Global Revolution!

[doc benway]

Interesting discussion. I can see my own opinions and biases as they have varied over the years played out among the various posts. It seems that there are as many different opinions as there are individuals.

 

Solutions?

A solution will never come from the outside. No political, religious, educational, social, or cultural movement, institution, or leader will ever solve our problems. No solution has come to us in the past 40,000 years or so of "civilization" and technology does not seem to be bring us closer. It provides many aids and tools and at the same time polarizes us further and gives us more opportunity for exploitation and opportunism.

 

The only solution to humanity's problems is inside each of us. Some already feel it, others don't. When each of us personally feels the pain of the other, when we can no longer bear to eat, knowing there is a child starving. When our heart becomes big enough to hold the entire world, then the solution is obvious. Otherwise...

.... so it goes....

[Aaron]

Interesting discussion. I can see my own opinions and biases as they have varied over the years played out among the various posts. It seems that there are as many different opinions as there are individuals.

 

Solutions?

A solution will never come from the outside. No political, religious, educational, social, or cultural movement, institution, or leader will ever solve our problems. No solution has come to us in the past 40,000 years or so of "civilization" and technology does not seem to be bring us closer. It provides many aids and tools and at the same time polarizes us further and gives us more opportunity for exploitation and opportunism.

 

The only solution to humanity's problems is inside each of us. Some already feel it, others don't. When each of us personally feels the pain of the other, when we can no longer bear to eat, knowing there is a child starving. When our heart becomes big enough to hold the entire world, then the solution is obvious. Otherwise...

.... so it goes....

 

I agree completely. Very well said.

 

Aaron

[ralis]

All empirical scientific models are not absolute and are only approximations. Theoretical models are repeatedly tested by peer review to test the validity of a given theory. Why? Bias and subjectivity taint the results. The same rigorous standards must apply to anyone claiming to have absolute empirical data, which is generally based on emotion and biased observation. In general, purveyors of empirical absolutes, are just blowing smoke.

Edited November 24, 2011 by ralis

[Birch]

What I find interesting is the way people seem to believe anything that sounds logical whether or not it actually has any basis in reality. It's as if given an internally consistent argument you almost have to agree. What I'm suprised about when it comes to some of the ideas in this thread on this forum in particular is that they are coming from people with what seems to me to be very high levels of insight into reality and self and all that. They've done all this work on themselves and yet will go into a debate with preconceived ideas that they'll then attempt to prove. Oh, wait, yes that's the objective of debate. Sorry! Anyway i thought practice was the counter-weight to that tendency we know we have to want to confirm our biases. We know it's a liability and that is why we practice, right?

[strawdog65]

Imagine:

 

 

A world not based on greed.

 

A world where doing for others is just an everyday thing.

 

Giving freely what gifts we have to offer,

and never having to worry about where we will

sleep or how we will come by our next meal.

 

A world into which the children(all children) are given an education

because it benefits the entire world to have educated inhabitants.

 

A world in which all people have lives of meaning and are

able to contribute to the world society with their own skills.

 

Remove the "need" for what is needed.

 

Freedom is a lightness of being, because worry has been removed.

 

Picture this,

Imagine more,

Stretch beyond,

What we were before.

[Aaron]

What sort of insecure individual feels the need to click the plus sign on his own argument? Shall I go plus it so that you can believe me?

 

Greed and fear indeed! Since when is providing for oneself and his family greed? Fear? Perhaps if one fears being destitute. Hollow mischaracterizations.

 

At the expense of someone else...there's the crux of your argument, the root fallacy. You seem to believe that anybody making money is doing so at the expense of someone else - it would be silly to deny it happens because there are certain contexts in which it goes, but in extrapolating the small percentage of such onto the entire thing, you miss the entire base upon which capitalism is built - quid pro quo - I have something you want, you have something I want, we come to an agreement and we each walk away satisfied having gotten that which we wanted or needed. If I create a business and sell things, is this money someone "at someone else's expense?" I am forcibly taking money from people? ( What do I look like a government? Anybody else that does that is committing theft.) No, I am providing something that somebody has use for and I charge a moderate percentage for my efforts - for if I charge too much for my efforts, there will be somebody else that comes along and charges less. Markets generally work in such a manner. In creating my business, I give people things of value, they give me an equivalent sum, I employ some people, provide a means of living for them while also providing a means of living for myself. The profits I make allow me to do other things, even create other streams of revenue, employ more people - that is why I used the example of Apple - was SJ somehow stealing from people? That's somehow discompassionate, the jobs created, the livelihoods enriched, the spawned industry items having created more jobs and wealth?

 

You still treat it as a zero sum pie, one person having more necessarily means that another has less. That is a complete fallacy.

 

Anyways, you can't be blamed, the problem with most people is that they've stopped thinking for themselves and let the media and authorities think for them. Hopefully one day something will shake that impression from you. Perhaps if you ran a business and expended great effort for even a small margin of gain, you'd understand the benefit you are giving to other people, not just employees but your customers. It is why certain very good businesses around here I will tell the owners "thank you for being here, for being in business. You provide a good service here and there's lots of people that benefit by your presence." Because it is true.

 

Hello Joe,

 

You know what really pisses me off about you, is that you're so intolerant. You use your smiley faces like what you're talking about is funny or the idea of being compassionate and caring for others is laughable. What's laughable to me is that you can come here and spout this absolute garbage. You are worse than most here, the ones people try to chase off because of their spiritual convictions, because your convictions in the end bring about harm to everyone involved. Your ideas cause poverty, prevent the world from finding peace, and destine the next generation to more suffering than this one. You're not advocating any change, rather your saying "the system works because I sleep in a nice warm bed and have a meal at every meal time" meanwhile if someone doesn't then they're obviously lazy or haven't tried to succeed.

 

My own success, financially speaking, came doing jobs that I absolutely hated. I used to sell time share vacations and earned a lot of money doing it, but in the end I saw how I was talking people into purchasing something they didn't need, and that many spent money that they did need purchasing something they didn't, simply because I was able to convince them that they did. The sad thing is you're doing the same thing now and you don't realize it.

 

You still have failed to tell me how my suggestions for change would harm the world, simply because it wouldn't. Rather you stick to your old tired routine. I'm done trying to convince you of anything. In 20 years, when you have no social security to fall back on, when the majority of industrial jobs are pushed over seas, and even the majority of service jobs are as well, when most people will only be able to work minimum wage jobs and poverty is rampant, then come to me and tell me how blessed and wonderful capitalism is.

 

The fact is capitalism allows the rich to circle the economy like sharks, picking off any fish that starts to get big enough to challenge them, keeping themselves full and fat on the prey they fatten up. We're nothing more than food for them, in a food chain that is meant to keep them in places of power. These are facts too, not theories. The democrats are just as bad as the republicans, so are the libertarians. All the parties are paying homage to power and prestige. The concern is for wealth at the expense of others.

 

Why do I laugh at what you say, because even in if the changes you suggest are made, there will still be hungry people, there will still be children dying of disease, and there will still be people living in poverty, here in the blessed USA.

 

Again, you want to do what's easily conceivable, rather than lend your support to an idea that could prevent suffering and pain, that could solve it, simply because you lack faith in the human race. I am certainly glad that I have reached middle age and not lost my "idealism", that I can still wake up every day and see the chance for change.

 

I do think that change will occur, that we are reaching a point where people will be too tired to remain puppets to the 1%. I hope that time come quickly, but I feel it will most likely take decades, and I have no doubt when it occurs that those who do request change will be more violently suppressed than the Occupy Wall Street people are.

 

Nothing you say changes any of this. There are those who are opposed to change, simply because they are attached to their material goods, their iPods, laptops, big screen tvs, etc. The fact of the matter is that we've taught our children to believe these things are needed. The Leap Pad, a tablet PC made for young children, in their advertisement tells children "I need this"... it's actually repeated in the add several times. Children do not need a leap pad do they? So tell me how is this a fair economy, when we're brainwashing our children to believe they need things like that?

 

I'm done talking with you. You haven't ever known poverty, you cannot talk about poverty, you can only talk about what's made you a happy self indulgent man, and those things you believe will help you to remain that way. You don't care for the poor, you've stated that in so many words, rather you believe they're poor because they choose to be. You're really just ignorant, incapable of understanding a spiritual principle even the youngest novitiate of any religion seems to grasp and that is very sad.

 

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also isn't it ironic that Mayor Boomberg, the 12th richest man in the united states, a man who's entire wealth is based on the stock exchange, was the one that gave the order to drive the protesters from their camp on private property? Really makes you proud to be an American. Obviously capitalism is working for someone.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Twinner

[joeblast]

The smiley faces? Dude, I'm writing with a smile. *shrugs* And I certainly did have to laugh at your insinuation that I plus'd my own post.

 

What's really funny is how many bits of your argument are supporting mine. I'm not being critical of you for "not getting it" but when you're using substantive points that I make that support my argument and attempting to augment them to work for a relatively diametrically opposed argument, gotta draw that line.

 

The system does not work because I have a warm bed. That is an outcome of the system working. Causality.

 

I never said the potential for success guarantees success. You cant guarantee outcomes. You can provide certain small measures to facilitate good outcomes, but even at that, you cant guarantee them for each and every single person.

 

Dear lord, a job you absolutely hated that provided well for you. It was yours to keep or leave, why are you complaining about that? You knew what you walked away from, and are glad for it. Take the good with the bad.

 

I have told you and provided examples of how being so over the top compassionate leads one to be a doormat, and doormats generally dont get respected as much as they feel they should. As well as in government, look at Greece where the government just kept stepping in, kept stepping in, we'll take care of this, we'll take care of that, until...OMFG, we cant pay our bills any longer because the majority of the population works for the public sector and that's not a good thing because its the private sector where the funds come from to pay for all of these things politicians have promised the populace. PIIGS is an easy example that shows you right away a massive failure of government & centralized planning where the populace is given some semblance of freedom while the controlling oligarchies try to play with numbers to keep the facade going.

 

Guess who was opposed to reducing or capping fees on debit and credit card transactions that banks and credit card companies charge businesses? - guess who was lobbied by Visa and voted in favor of the credit card companies when it behooved her? Nancy Pelosi. So stop the BS of trying to paint this as one side abuses and the other does not. In case you didnt notice, that is exactly what spawned the Tea Party. There isnt sufficient space-time to bring about a 3rd party in any quick manner. It is why the Progressives slowly infiltrated and took over the Democrat party. Well, the tea party aims to do relatively the same thing with the Republican party - take it over, put the establishment-types in their place, return the US government to its roots and let the American People prosper. Basically - exactly the opposite intention of the Progressive party within the Democrat party, the progressives screwed up Europe, they've been trying to do the same thing in the USA for a hundred years now and move the country past the constitution and into this glorious compassionate era where every single human being is looking out for the other...only, the things which accompany that style of government are quite opposed to the ideas that founded this country.

 

That is why I say if you want to be a socialist, fine, just go do it somewhere else and leave my country alone!!!

 

 

Love the example of Bloomberg - he's a politician, "capitalism" is helping him out??? He is using, abusing his position to pad his pockets like a great many other politicians. If you're going to use an example at least make it logically consistent! He's the mayor and it was his job to clear the squatters, who else do you think was going to give some sort of definitive statement like that??? All that aside, it was left until general public opinion turned against the squatters. Typical politician, kneejerk it the whole way.

 

 

Yes, but it's not true, just theoretical republican tea party BS. If we want to discuss how we can make a fair market economy I think we also need to look at other factors involved, in particular regarding loans and incentives to start businesses, the ability to compete against large corporations and succeed. If you think that there doesn't need to be some sort of regulations remember that there was a time when every convenience store out there was a mom and pop store, now less than a quarter of them are, you can't really make a living unless you accept the patronage of a major corporation and agree to give them a portion of your profits in exchange for their goods (i.e. you can't just purchase their goods, you actually have to accept them as your sole provider and give them a percentage of the overall profits, if fact you don't even actually own the fuel or pumps, at least not in many cases.) Also lets look at bank fees and the costs of doing business, where they are charged exorbitant fees for processing credit card transactions and debit transactions. This is just one type of industry, there are numerous others that are having just as many problems.

 

(Guess who was opposed to reducing or capping fees on debit and credit card transactions that banks and credit card companies charge businesses? Give up? Here's a clue it starts with republic--.)

 

I get the strong feeling that Joe's a Tea Party-Repubican-Rush Limbaugh-adoring-wannabe libertarian. I say wannabe because most people that call themselves libertarians today don't even know what one actually is (or was before it was bastardized by conservative republican's disillusioned with their own party.)

 

Anyways, I'm glad you got something nice from his speech, but keep in mind the whole 2-5% profit margin is one of the reasons small businesses are failing... large companies like walmart and BP can afford to operate at such a low margin, small businesses in most cases can't. Hence the republican model is better suited to ensuring the success of the large company owned by the 1% than the small business owned by the 99%.

 

What is also laughable is the "theoretical tea party republican BS" characterization. For what IS theoretical is the Socialist Utopia, not the well functioning free market! (If it were left to function freely, of course, since our "free market" has plenty of controls.) It is not theory that unleashing the full force of the free market has tremendous beneficial results for the economy - plenty of historical precedent there. What you will not find in history is the Socialist Utopia - it is of course mangled and bent towards whatever ends the oligarchy in question is attempting to implement it, and has resulted in exponentially more suffering, death, famine than you could ever attribute to our current "war machine." That's the fact, Jack. Sorry that reality doesnt fit within your construct.

 

 

So you think its unfair that its tough for a small business to succeed? You seem to have regulations and their effects backwards, man. A large corporation has plenty of resources at its disposal to comply with regulations. Where excess regulations take their biggest toll is on the mom and pop places. What do you think a regulatory structure along the lines of Sarbanes Oxley does to a small firm vs what it does to say Aetna? It takes a chunk out of Aetna's bottom line, but it damn near takes a limb from the mom & pop place.

 

Why do you think a lot of the mom and pops went under? Because governments dont give favors to mom and pops. They're not going to give them a tax free haven in the township like they will to Wal Mart. But you can bet your ass that they will tax them every bit as much.

 

In that vein - please explain to me how you believe regulations are helping these mom & pop businesses. Tell me how a taxing authority increasing its burden helps them stay in business.

 

That is where you are completely wrong, that somehow a never ending increase in taxes and regulations are somehow going to help create more mom & pop businesses?? That is insane - if you can, please explain to us all how that works, I'd be curious to hear that one.

 

Why do you think businesses basically stopped hiring once Obamacare was ushered through? Cripes, that is the mother of all crushing burdens, entrenching the very things they purport to do away with just like Dodd-Frank supposedly did away with too big to fail...by entrenching it. These policies are predicated upon lies, brother. Conceived with the heart generally in the right place, but with the mind attempting to bump up against it from below. It is not compassionate making huge promises that absolutely cannot be kept, and attempting to keep them places crushing burdens on a great percentage of the population. Seriously, what is compassionate about that???

[ralis]

 

 

 

That is why I say if you want to be a socialist, fine, just go do it somewhere else and leave my country alone!!!

 

 

 

Your country Joe? Sound like talk coming from the 1%. Are you going to use force to attain your agenda? Install an autocratic government to insure strict compliance with your views? Obviously, you have not studied much history. All with extreme views such as yours, erroneously believe that events of the past do not apply to them! Historical documents prove that every political movement, economic theory, empire, civilization, etc. will ultimately decline and fail! Your little "Tea Bagger" movement will fade into the rubble of history along with all other ideology!

 

If you believe that installing a different president that is more to the right than Obama, and that somehow your agenda will magically be the new rule of law, you are mistaken. The last three presidents including Obama have increased the security state beyond what their predecessors instituted. What most fail to see is the military security apparatus that grows larger with each administration. The GOP and Tea Bagger" movements are saber rattling towards Iran and making that country the new enemy. Democrats in the government will go along with it for fear of appearing weak in the face of so called terror. This government is not run by the people but by special interests i.e, the military industrial complex, which is beyond the influence of any political party!

 

911 was the perfect storm for the military security industrial complex to increase it's power and since that time, TSA, Patriot Act, militarization of police, wire tapping, elimination of habeas corpus, eliminating the bill of rights, homeland security etc. and the spending of 1 trillion on more weaponry have occurred.

Edited November 25, 2011 by ralis

[ralis]

Complication of all known military contracts since 2006. Approx. 1.3 trillion. This would not include unfunded black bag ops.

 

 

http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/

[ralis]

Chalmers Johnson speaks on the American Empire. As always, he places the U.S. in proper historical context as a basis for his arguments. One who does not or refuses to see the historical context is nothing more than an amateur dilatant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pay careful attention to time index 5:52 in part two. That is why no matter who is POTUS, the same entrenched interests sustain.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 25, 2011 by ralis

[Aaron]

The smiley faces? Dude, I'm writing with a smile. *shrugs* And I certainly did have to laugh at your insinuation that I plus'd my own post.

 

What's really funny is how many bits of your argument are supporting mine. I'm not being critical of you for "not getting it" but when you're using substantive points that I make that support my argument and attempting to augment them to work for a relatively diametrically opposed argument, gotta draw that line.

 

The system does not work because I have a warm bed. That is an outcome of the system working. Causality.

 

I never said the potential for success guarantees success. You cant guarantee outcomes. You can provide certain small measures to facilitate good outcomes, but even at that, you cant guarantee them for each and every single person.

 

Dear lord, a job you absolutely hated that provided well for you. It was yours to keep or leave, why are you complaining about that? You knew what you walked away from, and are glad for it. Take the good with the bad.

 

I have told you and provided examples of how being so over the top compassionate leads one to be a doormat, and doormats generally dont get respected as much as they feel they should. As well as in government, look at Greece where the government just kept stepping in, kept stepping in, we'll take care of this, we'll take care of that, until...OMFG, we cant pay our bills any longer because the majority of the population works for the public sector and that's not a good thing because its the private sector where the funds come from to pay for all of these things politicians have promised the populace. PIIGS is an easy example that shows you right away a massive failure of government & centralized planning where the populace is given some semblance of freedom while the controlling oligarchies try to play with numbers to keep the facade going.

 

Guess who was opposed to reducing or capping fees on debit and credit card transactions that banks and credit card companies charge businesses? - guess who was lobbied by Visa and voted in favor of the credit card companies when it behooved her? Nancy Pelosi. So stop the BS of trying to paint this as one side abuses and the other does not. In case you didnt notice, that is exactly what spawned the Tea Party. There isnt sufficient space-time to bring about a 3rd party in any quick manner. It is why the Progressives slowly infiltrated and took over the Democrat party. Well, the tea party aims to do relatively the same thing with the Republican party - take it over, put the establishment-types in their place, return the US government to its roots and let the American People prosper. Basically - exactly the opposite intention of the Progressive party within the Democrat party, the progressives screwed up Europe, they've been trying to do the same thing in the USA for a hundred years now and move the country past the constitution and into this glorious compassionate era where every single human being is looking out for the other...only, the things which accompany that style of government are quite opposed to the ideas that founded this country.

 

That is why I say if you want to be a socialist, fine, just go do it somewhere else and leave my country alone!!!

 

 

Love the example of Bloomberg - he's a politician, "capitalism" is helping him out??? He is using, abusing his position to pad his pockets like a great many other politicians. If you're going to use an example at least make it logically consistent! He's the mayor and it was his job to clear the squatters, who else do you think was going to give some sort of definitive statement like that??? All that aside, it was left until general public opinion turned against the squatters. Typical politician, kneejerk it the whole way.

 

 

 

 

What is also laughable is the "theoretical tea party republican BS" characterization. For what IS theoretical is the Socialist Utopia, not the well functioning free market! (If it were left to function freely, of course, since our "free market" has plenty of controls.) It is not theory that unleashing the full force of the free market has tremendous beneficial results for the economy - plenty of historical precedent there. What you will not find in history is the Socialist Utopia - it is of course mangled and bent towards whatever ends the oligarchy in question is attempting to implement it, and has resulted in exponentially more suffering, death, famine than you could ever attribute to our current "war machine." That's the fact, Jack. Sorry that reality doesnt fit within your construct.

 

 

So you think its unfair that its tough for a small business to succeed? You seem to have regulations and their effects backwards, man. A large corporation has plenty of resources at its disposal to comply with regulations. Where excess regulations take their biggest toll is on the mom and pop places. What do you think a regulatory structure along the lines of Sarbanes Oxley does to a small firm vs what it does to say Aetna? It takes a chunk out of Aetna's bottom line, but it damn near takes a limb from the mom & pop place.

 

Why do you think a lot of the mom and pops went under? Because governments dont give favors to mom and pops. They're not going to give them a tax free haven in the township like they will to Wal Mart. But you can bet your ass that they will tax them every bit as much.

 

In that vein - please explain to me how you believe regulations are helping these mom & pop businesses. Tell me how a taxing authority increasing its burden helps them stay in business.

 

That is where you are completely wrong, that somehow a never ending increase in taxes and regulations are somehow going to help create more mom & pop businesses?? That is insane - if you can, please explain to us all how that works, I'd be curious to hear that one.

 

Why do you think businesses basically stopped hiring once Obamacare was ushered through? Cripes, that is the mother of all crushing burdens, entrenching the very things they purport to do away with just like Dodd-Frank supposedly did away with too big to fail...by entrenching it. These policies are predicated upon lies, brother. Conceived with the heart generally in the right place, but with the mind attempting to bump up against it from below. It is not compassionate making huge promises that absolutely cannot be kept, and attempting to keep them places crushing burdens on a great percentage of the population. Seriously, what is compassionate about that???

 

Blah, blah, blah, blah, Sarah Palin is cute... blah, blah, blah, blah, Rush Limbuagh has pretty eyes... That's all I hear from you. Give it up. Even if a few of the people on this website are stupid enough to fall for this republican-tea party-faux-libertarian BS, it's only because they think it's going to somehow save them from the state of the nation, a state that was caused by the republicans in the first place.

 

Really you're comments are so demented and deluded, you've fully bought into everything Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, and Glen Beck have told you.

 

Anyways, I would happily leave America if I thought it was different elsewhere, but it isn't. The world is slowly being corrupted and dominated by the corporations. That's why the Occupy Wall Street movement is a global movement, because most people understand the depths to which the 1% have gone to control the world markets. Look at Bloomberg, he's donated a good deal of money to politicians in England that were against market reform. Now the market has crashed as a result, but it really didn't influence his own wealth that much, rather it helped clean out some of the undesirables that were making money but weren't in the big boys clubs.

 

Sigh... you are so blind it's like someone is flicking you in the eyeball and you still don't understand that you can't see what's really going on.

 

Aaron

[strawdog65]

Please take a look. Edited November 26, 2011 by strawdog65

[joeblast]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, Sarah Palin is cute... blah, blah, blah, blah, Rush Limbuagh has pretty eyes... That's all I hear from you. Give it up. Even if a few of the people on this website are stupid enough to fall for this republican-tea party-faux-libertarian BS, it's only because they think it's going to somehow save them from the state of the nation, a state that was caused by the republicans in the first place.

 

Really you're comments are so demented and deluded, you've fully bought into everything Sean Hannity, Limbaugh, and Glen Beck have told you.

 

Anyways, I would happily leave America if I thought it was different elsewhere, but it isn't. The world is slowly being corrupted and dominated by the corporations. That's why the Occupy Wall Street movement is a global movement, because most people understand the depths to which the 1% have gone to control the world markets. Look at Bloomberg, he's donated a good deal of money to politicians in England that were against market reform. Now the market has crashed as a result, but it really didn't influence his own wealth that much, rather it helped clean out some of the undesirables that were making money but weren't in the big boys clubs.

 

Sigh... you are so blind it's like someone is flicking you in the eyeball and you still don't understand that you can't see what's really going on.

 

Aaron

Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem no substance no substance no substance.

 

or if you prefer,

 

Change the subject or seize upon the tiniest tangent like ralis.

 

I am articulating real world ideas. All you're telling me is "I hate the messenger's shoes." If you cant say much more than "you're subscribing to something somebody else has told you" when that is exactly where you're coming from, it makes one sound rather daft. You are not demonstrating any depth of knowledge on why you believe as you do, except that you grew up poor and you believe it is the compassionate way forward.

 

I also believe my way is the compassionate way forward and I have given real world examples of how and why, and why it works. All you've got is lip service. Nice try, maybe you can think of a few more insults that will somehow help you state your case.

 

Done again yet?

[Aaron]

Done again yet?

 

Hahaha... have you wondered why your comments piss so many people off? Well maybe take a look at this one, it really helps people to see your complete lack of compassion and tact. Now let me ask you, you can have a big screen tv, but you have to kill a child from a third world country to get it? Do you take the big screen TV?

 

 

Second question, America is out of resources, a small third world country has more than enough to get us through for 50 more years, but they will not voluntarily give it up, so do you A) Attack the country, killing everyone that resists or B ) Admit that you've been irresponsible and used up your own resources and accept responsibility for your own gluttony and greed?

 

I'm thinking, from what I know about you so far, that you might not kill the child, but you would have no problems with A, which is ironic, since it's really the same thing.

 

Aaron

 

edit- And I wonder if that would define your economical and political views as good or evil? I'm certain that this isn't one of those grey areas where people would have a problem deciding, rather it seems very clear cut.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Twinner

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

The Capitalism practiced by the US is corruption dressed-up as incentivism.. where the more wealth that is acquired the more influence is also acquired, and.. that influence is used to acquire more wealth to acquire more influence, and.. the more wealth that is acquired affords the wealthy to use more resources to enhance their wealth acquisition, legally and illegally.. all of which is dependent on the efforts and labors of those who provide the basis of the wealth, actual work.. the ruse in all of this is the well-played marketing ploy that anyone can rise to the 1%, but not everyone can.. and, there's the rub. the 1% are dependent upon the 99% and they manipulate them to maximize the one percent's harvesting of the wealth generated by real work and productive contributions to civilization.. no, the innovators, the job creators, the visionaries, the investors, the sports personalities, the politicians, the entertainers, no one deserves decadent excess while others die of starvation or from lack of basic human rights like healthcare.. wealth earned can be distributed to fairly represent demand and risk vs. lack of incentive or effort without creating such disparity that there is no wealth available for the least fortunate to improve their conditions.. What is evident in the global relationships of 'civilized' peoples, is that corruption, at some level, is the most common form of wealth acquisition.. and, that the institutions created to protect against corruption are often equally corrupt.. all of which is rooted in the measure of respect the participants have for Life and basic human rights..

 

Be well..

[ralis]

Ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem no substance no substance no substance.

 

 

Is that your only defense?

 

 

 

I am articulating real world ideas.

 

Real world according to your own belief systems and that of amateur dilatants. That is your own tunnel reality! Believe whatever you like but stop trying to force your right wing "Tea Bagger" ideology on the rest of humanity!

[ralis]

Greetings..

 

The Capitalism practiced by the US is corruption dressed-up as incentivism.. where the more wealth that is acquired the more influence is also acquired, and.. that influence is used to acquire more wealth to acquire more influence, and.. the more wealth that is acquired affords the wealthy to use more resources to enhance their wealth acquisition, legally and illegally.. all of which is dependent on the efforts and labors of those who provide the basis of the wealth, actual work.. the ruse in all of this is the well-played marketing ploy that anyone can rise to the 1%, but mot everyone can.. and, there's the rub. the 1% are dependent upon the 99% and they manipulate them to maximize the one percent's harvesting of the wealth generated by real work and productive contributions to civilization.. no, the innovators, the job creators, the visionaries, the investors, the sports personalities, the politicians, the entertainers, no one deserves decadent excess while others die of starvation or from lack of basic human rights like healthcare.. wealth earned can be distributed to fairly represent demand and risk vs. lack of incentive or effort without creating such disparity that there is no wealth available for the least fortunate to improve their conditions.. What is evident in the global relationships of 'civilized' peoples, is that corruption, at some level, is the most common form of wealth acquisition.. and, that the institutions created to protect against corruption are often equally corrupt.. all of which is rooted in the measure of respect the participants have for Life and basic human rights..

 

Be well..

 

Wow! You just summed up the problem with the free market advocates! I believe Reagan gave propaganda speeches in which he said that anyone can be in the 1%. That meme continues today!

 

I have many clients and acquaintances that are in the 1%. They acquired their wealth either by inheritance or made business connections while in the most prestigious schools (Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton etc.) in the U.S. E.g. Bill Gates and the founder of Facebook both came from upper class backgrounds and attended Harvard.

[strawdog65]

Greetings..

 

The Capitalism practiced by the US is corruption dressed-up as incentivism.. where the more wealth that is acquired the more influence is also acquired, and.. that influence is used to acquire more wealth to acquire more influence, and.. the more wealth that is acquired affords the wealthy to use more resources to enhance their wealth acquisition, legally and illegally.. all of which is dependent on the efforts and labors of those who provide the basis of the wealth, actual work.. the ruse in all of this is the well-played marketing ploy that anyone can rise to the 1%, but mot everyone can.. and, there's the rub. the 1% are dependent upon the 99% and they manipulate them to maximize the one percent's harvesting of the wealth generated by real work and productive contributions to civilization.. no, the innovators, the job creators, the visionaries, the investors, the sports personalities, the politicians, the entertainers, no one deserves decadent excess while others die of starvation or from lack of basic human rights like healthcare.. wealth earned can be distributed to fairly represent demand and risk vs. lack of incentive or effort without creating such disparity that there is no wealth available for the least fortunate to improve their conditions.. What is evident in the global relationships of 'civilized' peoples, is that corruption, at some level, is the most common form of wealth acquisition.. and, that the institutions created to protect against corruption are often equally corrupt.. all of which is rooted in the measure of respect the participants have for Life and basic human rights..

 

Be well..

 

 

Ahhh....

 

The voice of reason and compassion is not only alive and well,

but eloquently spoken.

 

Thank you for posting this Tzu Jan Li!

It ironically, should be apparently obvious to anyone

who takes the practice of compassion and understanding to heart.

Sadly, because so many of us live within our own bubble of "stuff",

we measure the health of the system we exist within, by the ability to

have the very stuff that is part of the disease of all mankind.

Insulated from the true world reality, we blindly say, "all is well".

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Wow! You just summed up the problem with the free market advocates! I believe Reagan gave propaganda speeches in which he said that anyone can be in the 1%. That meme continues today!

 

I have many clients and acquaintances that are in the 1%. They acquired their wealth either by inheritance or made business connections while in the most prestigious schools (Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, Princeton etc.) in the U.S. E.g. Bill Gates and the founder of Facebook both came from upper class backgrounds and attended Harvard.

Hi Ralis: The issue overlooked, and of major concern to a functioning society, is role of nepotism and "good ol' boy" policies.. where friends and family are granted access to opportunity while those more qualified or experienced to manage that opportunity to the benefit of society are denied access.. not much different than choosing to pay sports and entertainment personalities unconscionably exorbitant salaries and fees, while our own children are educated poorly and are nutritionally deprived.. as a society, we are so self-absorbed that the plight of civilization and the planet is ignored while we pretend we are looking for answers.. many of the answers are known, we, as a barely functioning society, are simply too narcissistic to care.. we, as a society, are willing to screw the future for our own pleasures today..

 

Be well..

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Ahhh....

 

The voice of reason and compassion is not only alive and well,

but eloquently spoken.

 

Thank you for posting this Tzu Jan Li!

It ironically, should be apparently obvious to anyone

who takes the practice of compassion and understanding to heart.

Sadly, because so many of us live within our own bubble of "stuff",

we measure the health of the system we exist within, by the ability to

have the very stuff that is part of the disease of all mankind.

Insulated from the true world reality, we blindly say, "all is well".

Thank you, Sir.. every instant of our existence is the opportunity to redefine who and what we are.. there is a glimmer of courage emerging from humanity, a last desperate attempt to salvage its own existence..

 

Civilization.. "Change it, or lose it"..

 

Be well..

[Aaron]

Greetings..

 

 

Hi Ralis: The issue overlooked, and of major concern to a functioning society, is role of nepotism and "good ol' boy" policies.. where friends and family are granted access to opportunity while those more qualified or experienced to manage that opportunity to the benefit of society are denied access.. not much different than choosing to pay sports and entertainment personalities unconscionably exorbitant salaries and fees, while our own children are educated poorly and are nutritionally deprived.. as a society, we are so self-absorbed that the plight of civilization and the planet is ignored while we pretend we are looking for answers.. many of the answers are known, we, as a barely functioning society, are simply too narcissistic to care.. we, as a society, are willing to screw the future for our own pleasures today..

 

Be well..

 

I've been saying this for the last 20 pages or so, hopefully with some new voices of reason, someone might get a clue and realize the extent of the problem. We are selling out our children's future for the sake of our greed and avarice today. This isn't entirely the 1%'s fault, in fact they couldn't do this if we didn't get something in return from it. The sad fact is that we don't start complaining until it effects us directly. We can ignore the billion or so children that have died from starvation, war, and disease over the last century, but we can't ignore the fact that we might not be able to afford the creature comforts we've come to expect as entitlements of the first world order. It's sad, the moment the economy begins to recoup, you can be certain that most of this concern about the 1% will go the way of the dodo, at least until there is another economic downturn.

 

Aaron

[ralis]

As the Vulcan Spock has said in Star Trek, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

[Informer]

As the Vulcan Spock has said in Star Trek, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

 

In this case it is the wants of a few to outweigh needs of others.

[joeblast]

What I find odd is that only the most extreme examples are ever trotted out by those simply attempting to paint capitalism in a bad light by making this but a discussion over class warfare. Platitudes are spouted this way and that of the need for compassion, how anyone who makes a buck does so upon the backs of their laborers, some even paint it as theft; the decrying of anyone having the ability to amass to excess, the lament that though anyone here has the opportunity not everyone is able to partake of the fruits of...their...labor...waait a sec...

 

Nary a consideration given to the situation at hand, how policies put forth will affect those whom they are imposed upon, what incentive people will have to risk anything, how skimming "that extra" from those whom are productive will affect the potential for growth, how much the additional burden of open ended promises will snowball into the future upon the entire population, not just "the rich."

 

Are we trying to get the country back on its feet, its economic engine revving again, jobs created so that there will be less misery, unemployment...

 

...or are we still stuck on existential minutiae over setting up our perfect little Utopia that will run flawlessly and everyone will be perfectly equal, compassionate and happy? (but please, no questions on any of the details!)

 

Which is more practical for the short term? Which is more practical for the medium term, even? As many have stated here in this very thread, the practice of compassion is something that needs to start with oneself, and when one expounds and displays compassion well, that will resonate to those around him.

 

To whit, is it somehow the government's job to force us to be compassionate? Should compassion come from a central authority, or is that something which should be brought about in each and every one of us by virtue of living and learning? We are mincing a few discussions together here. I'm articulating a fiscally conservative approach that will produce prosperous economic results for many - rich as well as poor, the disparity be damned because there will always be disparity. Railing about global consumerism is not going to somehow help a poor man put dinner on the table for his family - however, the job that got created because someone in the position of being able to start a business did so - that has quite the meaning for that poor person - even if the job is minimum wage.

 

Twinner, I asked you to logically follow some policies forward to conclusion, and you decided to berate conservative spokespeople as a response. Does that strike you as somewhat intellectually dishonest? IMHO, if you are to firmly believe in something you should at least be able to articulate and defend why you believe as you do.

 

What policies are mortgaging our children's future? "Compassionate" insurance requirements that enable the third parties to continually raise their fees because "the government has got it covered?" A "stimulus" of taxpayer funds to float a favored constituency or two along while there is a recession, while the rest of everyone has huge taxes and regulations just over the horizon? (=the real reason the "stimulus" packages produced just above zero.) Declaring "savings" as "bending the future increases in spending downward a percent or two" - ?

 

And if you want to talk of starving children, what of the relatively failed efforts in Africa? Dumping money over there has wound up mostly lining the pockets of local warlords - and there's still a shitload of starving children. Of course since I say such a thing some may label me as discompassionate, but neglect to consider that the question makes sense to ask - does one keep extending himself to the point of overextension, putting himself needlessly in jeopardy, or does it make more sense to be charitable as one is able, thus allowing one to continue to be charitable on an ongoing and sustainable basis?

 

It is the same reason why monks typically will not visit the same houses all the time when begging for alms - because if they show up very regularly, then the homeowners will then simply start preparing meals for them and that which is given is no longer "extra" - which is what they are looking for, not a planned meal that places a burden on the family that expects to provide a monk with a meal every single day.

 

And here I thought Taoists valued self inquiry! It is important to be honest with oneself when doing such things. If the results wind up contrary to your aim, what of the means used to get there?

[ralis]

What I find odd is that only the most extreme examples are ever trotted out by those simply attempting to paint capitalism in a bad light by making this but a discussion over class warfare. Platitudes are spouted this way and that of the need for compassion, how anyone who makes a buck does so upon the backs of their laborers, some even paint it as theft; the decrying of anyone having the ability to amass to excess, the lament that though anyone here has the opportunity not everyone is able to partake of the fruits of...their...labor...waait a sec...

 

Nary a consideration given to the situation at hand, how policies put forth will affect those whom they are imposed upon, what incentive people will have to risk anything, how skimming "that extra" from those whom are productive will affect the potential for growth, how much the additional burden of open ended promises will snowball into the future upon the entire population, not just "the rich."

 

Are we trying to get the country back on its feet, its economic engine revving again, jobs created so that there will be less misery, unemployment...

 

...or are we still stuck on existential minutiae over setting up our perfect little Utopia that will run flawlessly and everyone will be perfectly equal, compassionate and happy? (but please, no questions on any of the details!)

 

Which is more practical for the short term? Which is more practical for the medium term, even? As many have stated here in this very thread, the practice of compassion is something that needs to start with oneself, and when one expounds and displays compassion well, that will resonate to those around him.

 

To whit, is it somehow the government's job to force us to be compassionate? Should compassion come from a central authority, or is that something which should be brought about in each and every one of us by virtue of living and learning? We are mincing a few discussions together here. I'm articulating a fiscally conservative approach that will produce prosperous economic results for many - rich as well as poor, the disparity be damned because there will always be disparity. Railing about global consumerism is not going to somehow help a poor man put dinner on the table for his family - however, the job that got created because someone in the position of being able to start a business did so - that has quite the meaning for that poor person - even if the job is minimum wage.

 

Twinner, I asked you to logically follow some policies forward to conclusion, and you decided to berate conservative spokespeople as a response. Does that strike you as somewhat intellectually dishonest? IMHO, if you are to firmly believe in something you should at least be able to articulate and defend why you believe as you do.

 

What policies are mortgaging our children's future? "Compassionate" insurance requirements that enable the third parties to continually raise their fees because "the government has got it covered?" A "stimulus" of taxpayer funds to float a favored constituency or two along while there is a recession, while the rest of everyone has huge taxes and regulations just over the horizon? (=the real reason the "stimulus" packages produced just above zero.) Declaring "savings" as "bending the future increases in spending downward a percent or two" - ?

 

And if you want to talk of starving children, what of the relatively failed efforts in Africa? Dumping money over there has wound up mostly lining the pockets of local warlords - and there's still a shitload of starving children. Of course since I say such a thing some may label me as discompassionate, but neglect to consider that the question makes sense to ask - does one keep extending himself to the point of overextension, putting himself needlessly in jeopardy, or does it make more sense to be charitable as one is able, thus allowing one to continue to be charitable on an ongoing and sustainable basis?

 

It is the same reason why monks typically will not visit the same houses all the time when begging for alms - because if they show up very regularly, then the homeowners will then simply start preparing meals for them and that which is given is no longer "extra" - which is what they are looking for, not a planned meal that places a burden on the family that expects to provide a monk with a meal every single day.

 

And here I thought Taoists valued self inquiry! It is important to be honest with oneself when doing such things. If the results wind up contrary to your aim, what of the means used to get there?

 

You pretend to write as if you are a logician. You are not. Your posts are replete with assumptions and non sequiters, which are solely the narrative of right wing libertarian propagandists.

 

Your so called solutions to complex problems are simplistic and single minded. History is replete with myriad single minded individuals such as yourself and in every instance, have failed to deliver the goods!

 

Obviously cooperation is not in your venue but your extreme single minded authoritarian anti-government views, are the basis of how you proceed to make arguments that do not follow.