Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive October 12, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

everything in one story. Have you noticed that? You know, you have lots of different stories about politics, but every now and then there'll just be one story that just sort of combines everything bad into one thing. And it turns out to be the Georgia voting law. So let's talk about that. So as you know, some corporations are giving them a hard time for changing their voting laws. Allegedly, acco…

← Previous segment →

ing why should I pay money for your problem? And then you're done. That's a good argument. Why should I pay money for your problem? Are you paying money for my problem? You know, so you have an argument at least. But corporations have no argument.

And here's how I would do it. I would say corporations, you will be required to train anybody Black who wants to be trained. That's it. Just, you know, if you're a big enough company you probably have to limit it to maybe Fortune 500 or something. You just say this: if a Black citizen comes in and says I'd like to be trained for a job in your company, you have to do it. That's it. That's the whole thing.

So every single Black person can go to any corporation, say you know I think I'd be good in the warehouse or learning to code or whatever it is that I think I can do, and you have to train me. Reparations.

Now here is the beauty of it. I believe you can make an argument that it pays for itself. I think you could. You couldn't make that argument as easily if individual citizens are paying the taxes for the reparations because it's just a harder argument to make. But a corporation training people to work in its own industry might actually pay for itself and certainly for the economy as a whole because it would employ more people, blah blah blah, so on.

So on behalf of my new self-identified group, Black America, I give you this piece of productive work, which is if you want reparations, tax corporations and do it that way. Make sure that they have to train anybody who asks for it.

All right. Here's how to solve the voter identification problem, just for the in-person stuff. There might be a way to do it for not in person too but it'd be harder. Use the facial recognition app when you're there. But if somebody doesn't have ID you ask them to sign a document that says they can use the app to determine their ID.

So a person comes in, they have no ID. The person working there says show me your ID. They say I don't have one. They say well you've signed this form that gives me permission to hold up my camera and go. Because that's all it takes. It's actually that fast. If you haven't seen, if you've never seen a facial recognition app work, it'll scare the hell out of you. It'll scare the hell out of you the first time you see it.

I saw one. I saw the app work on me once just as a demo and it's instant. It's this fast. Click. Oh you're Scott. It's that fast. You could do that easily without even holding up the line. It's actually faster than showing your ID. The time it takes you to reach into your pocket and take out your wallet and fiddle with it and show your ID is about 10 times longer than click, oh Scott.

So just looking at a comment there. That was weird.

Okay, so we have the technology that at least in person, you still have the mail and vote issue and let's treat that separate at the moment. But you could solve all of the ID problems just by having people say yeah I'll let you use the facial recognition app on me. Now everybody who has ID has no risk of the facial recognition. It wouldn't be on all the time. You'd have to agree to it and you wouldn't because you have ID.

Now seriously, tell me what that doesn't solve. Anybody normally when I'm reading the comments, as soon as I present an idea there's all the injections just sort of flowing in. There are no objections. Think about that. Think about the fact the most critical group in the world, I mean you guys are pretty skeptical which I like. I like it when you challenge me on the ideas and the facts. But I'm not even seeing a counter argument. I'm j

Context —

ust monitoring the comments as they're going by. Yeah, there's literally no argument against that because the technology already exists. The entire price of it is trivial. Like the cost is almost nothing. I mean it rounds to nothing. It's so cheap. It's instant. It solves the problem. Why not? Well I think the answer is that this was never about solving the problem, right? As we started, if anybo…

Next segment → →