96VXb9ktTjFnRi

Is there any particular hate against 'live, laugh, love' that I am missing, besides the phrase just being a bit cheesy?

Sabotage Wikipedia, Ddos the Internet Archive. Makes you wonder if in the future we're going to forget our past. Will actual history be obscured in a sea of alternative histories unrecognizably presented as the same thing. Maybe we need to keep some books laying around in archives just to be sure.

We still have it, and it's quite nice.

But a fair point nonetheless.

This article is from 2015. By then it's been 10 years since the company started, and he already left it. In the article he explains that still only 25% of the cacao used in Tony's Chocolonely is guaranteed slave-free, let alone that they've had any significant impact on the industry at large. He says the situation of slave labor in cacao industry has only worsened. Tony's has changed the message on their product "100% slave free" (which was false advertising) to something like "working together towards slave-free chocolate", which he concludes to be meaningless marketing. It's rather bizarre that such a message is allowed on a product that contains cacao from slave-labor....

Some info, that's interesting and helps balance this blatant advertisement. Tony's was started by Dutch television maker Teun van der Keuken. He worked on a program that exposes products for their production methods and false marketing and so on. They stumbled onto the slavery that's part of the cacao industry. He asked to be arrested for eating chocolate, and in doing so enabling slave labor, but he wasn't. He started out Tony's Chocolonely to attempt to change the chocolate industry. He's not part of the company anymore. He has concluded the mission has failed, and is very critical of his former company, saying they've lost sight of the aim: slave-free chocolate.

If you have a lot of money

• ~~you contributed a lot to society~~
• you took a lot from society

If you're a successful businessman and you want to contribute, perhaps you could lower the prices of your products, perhaps you could give shares to your employees who do all the work. Not only is it efficient for them to have a stake in the company, it's also only fair. Not doing so is unfair. We won't celebrate your 'success', a successful thief is a thief nonetheless. You doing so-called 'philanthropy' won't do any good either. Money is power, you exerting your power over us isn't the moral thing to do. It's still wrong to the core. Sure, people voluntarily giving money to all sorts of causes is a beautiful thing, but only if money is reasonably distributed among people in the first place. If you take money from society on a large scale and then exert this power, than undoubtedly your views and interests are disproportionately represented. Your intentions are dubious, because if you intended well, why did you keep all the money and power for yourself in the first place? It's likely that you're a power hungry maniac. But even if you're somehow naively unaware of this and truly have the noblest of intentions with your philanthropy, then it's still a ludicrous idea that this would be an efficient way to distribute money. It's quite obvious that if everyone got a say in where the money goes, that the distribution of assets would better represent what society deems important. It's only logical that if you get to distribute the money, it will go to things you deem important. If you think that makes sense, it can only mean that you deem yourself wiser, more moral, than all of humanity combined. It means you are a narcissist. It's not unlikely that you are, people who are successful money-wise, often think that life it a money-game and they're the winning players. And they have won because they work hard and are clever. The thing is, life isn't a money-game, people have moral compasses and strive towards others goals than making money. And even if it was a money-game, you've not won because you're so smart and hard-working, it is in a very large part due to your luck. That's not an allegation, it's a logical fact. People don't have the same starting positions. Being a billionaire is morally wrong, even if you give all of it away later in life.

That's a lot of words for saying: focus on buying houses, and keep them so no one else can buy these houses.

Also it's not at all obvious that you'll accomplish it before others get houses/hotels.

Where ever you listen to your music, in most cases you can hook it up with ListenBrainz, to save your listening data on a FOSS alternative for Last.fm. And to get all sorts of beneficial features, like for instance recommendations that are truly independent, and getting updates on new releases.

good luck finding one with a decent resolution AND price.

That raises the question: is there one that has decent resolution and privacy, but is expensive? Those of us who can afford it should surely go for the privacy friendly option regardless of price. Boycotting the surveillance society that's in full development is worth a lot.

Interesting, care to explain?

I can only see 'being a billionaire' as 'stealing from the population at large'. So you're saying the biggest thief of society is still popular among 6% of democrats.