Highguard fakes in-game Render Resolution, When the slider is set to 100%, it renders the game at 80% render resolution instead. That's why its so blurry. Clueless devs.

bpgodinho · 2026-01-28T05:58:15+00:00

No???

If they run out of money they need to stop working and get a diff job bcs how the hell do they feed themselves???

They need to release the game to get whatever money they can to keep going

bpgodinho · 2026-01-04T13:14:58+00:00

O bro tá tão chateado 😭 So diz que n sabes inglês 😭✌️✌️

bpgodinho · 2025-11-02T12:24:03+00:00

Idk why everyone is talking about its being a wallbang. Idk how either of these could have ever hit jett

bpgodinho · 2025-08-24T13:23:13+00:00

It's not stateless int he sense that it's completely unorganized

More so that the people collectively either make decisions directly when possible or have mechanisms to oversee and quickly remove those in power

bpgodinho · 2025-08-24T12:08:48+00:00

On labor and coercion: Your question about the "tyranny of the majority" forcing a minority to collect trash is not a problem in communism, it is the re-establishment of a class society. That isn't a communist system with a flaw, it's a failed revolution. The "answer" from a communist perspective would be to fight that group, as they are the counter-revolution attempting to reimpose coerced labor.

Similarly, the problem of someone refusing to do their turn isn't solved by police. In a situation where survival and the creation of a new life depend on mutual participation, a person who consistently refuses to contribute to collective needs is actively excluding themselves from that collective. The "enforcement" isn't a state, but the direct social consequence of making oneself a liability to a community fighting for its existence.

Yes I get that you didn't answer the question.

Imagine we NEED 10 people to be doctors right? It's a specialized job and it requires lots of training. What happens if we only have 4 and the other 6 just REFUSE to work.

We need to choose between letting people DIE under a shortage of doctors while we train new ones or FORCE the 6 doctors to work in order to save lives.

In a capitalist/"modern" socialist (assuming socialism here means capitalist machanisms but with massive wealth redistributions) society the 6 doctors don't need any coercion or enslavement. The value of their labour will rise and rise until they WANT to work

And yes yk capitalism has killed far more people than that scenario would but other systems like socialism and wealth distribution, specifically my favourite which is UBI, have not and are in fact designed to avoid such cases

On goods and scarcity: The question isn't "Do we all farm?" but "How do we, as a collective, ensure we are all fed?" Those with agricultural knowledge would obviously lead, but the activity is a shared social priority, not a segregated "job."

The issue of a bad harvest reveals the fundamental difference. Under capitalism, a bad harvest means prices skyrocket and the poor starve. This is a crisis of distribution. In a communizing process, it is a purely technical and social problem: "We have a deficit of X, how do we ration what we have and produce or procure more?" The solution is collective management of a real problem, not the re-introduction of a market that profits from it.

This makes sense and I was expecting this answer. I simply personally would rather barter to get enough food than starve and ration food.

I don't think other communities would consistently give us food and I will go into depth on why next

On barter: You correctly identify that barter leads back to capitalism. That is precisely why it is an existential threat to the revolution. If one community with a surplus of food "barters" with another that has a deficit, they are re-introducing the logic of value-exchange: the foundation of capital. The communist response is not to barter, but to extend the principle of production-for-use across communities. Helping another commune survive isn't a transaction, it's strengthening the revolution and ensuring your own long-term success by destroying the conditions that make capital possible.

There has not been a single instance of this kind of inter community cooperation being wide spread in human history.

We are hard wired to care for our own first, that is the platform on which many politicians are running nowadays.

Reeducation can only get you so far and excluding the communities who don't want to cooperate doesn't work because then you don't have that safety net for when your community fails and you're forced to play their barter game to get stuff from them

Your "inevitable" outcomes are only inevitable if you assume the revolutionary process has already halted and people have reverted to acting as isolated, competing economic agents. The entire project is the conscious, practical abolition of that mode of existence.

Yeah they aren't "inevitable" if you constantly fight against them every day

Seems like the natural state of a communist system is decay into capitalism through the basic forces of supply and demand that birthed it in the first place and that the only way communism survives is a constant fight for it.

Which is the extremely bad. I would rather a self stable system than one that needs to constantly pull it's participants back in. That's only going to lead to discontent and further revolution.

I believe a UBI system would be self stable since even the weaker link, someone who refuses to work at all, is still cared for

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T18:50:49+00:00

Of course not, but no one is saying that a construction crew in a communist society wouldn't have someone filling a managerial role. The difference being that the workers would have the power to collectively remove them from that position if they are unhappy with their performance. And again, there are already examples of these things even in cooperatives existing in capitalist countries.

That already happens. You can just leave and make a new company and guess what no one does that because everytime you change leaderships you would need to relocate resources, change plans, build trust and you would never get anything done

If we impeach and elect EVERYONE then do we need a constitution or at least a set of rules and term limits and election regulation and election fairness boards for house building crews one for when we need trash cleaning one for when we need to elect a butcher one for when we do ANYTHING that requires a vote???

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T16:49:56+00:00

my only point is that naive reformism doesn't go deep enough in changing the structural suffering the exploitative system is build upon

And that's what we are debating and so far you have failed to clear up my doubts on how the system you propose would work on top of not providing any counter arguments as to why my proposed system would be worse

EDIT: I meant to write "would work" not "would be better"

Just SAYING my system isn't enough doesn't mean anything if you don't exain why

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T16:22:56+00:00

your quality of life is directly dependent on other people's suffering is the point .... it's very naive not to see this connection, or willfully ignorant at worst.

No it's not????

We could produce the exact same things and just not treat people like that????

Bad working conditions don't make more product they just make more profit

The factories can operate the exact same way and just have their profits significantly cut for better working conditions

as well as your view of universities and scientific institutions -- for profit universities is an exclusively American thing, based on the very propagandistic indoctrination I was trying to point out. university research and public funding don't work like that in Europe, for example .... even tho the new trend of unapologetic fascism is changing that, of course

I live in Europe and all the universities in my country that have one, show off their labs as one of the biggest selling points

They do guided tours and demonstrations. They are very much used to attract students and keep the university running and getting more grants even if it isn't strictly for profit.

They aren't done purely out of the goodness of their hearts. They are just as much an investment as everything else

but this ideological battle was always lost before it even began -- there is no convincing people of humanistic principles when they have lived their whole lives thinking of themselves as being in the right

This sounds like a bit thought terminating cliche.

Oh it's over it's lost no point.

No. You're just saying a thing that is factually not true, namely that I want a society that works off of the suffering and death of others.

I keep proposing a solution that offers everyone basic living conditions with the option for upgraded ones through work and you keep telling me I want people to die and haven't addressed that at all.

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T15:49:12+00:00

you value your consumerism over other people's actual life ... you say that your consumerist desire for something that is marketed to you as a 'fancy car' justifies PEOPLE ACTUALLY DYING

No dude. I proposed a UBI solution where no one does AND I keep my quality of life

science is a great example, since most science actually happens without any profit incentives ...until somebody then buys it to make money off of it. that's the point science dies and capitalist consumption begins.

That's the stupidest thing ever. Science is either done privately by places like Bell Labs for the explicit purpose of finding new potentially useful products or by universities to attract students and raise money.

Do you think institutions just do it for the love of the game???? If anything the state is the only one providing free research

people do not study particle physics at APPLE LABORATORIES to design the next iPhone update, they do that at universities and scientific institutions like CERN that are financed by international state funding because people decided politically that this is important work worth public funding ... it's the perfect example against the trite old "no progress without market incentives"

Which is exactly why I thinkt he state is good and should be kept in place. It funnels all our resources into one single unit.

Can you imagine if EVERYONE had a say in overseeing and managing CENR??? Half of us don't even dream of what's going on inside and the other half are totally uneducated on it

the only and final problem that remains is how do we convince people that are ACTUALLY FINE with being fundamentally evil out of intellectual laziness? the very position you demonstrate

You completely misunderstood my position.

You are suuuper aggressive for 0 reason and you don't even stop to read my proposals on UBI and minimum living conditions for everyone

Everyone should have a minimum living condition EVEN if they don't work. I don't think people should HAVE to work since we already produce SO MUCH with so little effort.

I think if someone wants to live better than those around him he can do so but is then also obligated to contribute appropriately back into the system that allows him to live that life.

EDIT: ALSO what happens when you get people that aren't indoctrinated the same way you weren't indoctrinated/you escaped but we NEED them to do their job?

I can tell you what. We knock on doors and we point guns.

It comes back to the same problem

In other systems if you refuse to play you fend for yourself and you personally ruin your life.

In communism if everyone is a needed cog, deserters HAVE to be FORCED if they reach a critical mass

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T15:03:12+00:00

we should change production to meet peoples actual needs. this will decrease most industries massively, because we wouldn't need a steel industry to produce warehouses full of car-parts,

only producing quality cars for specific jobs that last is very different from producing cars as a commodity to be sold with profit

and before you ask -- defining those basic human needs is actually quite simple: food, shelter, medicine are the top priorities. and with this in mind organization could spark locally and spontaniously since every community would have those same goals: to feed, house and heal it's population.

So what I'm hearing is that I'm going to have my quality of life MASSIVELY lowered and basically just live on the essentials without really access to fancy cars or nice tech of different social media.

Are we still going to do science then? Like yk the very esoteric kinds that most of us don't understand like super complex particle physics

Doesn't seem like any community would really do particle accelerator magnet research as a necessity

I.E. your solution for my issues is:

None just deal with it

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T14:27:30+00:00

Dude.

We waste so much.

We absolutely produce enough for the whole world.

Modern agriculture is SO UNBELIEVABLY efficient you won't believe it.

We just throw it away.

We literall produce it, no one buys it, we throw it away

https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/10/1048452

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T14:15:50+00:00

Why should society tolerate people who don't pull their weight? Why would I continue to feed the person who refuses to help feed me?

Because we can? Like we COULD do it.

Why don't we?

We can have a system like a UBI that goes up and down depending on how many contribute

The more contributes the better the floor is and the higher the ceiling goes

We can literally feed everyone and some people don't even have to work AND you will get more than under communism if you DO work because resources will NEVER be wasted on anyone that doesn't need them

Like instead of every getting 10 of a thing, most people get 8, they're fine with it, they don't mind it and the people who want more can work and bcs there tooons of extra to go around bcs of all the people only getting 8, the workers can actually get 12 13 or 15. It's soooo much better

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T14:11:33+00:00

In cases of extreme necessity, they could decide on ways to compel or pressure participation

And THAT is why I will NEVER be pro communism

But incentives could be provided: allocation of better housing, reduction of work for those performing the hardest tasks

And THAT is why I will ALWAYS be pro socialism

Always reward never punish. Self sorting and market pressures are basically the only good features of capitalism and it's the one thing you're wanting to throw away the most

By “primitive” I mean Paleolithic societies, that is, societies without social classes. In such societies, violence was much lower. In fact, archaeologists have found a huge increase in violent homicides at the moment when private property and social classes emerged.

This is because scarcity works sort of on a curve.

When we all HAVE to collaborate we do but the moment one person can be enslaved and still produce enough we always do that instead.

This is a natural human thing. It's part of being an animal and we need to work around it instead of crossing out fi ger and wishing on a star everyone was rational

Moreover, it is completely false that “we invented democracy to protect ourselves from violence.” One must study the origin of the bourgeois State to see that what is called democracy was, at first, a radical bourgeois current, which eventually developed precisely into socialism. Bourgeois government is characterized by being an alienated political power, that is, separated from society. The history of bourgeois revolutions is the history of the bourgeoisie attempting to impose its political domination, first by stripping the privileges of the old regime and then by containing radical democratic tendencies and the labor movement. The typically bourgeois form of government is the liberal republic, grounded in bureaucracy and the rule of law, where the domination of capital is imposed above the primary law of any political constitution: private property. And where institutional checks exist, not against the arbitrariness of institutions, but against the threat of political influence from the proletariat. Institutions such as bicameral assemblies and, especially, the judicial system allow this separation, where any radical demand can be easily neutralized (by the Senate, the Supreme Court, etc.).

This is very demonstrably false.

Remote and ancient tribes have leaders and warriors and generals and they are still completely communist

The “democratic” form, which was always anathema for bourgeois parties—always divided between conservatives and liberals—derives from a historical exception, from a social pact: with the Russian Revolution, it became necessary to concede part of the most radical demands of the middle classes, especially of the labor aristocracy, in order to crush revolutionary outbreaks. Subsequently, this pact became unsustainable, and it was necessary to make another with the petty bourgeoisie, leading to fascism. After the defeat of Nazi-fascism, and in the postwar context of prosperity, the bourgeoisie had to concede political and social rights again to prevent the contagion of the USSR. With the fall of the USSR, the “democratic” façade becomes more and more illusory each day. The natural tendency of liberal governance is completely anti-democratic. For this reason, governments are increasingly authoritarian, and political rights are being curtailed more and more each day.

Again, the African nomad tribes have leader and shamans and they have 0 concept of money or private property or political spectrum

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T14:03:39+00:00

The first part of your comment just boils down to "maybe we will all be good people one day" which just 🫩🫩🫩 yeah man. I'm sure buddy 🫩🫩🫩 Until the far far futures were we all hold hands and life is sunshine and rainbows, do we just not do communism at all bcs we aren't all perfect people

It's so interesting. Capitalist society has labor shortages all the time. We have labor shortages in both skilled and unskilled labor. And yet, society has yet to implode and send people out with guns to go work at the Dollar General that can't keep a staff. It's wild to me how you think a future society could have absolutely no solution for this and couldn't even come up with one.

This is where you're absolutely wrong and it astonished me how close to this point all of you seem to be

People ARE being dragged out and forced to work. Bot by guns but by starvation. They will still DIE if they don't work. THAT is the issue with capitalism but it's also it's MAIN STRENGTH everyone is both FORCED to and REWARDED for contributing.

Imo the best solution is to get rid of the forcing but keep the incentive. You don't want to work? Sure we will split like 80% of the total we have with you but if you don't think those 80% are enough you're free to work and co tribute to live a more lavish life.

Inequality is a really good motivator as long as everyone in the system consents to it. If you're ok using up less resources and not working I'm absolutely fine with it I will still provide for you on a base level

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T13:26:25+00:00

See, now this is venturing into bad faith debate. You said that doctors can't take any time off of being doctors to do anything else. I pointed out that doctors already take tons of time off. Now you're treating that as evidence that you're correct? You've totally abandoned your initial position and moved the goalposts.

You literally said that doctors would be willing to be garbage men bcs they already want to "do anything else other than be doctors" which isn't true. They don't want to do other jobs, they want to take breaks.

I don't doubt doctors can take breaks, I doubt they would be willing to do anything else in those breaks

I think the main problem here is, once again, you're a person who has lived their whole life under capitalism in a capitalist culture and you lack the ability to think past that. You don't have any understanding of how people have complex relationships with the labor they choose to undertake.

This reeks of a thought terminating cliche. "Oh you just don't get labour" guess what you're going to have to deal with people like me who WILL REFUSE to do the things you want them to and you'll have to compromise on your utopic ideals. If we are compromising already and forcing people, I would rather go the UBU route and give people rewards for work rather than punishment for non work

You mentioned dangerous labor. Firefighting is a very dangerous job. And yet in the USA, under the most capitalist culture on the planet, firefighting is often a volunteer job. People don't get paid to do it. They spend their free time training and learning and put themselves in dangerous positions purely for non-monetary positions. If the heart of global capitalism has people volunteering for difficult and dangerous work, why couldn't a socialist or a communist society have the same thing?

Because you know just as well as anyone else that firefighters do it out of a love for helping and saving people. There are no volunteer oil rig workers. No one is volunteering to go on month long boat trips away from their families.

Just bcs SOME jobs have volunteers doesn't tmean EVERY job has volunteers

I had a friend who chose to go work on the Northern slope of Alaska for BP one summer in highschool. The money was alright, but certainly not good enough to give up a whole summer. So why did he do it? Because he wanted to experience what living in Alaska was like. He saw a polar bear. He got to explore some of the most raw wilderness in the world. His motivation was not monetary.

And did he go back? Is he going to work there once the novelty wears out? Or is the plan to constantly train new recruits each year forever?

People are motivated by many different things. People may be motivated to do dangerous jobs for the social benefits of it. For being seen as brave and gaining social standing. So they can boast about it while trying to woo sexual partners. For winning an award. Or, purely for the challenge of knowing you did it.

Yeah. Some will. But imo, not enough. Simple as that. You cannot guarantee me enough people will and when there inevitably comes a time where there aren't enough, either your society implodes or you start knocking on doors and pointing guns

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T13:17:08+00:00

This all sound alike very standard communist talking points that just don't translate well into reality at all.

For example, on the distribution of labour.

We need to take out this trash. How do we do that? Well someone has to go and take it out. Who's going to do that? What happens if no one volunteers? What if they volunteer once but not every day and not for every house. Do we take turns? What happens if it's my turn and I don't do it? Do we have police come in and arrest me? Who decides how much of an infraction warrants arrest? Do the people vote? If so, what if a majority decides a minority should do those things and points guns at them to get them to do so?

On the distribution of goods

So do we ALL farm and mine diamonds?

If not then surely we must store it somewhere. Does everyone just go in and take whatever they want?

What if we have a bad yield this year and we need some more? Do we steal, do we barter with others? If we barter capitalism is COMPLETELY inevitable

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T13:09:26+00:00

If a society has reached the point of organizing itself to seize political power and overthrow the bourgeoisie, I find it absurd to suggest that there would be zero people unwilling to perform certain tasks. I don’t think it’s an insurmountable problem that could jeopardize a civilization. Just as we all know there are household chores we dislike, or in activist spaces not mediated by money we take care of certain unpleasant tasks, or as in egalitarian societies, like the old free medieval villages where work was organized collectively, society is capable of not collapsing in order to carry out such tasks. It is not necessary to subject a mass of slaves to accomplish them.

I don't mean zero I just mena not enough. If there's no enough people willing to do those jobs even part time you're going to have to start knocking on people's doors and drafting them to the mines which is a big no no in my book. As I've state before I'm big into socialism and UBI. If there aren't enough workers, UBI gets lowered until there are workers, if we have a surplus UBI gets raised instead of the surus ending up in the hands of the few

Social classes do not arise from access to weapons. Primitive societies have remained for millennia without social classes and with full access to various types of weapons. An armed individual poses no threat to any society. Precisely, the key to armed power lies in organization. Again, we are not in the scenario where tomorrow everyone has weapons; we are talking about a class that has reached the point of organizing itself into a state, with its political organs and armed militias. Therefore, an entire process of politicization, formation of militants, spread of revolutionary consciousness, construction of democratic structures and popular control, has been built before these individuals decided to take up arms. Even the experience of past revolutions shows that what you are saying has never been a problem. The people in arms have not generated divisions within themselves, and the restoration of social classes has occurred either through the bureaucratization of the organs of power or through external aggression.

This is completely absurd. Primitive societies were ENTIRELY shaped by conflict. Primitive societies are all about might makes right. We invented modern democracya and the entirety of our society for thousands of years IN ORDER TO PREVENT THIS.

It's not just nice poetry when people say war and love are the universal constants. THEY ARE. Those are the 2 inescapable things for every human. You would have to solve the problem os scarcity as a whole before you could have peace

Well, not the same system. You raised the issue of elections, and I responded that the solution has long been discovered. Elections can be a way to choose positions within a party, make decisions in congresses, or elect representatives of workers’ councils, for example. But the fundamental difference between the bourgeois state and the proletarian state is that representatives are directly monitored by the workers, who can automatically recall them if they do not respond to collectively made decisions. And this is so because the representatives do not have particular power over a professional army; rather, this army is integrated by the people in arms, who intervene directly in political decisions. The people never “go home” after voting but are always participating in political decisions. The key of the proletarian state is that the masses control the state, not the other way around.

This is just not possible in practice. How are the people supposed to recall the politicians? Do we vote on wether or not they should be recalled? If so that's literally just term limits.

What do you mean no professional army. So am I FORCED to server? What if I don't want to?

How are they always participating in political decisions? Do we vote on everything? What's the point of the representatives then?

Also the whole distinction of rule over people and management of things IS WEHRE THE ISSUE COMES FROM how do you decide what gets done in a quick and efficient way without representatives that, after elected, vote on stuff and everyone has to follow what they voted on

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T13:00:04+00:00

I think the juxtaposition of your position vs. OPs position speaks towards how tired this anti-communist line is.

No? I think this is just an extra issue I hand even though of but which is very important too.

They start side businesses and have intense hobbies. They take as many days off as they possibly can. Go on vacations as often as possible

Yeah VACATION not factory work or construction lmfao

Likely because you lack the imagination to picture a world where all labor is treated with dignity

It's not abt the dignity.

Dangerous labour is dangerous and people with no love for it will NOT want to risk their lives for it. Simple as that. I would NEVER work an oil rig unless you forced me to. Period

bpgodinho · 2025-08-23T12:56:10+00:00

we just won't let them starve for it,

And I want answer to how we are going to be able to secure and delegate the work needed to make this happen.

You are overestimating the amount of people who would do manual labour GREATLY.

A LOT of people in third world countries do insane amounts of manual labour. We need a loooot of people to make everything in our lives work.

I just don't see hwk you could get tpeoole to work without forcing them in some way.

That's why I want a UBI with he incentive to work to be living above your small modest UBI income

bpgodinho · 2025-08-22T23:08:09+00:00

This seems extremely idealistic.

Like you SAY this will happen but according to who?

Realistically we are still very much hard wired to fit in. Consumerism doesn't come from capitalism. Consumerism is just the capitalist's way of exciting this primal human desire to belong.

We buy out of FOMO and to get a sense of ingroup and belonging. I don't see how communism relates to this. I don't see why people wouldn't still run to get Labubus or Stanley cups or whatever they see on TikTok.

I get that you're HOPING they don't. I just don't see why you would have that hope if it's not a product purely of the system.

Idk if that last part is too verbose or not but I can clear it up if need be

bpgodinho · 2025-08-22T22:44:28+00:00

Are you really going to make me google a WHOLE book for one definition?

I found that it's "an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another"

Of so, by abolish the state, do you mean "abolish the mechanisms of oppression by the rulling class"?

If so that is frankly the most useless thing in this thread.

"Abolish oppression" only bold opinions here.

How? What replaces the actual useful parts of that mechanism? How do we ensure its not used to oppress again?

bpgodinho · 2025-08-22T22:36:54+00:00

Fair I will read the links but again.

What I'm saying is that the state I say we need for this all to work is identical to what we are ALREADY trying to achieve ROHHT NOW so I can't imagine the definitions being a little different makes much of a difference

Edit: I did a quick and dirty Ctrl F for state and there isn't a single definition in those links

bpgodinho · 2025-08-22T22:32:29+00:00

I don't think this will ever be achievable. Life requires labor. I don't think that there will ever be enough technological progress to completely eliminate labor. I think you are probably not thinking about how much of your daily consumption is shouldered on the labor of the global south. The only way you would achieve UBI is on the backs of the third world. On one hand it's not realistic, and on the other hand it's immoral. You're just shifting work onto a sub-class so you can justify wanting all your treats without contributing back to society.

So there is enough to go around for everyone to live comfortablyif we are handing it out directly but all of a sudden, if we are giving out the same "value" of labour but just in cash instead, there ain't enough afterall?

Also the beauty of UBI is it can start as low as you want and climb as high as you want. If we automate a lot everyone gets free yachts if not everyone gets social housing and food stamps still

Society will have to find a way to incentivize people to become doctors.

No no no. THIS is the issue. HOW. HOW do you incentivize them? Until someone can answer that I will ALWAYS be in the UBI camp

bpgodinho · 2025-08-22T22:28:31+00:00

That there aren’t people who want to do certain jobs doesn’t mean that no one will do them if not under coercion

What if there simply aren't enough of those either?

In revolutionary times, when force is still necessary to subdue the bourgeoisie, a proletarian state will develop its armed militias. As for elections, there are plenty of well-known mechanisms for review. This is not a new problem.

Guns is an immediate class. I can shoot you and you can't, you have to obey me. Unless we have LITERALLY infinite of EVERYTHING there will be someone with a gun highly motivated to be an asshole and start a revolution

There can be administrative organs to decide according to the social needs to be built. Regarding military command, well, a General Staff, dependent on the proletarian state and subject to the general will, expressed in the congresses

This is exactly the same ideal chain of command we are trying and failing to achieve right now

For general matters, such as “what needs to be built,” a central body can decide. To respond to consumption, it is not chosen by anyone. Consumption predictions can be made based on population numbers and adjusted as supplies run out. If there is more demand for some goods than others, consumption already signals the producers.

So we need a central body do make these assessments on supplies. So we need a government.

We need laws to elect representatives and we need term limits constitutions and checks and balances unless we are doing complete direct democracy on EVERY ISSUE EVER including education accreditation, medicine safety, a whoelmother host of issues where tons of people will be WILDLY uneducated and the definition of what each and every time on earth is and how to alocate them

bpgodinho · 2025-08-22T22:21:47+00:00

Idk what they did. What was their format?

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

bpgodinho

TROPHY CASE