piratekaiser

Syria, one of the largest contributors, is not exactly stable yet. Israel is making sure of that with their continued warmongering

They do use the same pass though, that's why it's so strange to me. Thanks for the help, this at least gives me a clue.

I'll dig around and update the post for reference.

Right. Wouldn't it make sense to unlock it along with my root drive when I log in though? There should be a way to do that

You don't win by them just losing some money. Redistribution is the name of the game. Even if Tesla hits 0/share, you aren't getting any more wealth just by virtue of that happening.

...Aside from basking in the downfall of a nazi of course, but those are priceless things.

Save the puppies act! If we don't know what exactly you say while pounding your wife, how could we possibly hope to save your dear pup, which I promise you did not consent to a threesome?!

And eeevery body loves puppies, no one will object to that. In case you do, you'd be suspected in zoophilia by the way, so don't do it!

The sarcasm here would be lost on so many people...

Reading this made me even happier I don't have to live there

That's how subscription services get you. Why buy DVDs when you can stream all day long on Netflix? Suddenly, DVDs are no longer for sale and streaming services take down content for one reason or another. Then you have no other legal alternative but to pay whatever they ask, be shown whatever they want and continue to own none of it.

Can you share that? Having a hard time finding it

I understand the logic of it, my point is that this is a trust/honesty based system which leaves you cornered. Here are some problems with it:

• placing a low value on my house to pay less taxes exposes me to a hostile buyout
• placing a realistic (e.g. around average for the region) price doesn't solve the previous problem. I'm still in danger of a hostile buyout, while also paying higher taxes. What's more, even if everyone else plays fairly, this additional % someone else paid to take my house is now the minimum added on top of their own valuation, driving prices up.
• placing an unreachably high price would bankrupt me as I can't pay the taxes, so there is no scenario in which this works out for me
• given a realistic and unequal economy, there will be those who can't afford to place a higher price on their house, i can just go and buy them out on sale, then rent them back to them (that one might sound familiar)

The fault in your assumption is 1. that this would discourage corporations from buying up; and 2. That you live in an equal and just society;

That's not how this works. A better solution would be to tax more aggressively second+ homes and severely limit what corporations can invest into.

Why should a company be able to profit off of second hand housing? This isn't a commodity, but it's treated as such. Companies should be able to build new housing (for sale) and own housing only for the purposes of, say, housing their employees if they so wish. I simply see no benefits to allowing companies trade living spaces like stocks.

My example was about how people get together to make revolutions happen, not wether they were good/bad or what ended up happening after. I chose those examples because in both cases a revolt was long time coming but people couldn't do it until they were organised