Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor
I have 2 steps plan to end all child hunger in the world.
Step 1. Through capitalism, feed our own biological children. How? Well, make millions of dollars and buy food. That’ll do it.
Step 2? Not much more. Really. Let the market does the rest.
What about those who are not my biological children? Capitalism will solve that. The market will take care of it.
Let me explain.
Say I am the CEO of AMD corporation. Say I don’t just seek profit for my shareholders but also want the whole world to get cost effective CPU chipsets.
What do I do?
Well, I do R&D, research, and bla bla bla. I streamlined production, make things more efficient. Then, I created better chipset. Then benchmark those chipsets. Many magazines benchmark my chipsets and show mine are the best. Then I advertise my availability to customers. And then I sell. And then my customers will have better chipsets. That’s how capitalism works. Right?
That’s step 1. Problems solved.
What about people that are not my customers? Then they don’t have my chipsets then. What about them? Why don’t I have empathy?
But they have choices right? They can just choose to be my customers. See, being a moral ethical person, I can’t force people to be my customers. The most I can do is making sure they have choices and a reasonably well informed one. They can be my customers and enjoy better chipsets. If they don’t it’s their choice.
What about if customers have legitimate reasons on not being my customers? For example, some customers may legitimately think that transactional chipset trade demean customers and chipset manufacturers because the relationship differs significantly from biblical mandate and not based on love. They argue that CEO that think customers want transactional relationship is customer haters or customergynist.
Another would argue that all chipset customers want to be the only customer and that’s more important than having cost effective chipsets. Customers that don’t mind sharing chipset brand is bad customers according to customerist that have fought so long for equality between chipset manufacturers and chipset customers.
Another would say that using money to get chipsets is not truly consensual because customers have no other choices and need good CPU for their PC.
Okay. Customers can choose that. All those are legitimate concerns. Customers are kings. Individual freedom is sacred. They choose others then.
But then those customers don’t have cost effective chipsets? The one with proven benchmark stuff I created. Well… Yea…. Then what? Not like there isn’t much I can do about it. They choose.
Should I subsidize those customers? I mean. No. If I do that, people will choose worse chipsets. That’s actually counterproductive to my socialist goals of helping everyone have more cost effective chipsets.
Also I did the research, the streamline, the bla bla bla…. I deserve the profit from those efforts.
If I subsidize others I am not being fair to my self. Also it’ll set precedent that those who create better products don’t deserve profit. Everyone will be commies and the world will be fucked like Venezuela and North Korea.
What about my competitors? If they have my R&D and my common sense, and my factory network, they can do better. If their employee and CEO have enough nutrition or whatever. They too will be able to provide cost effective chipsets? Okay. So? Should I provide those? I mean am I afraid of playing on level playing field?
In a sense, the level playing field is fair. Everyone can win in capitalism if they have what it takes. They just have to come up with their own way to get what it takes.
If I share R&D to my competitors, then what’s the point of spending all those money on R&D? The whole point of making better products, test it, benchmark it, is so I have competitive edge compared to my competitors. So I can do what they can’t.
What about customers that can’t afford my chipsets? Well. I just concentrate on those I can mutually beneficially trade with. I will reinvest some of the profit to R&D, build more factories, capture the whole market price, and those customers will eventually get better chipsets too.
The same goes with others’ biological children. Their mom don’t choose me or someone like me. So if their children starve, it’s their problem. There isn’t anything more we can do about it.
I am not going to help my competitors nor will I subsidize children whose mom pick someone else.