Did you run though a field of wheat like Theresa May?

Just how though? How does this get agreed upon without some threat of violence or top down hierarchy.

We do pick an in-between. The people complaining about capitalism just don’t realise we live in the in-between.

I’m 14 and this is so deep.

I’m a millennial, just trying to not let the world’s ills bother me now. Life is too short and what you make it.

Why does investment entitle people to live off said thing? That’s because there are agreements between the parties involved. If I want to start a business and need seed money I willingly enter a contract with investors just as they willingly risk their investment capital.

Of course they are more efficient, nobody sets up co operatives. If they were a more efficient way of running a business more people would do it.

Geopolitical, as in a combination of political, cultural and geographical.

I don’t think noting the problem is partially political is enough to say it’s easily solveable.

I think we’re coming at this from a different philosophy, you see politics as something that is easily changeable, I see it as a product of environmental and cultural positions. Changing the entire world’s politics is a nigh on impossible task.

You see geopolitics as a variable, I see it as a constraint on the actual variables.

Only 1 live album though. That’s surprising considering.

I think there is only so much humans can change. We aren’t beings of infinite moral potential and there will always be points of conflict.

There is thinking there are no logistics problems we can’t solve and then there is actually solving them taking into account real geopolitics.

So you think human beings should change their basic hardwired nature? Obviously humans have a tendency to care for the people closest to them over complete strangers. Humans always will come into conflicts of interest. What you’re asking for is for humanity to basically act perfectly all the time.

You’ll forgive me for not doing that just because you’ve entirely missed the point of my argument.

It’s clearly because we haven’t had a socialist revolution. That would sort all logistical and societal problems out forever.

I’d rather not engage with you. This conversation has derailed into silliness.

I’ve already admitted the word raid was the incorrect one. I was just questioning the idea that farmers should produce food for no compensation and that anybody should be free to work their land.

What, in the world generally? Do you genuinely want me to list every job that needs doing?

But the crucial thing is, people are already allowed to form co-operatives, there is nothing stopping you doing it for example. But outside of a select few niche industries they are generally less efficient and get outcompeted by traditional top down companies.

We don’t have solutions for starvation at all on a global scale and we do try to feed everyone in developed nations that’s why countries have welfare. I agree the welfare safety net should be stronger generally, but I don’t think people starving to death is a widespread issue in developed nations. The homeless are much more likely to die due to lack of shelter or drug issues.

Yes because seeds are the only resource people fight over…

I think you’ve gone completely off the rails here. You said everyone should be free to just do the job they want. I pointed out that perhaps what people want to do wouldn’t match up with what actually needs to be done. You started banging on about squirrels rather than admit that what I said is actually probably the case.

I’ve never denied humans aren’t in intense competition with each other. I just don’t think it’s relevant to point to squirrels as an example of how humans should work, they clearly are very different from us.