Global Revolution!

[Informer]

A Direct Democracy.

 

The government, such as congress and house of representatives was created for convenience. As during the past times it would be hard to have everyone vote on every issue. To remedy this inconvenience we selected people to represent larger groups of people to make those decision.

 

Since the times have changed, this is no longer a necessity and in fact has become a hindrance to the will of the people. With our connectivity today, it is very possible for each one of us to vote on each one of the issues and bills that we want to. If you would rather leave it it the hand of a politician, then you could side with the president.

 

Like the issues in Libya, where the residents are begging the world for help. They want a piece of that freedom that we have. Each one of the citizens in America should be involved in this decision. Very easily could we log onto a website, listen to the debates in favor and opposing, then decide with the click of a mouse. There is no longer a need for all of these people to represent us. We can represent ourselves.

 

Issues such as security may arise within your mind. Let me ease those fears by proposing a completely clear voting system, where each voter can log onto a website to insure that their vote has been tallied correctly. I think that I should be able to decide on each issue that I deem worthy. What we are doing now, is equivalent to choosing a court jester and hope that he keeps his word after we choose him. So often the case where one thing is said and another is done.

 

We all deserve a voice on every matter that affects us and the world. We have been silenced and marginalized by our own government through the very system which was created for us to be our voice. Within a Direct Democracy there wouldn't be anyone to bribe or be corrupted except for the people themselves. There would be no one to place the blame on but ourselves.

 

I would propose that we would still have Ambassador's and a President, as well as those necessary personal. Just the representatives and senate would be eliminated. At minimum, a congress person will make $174,000 a year. So if we take the 535 in congress and add that to the 435 in the house we get 970. If we take the 970 and multiply it by the minimum yearly salary of $174,000 we would save a total of over $168,780,000 a year. This money could be better spent on clean energies that reduce our electric bill, as we the citizens would own the production, it would be pointless to charge ourselves for it. If we did this every year for 10 years we would have reduced our total energy bills exponentially when considering the benefits to the environment.

 

The system today as become so complex that many time the citizens don't really know what is going on. There are many who do not vote because they feel that their vote doesn't matter. After the Bush and Gore election, it is hard to say if our votes are really tallied correctly. By eliminating the possibilities for mistakes, we can proceed to listen to the true voice of our nation.

 

The wealth has slowly accumulated towards the large corporations. These corporations are allowed to use lobbyists and invest in presidential candidates which will make them more profit. Corporations would not invest in these thing if it was not profitable. So we allow the corporations to funnel money for special interests. By eliminating this possibility through a Direct Democracy, The corporations would be striped of their undue influence on the way the country is run.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Informer

[Aaron]

Hello Joeblast,

 

I'm done. You're about as hardheaded as anyone I've met. No we are not agreeing on more than we're disagreeing, although it was kind of you to try to bring this discussion to a close. The fact of the matter is that capitalism doesn't work unless money is projected upwards, if it moved downwards it would require that it be shared with those who may not be deemed to have any fair share in that wealth.

 

The problem is that, no matter how many times you're given an explanation for why capitalism doesn't work, or is broken in America, you seem to miss the entire point. Encephalon gave an excellent and detailed explanation, as did Ralis, and numerous others, but you ignore them, even when they make sense. You're so caught up in your conservative brainwashing, that you can't look past what you've been taught is true and even begin to examine whether or not what other people are telling you is true. You just assume since you haven't heard it from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'reilly then it can't be true.

 

Here's the problem with capitalism, it's based on the simple idea that some must not have enough, in order for others to have as much as they want. If everyone was able to achieve or have as much as they desired, capitalism wouldn't work, simply because it is an economy based on the ego, in other words it's based on the notion that one can compete and succeed where other's fail, and through that success show others their greatness, and their success with the American Dream. If there was no one to fail, then the American Dream would hold no value, because everyone could achieve it, and then where is the fun in that?

 

So the ills of capitalism are indeed, as Encephalon pointed out, greed, anger, and delusion, and I think he's right, there needed to be these three poisons in the beginning in order for someone to believe that capitalism was a worthwhile system, but even after that these three poisons needed to continue to be present in order for people to experience capitalism and still consider it a good and fair economical system.

 

I can also pinpoint how these three poisons are effecting your own judgement. First one could say you're delusional simply because you're incapable of understanding why there is virtue in being kind and compassionate to someone you don't respect. Second, you obviously place a monetary value on human life, which is shown in your desires to cut social services that help prevent death and suffering, which seems to me to be an example of greed, the desire to hoard one's wealth, despite the fact that others may need it. Third your constant attacks on those who express views that are opposite of your own are indicative of anger and hate, which are necessary to keep the capitalist economy alive. If one does not have an enemy or something to distract the people, then there is a chance people will begin to see the failures in the system and try to change them, of course in those situations you can easily rectify this by making those people the new enemies.

 

Anyways, when I read your responses regarding most of this I also understand much of it has to do with your personality. You honestly believe much of what you express and because you value logic so much, you are incapable of intuitively understanding the need for compassion. Without being able to tap into that reservoir that resides within us, on a deeper level, then it is very difficult to actually understand that what we believe is actually wrong. In fact it would almost take a complete restructuring of your belief system in order for you to actually understand what I am getting at here.

 

I'm not saying this to mock you, by the way, but rather to let you know that this argument is pointless, because I (honestly) can't see the value in what you're saying and you can't see the value in what I'm saying, so continuing to argue the point has no value either. Of course there is a chance that you might end up suffering at the hands of capitalism to an extent that you finally see something wrong in it, but then again I know people who are struggling to make ends meet that are completely bewitched by the Fox News conservative media spin as well, so perhaps that wont happen either.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really dislike you, I just feel very sorry for you, because I can't see how much joy one can generate when it is dependent on the suffering of others. The negative cycle seems to reinforce negativity, and any happiness that is generated must feel very hollow to the extreme.

 

Aaron

[joeblast]

Aaron, I understand the points you're making - what it seems that you're missing about what I'm saying is that you are pointing at leaf and branch, saying "capitalism doesnt work" (in some fashion or another) while I am pointing from trunk to root and saying if this "isnt working" then these are the reasons why! I'm hardheaded because I'm sticking by my as yet unaddressed substantive points?

 

I understand it is sometimes a pain when someone points out very simple logical flaws in your analysis that render many of the points you are attempting to make moot within the paradigm you're depicting - but when the depiction contains fundamental flaws, you kinda have to go back to square one here.

 

That's why when you say something like

The fact of the matter is that capitalism doesn't work unless money is projected upwards, if it moved downwards it would require that it be shared with those who may not be deemed to have any fair share in that wealth.

and I point out logical flaws that undermine your argument at a core level, you still try to assert that same argument, not having addressed the fundamental flaws that were pointed out, the discussion simply floats toward impasse.

 

 

Ergo, your assertion that

The problem is that, no matter how many times you're given an explanation for why capitalism doesn't work, or is broken in America, you seem to miss the entire point

I have debunked and shown that the root cause it not capitalism itself, it all stems from human nature, abuses of power, abuses of government, yet you still sit there and assert that capitalism has been indicted, having ignored the debunkings of the indictment - simply because each time I am able to point elsewhere, yet those echoes of argument never quite make it back.

 

 

Simply put, there is no fair share of wealth. If one determines that his measure of wealth is insufficient, one may take un-guaranteed steps towards making that quotient greater - or, they may not, deciding that the effort required is going to be more than the reward is worth - which is a reason I detest the welfare state beyond the very minimalist capacity of need. I'm sorry your life didnt quite work out in such a way that your steps towards success were easy, but that doesnt mean wishing the world were different than reality is going to make things any better.

 

Most everything you've said about capitalism comes straight out of the mouth of the angry left that wants to abolish the free market and establish state control - but am I sitting here criticizing where the information came from? No - I am talking of ideas, concepts, problems, solutions. When you're crabbing about whatever sound bites you may or may not have heard from Rush or Beck or whomever (and usually if it has been picked up on by the left, the context is extremely selective and the point all but entirely disappears when placed in the full context of where it was originally brought forth,) all you are really telling me is that you lack sufficient substantive weight to your argument and must turn to other areas to "re-make gains." I get this almost every time I "debate" ralis, I had hoped the technique was largely seen for the folly it is.

 

As such, neither does projecting your interpretations of the 3 poisons in my direction make your argument any more substantive. You're insinuating I'm not being kind and compassionate because I disagree, I point out where and why, substantively - and I am willing to plainly state so. Trust me, the person who is willing to tell it to you like it is has far more compassion than someone who is willing to subscribe to lip service and tell you what you want to hear. Although you may think they are a discompassionate bastard for not putting it to you entirely nicely, or wrapped up with a neat bow and compassion-disclaimer.

 

I've said many a time that for the overly sick and infirm, that is what social services are for - but when perfectly able bodied people rely on them, the government might as well be giving them a morphine drip. But of course you ascribe your own prejudices to such a statement, extrapolating it far beyond any of my own words, and then somehow feel victorious in having asserted your argument. Hoarding, my left nut!

 

Nobody ever said that one can "get as much as he wants." The scholar who values comfort is no scholar at all, indeed.

 

I have not "attacked those whom disagree with my views." Have I attacked the logical inconsistencies with the arguments produced? Absolutely. Its the views themselves and the ideological ground on which I have battled, not on the personal level. Which makes the ad hominems coming my way rather disappointing - because all that tells me is that my posts are being half-read before the reader's own prejudices are painted over my words and points, the resultant returning volley being rather tangential at best.

 

As far as "what one has been taught to believe" I was taught not to do things like spend more than one takes in; not to cheat, lie; have your heart in the right place but do not think that is any excuse for a bad outcome; dont treat things with kid gloves, especially if its even remotely serious...and even if it isnt serious, too much kid glove handling does not provide for tempering...hence, there can always be too much of a good thing; measure three times, inspect, measure three more times, cut once; if disagreeing, make your case substantively on the high ground and dont take the easy low road of personally attacking someone - I'm one of the happiest people I know, so perhaps you can look a little more deeply into yourself and figure out why you are ascribing so many hateful things to me.

 

...missing the compassionate stance from which these words are given /\ Out of the myriad manifestations of yin and yang, there must necessarily be room for the two - wu wei encompasses it, lets there be space for either to thrive, knowing that there will be positive and negative outcomes. The sage does not sacrifice himself to prevent any and all negative outcomes from manifesting - that does not mean he is not compassionate, that does not mean he doesnt go out of his way to help, provide assistance where he may, that does not mean sometimes action is appropriate and sometimes inaction is - and vice versa. The sage wants everyone to be happy, but knows that only some of them will be no matter how much effort is put forth. The sage does not seek to control people because it "is for their better good."

 

Not that I'm calling myself sagely

[gendao]

Crime, addiction, and so many other ills are all a result of capitalism, this notion that we are taught as children, to consume and earn, yet not to understand exactly what we are consuming and why, or that our needless consumption leaves others to suffer in our place.

Nonsense.

 

In most "civilized" societies, kids are all repeatedly warned against crime & drug use. In most of these countries, drug use and crime are also illegal. This goes across-the-board for most developed capitalist, Socialist, Communist & authoritarian countries.

 

Or, you don't think there were a sh*tload of alcoholics in anti-capitalist Communist Bloc countries, too?

 

I think addiction may be farrr more of a psychological/biological health issue - than any political one:

In men, but not women, having a certain variant of NRXN3 increased the risk of problems with alcohol by 2.5 times.

But I guess it's always easier to blame your own personal choices on...something else?

 

CAPITALISM CAUSES ADDICTION?!! ZOMG! Hide the chilluns!

Edited November 21, 2011 by vortex

[Aaron]

Nonsense.

 

In most "civilized" societies, kids are all repeatedly warned against crime & drug use. In most of these countries, drug use and crime are also illegal. This goes across-the-board for most developed capitalist, Socialist, Communist & authoritarian countries.

 

Or, you don't think there were a sh*tload of alcoholics in anti-capitalist Communist Bloc countries, too?

 

I think addiction may be farrr more of a psychological/biological health issue - than any political one:But I guess it's always easier to blame your own personal choices on...something else?

 

CAPITALISM CAUSES ADDICTION?!! ZOMG! Hide the chilluns!

 

Hello Vortex,

 

First I was expecting you to show up, so this wasn't a surprise, nor was your response. My response is simply that you're ignorant. I mean that you have no experience in regards to poverty, and I'm pretty sure Joeblast hasn't either, so everything you say is simply conjecture and in my opinion about as worthwhile as a roll of toilet paper. Yes it has it's uses, but the use usually involves fecal matter. This not only goes for you, but for anyone else out there spouting this tea party-republican-democrat-ALL American bullshit. If that seems harsh then let me ask you a few questions to gauge your own experiences regarding poverty.

 

Have you ever gone hungry for more than one day?

 

Have you ever had your utilities shut off for non-payment?

 

Have you ever been homeless?

 

Have you ever been evicted from your place of residence?

 

Have you ever had to beg for food or shelter?

 

If you answered no to these questions, then I'd suggest you quit spouting your opinions and quit talking about it like you know what's going on.

 

Poverty exists because there is an imbalance in the distribution of wealth to the masses. These imbalances causes people to suffer and as a result of that suffering people seek substances to escape from that suffering. Poverty also increases the rate of crime, mostly against other people suffering from poverty, simply because it is one of the few ways for others to make a living if there are no opportunities available otherwise. A teenage boy sees a man making $1,000 a day selling drugs on a street corner and another man making $7.50 working at a minimum wage job and which path is he going to choose? The lack of opportunity causes crime.

 

Second there were a lot of alcoholics in Communist Russia and there are even more today, in the free world capitalist market of Russia. In fact over 1 million children are living homeless in this free market economy right now, children who, if they had been born thirty years ago would've had shelter and a place to live. There are even more children who are abandoned to orphanages and institutions because their parents can't afford to care for them. These children suffer horrible abuse and many end up psychologically scarred. A large number of them end up as sociopaths. If you want to talk about the blessings of capitalism, I would not use Russia as an example. (Interesting piece of knowledge, Russia has one of the highest rates of alcohol related deaths in children.)

 

You can look at the other communist countries that turned to capitalism and see the same thing going on. In my opinion, no matter how evil communism was, and I don't deny it wasn't evil, the grasps of capitalism are much more insidious and uncaring because they allow evil to happen under the guise of good. In fact when was the last time you heard about the plight of these children or the million or so homeless children on the streets of America for that matter? You don't because no one really cares, so long as they have their central heating and big screen televisions, they don't want to hear about it.

 

In regards to the questions posed above about poverty, I've experienced all of them, in fact I experienced each and every one of them before my 10th birthday. I experienced them several times after and what I can tell you from that experience is that the vast majority of people simply do not care. They care on a philosophical level, but when it comes to having to give up what they have to help someone else out, if it comes to impacting their own standard of living, then their caring simply vanishes and is replaced by talks about football, the weather, and whether or not they need to buy a new car. They simply push it out of their minds and move on, ignoring it. This is just poverty in our own country and other countries that are a part of the western world, if you want I can go into detail about the children living in third world countries.

 

20% of all people in America right now are living in poverty. Homelessness is rampant, but not one word is mentioned, because it's a problem that CAN'T BE SOLVED in a capitalist society. We've tried and nothing happened, so now, rather than continue to put money into helping those people, instead we spend a billion dollars on a spy plane or buy more guns to ensure that "our way of life" is protected. Well let me tell you this, your way of life isn't the way of life for the VAST MAJORITY of people living in this world.

 

Unless you're doing something to actively stop this problem, unless you've suffered from it yourself, then I don't want to hear your worthless self involved criticisms about it. You have absolutely no right to talk about it. Yes you have your freedom of speech, but on a deeper level, one I don't think you fathom, you don't have any right. You see, but you're blind as a bat.

 

Aaron

 

Edit- And the chilluns' comment was absolutely racist... get a freaking clue.

[Informer]

Hello Vortex,

 

First I was expecting you to show up, so this wasn't a surprise, nor was your response. My response is simply that you're ignorant. I mean that you have no experience in regards to poverty, and I'm pretty sure Joeblast hasn't either, so everything you say is simply conjecture and in my opinion about as worthwhile as a roll of toilet paper. Yes it has it's uses, but the use usually involves fecal matter. This not only goes for you, but for anyone else out there spouting this tea party-republican-democrat-ALL American bullshit. If that seems harsh then let me ask you a few questions to gauge your own experiences regarding poverty.

 

Have you ever gone hungry for more than one day?

 

Have you ever had your utilities shut off for non-payment?

 

Have you ever been homeless?

 

Have you ever been evicted from your place of residence?

 

Have you ever had to beg for food or shelter?

 

 

I can say yes to all these and say we have it easy compared to those in some other countries. There are so many churches and centers to help in America that you can easily survive without money. You can walk into any bathroom of any store and get a drink of water.

I have never really needed for water, something I am fortunate of. I have been dehydrated and suffered heat exhaustion, but never life threateningly so, as so many do.

 

Water, food, shelter, . . . what else?

[Aaron]

Water, food, shelter, . . . what else?

 

Dignity comes to mind.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, try and walk into a bathroom when you're homeless and grungy and I can tell you what you're told, "I'm sorry but bathrooms are for paying customers." And in some cities many of the homeless shelters have limited space and fill up fast.

 

I do agree, there are worse places though, but that doesn't detract from the problems we face here in the United States. I've been lucky that since graduating college I haven't been homeless once, but I've come close on occasion with the recent economic downturn. My heart goes out to the homeless and the hungry. I wish more people did something to help.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Twinner

[joeblast]

 

Poverty exists because there is an imbalance in the distribution of wealth to the masses.

Like I said...the misunderstandings are fundamental.

[Informer]

Dignity comes to mind.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also, try and walk into a bathroom when you're homeless and grungy and I can tell you what you're told, "I'm sorry but bathrooms are for paying customers." And in some cities many of the homeless shelters have limited space and fill up fast.

 

I do agree, there are worse places though, but that doesn't detract from the problems we face here in the United States. I've been lucky that since graduating college I haven't been homeless once, but I've come close on occasion with the recent economic downturn. My heart goes out to the homeless and the hungry. I wish more people did something to help.

 

Meh, I think dignity is for those with an ego to protect. What is dignity exactly? In my entire life I have only been told once that restrooms are for paying customers. Grungy is not necessarily an attribute of homeless imo.

 

We need a lot less to live than many people think we need. There are many ways to get your basic needs met in America. We have it easy but it could be considered at the expense of others.

 

If all we had to worry about was our basic needs, what would be left once that was accomplished?

Edited November 21, 2011 by Informer

[Aaron]

Meh, I think dignity is for those with an ego to protect. What is dignity exactly? In my entire life I have only been told once that restrooms are for paying customers. Grungy is not necessarily an attribute of homeless imo.

 

We need a lot less to live than many people think we need. There are many ways to get your basic needs met in America. We have it easy but it could be considered at the expense of others.

 

If all we had to worry about was our basic needs, what would be left once that was accomplished?

 

Hello Informer,

 

The definition of dignity is the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed. It has nothing to do with ego, but with being treated as if your life has value. So let me ask you, does your life have value? Do you think people should treat you as if it has worth? Should they honor you by treating you as if your life has value?

 

I get so sick of this Buddhist ego crap in regards to things like this, simply because it has absolutely nothing to do with ego, except that the Buddhist is acting out on his own ego by saying such a thing.

 

My argument is that no one should have to worry about their basic needs, because someone claims possession of the world's resources as their own. It is time for us to begin to ensure that everyone's life is honored as having value, that each person is deemed worthy of compassion, and we show each person the esteem they are due.

 

I guess I feel the ego comment is really just a bit of false modesty. Also who said being grungy was a quality of homelessness, it just happens, especially if you're living someplace hot. Also try and walk in with a backpack, sleeping bag, etc and explain how you're not homeless, you're just "hiking". That goes over well.

 

Aaron

[Informer]

Hello Informer,

 

The definition of dignity is the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed. It has nothing to do with ego, but with being treated as if your life has value. So let me ask you, does your life have value? Do you think people should treat you as if it has worth? Should they honor you by treating you as if your life has value?

 

I get so sick of this Buddhist ego crap in regards to things like this, simply because it has absolutely nothing to do with ego, except that the Buddhist is acting out on his own ego by saying such a thing.

 

My argument is that no one should have to worry about their basic needs, because someone claims possession of the world's resources as their own. It is time for us to begin to ensure that everyone's life is honored as having value, that each person is deemed worthy of compassion, and we show each person the esteem they are due.

 

I guess I feel the ego comment is really just a bit of false modesty. Also who said being grungy was a quality of homelessness, it just happens, especially if you're living someplace hot. Also try and walk in with a backpack, sleeping bag, etc and explain how you're not homeless, you're just "hiking". That goes over well.

 

Aaron

 

No, I don't need anything outside of me to verify my value or worth. If I want it or not is a different question entirely. I said the things that I thought were needs, verification from others of self-worth is not on my list. We are all inherently worthless in comparison to the universe.

[ralis]

Aaron, I understand the points you're making - what it seems that you're missing about what I'm saying is that you are pointing at leaf and branch, saying "capitalism doesnt work" (in some fashion or another) while I am pointing from trunk to root and saying if this "isnt working" then these are the reasons why! I'm hardheaded because I'm sticking by my as yet unaddressed substantive points?

 

I understand it is sometimes a pain when someone points out very simple logical flaws in your analysis that render many of the points you are attempting to make moot within the paradigm you're depicting - but when the depiction contains fundamental flaws, you kinda have to go back to square one here.

 

That's why when you say something like

and I point out logical flaws that undermine your argument at a core level, you still try to assert that same argument, not having addressed the fundamental flaws that were pointed out, the discussion simply floats toward impasse.

 

 

Ergo, your assertion that

I have debunked and shown that the root cause it not capitalism itself, it all stems from human nature, abuses of power, abuses of government, yet you still sit there and assert that capitalism has been indicted, having ignored the debunkings of the indictment - simply because each time I am able to point elsewhere, yet those echoes of argument never quite make it back.

 

 

Simply put, there is no fair share of wealth. If one determines that his measure of wealth is insufficient, one may take un-guaranteed steps towards making that quotient greater - or, they may not, deciding that the effort required is going to be more than the reward is worth - which is a reason I detest the welfare state beyond the very minimalist capacity of need. I'm sorry your life didnt quite work out in such a way that your steps towards success were easy, but that doesnt mean wishing the world were different than reality is going to make things any better.

 

Most everything you've said about capitalism comes straight out of the mouth of the angry left that wants to abolish the free market and establish state control - but am I sitting here criticizing where the information came from? No - I am talking of ideas, concepts, problems, solutions. When you're crabbing about whatever sound bites you may or may not have heard from Rush or Beck or whomever (and usually if it has been picked up on by the left, the context is extremely selective and the point all but entirely disappears when placed in the full context of where it was originally brought forth,) all you are really telling me is that you lack sufficient substantive weight to your argument and must turn to other areas to "re-make gains." I get this almost every time I "debate" ralis, I had hoped the technique was largely seen for the folly it is.

 

As such, neither does projecting your interpretations of the 3 poisons in my direction make your argument any more substantive. You're insinuating I'm not being kind and compassionate because I disagree, I point out where and why, substantively - and I am willing to plainly state so. Trust me, the person who is willing to tell it to you like it is has far more compassion than someone who is willing to subscribe to lip service and tell you what you want to hear. Although you may think they are a discompassionate bastard for not putting it to you entirely nicely, or wrapped up with a neat bow and compassion-disclaimer.

 

I've said many a time that for the overly sick and infirm, that is what social services are for - but when perfectly able bodied people rely on them, the government might as well be giving them a morphine drip. But of course you ascribe your own prejudices to such a statement, extrapolating it far beyond any of my own words, and then somehow feel victorious in having asserted your argument. Hoarding, my left nut!

 

Nobody ever said that one can "get as much as he wants." The scholar who values comfort is no scholar at all, indeed.

 

I have not "attacked those whom disagree with my views." Have I attacked the logical inconsistencies with the arguments produced? Absolutely. Its the views themselves and the ideological ground on which I have battled, not on the personal level. Which makes the ad hominems coming my way rather disappointing - because all that tells me is that my posts are being half-read before the reader's own prejudices are painted over my words and points, the resultant returning volley being rather tangential at best.

 

As far as "what one has been taught to believe" I was taught not to do things like spend more than one takes in; not to cheat, lie; have your heart in the right place but do not think that is any excuse for a bad outcome; dont treat things with kid gloves, especially if its even remotely serious...and even if it isnt serious, too much kid glove handling does not provide for tempering...hence, there can always be too much of a good thing; measure three times, inspect, measure three more times, cut once; if disagreeing, make your case substantively on the high ground and dont take the easy low road of personally attacking someone - I'm one of the happiest people I know, so perhaps you can look a little more deeply into yourself and figure out why you are ascribing so many hateful things to me.

 

...missing the compassionate stance from which these words are given /\ Out of the myriad manifestations of yin and yang, there must necessarily be room for the two - wu wei encompasses it, lets there be space for either to thrive, knowing that there will be positive and negative outcomes. The sage does not sacrifice himself to prevent any and all negative outcomes from manifesting - that does not mean he is not compassionate, that does not mean he doesnt go out of his way to help, provide assistance where he may, that does not mean sometimes action is appropriate and sometimes inaction is - and vice versa. The sage wants everyone to be happy, but knows that only some of them will be no matter how much effort is put forth. The sage does not seek to control people because it "is for their better good."

 

Not that I'm calling myself sagely

 

 

I would appreciate it if you would expand your narrative to the context of this thread which is titled "Global Revolution", as opposed to your own personal ideology of viewing the world though right wing "every man for himself" conservative American politics.

 

Your mindset of being absolutely right while making many others participating in this thread absolutely wrong, is characteristic of authoritarianism and Social Darwinism. Authoritarians are not interested in cooperating with others, and are only interested in leveraging a conservative agenda which is based entirely on self indulgence and not the greater good. Your so called logical analysis is your opinion and fails to consider the needs of the 7 billion + people living on this planet, the majority of which will never share your views! Further, what does tort reform, tax reform, level playing field for all, laissez faire markets and even Obamacare have to do with the greater good of humanity?

 

 

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Edited November 21, 2011 by ralis

[gendao]

If that seems harsh then let me ask you a few questions to gauge your own experiences regarding poverty.

 

Poverty exists because there is an imbalance in the distribution of wealth to the masses. These imbalances causes people to suffer and as a result of that suffering people seek substances to escape from that suffering. Poverty also increases the rate of crime, mostly against other people suffering from poverty, simply because it is one of the few ways for others to make a living if there are no opportunities available otherwise. A teenage boy sees a man making $1,000 a day selling drugs on a street corner and another man making $7.50 working at a minimum wage job and which path is he going to choose? The lack of opportunity causes crime.

 

You can look at the other communist countries that turned to capitalism and see the same thing going on. In my opinion, no matter how evil communism was, and I don't deny it wasn't evil, the grasps of capitalism are much more insidious and uncaring because they allow evil to happen under the guise of good.

Again, the moving red herring goalposts..

 

Since alcoholism was/is rampant in anti-capitalist Eastern Bloc countries - you are now attempting to blame addiction on poverty "induced by capitalism," instead of directly on capitalism.

 

Yet, Communist countries are, as a whole, ALL VASTLY POORER than any capitalist countries - so there goes that argument...

 

Moreso, crime and addiction are not simply proportional to poverty, either. Street crime & addiction are faarrr lower in China, for instance, despite an average income of only $3000 USD. And in the US, drinking and drug use are also a privilege commonly enjoyed by the bourgeoise leisure classes with more free time & money on their hands:

Higher parental income is associated with higher rates of binge drinking and marijuana use.

 

adolescents with higher SES may also be at risk for developing substance use disorders. There is evidence that substance use in adults, particularly alcohol use, may be sensitive to price, as some studies have shown that consumption decreases as price increases [6-9]. For adolescents with higher SES, having greater financial resources may indicate that the relative cost of substance use, that is the opportunity cost of substance use relative to other consumption

 

Higher parental education is associated with higher odds of binge drinking, marijuana use and cocaine use.

 

The results from this study indicate that higher SES in adolescence, as measured by parental education and household income in adolescence, is associated with higher rates of substance use, particularly binge drinking, marijuana use and cocaine use, in early adulthood.

Well there goes that argument of poverty = crime & addiction, too.. If anything, there is likely even a reverse causation, where addiction often causes crime & poverty!

 

 

So, I'm also confused what actually bothers you? Poverty or inequality (of wealth, etc)? Because those are 2 entirely different things..

Edited November 21, 2011 by vortex

[Encephalon]

I'd like to suggest that we shift gears away from the discussion of capitalism and focus on what I think is the more manageable and pertinent topic - global consumerism. I make this suggestion for the following reasons -

 

Few people in here know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to capitalism, much less economics. (There, I said it.) I am not an economist either, but I've slogged through enough globalization in my grad studies to know that all this grand theorizing can be had by anyone plucking a C+ out of Econ 101 at the local jc. Beyond that, everyone who is not getting their degree in economics paid for by a grant from the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute discovers that economics, as well as capitalism, is not a pure science like physics, as capitalist cheerleaders would have us believe, but a vulgar and usually transparent attempt to dress ideological self-interest in the trappings of mathematical credibility. In ecological jargon, economics becomes so abstract that it fails entirely to address the schisms between the technosphere (human world) and the biosphere (the world of nature).

A little learning is a dangerous thing, as Alexander Pope once said.

 

I don't think Consumerism is quite so incomprehensible. True enough, capitalism is the engine of consumerism, but even staunch defenders of capitalism can recognize the deleterious effects of mindless consumption on people (obsessive and addictive behavior), cultural values, and entire global ecosystems (at least that's my hope; even the puritan stripe of early 20th century conservatives didn't really dig the country's descent into consumer culture on moral grounds).

 

Of course, I'm biased too; my thesis was a Buddhist critique of global consumerism using - that's right! - The Three Poisons. That being said, I am an agnostic Buddhist - tantra not spoken here - and like Teddy and FDR, I want to see capitalism saved from itself, because I too want to sell my products, make a wad of cash and get the hell out of Los Angeles!

 

[gendao]

I don't think Consumerism is quite so incomprehensible. True enough, capitalism is the engine of consumerism, but even staunch defenders of capitalism can recognize the deleterious effects of mindless consumption on people (obsessive and addictive behavior), cultural values

Well, another way to look at this is that consumer-driven capitalist is a form of real-time direct democracy.

 

People vote for the ideals and principles they support with every purchase (or choice not to purchase), much like Nielsen ratings or website hits. Money talks, BS walks! You simply cannot spend a red cent without supporting a cause with that red cent. So like it or not, our society is largely shaped by our very own mass American "mindless" consciousness.

 

However, consumerism doesn't cause mindlessness. Mindlessness causes mindless consumption.

 

The real questions here would be what actually cause mindlessness, addiction, craving, etc. Which I think Buddhism (and other thought systems) have some answers for...

 

So, if people want to change society, then they have to change their mindless, addicted selves first. Once that's done and hits a tipping point, society WILL then change to reflect that!

Edited November 21, 2011 by vortex

[Protector]

one day

ONE DAY

I will give a damn and read this whole thread from start to finish

[Encephalon]

Well, another way to look at this is that consumer-driven capitalist is a form of real-time direct democracy.

 

People vote for the ideals and principles they support with every purchase (or choice not to purchase), much like Nielsen ratings or website hits. Money talks, BS walks! You simply cannot spend a red cent without supporting a cause with that red cent. So like it or not, our society is largely shaped by our very own mass American "mindless" consciousness.

 

However, consumerism doesn't cause mindlessness. Mindlessness causes mindless consumption.

 

The real questions here would be what actually cause mindlessness, addiction, craving, etc. Which I think Buddhism (and other thought systems) have some answers for...

 

So, if people want to change society, then they have to change their mindless, addicted selves first. Once that's done and hits a tipping point, society WILL then change to reflect that!

 

I've found that any sensible investigation of the etimology of consumerism includes a look at what happens to a culture when it is bombarded with app. $200-250 BILLION a year in commercial advertising. Some folks love to say that they are psychologically impervious to advertising and that everyone else should be too, but that money wouldn't be getting spent if the returns didn't justify it.

 

KILL YOUR TELEVISION!!

Edited November 21, 2011 by Encephalon

[Informer]

I've found that any sensible investigation of the etimology of consumerism includes a look at what happens to a culture when it is bombarded with app. $200-250 BILLION a year in commercial advertising. Some folks love to say that they are psychologically impervious to advertising and that everyone else should be too, but that money wouldn't be getting spent if the returns didn't justify it.

 

KILL YOUR TELEVISION!!

 

Exactly. As long as it is profitable for them to do it then they will. Media can play a huge role inducing conformity within society as well. It is like a mask to hide what really matters; which is not what we are doing as only a nation, but what we are doing as an entire world.

[Encephalon]

Exactly. As long as it is profitable for them to do it then they will. Media can play a huge role inducing conformity within society as well. It is like a mask to hide what really matters; which is not what we are doing as only a nation, but what we are doing as an entire world.

 

Yes, and in the three Poisons model of buddhism, advertising = delusion

 

delusion = greed (consumerism, false desires)

 

greed = hatred (militarizing the supply chains)

 

hatred = delusion (consumerism is good)

 

Consumerism is the capitalist's wet dream. In the quest to turn the world's resources into commodities, and commodities into liquid capital, nothing gets the job done better or faster than a global consumer culture. Suck that planet dry!!

[ralis]

Yes, and in the three Poisons model of buddhism, advertising = delusion

 

delusion = greed (consumerism, false desires)

 

greed = hatred (militarizing the supply chains)

 

hatred = delusion (consumerism is good)

 

Consumerism is the capitalist's wet dream. In the quest to turn the world's resources into commodities, and commodities into liquid capital, nothing gets the job done better or faster than a global consumer culture. Suck that planet dry!!

 

The advocates of increased population growth are only interested in new markets to exploit, with the foolish dream that new resources will always be available at whatever the cost!

Edited November 21, 2011 by ralis

[Enishi]

A contextually greater degree of freedom for businesses and capital creation was definitely valid during the period when large levels of expansion and growth were possible.

 

I think, however, that this era has come to an end, and corporations are not going to be able to deal with the realities of peak oil, overpopulation and dwindling resources. Goverment regulation, whether top-down or horizontal, will be necessary.

 

That does not mean however that relative degrees of economic freedom, particularily on the level of small businesses and farms, will not still be needed to create stability and adaptive flexibility. In that context the conservative argument that one should maintain a skeptical additude towards new regulation does hold water, and has nothing to do with being "uncompassionate" or "greedy".

 

Oh yeah, and the Fed should be nationalized.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Enishi

[joeblast]

 

My argument is that no one should have to worry about their basic needs, because someone claims possession of the world's resources as their own. It is time for us to begin to ensure that everyone's life is honored as having value, that each person is deemed worthy of compassion, and we show each person the esteem they are due.

 

And then I'm frowned upon for pointing out the logical fallacy Sure, it'd be real great if nobody ever had to lift a finger for themselves and magically have all of their basic needs provided automatically. The problem is, the price tag for such a thing is astronomical at this point in time. Prohibitively so. Impossibly so.

 

Dont worry, that time will come in our history, but it is not now, it cannot be now, no matter how much some people wish that were so. I certainly wish they'd perfect fusion reactors, that's our first big step towards true energy independence; things of pithy scale such as wind or solar (presently) dont even come close right now to being a pillar of any sort in the matter.

 

capitalism, is not a pure science like physics, as capitalist cheerleaders would have us believe, but a vulgar and usually transparent attempt to dress ideological self-interest in the trappings of mathematical credibility. In ecological jargon, economics becomes so abstract that it fails entirely to address the schisms between the technosphere (human world) and the biosphere (the world of nature).

That must be some reason to discard certain data then? Results are results, man - why has the USA done what its done in its relatively short existence? Economic freedom. The greeks knew the basics of a steam engine quite a long time ago - where was the incentive to make society better with it? People are more apt to take a risk when the reward is there. People sticking their neck out is what makes things happen, businesses run, "the world move." When a locality does not overtax or otherwise overburden businesses, that necessarily makes room for more businesses - i.e. more people are able to make things happen with a smaller profit margin. Because when you overtax, those are the first places to fall, those businesses with a small profit margin.

 

 

I would appreciate it if you would expand your narrative to the context of this thread which is titled "Global Revolution", as opposed to your own personal ideology of viewing the world though right wing "every man for himself" conservative American politics.

 

Your mindset of being absolutely right while making many others participating in this thread absolutely wrong, is characteristic of authoritarianism and Social Darwinism. Authoritarians are not interested in cooperating with others, and are only interested in leveraging a conservative agenda which is based entirely on self indulgence and not the greater good. Your so called logical analysis is your opinion and fails to consider the needs of the 7 billion + people living on this planet, the majority of which will never share your views! Further, what does tort reform, tax reform, level playing field for all, laissez faire markets and even Obamacare have to do with the greater good of humanity?

 

Sorry ralis, some people are having a problem with empirical reality and believe they can simply concoct fancy rosey swell sounding "solutions" that are chock full of gaping holes! I'd love for civilization to be at such a point where we can provide for everybody, but its not here now and trying to get there now is going to be a detriment.

 

The best way to pass that curve is via economic freedom and fiscally conservative governance. Spendthrifts soon find themselves with no money - even Spain kicked out the socialists and brought in conservatives because they needed results, not lip service to contrived moral high ground!

 

Economic freedom provides income and class mobility, though it does not guarantee such - tell me, if you were to choose a place to be born with the caveat of being the poorest person in the country, where would you choose? How much economic freedom, potential of various means, would you have in north korea? A hardline islamic state? A tribal area? Of course that may not be your only consideration in the choice, but if you want options, it is plainly clear that a logical choice would be a place that allows for it, e.g. the USA, Canada, Australia. Economic and personal freedom - yours to thrive with or toss into the fire.

 

How's that working for 7 billion people? Hmm - ask the ones who have no economic freedom, what do you think their response will be?

 

Which paradigm provides the space for innovation that will help continue supporting many billions more?

 

Tort reform? I guess you dont see what havoc that wreaks, the ability for one to make an absurd claim, file a lawsuit, get paid all kinds of money...

 

These all have to do with the greater good. The horse sees his reflection in the trough.

[lazy cloud]

My earlier concerns about how the police are treating Americans who are exercising their First Amendment Rights have not gone away. If peaceful non-violent protesters become physically abused, what message is that sending?

JB, Your earlier complaints to me about congressmen having insider trading advantages is a good point.

There is not a damn thing wrong with someone who has found themself in the top 1% if they have played by the same set of rules that the 99% has to abide by. It is suggested however that some of the top 1% do have special access, corporate welfare laws, and tax advantages that the rest of us do not have.(rigging)

Many of our richer folks do try and help out in a very generous manner, others do not. I do not think it should ever be forced upon anyone to help out their fellow man.

One of the great things about this country is that one has the chance to go from rags to riches. It might be useful for someone who is on their way up to treat the folks they pass by with some respect and compassion.

Because sometimes what goes up will come down and those same folks one passed by on their way up they will most likely meet again on their way back down. Going from riches to rags is another great possibility in this country.

Using labels IMO like buddhist,taoist,christian,democrat,republican,independent,scholar,bum,socialist,communist,capitalist,

are all useless. Just try and be self-reliant. No one ever promised it would be easy. Be good neighbors and check on the folks around you. Be it the elderly or whoever.

In this country it is useful to have friends, trusted allies, partners in crime, be a part of something for mutual benefit. A lone wolf does not fare too well , especially when they would prefer someone bring them their meal instead of hunting for it. It is my view that the 99% expect to work hard for what they expect to be able to earn. We used to want to educate our youth. Now it seems we want to bury them in debt.

One thing that happened yesterday when the super committee failed to do anything. Is that now it will be automatic that the Clinton years Tax rates will go back into effect.

Like I said, nothing wrong with being the top 1%. Just play by the same rules the rest of us play by.

A 99% ravenous wolf pack is un-imaginable?, Right?

Some band call themself Pink Floyd was mentioned earlier in this thread. Well Roger Waters at least.....

[Informer]

And then I'm frowned upon for pointing out the logical fallacy Sure, it'd be real great if nobody ever had to lift a finger for themselves and magically have all of their basic needs provided automatically. The problem is, the price tag for such a thing is astronomical at this point in time. Prohibitively so. Impossibly so.

 

Dont worry, that time will come in our history, but it is not now, it cannot be now, no matter how much some people wish that were so. I certainly wish they'd perfect fusion reactors, that's our first big step towards true energy independence; things of pithy scale such as wind or solar (presently) dont even come close right now to being a pillar of any sort in the matter.

 

That must be some reason to discard certain data then? Results are results, man - why has the USA done what its done in its relatively short existence? Economic freedom. The greeks knew the basics of a steam engine quite a long time ago - where was the incentive to make society better with it? People are more apt to take a risk when the reward is there. People sticking their neck out is what makes things happen, businesses run, "the world move." When a locality does not overtax or otherwise overburden businesses, that necessarily makes room for more businesses - i.e. more people are able to make things happen with a smaller profit margin. Because when you overtax, those are the first places to fall, those businesses with a small profit margin.

 

 

 

Sorry ralis, some people are having a problem with empirical reality and believe they can simply concoct fancy rosey swell sounding "solutions" that are chock full of gaping holes! I'd love for civilization to be at such a point where we can provide for everybody, but its not here now and trying to get there now is going to be a detriment.

 

The best way to pass that curve is via economic freedom and fiscally conservative governance. Spendthrifts soon find themselves with no money - even Spain kicked out the socialists and brought in conservatives because they needed results, not lip service to contrived moral high ground!

 

Economic freedom provides income and class mobility, though it does not guarantee such - tell me, if you were to choose a place to be born with the caveat of being the poorest person in the country, where would you choose? How much economic freedom, potential of various means, would you have in north korea? A hardline islamic state? A tribal area? Of course that may not be your only consideration in the choice, but if you want options, it is plainly clear that a logical choice would be a place that allows for it, e.g. the USA, Canada, Australia. Economic and personal freedom - yours to thrive with or toss into the fire.

 

How's that working for 7 billion people? Hmm - ask the ones who have no economic freedom, what do you think their response will be?

 

Which paradigm provides the space for innovation that will help continue supporting many billions more?

 

Tort reform? I guess you dont see what havoc that wreaks, the ability for one to make an absurd claim, file a lawsuit, get paid all kinds of money...

 

These all have to do with the greater good. The horse sees his reflection in the trough.

 

 

It is not impossible to work towards the common goal. What goal is more important in regards to all humanity? Even if we don't achieve all that we dream, we may start building the path in the right direction for our successors.

 

The point is that we can do a hell of a lot more than we are doing and waste a hell of a lot less than we are currently. When there are interests pointing in every cardinal direction, it makes for a shitty compass. So we align all these interests to point in the same direction to reveal the path towards utopia. We may not make it, but those who fallow will have an even better chance.

 

Interests in America currently have a big bold arrow pointing towards profit, whats worse is that the arrow doesn't necessarily represent the populace. It is representing a few who deem their self-interests and wants are more important than the needs of the earth and humanity as a whole.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Informer

[ralis]

And then I'm frowned upon for pointing out the logical fallacy Sure, it'd be real great if nobody ever had to lift a finger for themselves and magically have all of their basic needs provided automatically. The problem is, the price tag for such a thing is astronomical at this point in time. Prohibitively so. Impossibly so.

 

Dont worry, that time will come in our history, but it is not now, it cannot be now, no matter how much some people wish that were so. I certainly wish they'd perfect fusion reactors, that's our first big step towards true energy independence; things of pithy scale such as wind or solar (presently) dont even come close right now to being a pillar of any sort in the matter.

 

That must be some reason to discard certain data then? Results are results, man - why has the USA done what its done in its relatively short existence? Economic freedom. The greeks knew the basics of a steam engine quite a long time ago - where was the incentive to make society better with it? People are more apt to take a risk when the reward is there. People sticking their neck out is what makes things happen, businesses run, "the world move." When a locality does not overtax or otherwise overburden businesses, that necessarily makes room for more businesses - i.e. more people are able to make things happen with a smaller profit margin. Because when you overtax, those are the first places to fall, those businesses with a small profit margin.

 

 

 

Sorry ralis, some people are having a problem with empirical reality and believe they can simply concoct fancy rosey swell sounding "solutions" that are chock full of gaping holes! I'd love for civilization to be at such a point where we can provide for everybody, but its not here now and trying to get there now is going to be a detriment.

 

The best way to pass that curve is via economic freedom and fiscally conservative governance. Spendthrifts soon find themselves with no money - even Spain kicked out the socialists and brought in conservatives because they needed results, not lip service to contrived moral high ground!

 

Economic freedom provides income and class mobility, though it does not guarantee such - tell me, if you were to choose a place to be born with the caveat of being the poorest person in the country, where would you choose? How much economic freedom, potential of various means, would you have in north korea? A hardline islamic state? A tribal area? Of course that may not be your only consideration in the choice, but if you want options, it is plainly clear that a logical choice would be a place that allows for it, e.g. the USA, Canada, Australia. Economic and personal freedom - yours to thrive with or toss into the fire.

 

How's that working for 7 billion people? Hmm - ask the ones who have no economic freedom, what do you think their response will be?

 

Which paradigm provides the space for innovation that will help continue supporting many billions more?

 

Tort reform? I guess you dont see what havoc that wreaks, the ability for one to make an absurd claim, file a lawsuit, get paid all kinds of money...

 

These all have to do with the greater good. The horse sees his reflection in the trough.

 

Economic freedom for all? That is a fallacy based on right wing propaganda! The U.S. remains a divided country based on socioeconomic status. All people are different in some capacity i.e, intelligence, learning disabilities, severe birth defects, very low IQ etc. Further, poor nutrition has a disastrous effect on development and learning.

 

Upward mobility with the illusion of economic freedom for all is bullshit i.e, belief systems BS. That meme is currently being foisted on a gullible public by Newt Gingrich et al.

 

The U.S. economy is largely based on WAR and has been so for the most part of the last 100 years. Even now politicians are posturing against Iran as if that country is a threat! The U.S. military industrial complex needs more war to stay in business. Eisenhower warned about the threat of the military industrial complex and the incessant demand to feed the machine! I was in the military during Viet Nam and I know what the machine is.

 

Encephalon is correct in that discussing economics is missing the point of this discussion. The study and subsequent application of economic theory is not based on a physical science. Moreover, economists obtain data based largely on human behavior and the data obtained are modeled mathematically. Not empirical but highly subjective. If economics were an objective science, I could be a billionaire in a very short time. :lol:

Edited November 22, 2011 by ralis