After struggling to decide between the two candidates I've settled on not voting at all. I'm tired of choosing between the least bad option, and I will no longer legitimize this farce of democratic representation we supposedly have. 

Some of the worst, most egregious logic I’ve ever seen on this site, including this gem: “How can Russia be threatened when NATO says they are a purely defensive alliance??”

The lack of Spider-Man in any Sims game is evidence Spider-Man doesn’t exist.

A questionable assumption undergirding this entire line of thought is that the universe can be finitely partitioned. Another assumption that could be considered a coin toss is that agents occupy and compete within a common size, space, and/or time scale. That there is no upper bound on need/“greed” or that there will still be multiple agents may seem a given within the current zeitgeist but again are far from guarantees. There are many other such assumptions but these are a few of the most readily apparent.

I don’t follow why “focus on fixing the current problem” doesn’t work, or at the very least why the anecdote you gave is sufficient to generalize a single failure incident into a universal axiom.

There could have been a variety of reasons why your seemingly reasonable fix wasn’t adopted as policy. Maybe your team didn’t fully understand your explanation, maybe they understood but held a grudge against you for unrelated reasons, etc. People are not perfectly rational which is why being persuasive is a skill in itself. Just because FCCC failed to fix an existing problem that one time doesn’t mean it’s the wrong approach for a benevolent ruler (especially one who has the unquestioning loyalty of his/her followers no?)

Regarding the platinum rule where A treats B the way B wants to be treated, where is the interaction with A’s preferences? It seems A’s preferences have no bearing at all here unless I’m missing something.