face. The other countries wouldn't take it up without first being conquered because doing so would destroy them economically.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

I'm not sure why UBI would need to be automatically given to every individual over it just being available to ever individual. Any particular reason? And, if it wasn't given to every single individual in a nation, then this would obviously greatly reduce the cost, and, furthermore, as all other benefits would be replaced by the UBI, there should be no particular need for the cost of UBI to be beyond a modern Western nation. Plus the benefits of having a UBI in terms of lower stress levels that lead to mental health issues which lead to treatment. Plus the unleashing of vast untapped human potential that could add immense value to an economy. Plus the fact that many intelligent minds are already advocating the need for a UBI... so I'm not really seeing the problem. And, anyway, the idea that a movement that advocates 'material security for all' would even remotely consider the notion of conquering other nations to exploit them is frankly ridiculous. I care as much for the well-being of those in developing nations as I do in my own.

[–]Giant2005 2 points3 points  (2 children)


Because that is what a UBI is. It is Universal. What you are advocating is just basic welfare, not a UBI. They are very different things.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

That might be what it means right now, but if it being universally distributed was a major stumbling block to its implementation, would it not make sense to adapt and change where possible? Basic welfare might be technically accessible to all, but it comes with strings attached. A UBI that is accessible to all with no strings attached is the only goal needed. To just give it to every human being irrespective of their need for it - if that is a major stumbling block - simply makes no sense. There's nothing wrong with adapting a concept.

[–]galorin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I respectfully disagree. What you are proposing would only widen the prosperity gap between First and Third World countries.

because you basically have half of the world in opposition to you

What half is that?

[–]Giant2005 0 points1 point  (37 children)

I imagine all of the people that they expect to pay their basic income would simply move to a country where those people don't have a vote. Then those people struggling to survive would have to struggle even harder because they now have less employers and less welfare because of the opportunities and tax money that went to that other country.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -2 points-1 points  (36 children)

Agreed. If we were stupid, selfish, uncompromising, aggressive, stubborn... then yes, this could be an outcome. But do we have to be? Can we not develop a plan and a process that considers all, that works for all, that benefits all, with minimal sacrifice from all?

[–]galorin 3 points4 points  (7 children)


You have just described the human condition. Evolutionary traits that were required for our survival only a few thousand years ago. That is not enough time for us to evolve nor do we exist in a post-scarcity economy.

A person can be noble, intelligent, and all the qualities needed. People are not. People are paranoid, selfish creatures. We have to be to survive.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -3 points-2 points  (6 children)

I only have my mind and my observations of and interactions with others, so I can't comment on the actual nature of individuals. My experience is that most people are fundamentally good, concerned, and caring. Yes they have selfish elements, and for the reasons you describe. But it really is more of a mixed bag than you are describing. Your portrayal of humanity is bleak. You might want a new group of friends!

[–]galorin 2 points3 points  (5 children)

One only has to look to Syria, Iran, Iraq, South Sudan, North Korea, many other nations, to prove you wrong.

Yes, civilizations can do, can be better. But that is not in the nature of those that need it. Your plans would increase the global divide between the haves and the have-nots. You are thinking too small. Such a movement must be global, or it will end in bloodshed.


The vision is material security for ALL human beings. But there is a need for pragmatism, and a need for responsibility. First of all, I am not certain of doom and gloom interpretation of yours. Secondly, we are talking about nations that can be savage and ruthless. It's all well and good me having these ideas in the West, but I am not going to be detained, tortured, executed for these ideas or for whatever actions I take. So whilst I agree with you that there is a need for this world wide - and it is the aim. There is a lot to consider, and a lot of care that needs to be taken. Plus, I have A LOT to learn. I do not understand what I need to understand to be attempting to implement a worldwide revolution of the like you seem to be suggesting. It is going to take time. And I am very patient.

[–]galorin 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Here, let me help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots The Wiki is out of date though. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/04/23/finland-ends-universal-basic-income-experiment/

It's been tried, but is generally unsustainable.


I don't think this means too much. Obviously our society as it is currently structured is not geared to accommodating such a radical concept, but that doesn't mean that it can't be, or that we can't make efforts to make it more fitting. That's just part of the process. I see no reason why it can't be so.

[–]Giant2005 1 point2 points  (27 children)

No, that is impossible. It is a zero sum game - in order to give something to someone for nothing, you have to take something from someone else for nothing. The entire concept relies on either all of those someone elses to be extremely charitable, or to have nowhere safe to escape the thievery.

The former is as unrealistic as it is idealistic and the latter requires a powerful, authoritarian country conquering the rest of the planet. It is up to interpretation whether that is a cost worth paying for the reward, but we have at least been taught that it isn't (otherwise we would be mourning the loss of Hitler rather than celebrating it).

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] 0 points1 point  (26 children)

The idea is that, in providing a platform of material security, individuals will be better positioned to develop and express their innate passions and talents, and in doing so contribute significantly more to society and to the value of the economy, thus in turn helping to fund the UBI. Instead of artists and scientists, for example, spending their time making ends meet, they and we would be better served by them focusing on their work. It would lead to a proliferation of high quality work that would greatly stimulate the economy.

[–]Giant2005 1 point2 points  (25 children)

That is the opposite of logic. You don't get harder workers by removing the incentive for working, you get far less encouraged workers. Your scientists and artists reduce their output because their product has dropped from something they need to produce, to something they merely want to produce (if they still want to at all - many wouldn't want to bother).

The only logical outcome is complete and utter stagnation for the entire human race.

[–]AllTheFixins 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with you. I also don't know who would be pursuing their "passions" in fields like waste water management, sanitation, or extermination if there isn't any true compensation.

The streets may be overflowing with literal shit but at least the scientists and artists are happy.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] 0 points1 point  (23 children)

Mozart and Einstein didn't have to produce any work, but did that reduce their output or diminish the quality of it? No. Because they were doing what they loved to do. People who engage with art, science, philosophy, and social service, do so out of interest and passion, irrespective of whether it is their employment, or whether money can be made out of it. For sure, some people are employed in these sectors, and sometimes that's because they are particularly brilliant, and sometimes it's because society demands a tonne of dross be produced, and some poor artist has to put their talent into Hello, Kitty! merchandise. But most people who are interest in art, science, philosophy, the social good (a new addition), are doing so completely voluntarily, completely unnecessarily, for no money, for no aspirations of money, simply for the love of doing what they love to do. And if these people love what they do, why would they not do it if they had the time and freedom to devote themselves to it? And, btw, the aim isn't for harder workers, the aim is for inspired workers. An inspired worked can write a great novel in 3 days. An uninspired worked could spend 3 years writing a novel and it be rubbish. That inspiration - the source of so much of what is truly great in our world - is born of passion, and it is that passion... that innate talent, that I want to unleash on the world. Not another human being turned machine.

[–]Giant2005 1 point2 points  (22 children)

Mozart and Einstein didn't have to produce any work

Yes they did. That was what they did for a living - if they didn't produce their work, they didn't eat. They did what they did so that they could live comfortable lives. Sure they probably had a genuine passion for it too and very well could have done that same work without any real incentive to do so. It is impossible for us to know. What is very possible for us to know however, is that having more incentive to do something makes people far more likely to do that thing, so your taking away food and comfortable lives as an incentive makes them (and others) less likely to ply their trades. Even if those two would have continued regardless, thousands of others wouldn't.

How willing would you be to do your job without any real incentive to do so? I'd happily quit mine and live a life of leisure if it were possible to do so. The vast majority of the population would do the same thing, or at least significantly cut their hours. And our entire species would suffer for it.

EDIT: I'll throw up some numbers to express just how harmful this would be to us as a species.

Let's be generous and assume that an impressive 1 million people on the planet would be willing to continue working full 8 hour days, without any real incentive to do so. We will also assume that a further 100 million people on the planet would be willing to work at a reduced capacity (4 hour days) without any real incentive to do so.

Currently, a person working 8 hours a day is barely capable of supporting a total of 5 people on average. The 408 million hours those charitable people above would be willing to work, would be barely capable of supporting a total of 255 million people, resulting in one of two outcomes:

  1. 7,187,000,000 people starving to death, or:

  2. Those 101 million charitable souls that are willing to support the entire planet having to increase their work hours to 118 per day in order to cover the deficit. I imagine that at least some of those charitable souls would probably stop being quite so charitable when they realize that they have to squeeze the equivalent of 3 full work weeks in to each and every single day, without any incentive to do so.

[–]Writingontheball 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Where the hell you're getting all these numbers from? They kinda sound made up for arguments sake.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

(Reply to your edit)

I am not qualified to comment on the economics of this, and nor do I need to be. There are qualified individuals who believe that UBI is feasible, and that is enough for me (given that they are not universally discredited). I'm an activist. My interest is in identifying the core causes of human suffering then taking the required action to solve it. Usually that is best aided by identifying core truths and communicating basic, relatable ideas, than it is by over-analysis, which tends to confuse and allow contention. I consider myself the bow at the front of the ship breaking through the waves, and - I hope - carrying the passengers, i.e. the ideas, the arguments, the experts to its destination. In this sense, I design my efforts towards the most efficient and effective means of success. One important element of that is to know my position and role, and to enable the activities of the rest of the ship, so to speak.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -2 points-1 points  (12 children)

It's perfectly possible to know because there are billions of people on this planet engaging in what they love with no monetary gain or expectation of monetary gain. We know that most people have hobbies and talents that they enjoy doing simply for the sake of doing, and this is what primarily motivated the greats too. I think Einstein and Mozart would die laughing from the idea that they did what they did for money. The fact that they were able to make a living was their good fortune, but as we know from those greats who did not, who died penniless - Van Gogh, Tesla, Satie, and many, many more - we know that human beings will follow their passions to the furthest degree possible utterly irrespective of monetary gain. We know that this innate passion is the greatest motivator and producer, for it has been the source of almost every truly great works throughout the history of humanity. Now compare it to the market driven dross produced by those in it for the money... it's a stark contrast. It's a shame that you seem not to have a particular passion or talent (at least that you've identified and nurtured) to understand just how prolific and profound the results can be. It really has to be experienced to be understood. The greatest pieces of art can be created in an hour, and the greatest scientific theories in 15 minutes. It is something else.

I'm not sure what you mean about 'your taking away food'...? Maybe you can clarify your point before I reply. Thanks.

You could quit your job and survive on UBI, for sure. That is the very definition of UBI. But UBI won't pay for you to go to the cinema, or to buy a new TV, or to go on holiday, or to buy the new shoes you want. But maybe a lot of people would quit their jobs... and? How much work that is done in this modern age is of any real value to society? Most of what people work for is to produce utter and total dross. If people quitting their jobs meant an end of this dross then fantastic... I hadn't anticipated that, but great. Instead we can have fewer but more essential jobs, meaning even more people who are free to focus on creating, innovating etc. As for people living a life of leisure... It might sound good, and for those of a certain age it might actually be good, but for most people below retirement age, it would be deeply boring and unfulfilling, and, anyway, how are they going to fund leisure on UBI alone?

[–]mguardian_north 1 point2 points  (1 child)

This is a very rational concept but human beings are not rational. We just think we are.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True enough, but the main point is not to be rational (as weird as that sounds) but to be clearly relatable and beneficial to peoples lives, reinforced by reason. I'd compare it to black people wanting civil rights, Indians wanting freedom from British rule, women wanting the vote, and so on. The point is that these are simple messages based on core truths that most people can relate to and agree with, and because of this they are inevitable ideas. The same with this. There is no need for any theory to be understood. The general public doesn't need to grasp complex economics. They just need to grasp the simple idea that all human beings can have what they need now. This is enough.

[–]galorin 1 point2 points  (7 children)

You are describing Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future, Star Trek. It's pure fantasy.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

Well, given that poverty already is being decreased, why would accelerating that decrease be pure fantasy? It's something that is already being achieved, and I'd just like to give it an extra push to achieve it quicker.

[–]galorin 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Um, no. No it is not. The divide between the rich and the poor is widening, with the rich controlling more assets than they have ever done. The poor are still poor, starving, dying of famine and preventable disease.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

Look, we have to be reasonable here. You know what side I am on and what I am arguing for. But let's be honest. Look at how people lived in the West in the 19th century and how they live now. There is a huge, huge difference. Attribute that to socialism, capitalism, Santa or Jesus, but it is clearly true that poverty has been decreased. A 'poor' person now in the West lives a better life than royalty did 200 years (or less) ago.

[–]galorin 2 points3 points  (3 children)


"The West" is not the world. Your blind idealism, ignorance of humanity and dogmatic adhesion to your pet philosophy is just... inconceivable.

Take a trip to Argentina sometime. Their economy is collapsing. People are starving and dying from a lack of medical care, and Argentina has more oil than Saudia Arabia.

Take a trip to Syria. Civil war has torn the country apart.

Take a trip to North Korea, and see the people eating grass to make the hunger go away.

Take a trip to India, and see the squalor that their impoverished live in.

You truly are blind to the world. What's worse, is you are wilfully blind.

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

I'm sorry, I appreciate anyone who takes the time to engage in discussion, but sometimes it's just not worthwhile. I really do not know what you are replying to of mine at times, and I feel like you are not really too concerned with understanding my position and arguing with what has been said. I do not know what to make of this comment. I don't what I have said that would lead to this comment, so I think it is best to just leave it as it is and we both move on. But, again, I am grateful for your time, so thank you.

[–]galorin 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Exactly how has your position evolved as a result of any of the discussions you have been having?

[–]TheEnoughMovement[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm more aware of the gaps in my thinking than I was previously. Which is why I am here. It would be arrogant in the extreme to think that with such a lofty vision that I already know everything that needs to be known, and so I came to discuss and discover. From the gaps I can now go and do the required learning. This would be the main - and desired - evolution in my position. In terms of my core thesis - that it is now possible for all human beings to have what they need... I am more aware of some of the complexities involved, and I'm now more aware of some of the counter arguments. But I don't feel like anyone has offered a counter argument that is fatal to my thesis. I do still believe that it is possible to end humanities struggle to survival, only I am now better positioned to design and realise plans to achieve that aim. For this I am very appreciative of all and anyone, irrespective of their own views, for engaging with me. At this embryonic stage, learning can be the only objective.

[–]heynaysayheyFL 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I would encourage you to post this on other poverty-related/public assistance forums that don't have rules against political posts. This is likely to be removed, here, due to their strict no-politics rule.

Look at r/poverty, r/care or r/Assistance as a start (I know that r/poverty allows these exact sort of posts but it doesn't have a large or active readership; I would advise reaching out to mods of other subs before posting, though). It's possible that r/Medicaid, r/SocialSecurity and r/foodstamps may welcome it. Check the sidebars of those subs for other likely places to post.


Thank you very much for your advice and help! Thank you!

[–]Ari_Rahikkala 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's "cover letter", not "covering letter".


Thank you.


This sounds like it would fit better in /r/latestagecapatalism.

oh, it's been banned. NVM

[–][deleted]  (3 children)


    [–]heynaysayheyFL 3 points4 points  (2 children)

    u/totally_rocks misspelled it. It's r/LateStageCapitalism and it's still there.


    thumbsup.jpg Thanks mate.

    [–]heynaysayheyFL 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Quite welcome. :)

    [–]Doodbones 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I bet people are pumped to hang out with you irl

    [–]TheEnoughMovement[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I don't know because no-one invites me to hang out.