Total posts: 3,178
-->
@Castin
As does Facism have many variants.Communism is a much larger and more varied overarching ideology with many more branches and forms, all of varying degrees of merit, some of which even have opposing ideas.
Communism as an ideology originally focused on the values of
- equality
- liberation for the working class
- sharing without discrimination.
Fascism focused on the values of
- totalitarian power
- fanatic nationalism
No, that is what the Facism has come to be primarily associated with. Facism as "originally" espoused, only differentiated from Communism in its focus on National Identity and Totalitarian Power of the State as a necessity to achieving that equality. Well, equality for the chosen superior identity 🙃.
So as you tried to establish with "sharing without discrimination" that is what you view as the distinctive characteristic that differentiates Communism as ok, and Facism as not?
Communism also originally advocated for a violent revolution, in essence eliminating the wealthy and achieving suppression of the "profit motive(greed)" communally. How non-discriminatory, and how selfless of a power grab. 🙈
Inb4 "Communism is different cause it's anarchist and doesn't want a state"
Bingo, thats why the two are such enemies. But that doesn't mean one is good by consequence.
oh, someone wants to speak with you, its the state here to remind you control requires systems to maintain control... and to remind you Communism fails to address the necessity of *active suppression* of greed post revolution indefinitely 🙃
on could even say Facism was the logical development of thought in how you address the necessity of means to achieve the ends of indefinite suppression of greed, an inherent human characteristic, in Communism 🙃.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
i essence, yeah. Greed is (or at least, can often be,) Good seems absurd, but its not untrue 🙊
Created:
Posted in:
Being in WI, I'm paying particularly close attention to the primaries for governor.
D- 537,719 votes
R- 455,966 votes
Highest votes for Dems is(currently) Tony Evers at 41.8%(224,502)
Highest for GoP is(currently) Scot Walker👏 at 417,619. I like Walkers chances in November. 👌
Which particular Primaries are y'all paying attention to? What are the results looking like?
Are they favorable to your preferred candidate or the opposite? 🤔
Do you think there are any signifigant takeaways in the primaries thus far into the broader context of midterm elections and the potential changes to house and Senate proportions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
Yeah that was virtuoso. But it's an open set-up so i can re-randomize roles and that resolves any issues from him being replaced fmpov
Created:
Posted in:
1. Smithereens
2. Virtuoso
3. Earth
4. (???)
5. Wylted
6. Rational(?)
7. 1Harder
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
@RationalMadman
Technically the game hasn't started, so i can actually re-roll for roles, cause I randomized with a site Vaarka referred me to 🤔
Still want in Rational?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
People who act like antifa are as bad as fascists enable fascists.
I think it was, and I just whooshed myself right into taking it 😂😂 well played 😂😂
Created:
Posted in:
Spicy good looks 🔥person 2 was definitely a while male and was oppressing her through his bigotry and she was just doing her bit to fight the patriarchy
Obviously as an oppressor it doesn't make sense to kill who you are oppressing. Who would you oppress at that point? Yourself? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Enabling according to 1h- "Both are shitty, one less so.
Not enabling according to 1h- Smashing shit and beating people up is totally ok as long as you claim you are fighting against Facists.
Even if its clearly obvious that's not the groups agenda. Nope, according to 1h, groups are always exactly what they say they are.
You heard it here first folks,the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is in fact Democratic and a Republic.
Makes me wonder what all the fuss is about them being a dictatorship? Obviously that's impossible cause it says right in their name they aren't 🙃
Created:
Posted in:
Me: They aren't the same, they're still both shitty, and throwing glitter on a pile of shit, doesn't change that it's still shit.
You: BuT MuH MurDeRs by groups not necessarily Facist or White Nationalist
Me: They show up to alot more than when Facists show up
You: But muh murders
Why dont you just come out and say you think anyone to the right of Lenin is Facist already
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Me: "It doesnt seem necessary to finely differentiate morally the two"
You: "But muh tens of murders"
Me: "yes, but tens is a spook. The crazy amount of property damage, repeated violence, and broadening scope of "facist" is not a spook. When it comes to which threat is more prescient and real, that would be antifa."
You: "But muh murders"
Also, "Right-Wing extremism has engaged in more ideologically-charged murders and assaults than left-wing extremists(including antifa)
Your citations only involve murder, and you do realze antifa only just got labeled an extremist group? So they haven't been counted in statistics up till recently you dope 🙃
Me: "I fail to see the need to finely differentiate between a person who would kill you as a means of silencing opposition, and a person who would smash your shit and beat you up as a means of silencing opposition"
You: "but muh murders"
Look how cute you are still talking about enabling 🙃
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
"love and hope"
Sounds like so commie bullshit to me... oh wait, in this case it kinda is 🙃😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The actual motive for the murder is less important to him than the personal gain he seeks
The point is not the heinous nature of the crime as that is a subjective judgement
The point is to protect public safety and choosing the least harsh penalty that would insure it.
Im not stating agreeance or disagreeance with the above, rather, I'm a scosh confused how the first isnt an example of the second, and how the first, relates to the last 🤔.
Finally, regarding the last point. Why is public safety/harm prevention a primary factor in jurisprudence?
Say as a judge you were faced with reviewing a case of an alleged rape. The case was stacked unfairly, and there were multiple instances of evidence being withheld.
Overturning that should be an easy decision, except... Overruling the decision would consequentially cause a riot and subsequent property damage and violent harm amongst individuals.
Public Safety as a primary concern would dictate as a judge that you affirm the ruling, no? 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So Person 3 would be punished more severely, by virtue of his crime having a different, in your eyes, moreso "heinous", if you will, motive?
Let's assume, all other things considered, these variables would be applied to the present. Why do you assume *only* person 3 has financial motive? Person 1 could be unhappy over finances 🤔.
Should motive play as heavy a factor in jurisdiction that it itself becomes the primary factor, as it seems it's being applied, in adjudication of punishments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@XLAV
You wanna replace someone in this series? Got two people yet to confirm actually
-JusticeWept
-Voice-of-Truth
🙃
Created:
Posted in:
*singular check on permanent bans, and records of adjudications therein to be made public, with any necessary redactions to protect the privacy of those whose privacy priviledges have not been ceded by virtue of committing violations severe enough to merit permanent banning. 📚
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Moderation has always been done from on high. I hardly think you could make the argument that it was Max's policies towards pans and user punishments that drove DDO into decline.
Moderation always being done from on high doesn't mean it should be. And saying such a policy has a certain affect, doesnt that effect would always be witnessed. I would question the rationality of presuming it doesnt have an effect whatsoever.
As stated before, decisions would be prioritized as:
1)Owenership interests
2) ToS
3) fostering growth in userbase and diversity of thought
Ownership interests were accounted for. There is no check for that power because original authority is with ownership. This was only in the event of priviledges of moderation being in part left for the userbase to be involved in.
In that event then a singular check on permanent bans would imho be the only check necessary. As I stated, i see no good reason to involve general usership in the process anywhere else. *Except* in that singular regard.
The illustration of the spectrum itself was not to establish my as being on one side or the other for all or part, but rather to show you are as extreme as you can get towards one side of considerations, and not budging on a damn thing that would place any sort of check on unilateral authority in all regards but where site ownership interests are deferred to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Equal guilt, first degree murder for both parties.
This is an interesting take. So lets further explore this. Say person 1 and person 2 plan to kill X. Person 1 does the killing, person 2 does the disposal of body upon picking it up from a designated location.
Person 2 hasn't killed anyone, has not sufficiently met one of the necessary grounds for homicide(taking of anothers life), much like person 1 in the primary example.
Is person 2 still guilty of homicide? How can they be when they themselves did not fulfill one of the primary aspects of homicide, that being killing another person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Idk, you tell me 🤔What is our goal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@1harderthanyouthink
Charlottesville, ok. So you are agreeing that the actions of one affiliate(degree be damned) necessarily make the whole associated group guilty of that crime? This instance also, outweighs repeated violent activity since the 90's?
Excerpt from "tired subject" link
"In total, extremists killed at least 34 people in 2017. The far-right accounted for 59% of these deaths, or 20 deaths."
Again, its a spook. Also, far-right includes ALOT of ideologies, its not exclusive to Facist, Neo-Nazi, or White Nationalist.
But lets not ruin the chance to enable "antifa" to commit property crime, violence, and posture as moral actors
Second link,
"Right-wing extremists...were responsible for 115 incidents within the same period(2008-2016)."
"They also caused 79 deaths."
Such a danger, but lets not ruin the chance to enable "antifa" to commit property crime, violence, and posture as moral actors.
Such a danger, but lets not ruin the chance to enable "antifa" to commit property crime, violence, and posture as moral actors.
all the while the definition of Facism mysteriously spreads and even incorporates concepts such as "sovereign-individuality" and "national sovereignty" according to "antifa". Again,
"They engage in violent protest tactics, which has included property damage and physical violence. They tend to be anti-capitalist and they are predominantly... anarchists, communists and socialists. Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than politically.
Stated focus =/= actual focus. And again, Antifa has showed up to a host of things with nothing to do with Facism or white supremacy. For example, Antifa "protested" Ben Shapiro, an orthodox Jew, and created plenty of property damage and need for heightened security in the face of it. Yes a Nazi Orthodox Jew... what tipped them off to that one i wonder? ;)
Again, look how cute you are talking about enabling something :)
Again, look how cute you are talking about enabling something :)
Created:
Posted in:
To recap:
-Linate acknowledged the US is subsidizing the healthcare systems of socialized countries.
- This subsidy necessarily being consequential to its existence.
However, this creates a paradox, because if the US is subsidizing others, who is subsidizing the US?
This being a paradox because there is nobody to subsidize either directly or indirectly, this causing a fiscal crisis that would necessitate the removal of such a program for austerity.
Attempting to conflate the price of healthcare in other nations who often mandate *price* is a naught but a sleight-of-hand. That is as established, a perversion of price.
any removal of direct or indirect subsidy consequentially leads to a raise in price as a subsidization is a measure used to lower the *price* of a commodity or service by reimbursing part or whole of the cost of that goods production or service.
In Linates mind, he would have you believe that these systems would survive the sudden onset of removal of:
- Defensive Provisions from the US
- Independent securement of trade routes
- advantageous trade policies and other such metrics such as imbalances in cost and price.
As established, such thought is paradoxical in nature 🔥
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you have me confused are we talking about refugees or progressives
refugees, but there's alot of crossover 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Also I'm going to point out
We need to stop the companies from making profits
Elimination of the profit motive while positing no ill effect to innovation and creation.
Holy shit this is absurd, but quite the spicy take nonetheless 🔥
Created:
Posted in:
I think all the U.S. companies should charge exactly what they charge in the other countries. so the U.S. citizens don't have to subsidize the rest of the world.
This assumes other countries would not see corresponding rises to price themselves.
We need to stop the companies from making profits or most of from the U.S. citizens which allows companies to sell the same things much cheaper in other countries.
I can see you trying so hard to hold onto single-payer. You really think stating all this is an out and would be advantageous to healthcare and equal practical access thereof to people.
You cant think of how these countries would pay for exigent necessities like defense and trade, (without favorable trade agreement), and are recognizing that the US subsidizes the existence of these systems.
However, you don't see this as damning of your idea.
But, if these countries require extensive indirect subsidization to survive, and you want to implement this kind of system everywhere, where does this necessary subsidization come from at that point?
K
F for respects
I'm all for an equal playing field. What do you think other countries would think of that idea?
Lmao, lets see how well that plays out being that this would signal the end of these systems being propped up significantly.
Created:
Posted in:
his idea of runaway deficits was illogical, and his idea of crushing innovation was misinformed
"we'll raise taxes"
Does not solve the runaway deficit issue. Again, 1 trillion isnt good, but not a crisis. Turns out, when you start getting near a deficit that matches maximal revenue ranges of 3 trillion from direct expenses, let alone indirect necessary costs, is actually a crisis.
And Yes, illogical to point out that currently
"It's a bloated system where the open checkbooks of insurance competes with the open checkbook of government spending, to cause inflated costs"
And a solution of "let's open up that checkbook even more and see if that helps"
Is rather absurd
if we keep our spending at 18 percent of GDP, however you want to view that number it's still a lot of money
Newsflash, its not money(currency).
, it's still a simple accounting issue where we lower the price on costs to get everyone covered for the same price
"Lower the price on costs"
This is unintelligible, costs are a factor of price. Do you mean lower price *to* cost, as I supposed earlier was your main objective.
"Get everyone covered for the same price"
*Covered by insurance* as established earlier, does not equate to equal practical access to medical care. As I originally established the primary goal of such legislation is equal practical access. These systems only heighten practical access disparities(ex. increased and oft extreme average wait times), particularly if private medicine is still allowed to practice.
Created:
Posted in:
you act like the supply and demand for healthcare acts the way it's suppose to based on some complex factors. healthcare providers charge a lot simply because they can.
Im acting like it doesn't operate the way its supposed to. My previous example equation is not how "its supposed to act", thats a perversion, but one that is nonetheless how things *currently* operate.
Perhaps you ignored where I pointed out that doing away with many arbitrary regulations and oversight on medical care, and reforming tort regarding malpractice would also reduce administrative cost/waste.
Or that doing away with abritrary regulations on Medical R&D would both boost innovation, and reduce spending.
"Healthcare providers charge alot simply because they can"
No, they don't. What about *price* in relation to economics ever gave you the impression price was entirely arbitrary?
Let's get down to brass tacks here, you at a fundamental level take issue with the profit motive in medicine. You consider *price* arbitrary, as *profit* is included in *price*, and *profit* is in itself, *arbitrary*
This is true, but how does that make *price* arbitrary in whole, as *price* includes *cost* a non-arbitrary metric.
Created:
Posted in:
As for R&D not factoring into research costs... hrmmm turns out healthcare professionals need specialized equipment that requires *research* to *develop*. The costs of this equipment would consequentially incorporate the aforementioned R&D, and in turn consequentially affect what the medical professional, then charges for their medical care. Equipment costs and maintenance thereof being a factor of price 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
*that economies of nations are seperate and do not affect one another even if intertwined as global commerce is at this point🔥.
"The price of tea in china" matters now, shocking 😮
Created:
Posted in:
if a doctor makes twice as much as doctors in other countries, that doesn't have anything to do with research or anything.
Wow, a few spicy takes here:
1) that the economies of nations are seperate from one another even if heavily intertwined in trade
2) that cost of medical research doesn' factor in cost of medical care
For the first.... LMAO. Your entire argument is presupposed on this predication and its about time you made it blatantly obvious.
Say X company produces Y product for Z cost. They wish to sell it for A(>Z) price across the board.
However country G mandates prices at B(<Z).
Country H does not.
Company X then choose to accept the sale of that drug at a less than desires price(to gain valuable indirect benefits of further access within a market), and sell in Country H that product for D(A+C. Wherein C is A-B) price.
Now imagine this extrapolated out across all aspects of medical care that price is mandated in relation to the scope of *trillions* of dollars of spending. 🙃
we would obviously increase taxes to pay for it
As stated before, GDP is not a representation of taxable revenue.
Regardless of tax rate federal revenues have escaped the average range of 19% GDP (Hauslers Law) since WW2. This from the high average tax rates post WW2 to the low corporate tax rates of the Reagan era, and onward.
At best we are talking maybe federal revenues of 4 trillion maximially.
That still leaves a deficit of 2.29 trillion. 1 trillion roughly higher than currently. And this before any necessary increases to cost in total, or indirect but necessary expenditures such as encountered previously, specifically the added cost of education and training for tens to hundreds of thousands of new medical care professionals to meet the necessary increase to demand. This just in the realm of Primary Care alone
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Oooh i got thisbut they are not being "persecuted". What are the seeking refuge from?
Responsibility? Duty to country? Struggle?
Created:
Posted in:
Posts Must Be Unique
It's time for the US to throw out anarchists again. It worked enough for near a century. Drop em off in the nearest stateless land or land in civil turmoil. Last time it was Russia, that's too cold, I hear Somalia is beautiful 🔥.
Better hurry though, Somalia is set to instill a government again this year 😎
Created:
Posted in:
Tl;dr- aren't you just cute talking about enabling 👏🔥
Created:
Posted in:
the failure to differentiate the two is a striking failure of nuance
Speaking of striking failure of nuance
when antifa is bashed for showing up to tell Nazis they aren't welcome
This is far from the only activity of antifa. They've been a persistent unorganized group that surfaced in the US since the 90's and the founding of the WTO.
"antifacist" does not mean they are actually solely antifacist, anymore than labeling something Facist, actually makes it so. Words are not a magic wand that you can wave and *poof* it is so.
where they killed someone a year prior,
Charlottesville, ok. So you are agreeing that the actions of one affiliate(degree be damned) necessarily make the whole associated group guilty of that crime?
This instance also, outweighs repeated violent activity since the 90's?
or when they stand against their genocidal rhetoric.
Not the only thing they stand against, well, alot of stuff they protest against is conveniently defined as genocidal in nature. Like policing, borders, immigration control, the US as a whole, Donald Trump, etc. Because again, when you have a group that defines everything to the right of Lenin as Facist, everything consequentially becomes a matter of violent threat.
Didnt say they were the same, said differentiating morally to a fine degree seems rather unecessary.But yeah, same thing.
Antifa is again, a loosely affiliated and relatively uncoordinated group that is generally composed of Anarchists, especially the specific variation thereof of Communism. Since the WTO protests of the 90's they've been involved in loads of property damage(WTO "protests", Baltimore Riots, and many many others).
They're becoming prominent now because the left is sitting silently. The extreme polarization is only emboldening them and giving them rightcheous vindication, gained from ridiculously biased and ignorant views of the group, to get more destructive and more violent. Case in point, the recent "Unite the Right" rally. Seeing estimates of 20-40 people who were white supremacists. Thousands of antifa show up and go about wrecking property, attacking reporters, and chanting handy slogans like "no borders, no wall, no USA at all"(Hrrrm, sound suspiciously like advocacy for anarchy 🤔.)
what they do often is piggyback off of whatever protest is deemed most politically correct(or when actual Facists do for once protest) and use that as an excuse to wreck things and attack others, and were doing so long before charlottesville.
"These people want to eliminate us all!"
Not even accurate to Neo-Naziism and White Nationalism as ideologies, *BUT* even if...
>20-40 people in D.C.
>a few thousand in Charlotte
the threat is a relative spook, but sure lets act like everyone is in exigent danger from them but that's not gonna let this "antifa" lose out on an excuse to wreck shit, be violent, and posture as moral actors against a bogeyman
Created:
Posted in:
Also the spectrum here seems to be aligning this way
Popular Control<------>Unilateral Control
Pure popular control is absurd for your previous reasons. Unilateral Moderator Control fmpov is equally as absurd. The center to me would be encapsulated in these opposite opinions:
Term limits <-----------> No limits
Popular election <------------> unilateral appointment
Popular Jurisprudence <---------> unilateral jurisprudence.
I disagree with term limits, an argument against which you put forth as well as it could be said.
I disagree with popular election, site ownership should have original jurisdiction, so at most a closed election involving those they wish to include.
The only realm of jurisprudence I'm taking issue with is in permanent bans. Only in permanent bans would I hold records of adjudication are released. Only in permanent bans would I hold petitions:
- be permissed to mandate adjudication
- be permissed to mandate a process for popular overrule.
But these checks be purposely made reasonably difficult to obtain so as to further safeguard these checks from popular whim, and rather derive from good reason. That being a users, or string of users, removal that is so unpopular as to create a distinct potentiality of inhibiting the growth or drastically shrink the sites userbase as a whole.
Should we not adjudicate in a manner that balances:
Fostering diversity of thought
Fostering site growth/membership
Terms of Service
Ownership interest
Ownership interests taking primary precedence, Terms of Service being secondary, the other two being equal in weight tertiary considerations. What other considerations can you think of? How would you order such considerations? 🤔
Created:
>Corporate Campaign Finance and Advertising(Advocacy)
>Guns
Damnit, ive derailed my own thread 🙊
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Well I dont see why thats inherently an issue then. If anyone given that use by the llc. commits a crime with that weapon, the llc become financially liable, individual who ceded possession, and the individual who used the weapon in the crime, also criminally culpable.
I would need to research how automatic weapons are handled beyond that, but I think other restrictions are placed upon transfers of possession 🤔.
Also, as a corporation(llc.) to sell those weapons again, would I think require an FFL at that point. Thus a background check via NICS would be required.
Created:
Posted in:
Idk why the quote box was still there on the first post. I hit it by accident and thought I removed it 🙊
Created:
Posted in:
The possibility of a kangaroo court in overrule can have reasonable checks in place put against. Reasonable checks being placed on potential abuses isnt foolish imho, and those checks if implemented constructively, would sufficiently prevent this concern of overrule by way of whim, while also simultaneously addressing the concern of abuse to power as your system creates the inherent potentiality of.
To state, nobody knows why Rational was banned here. Site ownership acted unilaterally in doing so and that is their legal right. Site onwership can make moderators unilateral decision makers if they so choose.
If it is up to users to decide course of moderation though, to whatever degree that priviledge may be afforded, i respectfully disagree with your estimation that the potential harms of a kangaroo court in any decisive way outweigh potential harms in abuse to potential unchecked powers so as to justify unilateral decision making abilities with zero checks to said power being afforded to the general populace as a whole. 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
And moderator decisions when exclusively their own, should not preclude any independent examination. Again
>Intellectual and rational debaters
>Sit down and shut up, you get no recourse
Pick one, cause you can't have both
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I also feel you aren't factoring in the site purpose itself
The site itself is a place intended to foster intellectual and rational debate. How do you propose a website that adjudicates from on high with no feasible recourse against, potential harmful to welfare as a whole, bans, not consequentially lose userbase growth and/or begin to shrink?
A group of intellectual debaters not having a reasonable check against potential moderator abuses seems a recipe for disaster. One that can be held to neither foster usergrowth, or an atmosphere of intellectual diversity 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
"i care"
"I want to see site flourish"
Also subjective criteria and arbitrary distinctions. Also, it being rather irrelevant to adjudication. Both parties claim to care, both are operating against something they see as harmful to the site, such claims should be of no concern to jurisprudence.
Health of the site itself otherwise being a concern, banning individuals for arbitrary distinctions can neither be held to foster diversity of thought, or growth of userbase. Administrators that adjudicate removal on arbitrary grounds, particularly on a website with the purpose of intellectual and rational debate, would soon find themselves with jurisprudence over a rapidly shrinking, not growing, userbase 🙊
Created:
Posted in:
Not sure I really agree on banning rational on the grounds of being "unwanted" or "disliked". Subjective terminology such as "toxic" also being rather whimsical in relation to substantiation. Site owners have ultimate decision on the matter.
Other metrics such as:
-responsiveness
-trolling
Are subjective and therefore necessarily arbitrary criteria for such removal. The interactions between Rational and Zeichen both in this thread specifically would constitute as toxic and harmful for a variety of reasons, yet oddly, both are not banned. Obviously this criteria is not just rationally arbitrary , but in practice is showing to be as such, and given that, can only be deemed as unjust, both in theory and practical application.
Created:
Cause the process you described sounds like a straw purchase in essence, using a corporation as the party that performs the purchase 🤔
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
This is where straw purchasing laws likely would be carried over and applied 🤔
Created:
Why would local law enforcement even have jurisdiction over a federal regulation. State and local can enact further restrictions, but restrictions imposed Federally are exclusively the purview of Federal Government 🤔
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Somebody in that corporation needs clearance to purchase anyways though. And local law enforcement isnt the one who clears that... Its federally illegal to purchase a fully automatic or a silencer. To get em you need federal approval primarily 🤔
Created:
Posted in:
Cost isn't a matter of waving a magic wand and going "you have the price of $10 dollars" and oh wow, magically its actual cost is now 10 dollars 🙊
Price v Cost
You can mandate price, you cant mandate cost, cost gets paid at some point regardless of whether or one buries their head in the sand, as would
be the equivalent actions for a mandating of price.
Created: