Global Revolution!

[joeblast]

Well ralis, if my posts were that far off then naturally you'd be able to construct a coherent argument that articulates otherwise, or at least gives some reason as to why they are wrong other than you simply declaring that "all I'm doing is spouting right wing propaganda" and patting yourself on the back for having "deconstructed" my argument. Have at it, otherwise your replies are hollow and empty banalities, as they have been thus far.

[ralis]

Well ralis, if my posts were that far off then naturally you'd be able to construct a coherent argument that articulates otherwise, or at least gives some reason as to why they are wrong other than you simply declaring that "all I'm doing is spouting right wing propaganda" and patting yourself on the back for having "deconstructed" my argument. Have at it, otherwise your replies are hollow and empty banalities, as they have been thus far.

 

So far you have refused to listen to the many coherent arguments presented to you. Ever wonder why so many oppose your arguments here?

[joeblast]

I've responded and refuted, you havent even attempted, much less come close.

[ralis]

I've responded and refuted, you havent even attempted, much less come close.

 

I guess you are the superior intellect and no one in the entire world can refute your non sequiturs. :lol: You show your willingness to follow the ideological herd.

 

The Tea Bagger party that you shill for, which by the way is funded by the Koch Bros. will crash and burn!

Edited November 26, 2011 by ralis

[Aaron]

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?

 

 

Oh Joeblast. Poor, poor, Joeblast. You fail to see the truth of the matter, nor have you answered my questions. Answer mine and I will gladly answer yours.

 

Question one- Who has given any of us possession of this world? Why do we have the right to exploit and possess things to our hearts content and dictate who gets what based on their military might?

 

Question two- If capitalism is a system intended to help everyone achieve a stable living, provide for everyone, then why must their always be poor in order for it to succeed? If capitalism is truly a godsend, then tell me once in history when it has succeeded in wiping out poverty, even within it's own country?

 

Question three- If capitalism is the best solution, then why doesn't everyone see this? Why are there so many "ignorant" people who seem to view it as a stigma on society?

 

Question four- How is creating an economic system based on sharing the wealth of the world, insuring that everyone has food and shelter, inferior to capitalism?

 

Question five- If we deregulate the economy, allow for this true "capitalist utopia" to thrive, how does it put in check those who claim the earth's resources as their own? Isn't it better to share these resources equally amongst everyone? Does a company really own the oil buried a thousand feet underground? Who said they owned it, the politicians that they pay to support them, or the earth itself?

 

You ignored everyone of these questions and redirected your comments, when I haven't done that, I've actually answered them, you just don't see the answer, because you're incapable of seeing it. You are ignorant, in the sense that you have a vision of things and you are unwilling to change that vision.

 

Also I am not a democrat or republican, I don't agree with the policies of the United States. The United States was set up by those in power to ensure that their power never fell into the hands of the people. The electoral college was intended to prevent people, whom they deemed incapable of making an important decision such as who should be president, from actually having any effect on the election. Read the Federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime and you'd know that. I actually learned about the Constitution while I was in school, in depth, as well as the political history of the USA. I understand what a farse it is. You, instead, have listened to what the corporate owned media and the political parties funded by corporations have told you. Check it out, it's really very enlightening in the governmental sense.

 

If you want I can tell you exactly why we have freedom of speech, it's not to ensure everyone has the right to speak their minds, but that the government couldn't tell the men in power what they could or couldn't say. Did you know that during wartime the Freedom of Speech can be rescinded? Did you know that the US government has used this power to actually arrest people who were a threat to the presidency? I can't remember the name of the person, but in the 1930's they arrested a socialist that had a good chance of winning the presidential election, because he was causing dissension. Freedom is an illusion. Those who oppose the structure of the state are not protected by it, nor are those who accept it. It has been merely a matter of time for it to decay to the point it has. The current system did something wrong though, they pushed their hand too far and now people, the common man and woman, are becoming aware of just what is happening, that's why we see what's going on now.

 

The rich will crush this resistance, but I guarantee it will not die. They will discredit those involved, one way or another, and try to dissolve it, but the fact is that the information age is beyond their control. One person can disseminate every dark secret they have without them being able to stop it. Slowly but surely they are losing, it's just a matter of time. You need to decide whether you are a member of the Tea Party or a member of the human race, and which is more important to you in the end. Make that decision and then come back and tell me that providing shelter to everyone, or at least trying to help everyone we can is somehow silly or foolish.

 

I've got my eyes wide open, so please don't tell me I don't see what's going on, or that I don't understand what you're saying, I just see it for what it is, smoke and mirrors.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Also have you ever wondered why the Supreme Court Judges are appointed by the President? It's not to ensure that capable people are elected, but to ensure that they are chosen by those in power to ensure that the power to change the constitution never falls into the hands of the common man.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Twinner

[ralis]

 

 

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.

 

 

Free markets are not free. Environmental impact laws to criminal behavior are under the venue of law enforcement and government regulators. So called free markets are not self regulating as you so desperately want to believe. Participants in any market are not always rational and honest.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings

 

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...

Yes, it is indeed "class warfare".. capitalism creates a worker-class that the 'one percent' manipulates into indentured servitude while the 'one percent' siphons the "fruits of their labors" from them.. you, and those of your persuasion, will use whatever means you believe justify your inclinations to gather excess at the expense of those that make abundance possible through their actual work.

 

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."

The "incentive" is the same as it is now, greed.. even if controls are put in place to regulate disparity and excess at the expense of the health and welfare of others, the greedy will strive to reach the highest possible position of wealth and power, that's their nature they refuse to be 'one of the masses'.. and, it is likely they will resort to other means to circumvent the system, as that is their nature, too..

 

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...

I agree, but the investment businesses and the banks that crashed the economy in 2008 are holding onto their bailout money rather than reinvest it into the economy, in fact evidence indicates that a new round of skimming has already skimmed 20%-25% of the $850 BILLION out of circulation and into the same elite club's members invisible accounts..

 

So, i recommend that the people, corporations are people, too, with 'personal' wealth and assets over $12 million, and 'corporate' wealth and assets over $40 million, be assessed a one time "luxury tax" of 20% of their total wealth, and a tax on annual profits and gains of 32%, no exemptions.. this tax, along with other revenues, to be used to establish organizations like the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) and the WPA (Work Projects Administration).. Programs like the CCC and the WPA are essential to balance the equation where people that have been displaced from the workforce by outsourcing, by technological advances, and by economic misfortune can find meaningful ways to contribute to society and reap a fair portion the benefits of society's advancements.. Yes, i am in favor of the government acting as the equalizer where reasonable distribution of resources is not forthcoming from those that have gained the most from work of all peoples.. and, No, i do not favor taking away incentives for investment or inventiveness, or entrepreneurism, but i do favor a tax structure that increase with the increased acquisition of wealth..

 

...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!)

No questions??? is that the cooked books questions the 'one percent' wish to avoid?

 

The simple "existential minutiae" you refer to is as simple as equal respect for Life and health of humans..

 

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.

Balance the books, regulate the corrupt, and establish self-regulating programs that insure each person is rewarded with the fruits of society's productiveness according to each persons contribution to society, AND.. establish a process that provides an opportunity for each person to demonstrate their willingness and their ability to contribute (CCC & WPA).

 

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.

"Business starters" are our saviors?? No, most small businesses fail, my first did.. soon, though small businesses learn to game the system, find the loopholes, pay the right politicians, etc.. so they can raise the prices on the less fortunate to pay for their 'right' to be in business with the 'job creators'.. soon, we find out that in order to compete we must outsource manufacturing to Mexico or China to be competitive with other "American Companies", putting more people out of work so the Conservative Republican Candidates can demonstrate their compassion with rhetoric like "If you're out of a job it's your fault".. "job creators" be damned, they're creating those jobs overseas and ridiculing Americans for not having the jobs they've outsourced, REALLY??? but, oh no, Americans should work like illegal immigrants, for less than minimum wages with no benefits and "no regulation", because that lines the job creators' pockets while insuring insulation from the 'worker-bees'.. it's a rigged game, and and it's rigged at the highest levels.. the only cure is compassion and respect, THAT is "the rising tide that lifts ALL boats", but.. that's NOT what the 'one percent' wants, they want less responsibility for the well-being of society and more from its dwindling resources..

 

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" - ?

Our children will live in a society where technology has replaced the need for their work and offers them nothing as a substitute for earning a living, AND.. their will be the 'neo-cons' lamenting their drain on the wealth that the 'one percent' has amassed at society's expense.. but, the 'one percent' has hired the military and government to protect their engorged vaults of certificates (money, stocks, and bonds) describing the barter value they have for work and efforts done by others..

 

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?

No, you regulate foreign aid.. and you incarcerate or exterminate oppressors and abusers, both foreign and domestic.. you change the game to work in favor of the masses, rather than pitting them against each other for the benefit of the military industrial complex..

 

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.

WTF.. stay on point, that 'story' has no place in this discussion.. i'm looking for solutions and i'm not interested in how you justify your greedy ideologies..

 

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?

I'm a realist, history teaches that the disparity will not long be tolerated before the masses reset the scales.. the notes to that song never change, only the voices that don't want to sing it change..

 

If 'job creators' created jobs, we would be in much better shape, but they don't.. they take bail-out money and they take stimulus money, taxpayer money, and they keep it.. yeah, yeah, yeah, 'window dressing' if you're going to tell us about this or that that worked, the 'one percent' had to make a few token examples of why it's good to keep giving them the wealth earned by the middle-class.. but overall, capitalism as practiced in the US is regulated indenture of the poor and middle class, and most of the upper class, to the 'one percent', and actually.. it's more like the 0.5 percent.. most of the upper class are simply better trained and more willing to be the enforcers of the policy and protocol that insures the elite remain that way..

 

I hope my understatement of the issues doesn't blur them.. Be well..

[9th]

nice

[strawdog65]

Greetings

 

 

Yes, it is indeed "class warfare".. capitalism creates a worker-class that the 'one percent' manipulates into indentured servitude while the 'one percent' siphons the "fruits of their labors" from them.. you, and those of your persuasion, will use whatever means you believe justify your inclinations to gather excess at the expense of those that make abundance possible through their actual work.

 

 

The "incentive" is the same as it is now, greed.. even if controls are put in place to regulate disparity and excess at the expense of the health and welfare of others, the greedy will strive to reach the highest possible position of wealth and power, that's their nature they refuse to be 'one of the masses'.. and, it is likely they will resort to other means to circumvent the system, as that is their nature, too..

 

 

I agree, but the investment businesses and the banks that crashed the economy in 2008 are holding onto their bailout money rather than reinvest it into the economy, in fact evidence indicates that a new round of skimming has already skimmed 20%-25% of the $850 BILLION out of circulation and into the same elite club's members invisible accounts..

 

So, i recommend that the people, corporations are people, too, with 'personal' wealth and assets over $12 million, and 'corporate' wealth and assets over $40 million, be assessed a one time "luxury tax" of 20% of their total wealth, and a tax on annual profits and gains of 32%, no exemptions.. this tax, along with other revenues, to be used to establish organizations like the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) and the WPA (Work Projects Administration).. Programs like the CCC and the WPA are essential to balance the equation where people that have been displaced from the workforce by outsourcing, by technological advances, and by economic misfortune can find meaningful ways to contribute to society and reap a fair portion the benefits of society's advancements.. Yes, i am in favor of the government acting as the equalizer where reasonable distribution of resources is not forthcoming from those that have gained the most from work of all peoples.. and, No, i do not favor taking away incentives for investment or inventiveness, or entrepreneurism, but i do favor a tax structure that increase with the increased acquisition of wealth..

 

 

No questions??? is that the cooked books questions the 'one percent' wish to avoid?

 

The simple "existential minutiae" you refer to is as simple as equal respect for Life and health of humans..

 

 

Balance the books, regulate the corrupt, and establish self-regulating programs that insure each person is rewarded with the fruits of society's productiveness according to each persons contribution to society, AND.. establish a process that provides an opportunity for each person to demonstrate their willingness and their ability to contribute (CCC & WPA).

 

 

"Business starters" are our saviors?? No, most small businesses fail, my first did.. soon, though small businesses learn to game the system, find the loopholes, pay the right politicians, etc.. so they can raise the prices on the less fortunate to pay for their 'right' to be in business with the 'job creators'.. soon, we find out that in order to compete we must outsource manufacturing to Mexico or China to be competitive with other "American Companies", putting more people out of work so the Conservative Republican Candidates can demonstrate their compassion with rhetoric like "If you're out of a job it's your fault".. "job creators" be damned, they're creating those jobs overseas and ridiculing Americans for not having the jobs they've outsourced, REALLY??? but, oh no, Americans should work like illegal immigrants, for less than minimum wages with no benefits and "no regulation", because that lines the job creators' pockets while insuring insulation from the 'worker-bees'.. it's a rigged game, and and it's rigged at the highest levels.. the only cure is compassion and respect, THAT is "the rising tide that lifts ALL boats", but.. that's NOT what the 'one percent' wants, they want less responsibility for the well-being of society and more from its dwindling resources..

 

 

Our children will live in a society where technology has replaced the need for their work and offers them nothing as a substitute for earning a living, AND.. their will be the 'neo-cons' lamenting their drain on the wealth that the 'one percent' has amassed at society's expense.. but, the 'one percent' has hired the military and government to protect their engorged vaults of certificates (money, stocks, and bonds) describing the barter value they have for work and efforts done by others..

 

 

No, you regulate foreign aid.. and you incarcerate or exterminate oppressors and abusers, both foreign and domestic.. you change the game to work in favor of the masses, rather than pitting them against each other for the benefit of the military industrial complex..

 

 

WTF.. stay on point, that 'story' has no place in this discussion.. i'm looking for solutions and i'm not interested in how you justify your greedy ideologies..

 

 

I'm a realist, history teaches that the disparity will not long be tolerated before the masses reset the scales.. the notes to that song never change, only the voices that don't want to sing it change..

 

If 'job creators' created jobs, we would be in much better shape, but they don't.. they take bail-out money and they take stimulus money, taxpayer money, and they keep it.. yeah, yeah, yeah, 'window dressing' if you're going to tell us about this or that that worked, the 'one percent' had to make a few token examples of why it's good to keep giving them the wealth earned by the middle-class.. but overall, capitalism as practiced in the US is regulated indenture of the poor and middle class, and most of the upper class, to the 'one percent', and actually.. it's more like the 0.5 percent.. most of the upper class are simply better trained and more willing to be the enforcers of the policy and protocol that insures the elite remain that way..

 

I hope my understatement of the issues doesn't blur them.. Be well..

 

 

Wow!

Clear as crystal.

Reality has no political basis, it just IS.

 

I respect the fact that you Tzu jan Li, have taken this to task and made so may valid and truly meaningful points. I think it takes a sense of impartiality to view this situation in a way that takes into account what would be best when special interest groups are not the controlling factors.

 

The controllers, the .05% or 1%, are finally being seen hiding behind their curtain, as people worldwide become educated to know that they have been lied to for generations. The world works the way it does because we are ASLEEP. It is when people awaken that the ones in power become most afraid.

Edited November 27, 2011 by strawdog65

[taooneusa]

Ive been counting intersection cameras for 7 years now. Most intersections have one in each direction of a 4 way 2 lane intersection.

The cameras I count in this area are not the "red light " cameras that are supposed to catch photo images of red light runners with a bright 'flash' of light that illuminates vehicle license plates in the day time. These are small cameras about 1-1.5 foot long with no flash bulb.

At the intersection of 6th street and University Avenue In Berkeley CA there are """ 27 """ Cameras at a 4 lane intersection. Three of these- cameras are:

--that require manual control for surveillance. So who are the "Manual Controllers?and

what are "they" looking for?-? There are several hundred intersections here -most all posted wit at least 8 cameras.

Facial recognition software was first successfully put into use years ago.

 

How Much Has this software been advanced since then?

 

""

 

Pioneers of Automated Facial Recognition include: Woody Bledsoe, Helen Chan Wolf, and Charles Bisson

A facial recognition system is a computer application for automatically identifying or verifying a person from a digital image or a video frame from a video source. One of the ways to do this is by comparing selected facial features from the image and a facial database.

 

It is typically used in security systems and can be compared to other biometrics such as fingerprint or eye iris recognition systems.

"" I see you ""

 

"" At Super Bowl XXXV in January 2001, police in Tampa Bay, Florida, used Identix' facial recognition software, FaceIt, to search for potential criminals and terrorists in attendance at the event. (it found 19 people with pending arrest warrants) """

 

"""""" (GRAFACON or RAND TABLET), the operator would extract the coordinates of features such as the center of pupils, the inside corner of eyes, the outside corner of eyes, point of widows peak, and so on. From these coordinates, a list of 20 distances, such as width of mouth and width of eyes, pupil to pupil, were computed. These operators could process about 40 pictures an hour. """"""

 

 

To top this off I know an owner of a security systems installer working under contract that places

pin hole (invisible cameras) in all Starbucks on the West Coast. These cameras I have been told

are not over registers or in back rooms. They are in walls in the seating areas and include AUDIO..

 

RFID Powder

More than 22 million visitors attended

the Expo 2005 World’s Fair in Aichi,

Japan. Not one got in with a bogus

ticket. The passes were practically impossible to

forge because each harbored a tiny RFID (radiofrequency

identification) chip—just 0.4 millimeter

(mm) on a side and 0.06 mm thick—that

transmitted a unique identification number via

radio waves to a scanner at the gates.

Now Hitachi, the maker of that chip, is aiming

even smaller. Last year it announced a working

version of a chip only 0.05 mm on a side and

0.005 mm thick. Almost invisible, this prototype

has one sixty-fourth the area yet incorporates the

same functions as the one in the Expo tickets. Its

minuteness, which will allow it to be embedded

in ordinary sheets of paper ::

 

Nano Guitar The world's smallest guitar is 10 micrometers long

 

StarBucks sized camera:

[Aaron]

TzuJanLi,

 

I have some issues with what you've suggested. The strongest has to do with exterminating people. I don't think it's within the jurisdiction of man to determine who should live and die, and for what. Nor do I think it is fair to set up an economy where we give people their share based on their contribution, simply because it's subjective. So you dig ditches, sorry buddy, only one loaf of bread for you. And what about the elderly that can no longer contribute, do we determine whether or not we give them food based on their past contribution or present? If they can't contribute anymore, do we stop feeding them?

 

The problem, in my opinion, is that we need to take subjectivity, moral agendas, and religious agendas out of the equation. (YES I know, I'm sounding like a Marxist.) Until that's done, then you'll always have someone who knows what's best. The idea is that everyone is treated equally, regardless of what they do, at least in my opinion.

 

Aaron

Edited November 27, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Taooneusa,

 

Don't forget that they're actually trying to institute a bill that would have children implanted with a chip so that they can be tracked at all times. Sounds good, no more kidnappings, etc. but then you have to realize that this chip will last for a person's entire life. So once it's in you, you will never be able to go anywhere without the government knowing.

 

The justification is that they're fighting child abduction. More children die being struck by cars, drowning in pools, getting shot by handguns, and the list goes on, than are abducted each year. It's simply using fear to institute a policy that will allow the government to monitor us for the rest of our lives. I guarantee after they have gotten people comfortable with embedding the chip in their children, the next step will be the adults.

 

We're living in a tricky society. In England all of the cities and most of the towns are under CCTV surveillance. It's been going on for awhile now. From my understanding it hasn't really decreased crime, yet they haven't discontinued it, because it's such a useful tool for the intelligence community.

 

That's what people are missing here, these cameras and tracking devices aren't meant to prevent crime, they're meant to monitor people, plain and simple.

 

Aaron

Edited November 27, 2011 by Twinner

[taooneusa]

Taooneusa,

 

Don't forget that they're actually trying to institute a bill that would have children implanted with a chip so that they can be tracked at all times. Sounds good, no more kidnappings, etc. but then you have to realize that this chip will last for a person's entire life. So once it's in you, you will never be able to go anywhere without the government knowing.

 

The justification is that they're fighting child abduction. More children die being struck by cars, drowning in pools, getting shot by handguns, and the list goes on, than are abducted each year. It's simply using fear to institute a policy that will allow the government to monitor us for the rest of our lives. I guarantee after they have gotten people comfortable with embedding the chip in their children, the next step will be the adults.

 

We're living in a tricky society. In England all of the cities and most of the towns are under CCTV surveillance. It's been going on for awhile now. From my understanding it hasn't really decreased crime, yet they haven't discontinued it, because it's such a useful tool for the intelligence community.

 

That's what people are missing here, these cameras and tracking devices aren't meant to prevent crime, they're meant to monitor people, plain and simple.

 

Aaron

 

In the US CCTV are being used to criminalize.

 

Smarts software/hardware constantly pinpoint location based on RFID in things like automobile GPS, Drivers licenses, cell phones, packaging etc that identifies personage via facial recognition computers, RFID chips , voice recognition and other -all those scanners in and out of any retail location are designed to read RFID and relayed to to agents that verify every infraction however minor. How many 'Yellow-red' lights have I run? How many driving while texting? Many repeat infractions bring a long prison term apposed to a few months in jail.

 

I'm not being negative here.

Things have changed quite a bit. It's just time to speak up

 

The now Old New-world -order was not about controlling crime, but Criminalization of literally everyone.

[TzuJanLi]

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

oops.. i'll try again..

 

Be well..

Edited November 27, 2011 by TzuJanLi

[taooneusa]

.. the good news is that the technology is still controlled by the human component..

Be well..

 

 

They are running out of money. The thousands they employ will quit when pay stops short.

[ralis]

The surveillance state was predicted by Orwell in "1984". The current surveillance apparatus which is becoming more intrusive reminds me of the panaopticon as defined and visualized by Jeremy Bentham.

 

What makes the surveillance state work is to create perpetual war, enemies to hate such as the Goldstein character and relentless propaganda.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

TzuJanLi,

 

I have some issues with what you've suggested. The strongest has to do with exterminating people. I don't think it's within the jurisdiction of man to determine who should live and die, and for what.

I have issues with it, too.. but, the alternative is too frightening to consider.. you might not 'think' "it's not within the jurisdiction of man to determine who should live and die, and for what", but i'll wager that you will actually function in contradiction with what you 'think'.. would you pull the trigger to save the life of your children or family? would you pull the trigger to stop a madman from pushing the button that would 'exterminate' 10,000 people? i'm a realist in a real world, but i think i share the same concerns as you..

 

Nor do I think it is fair to set up an economy where we give people their share based on their contribution, simply because it's subjective. So you dig ditches, sorry buddy, only one loaf of bread for you. And what about the elderly that can no longer contribute, do we determine whether or not we give them food based on their past contribution or present? If they can't contribute anymore, do we stop feeding them?

Please do not assume that what you are describing as "fair", has anything to do with my position regarding an economic model.. if you had read my post carefully you would realize your description of "fair" is inconsistent with the economy i described.. a system of absolute equality is as dysfunctional as one of unregulated subjectivity.. do you suggest that the terrorist be treated exactly equal with the cancer researcher, or the doctor? what is necessary is intelligent compassion and practical ethics, and.. yes, there is a subjective quality to that process, but it's adaptive and evolving toward a civilized and functional human experience..

 

 

The problem, in my opinion, is that we need to take subjectivity, moral agendas, and religious agendas out of the equation. (YES I know, I'm sounding like a Marxist.) Until that's done, then you'll always have someone who knows what's best. The idea is that everyone is treated equally, regardless of what they do, at least in my opinion.

 

Aaron

I understand your concerns, but your solution is as untenable as Marx's.. ultimately, someone enforces order, and someone decides what 'order' is.. i do not favor "moral agendas", but i find ethical solutions to be a positive alternative.. i do not favor "religious agendas", but i find compassion and respect to be positive alternatives.. i think you will agree that 'regardless of what they do' doesn't include terrorism, oppression or abuse, or maybe you perceive the relationships differently than i do..

 

Life and the human experience is not a fixed process governed by a fixed code, and that is another aspect of its profound beauty.. the opportunity to explore the process, and to refine it..

 

Be well..

[thelerner]

I guess you are the superior intellect and no one in the entire world can refute your non sequiturs. :lol: You show your willingness to follow the ideological herd.

 

The Tea Bagger party that you shill for, which by the way is funded by the Koch Bros. will crash and burn!

 

Jeez is this the best you can come up with?

Ad hominem bull.

Those who don't agree with you follow the herd?

Opponents must be shills?

Get back on track.

[taooneusa]

 

 

 

 

 

 

"same functions as the one in the Expo tickets. Its

minuteness, which will allow it to be embedded

in ordinary sheets of paper ::

 

This made me think of the gold/alloy? metal strip in American dollars as an transmitter for one of these chips.

[ralis]

Jeez is this the best you can come up with?

Ad hominem bull.

Those who don't agree with you follow the herd?

Opponents must be shills?

Get back on track.

 

Why not read my posts more carefully. He speaks for a political right wing movement which is a conservative ideology. A shill is a promoter of an ideology.

[taooneusa]

This made me think of the gold/alloy? metal strip in American dollars as an transmitter for one of these chips.

smallest microphones 4 sale to public

[Aaron]

Greetings..

 

 

I have issues with it, too.. but, the alternative is too frightening to consider.. you might not 'think' "it's not within the jurisdiction of man to determine who should live and die, and for what", but i'll wager that you will actually function in contradiction with what you 'think'.. would you pull the trigger to save the life of your children or family? would you pull the trigger to stop a madman from pushing the button that would 'exterminate' 10,000 people? i'm a realist in a real world, but i think i share the same concerns as you..

 

 

Please do not assume that what you are describing as "fair", has anything to do with my position regarding an economic model.. if you had read my post carefully you would realize your description of "fair" is inconsistent with the economy i described.. a system of absolute equality is as dysfunctional as one of unregulated subjectivity.. do you suggest that the terrorist be treated exactly equal with the cancer researcher, or the doctor? what is necessary is intelligent compassion and practical ethics, and.. yes, there is a subjective quality to that process, but it's adaptive and evolving toward a civilized and functional human experience..

 

 

 

I understand your concerns, but your solution is as untenable as Marx's.. ultimately, someone enforces order, and someone decides what 'order' is.. i do not favor "moral agendas", but i find ethical solutions to be a positive alternative.. i do not favor "religious agendas", but i find compassion and respect to be positive alternatives.. i think you will agree that 'regardless of what they do' doesn't include terrorism, oppression or abuse, or maybe you perceive the relationships differently than i do..

 

Life and the human experience is not a fixed process governed by a fixed code, and that is another aspect of its profound beauty.. the opportunity to explore the process, and to refine it..

 

Be well..

 

I actually disagree. The only reason one should take another life is if it is defending their own. If one does not need to take a life to defend one's own, then they shouldn't do it. I believe that completely and sincerely. I also do not think that a person's job should dictate their social status or wealth. So long as we continue to value certain things over others, then we will continue to use a system that allows some to be poor and others rich. Your system for instance is a prime example, a man suffers from an illness and can't perform anything more than menial tasks, by definition, through no fault of his own, he is going to have less than others. Then what about the man who decides everything, the ruler, well that's an important job indeed, of course he's going to get more than others, even if he doesn't need it. And of course those people with less will resent those with more and the same thing that's going on now will blossom and bloom, because after all that new ruler will need to do something to ensure that those menial laborers who don't know spit, don't try to take over and ruin everything.

 

What we need is not one ruler, but to allow each community to make these decisions on their own, rather than have a government make them for them. I personally lean towards anarchistic socialism, but others may not and they shouldn't be forced to. I think that no country has a right to lay claim to land or resources, that the entire earth is something that should be shared with everyone. There should be no borders, nor should there be any kind of government dictating what others should do. At best there should be an organization that allows each community to function as they wish and prevent one from dictating what happens to another.

 

Will there still be hunger and poverty, yes, but there will also be true freedom. I honestly don't see any system as being able to eliminate man's greed and avarice, the best we can do is have a system in place to diminish man's conflicts with one another. Allow each community to live as they desire, unless it interfere's with another's freedom, simple as that. That's the perfect economical and governmental system, unless of course you feel the need to dictate how others should live, because you know best, then perhaps not.

 

We are at least on the same page regarding capitalism, even if our solutions differ.

 

Aaron

[Nanashi]

[joeblast]

That's the perfect economical and governmental system, unless of course you feel the need to dictate how others should live, because you know best, then perhaps not.

A million little communes is true freedom? *facepalm* I suppose one may simply make up his own theoretical version of a concept and toss out all of the inconvenient outcomes and declare it a sound theory. It wouldnt make him right, though - I still havent seen a single shred of evidence that would make things are as you believe they would given the paradigms you are putting forth. I'm expecting you to say the same thing in return, ignoring that I have presented supporting evidence.

 

TJL is correct, your solutions are as untenable as Marx's.

 

I suppose if I were a crybaby I'd go and mod-complain about you calling me ignorant But the thing is, I dont need to call you anything, one's words are what they are, a reflection of your inner self.

 

Question one- Who has given any of us possession of this world? Why do we have the right to exploit and possess things to our hearts content and dictate who gets what based on their military might?

Who has given us possession of this body? I find this question ill defined, might does not make right. Given that its your very first it is an indication of the viewangle from which all of your questions stem - we simply have no rights to anything whatsoever, not even the fruits of our labor! It all must be shared equally! Hogwash. Did you forget that was already tried in America? That was the first system set up by the pilgrims "because it was fair" and it was an utter disaster, people found out very quickly they could skate by without working very hard in the least, and that made the people that did work hard mad.

 

Question two- If capitalism is a system intended to help everyone achieve a stable living, provide for everyone, then why must their always be poor in order for it to succeed? If capitalism is truly a godsend, then tell me once in history when it has succeeded in wiping out poverty, even within it's own country?

Again, you're confusing opportunity generally being there with a given level of income-stuff-etc being guaranteed. As has always been the case, one is dealt a hand of cards coming into the game. It is simply impossible for everyone to be dealt a straight, much less a royal flush. For some reason you miss that guaranteeing some sort of equality, ostensibly "flattening the deck" will only remove 2, 10, J, Q, K from the deck, not "make the whole deck 9s." It is the essence of the quantum mechanical underpinnings of the universe manifested in societal order - all a person, a government, etc can do is make efforts that will affect probabilities of something happening. That is why you will always have poor people - because you are not changing the # of sides on a pair of dice.

 

The funny part is, technological advancement to true energy independence will happen most quickly under a capitalistic society where those who invent such things have had the incentive as well as opportunity to do so! True energy independence (I'm talking its so easily produced and obtained that it doesnt even make sense to charge for it anymore, with matter manipulation being the next step that will have the potential to fully eliminate poverty and hunger) is what will make that large step forward for the human race, not choking back those most productive.

 

A Star Trek society would be nice, eh? I think so too. Do I think it is achievable on this planet in the next hundred years or so? Absolutely not. You might as well pull the turkey out of the oven after 45 minutes because you really want to eat the thing!

 

Question three- If capitalism is the best solution, then why doesn't everyone see this? Why are there so many "ignorant" people who seem to view it as a stigma on society?

Oh, you mean the bastardized capitalism we currently enjoy, as TJL mentioned? C'mon, you've heard me speak of market distortions and such, do I need to repeat that? That's in the bunch of things you seem to have skimmed over when I'm putting forth an argument on this - you read a sentence and decide you dont necessarily like what I'm saying and its every third word after that, it appears.

 

Sorry - most every one of these bastard things about capitalism have their roots in government tinkering be it via regulation, taxation, favoritism...it is why when I hear one of you start speaking of "those businesses and financial institutions that crashed the economy in 2008" - whoa, wait a sec there - who crashed it again? Do we need to revisit history here? Again I have to put out the disclaimer that I never supported players making poor choices even though the rules of the game were altered to provide incentive for them to do exactly that - so while on one hand we can blame greed for giving that push over the cliff, but it was none other than the US congress that brought us to the precipice in the first place!!! Fannie & Freddie, still not constrained, still to this day costing US taxpayers billions of dollars every month, just to prop 'em up. Or the "community reinvestment act" that made it possible for so many more people to get college degrees...and the completely ignored downstream effect of tuition rising so fast so as to outpace inflation four times over - hey, the government has got it covered! (love the twisted verbiage that displays the very misunderstandings of what the bill actually does - somehow "subsidizing middle class outcomes" i.e. college degrees, we will necessarily have more middle class people!) Now look at what they've done - made a college degree *the standard* that is expected - only now, you must go into house-level debt to pay for it!!! Compassion? That right there is the reason why all those OWS'ers should be protesting in DC instead of simply believing what they're told about this all being the result of that eveil capitalism.

 

Small bubbles naturally percolate in a free market. The bubbles only get large when there is a substantial impediment to their obtaining the best data upon which to make their decisions. When political decisions start to outweigh business or financial decisions, the company has already sealed its own doom - unless of course they have friends in high places. How many of those high places are places in government? Of course there are many high places that are not, but those most in a position to tinker with the rules of the game and thus cause the most widespread harm are indeed the ones in government. Who has caused more harm...oh let's pick a good bogeyman...Haliburton? vs...how about Barney Frank talking himself blue in the face in front of congress telling everyone "there is no solvency crisis whatsoever with Fannie&Freddie, in fact we need to provide more liquidity so that unqualified borrowers may continue to take out loans that they very well may not be able to pay back" ..?

 

Question four- How is creating an economic system based on sharing the wealth of the world, insuring that everyone has food and shelter, inferior to capitalism?

Well, part of it is that...we already have a longstanding functional economic system, despite its occasional disharmonic resonances of various origin. Dismantling that would cause great disruption and suffering, with the requisite fight and march of oligarchical tendencies to re-settle the balance of power in their favor. Maybe if an asteroid took out most of the globe this would be a viable restructuring in some particular idioms out of sheer survival, but short of an already present catastrophe, such a huge fundamental restructuring of the world would have very deleterious effects.

 

Question five- If we deregulate the economy, allow for this true "capitalist utopia" to thrive, how does it put in check those who claim the earth's resources as their own? Isn't it better to share these resources equally amongst everyone? Does a company really own the oil buried a thousand feet underground? Who said they owned it, the politicians that they pay to support them, or the earth itself?

I've said many a time that regulation should be targeted and timely, and that some measure of regulation is necessary. We dont need people dumping oil down their drains, of course. There you are back to the ownership thing. I dont know what you're trying to get at or solve with that. People "own" land, get over it. If I build myself a house, "if we all own it," what to prevent some son of a bitch from bedding down in my basement and telling me to screw off, its all ours, when I pick him up and toss his ass out?

 

on to TJL's comments.

What is becoming more of an essential component of education and parenting is the introduction of ethics as a Life Skill, rather than a self-serving religious doctrine or a philosophical debate topic.. Ethics, as opposed to 'morality', and compassion are fundamental Life Skills that have been negotiated away in favor of the 'individual's rights', or the 'special interest's' rights.. neither individuals nor special interests have any 'rights' if there's not a functional society to regulate and protect those rights in a fair balance between the 'individual and the society' which are mutually interdependent..

Agree wholeheartedly - such things are more important in the parenting, imo.

 

The CCC, WPA That's part of my point - if the government hadnt already screwed up the picture we wouldnt have suggestions of the government stepping in and fixing something it has broken. A smaller government in line with the constitution shouldnt be using its people's resources so extensively - it means that it has taken too much already - why should it be taking more so that it can justify the restoration of having taken too much in the first place?!

 

Nobody should have cooked books. The government included. Yes, balance the books, disempower the corrupt who abuse their positions. However, the federal government has no basis upon which to "put people to work" outside of government employees, who by very definition have zero economic output. These programs are nothing but taking from productive states and giving to unproductive ones, for the ones that are doing badly and have high unemployment are exactly the ones that have taxed, regulated, spent themselves silly, whereas if you look at the states who have been following the things that I have been highlighting - wow, they're doing excellent in comparison! Wonder why that is?

 

Yes, many small businesses fail - why? See my comments regarding taxation, regulation, considered in conjunction with a small business startup, will they have an easier time staying in business with a heavy tax burden, regulatory requirement, or will they have an easier time staying in business and providing jobs for people when there is a comparatively lower tax & reg burden?

 

soon, though small businesses learn to game the system, find the loopholes, pay the right politicians, etc.. so they can raise the prices on the less fortunate to pay for their 'right' to be in business with the 'job creators'.. soon, we find out that in order to compete we must outsource manufacturing to Mexico or China to be competitive with other "American Companies",

Boy you've just got the entire business cycle down pat, dont you? Hate to sound the refrain, but please answer me why it makes sense for a company to go across continents? Why have businesses been dying or fleeing the state of California in droves? Why did Intel build a chip factory in Az and not CA?

 

Simple questions, simple answers.

 

Just like minimum wage laws - shown time and again to reduce the availability of jobs, and it winds up having a very disproportionate impact on teenagers, who will often work for whatever just to have a job. Please ignore the fact that "those making minimum wage" is a very dynamic category, those whom are making minimum wage dont do so for too too long before being able to make more. But I'm a bastard for pointing out real world things, of course.

 

If 'job creators' created jobs, we would be in much better shape, but they don't.. they take bail-out money and they take stimulus money, taxpayer money, and they keep it.. yeah, yeah, yeah, 'window dressing' if you're going to tell us about this or that that worked, the 'one percent' had to make a few token examples of why it's good to keep giving them the wealth earned by the middle-class.. but overall, capitalism as practiced in the US is regulated indenture of the poor and middle class, and most of the upper class, to the 'one percent', and actually.. it's more like the 0.5 percent.. most of the upper class are simply better trained and more willing to be the enforcers of the policy and protocol that insures the elite remain that way..

Please ignore the man behind the curtain This simplistic view of reality is naught but class warfare in spoken words, only caring about turning the prism a certain way in order to assert something that winds up being half false when you turn the prism in another direction.

 

 

 

What I am asking is Why are these things happening and pointing out root causes, then because my answers are going contrary to the local populist notions we're seeing the real underlying reasons why this populist meme exists and it does not care about real results, it cares about putting the correct thing upon the projection screen and not caring if the inner workings are inconsistent and do not reproduce that which is portrayed upon the screen.

 

You guys are but giving lip service to compassion in supporting "equality" measures that really only serve to depress the whole. It would be one thing if these measures attained their goals, and there's the rub - they don't. Its demonstrable. Its demonstrable that free-er markets will produce a better overall result in terms of human suffering, contrary to the assertions that there needs to be massive government programs to take care of anyone who doesnt quite feel like taking care of themselves. (Those who can't aside, of course.)

 

Time's up.