Aaron Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) 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.  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.   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!  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" ..?  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.   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. 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?  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.  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.  Well if it helps you feel any better, I could use the definition of ignorant according to the dictionary and explain how you fit that definition. Just keep in mind the root of the word is "ignore" or "ignoring the truth", etc. It doesn't just mean you don't know, but that you are unwilling to know.  I just find it funny, none of your answers really disproved anything, they were just classic tea party, conservative dogma. You might find them to be answers, I find them to be the product of the brainwashing of America.  Also there is a great deal of debate that the original societies of pre-historic man were anarchistic in nature. Mankind seemed to operate on a less than deadly scale for around 200,000 years or so, in fact it wasn't until we find signs of the beginnings of modern civilization and actual capitalist economies that we see a great impact on the world as a whole. It seems greed, even in our early days as a civilized species, was the cause of much of our grievances. Also, TJL was right, the idea of contracts is essentially a product of indentured servitude. You agree to serve a corporation or person for X amount of time, in exchange for X amount of money or services. How is that different in any way, it's really still slavery.  Quick little tidbit of information, did you know that television commercials geared toward children use stimulus that makes them more suggestible? They repeat phrases over and over, have flashing light patterns that lowers inhibitions, essentially they train children to become more suggestible to the media when they grow up... funny factoid... do some research on your own and you'll find out it's true.  Now ask yourself, have you ever wondered why there are certain types of music before a news show, or why the cut scene tends to flicker, well they're reminding you to be open to suggestions. This isn't conspiracy nonsense either, it's actually proven and whistle blowers who worked on the projects have come forward regarding these practices, but nothing was ever done to the major corporations. Funny. It seems corporations can get away with everything except murder... oh wait, wasn't there some corporation responsible for murder in Iraq? If I remember correctly the Vice President at the time was a former CEO of the company as well... oh well I guess corporations can get away with everything except cheating the elite 1%.   Aaron  P.S. Do some google searches, it's not hard to find any of this information online. Edited November 27, 2011 by Twinner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TzuJanLi Posted November 27, 2011 [Greetings..  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 doubt that you would watch your child die rather than exchange the child's life for the life of the criminal that would kill your child.. if you you would, then you are part of the problem that plagues this existence.. people who lack the courage to call unacceptable behavior what it is, and the courage to control it..   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. I don't think a person's "job" should dictate their social status or wealth either, but.. their willingness to contribute to the greater good' should be rewarded in comparison to those that will not contribute or that must be coerced to contribute.. i am a compassionate realist, if someone's life circumstances effectively prevent them from contributing to greater good, they enjoy the benefits of a society that is fair and respects all Life, they receive the median benefits and all people enjoy the same standard of health care.. You paint a bleak picture of your understanding of how to organize and maintain a fair system of social equality.. the difference between the 'most and the least' of a functional society is not so great as to inspire envy or to inspire the risk of social disfavor for corruptness or disruptive behavior.. the distribution of wealth and resources is such the the whole society benefits from its functional system.. as you have wrongly assumed, distribution of resources would be based on effort/result, not on 'importance' as a subjective marketable value..  Your reference to "those menial laborers who don't know spit" is inappropriate.. every member of society contributes by the sweat of their brow, the skill of their hands, and the intellect of their minds, and the result of their efforts is the cohesion that binds society into a functional civilization.. without a fair system of rewards for results "beyond the call of duty", or results that "betray the health of society" there is no motivation to function as a collective process for a holistic evolution of the Human Experience..   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. The organization you describe IS 'government' telling groups of people what to do AND establishing 'borders' that prevent one group from "dictating what happens to another".. you simply want 'government' to function according to 'your' beliefs, and that is a natural inclination that must be disciplined to function on behalf of the greater whole.. it is natural to have a code of behavior, an enforcement against violations of such a code, and a system for promoting the health and well-being of any group of beings.. what is misunderstood and corrupted within much of the human society, is the understanding of what is 'holistic', and how cooperation will reconcile a common purpose and understanding that benefits the greater whole.. all of which will require a fundamental creed of compassion and respect for Life..  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 Well, you have described the "warring states" period of human evolution, and you are proposing a government to dictate how those states behave, contradicting your dislike for government.. look, government is necessary, corruption is not, what is lacking is the courage to change the systems of dysfunctional governments.. what is lacking is intelligent cooperation between ALL peoples of the planet.. and, please Arron, don't do the condescending "unless you feel the need to dictate" crap.. that's just not part of a productive discussion, i'm looking for solutions..  Be well Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aaron Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) [Greetings..   I doubt that you would watch your child die rather than exchange the child's life for the life of the criminal that would kill your child.. if you you would, then you are part of the problem that plagues this existence.. people who lack the courage to call unacceptable behavior what it is, and the courage to control it..    I don't think a person's "job" should dictate their social status or wealth either, but.. their willingness to contribute to the greater good' should be rewarded in comparison to those that will not contribute or that must be coerced to contribute.. i am a compassionate realist, if someone's life circumstances effectively prevent them from contributing to greater good, they enjoy the benefits of a society that is fair and respects all Life, they receive the median benefits and all people enjoy the same standard of health care.. You paint a bleak picture of your understanding of how to organize and maintain a fair system of social equality.. the difference between the 'most and the least' of a functional society is not so great as to inspire envy or to inspire the risk of social disfavor for corruptness or disruptive behavior.. the distribution of wealth and resources is such the the whole society benefits from its functional system.. as you have wrongly assumed, distribution of resources would be based on effort/result, not on 'importance' as a subjective marketable value..  Your reference to "those menial laborers who don't know spit" is inappropriate.. every member of society contributes by the sweat of their brow, the skill of their hands, and the intellect of their minds, and the result of their efforts is the cohesion that binds society into a functional civilization.. without a fair system of rewards for results "beyond the call of duty", or results that "betray the health of society" there is no motivation to function as a collective process for a holistic evolution of the Human Experience..    The organization you describe IS 'government' telling groups of people what to do AND establishing 'borders' that prevent one group from "dictating what happens to another".. you simply want 'government' to function according to 'your' beliefs, and that is a natural inclination that must be disciplined to function on behalf of the greater whole.. it is natural to have a code of behavior, an enforcement against violations of such a code, and a system for promoting the health and well-being of any group of beings.. what is misunderstood and corrupted within much of the human society, is the understanding of what is 'holistic', and how cooperation will reconcile a common purpose and understanding that benefits the greater whole.. all of which will require a fundamental creed of compassion and respect for Life..   Well, you have described the "warring states" period of human evolution, and you are proposing a government to dictate how those states behave, contradicting your dislike for government.. look, government is necessary, corruption is not, what is lacking is the courage to change the systems of dysfunctional governments.. what is lacking is intelligent cooperation between ALL peoples of the planet.. and, please Arron, don't do the condescending "unless you feel the need to dictate" crap.. that's just not part of a productive discussion, i'm looking for solutions..  Be well    TJL you're doing the same thing Joe was doing. Your trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say there shouldn't be some form of order, or means to ensure order is kept, only that each person should ultimately be able to decide how they and their families live. In order to ensure that this can be done one needs to have an organization dedicated to ensuring no one group can enforce their will on another.  Also if you wish I could explain how your warring states analogy is completely erroneous, in part because the individual kingdoms of those times were ruled by kings, queens, and emperors, many of whom gained that power through intrigue and not the will of the people. What I am proposing is a society whereby the actual citizens decide how their individual communities should be run. If someone doesn't like it then they can leave, simple as that. No on is elected to decide who should do what and why, nor impose their self imposed "wisdom" on others, rather others are allowed to live as they choose without interference.  Also I would love for you to show me how there are millions of animals that join together and enforce their will on others. Natural? Bah! That's just your excuse for imposing your own views on others. People should be able to live as they wish, without interference from others. If a city decides they want to do something that we consider immoral, then why do we have the right to tell them otherwise if it doesn't harm us or our family?  You say it's natural, but I don't see how. In fact it seems completely absurd. The problem is that society cannot exist as "whole" because there are so many different ideas and desires and beliefs. The true path to peace, isn't deciding what the "right" beliefs are and enforcing those beliefs on others, which is what was actually happened during the Warring States Period, but rather that each society should exist and live as they see fit. This is exactly what Lao Tzu encouraged as well. I'm surprised you don't know this, I can quote various passages if you need a refresher.  The wise rulers weight is never felt, his hand is empty, his desires are for the interests of his people and not his own. These are the kinds of people we need to see actual change, the kind that are there to ensure that their subjects desires are fulfilled, rather than their own. Compassion isn't enforcing your will on others, but reducing suffering by allowing others to live in a way that pleases them. Simple as that. If you have problems with people doing things you think are wrong, then actually that's your problem. Most people fail to see this because they follow some moral code ingrained in them that teaches them that society can decide what's best for them, yet they fail to realize it is society that got this world screwed up in the first place. We really need to rewrite society. Plan and simple. That's the only way we're going to find a time of peace, where people aren't warring with one another, but rather peace and prosperity can reign in the land.  Aaron Edited November 27, 2011 by Twinner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TzuJanLi Posted November 27, 2011 (edited)  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. Focus, stay on point and stop using meaningless analogies.. what is up for consideration is changing the whole game, no more cards or dealers that rig the game.. there is absolutely NO reason that there should be poverty or starvation, there is an abundance of resources, what is lacking is the willingness to redistribute these resources fairly, why? because those that have the resources would rather see people starve or suffer than to lose what they believe is their 'earned profit'..  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. No one suggests "choking back those most productive", only rewarding them fairly so that everyone can share in the benefits of Life.. and what fairly means is that no one is entitled to decadent excess while others suffer through no fault of their own.. it's really that simple.  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! You do enjoy pointless theatrics..  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. You simply can't divorce "market distortions" from the system that uses that characterization to periodically rape the investments of retirement funds, pensions, and uninformed investors in this well-constructed wealth harvesting system..  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. No.. government is hired by the major corporations to protect their corrupt policies of indenturing the general public for the purposes of sustaining an elite class well into the future.. it is the notion of 'Nobility' dressed-up to appeal to an evolved awareness of the system's inherent intent to abuse its source of elitist status.. people.  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" ..? You really have no interest in social health and well-being, you, like so many other wannabe power brokers, will sell basic human rights for your 0.5% chance to screw those that make that chance possible.. playing the odds that society will not call-in the reckoning until you have hoarded your 'piece of the action', regardless of the unnecessary suffering of others..  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. Change it or lose it.. either way, there is a tribulation ahead, or.. leave the status quo alone, and the chaos factor will emerge, again.. the system will become too complex to maintain itself, and the workers will no longer bear those burdens..   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? Regulation is necessary to control the results of greed, but.. the current use of 'regulation' is often onerous and used as a means of suppressing the rights of people to to reasonable enjoyment of the fruits of their labors, AND.. regulations are often used to insure job security within the government/agency of its origin.. what we 'own' are the rights of possession and use as negotiated in the terms of an agreement.. lawyers understand job security very well..   Agree wholeheartedly - such things are more important in the parenting, imo. The agreement is appreciated.. An equal measure of both seems appropriate..  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?! "Screwing up the picture" is what unregulated government does, and society is pathetically remiss in managing its elected officials..  Well, i guess it's time to help you understand the system you think is your friend.. since the Great Depression, when the rules were changed to prevent Land Barons and unregulated investment brokers from simply taking what they wanted.. in 1934 NYSE was registered as a national securities exchange, as an attempt at regulating unchecked corruption, but it ended up introducing the government to the 'pleasures of big business'.. now, the 0.5% could purchase protection for the greatest multi-level marketing scam outside of Christianity.. since the Great Depression, the lure of making money simply because you have money has enticed otherwise reasonably intelligent people to play the money-lottery (stock market).. big business invests their proportionately small investments into the selected stocks that create the 'illusion' of an advantageous 'bull' market, thereby enticing lesser informed people to invest their proportionately larger proceeds from Life.. here's the thing, in clearly observable cycles, as the market is engorged with people's investments, big business harvests the wealth that they have enticed people to invest through the revered 'recession'.. then, and in no clearer example than today's market relative to the '08-'09 recession, big business adds a fraction of the wealth they just harvested to entice people's greed to do it again, and again.. YES, greed at every level should be regulated, personal and corporate and government, otherwise the potential for humanity to evolve beyond the conflicts of sophisticated corruption is dismal at best.. the game is rigged, the stock markets are pyramid schemes protected by government and the military, which has been hired by the power brokers, and.. people are pawns by their weakness to challenge the system..  Banks and interest rates, there's a blowout scam of such epic proportions that the label 'criminal' is just flattery.. inflation is caused by printing more money, right? (yes).. and, when someone borrows money at 10% interest, where does that 'ten percent' come from? the money supply represents goods and services already manifested, or liquid liquid assets to back it up, so.. if the 'back up' for the money in circulation is actually there, where does the 'unprinted money' for the additional 'ten percent interest' come from? wrap your thoughts around that equation and the problem is clear..  joeblast 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?  Tzu The federal government has every basis to "put people to work".. to regulate commerce and provide for the common defense.. no work, no food, civil unrest = common defense.. regulating the fruits of the labors of the people "put to work" = regulate commerce.. please stop with the lamenting of taxes and regulations as being the source of unemployment.. the situation is exactly the same as a strike by a union, big business is withholding jobs and lending until the government lowers tax rates, and until workers agree to reductions in pay and benefits, so that the 0.5% can better afford to buy more protection on a global scale and clench their ascension to their place as overlords.. (nicely dramatic, eh??)  joeblast 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?  Tzu They fail because they didn't realize that 'government regulation' is another term for the anti-competitive controls instituted by the 0.05% that determines who fails and who succeeds.. yep, now you're catching on..  joeblast 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.  Tzu Simple answer = to make more money, 'greed'.. they 'flee' because they have no affiliation with social responsibility.. in CA they demand sophisticated services, but when the loopholes dry-up they simply aren't willing to pay for the services.. fix regulation is a good start, but the regulations that protect people from abusive lending, government, and environmental policies are off-limits    joeblast 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.  Tzu Crap, no.. just no, and you know better..    joeblast 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.  Tzu Yes, class warfare.. it is the oppressed class of freedom-loving people indentured by the predatory practices of big business seeking a reckoning.. it will come, by peaceful agreement or civil unrest, but.. it will come.. history is crystal clear on this..    joeblast 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.  Tzu Don't do that, that's just crap.. meaningless rhetoric..   joeblast 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.   Tzu Yes, Joe.. your "time's up".. your oppressive and abusive capitalistic model is crumbling under the weight of its own bullshit..  Be well.. Edited November 27, 2011 by TzuJanLi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted November 27, 2011 "..... there is absolutely NO reason that there should be poverty or starvation, there is an abundance of resources, what is lacking is the willingness to redistribute these resources fairly..." Â I think this is pretty close to my take on it. You know my first reaction when JB suggested taking my earned profits off me was "aaaargh, I worked really hard for that!" It wasn't dissimilar to a few tantrums I've had as a kid. Â Anyway, i just wanted to mention some of the articles in this month's Harvard Business Review. Articles on "for benefit" as a new legal structure for businesses who want to add social improvement goals to their bottom line (the current "for profit" or "not for profit" legal architectures apparently don't allow for it) Well, as well as how to use social manipulation and tricks from organized crime. So it's still same old same old but I read the "for benefit" ideas as an interesting development. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TzuJanLi Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) Greetings.. Â TJL you're doing the same thing Joe was doing. Your trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say there shouldn't be some form of order, or means to ensure order is kept, only that each person should ultimately be able to decide how they and their families live. In order to ensure that this can be done one needs to have an organization dedicated to ensuring no one group can enforce their will on another. Â Also if you wish I could explain how your warring states analogy is completely erroneous, in part because the individual kingdoms of those times were ruled by kings, queens, and emperors, many of whom gained that power through intrigue and not the will of the people. What I am proposing is a society whereby the actual citizens decide how their individual communities should be run. If someone doesn't like it then they can leave, simple as that. No on is elected to decide who should do what and why, nor impose their self imposed "wisdom" on others, rather others are allowed to live as they choose without interference. Â Also I would love for you to show me how there are millions of animals that join together and enforce their will on others. Natural? Bah! That's just your excuse for imposing your own views on others. People should be able to live as they wish, without interference from others. If a city decides they want to do something that we consider immoral, then why do we have the right to tell them otherwise if it doesn't harm us or our family? Â You say it's natural, but I don't see how. In fact it seems completely absurd. The problem is that society cannot exist as "whole" because there are so many different ideas and desires and beliefs. The true path to peace, isn't deciding what the "right" beliefs are and enforcing those beliefs on others, which is what was actually happened during the Warring States Period, but rather that each society should exist and live as they see fit. This is exactly what Lao Tzu encouraged as well. I'm surprised you don't know this, I can quote various passages if you need a refresher. Â The wise rulers weight is never felt, his hand is empty, his desires are for the interests of his people and not his own. These are the kinds of people we need to see actual change, the kind that are there to ensure that their subjects desires are fulfilled, rather than their own. Compassion isn't enforcing your will on others, but reducing suffering by allowing others to live in a way that pleases them. Simple as that. If you have problems with people doing things you think are wrong, then actually that's your problem. Most people fail to see this because they follow some moral code ingrained in them that teaches them that society can decide what's best for them, yet they fail to realize it is society that got this world screwed up in the first place. We really need to rewrite society. Plan and simple. That's the only way we're going to find a time of peace, where people aren't warring with one another, but rather peace and prosperity can reign in the land. Â Aaron Hi Twinner: You don't read my posts well, i'm not "putting words in your mouth", you just don't understand what you are saying.. you are inconsistent in the application of your beliefs.. you don't understand the term 'natural' or it's application to Life.. and, i'm hoping to converse with people looking for solutions rather than defending beliefs.. your model fails in this interconnected global civilization, start there and let's work to improve what is real.. seriously, i'm very interested in people's understandings for changing a failing world model, but be clear and practical, please.. Â Be well.. Edited November 27, 2011 by TzuJanLi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aaron Posted November 27, 2011 (edited) Greetings..   Hi Twinner: You don't read my posts well, i'm not "putting words in your mouth", you just don't understand what you are saying.. you are inconsistent in the application of your beliefs.. you don't understand the term 'natural' or it's application to Life.. and, i'm hoping to converse with people looking for solutions rather than defending beliefs.. your model fails in this interconnected global civilization, start there and let's work to improve what is real.. seriously, i'm very interested in people's understandings for changing a failing world model, but be clear and practical, please..  Be well..  Hello TJL,  Anarchism is a clear and practical model for world change. Millions of people think so. There are anarchy parties in several countries, they amount to ultra-liberalists, but still they're there. You just disagree with the model, that's all. You are still stuck in the paradigm that there needs to be some universal government in order to restore harmony and balance to the world, but Lao Tzu himself said that a perfect kingdom was like a small town, where one side didn't know what the other side was doing. In other words Lao Tzu was an anarchist. Now if you think he's outdated in his thinking, that's fine, but I believe what he had to say and it is one of the reasons I've been an Anarchist for the last twenty years.  I can understand how you might see a group overseeing that this is possible may seem to be a government, but I would beg to differ, it would just be a group that's motivation was to allow each society to exist as they see fit.  The problem with a global model is simply that people will never be able to agree with everything, whether it's cultural, religious, or moral values, there will always be conflict so long as we continue to feel the need to push our own agendas on others. I would never even push this agenda on people, rather I have the hope that others may see the wisdom in it some day and decide to participate on their own accord. I think when we get tired of all the war, poverty, and suffering that comes from large governments fighting each other, that someday people will wake up and realize Lao Tzu's dream, unfortunately it will probably be at the tail end of coming apocalypse, either global, natural, or man made before it is realized.  I have no faith in democracy, capitalism, socialism, communism, or any other model of government that's been created, simply because they are divisive, they don't work for the people, but rather for those in power. It would require that every nation on the world become selfless and self sacrificing for anything remotely close to what you're proposing to occur, and sadly that wont happen in the current state of humanity, nor would it have happened 12,000 years ago. We need something revolutionary and new to bring about change, something that enables every person on the face of the earth to live free and to their heart's content.  That's all I'm saying. Practical, no, possible, yes, but it will only come when we've suffered enough to accept it as the only solution. If you guys want to continue to debate on how to solve the world's economic systems, that's fine, but to me it's like saying, how can we slow down the process of terminal cancer.  Aaron  edit- And when you started to define what I was saying, that's what I meant by "putting words in my mouth." I listened to what you had to say and also Joe. Your ideas are much more compassionate, and I applaud you for that, but they wont be realized simply for the reasons I've stated above. It would require the entire world to cooperate and right now we can't even get two free world countries to cooperate, how could we expect the whole globe to? Edited November 27, 2011 by Twinner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) Here are a number of solutions that can begin to restore economic sanity to the U.S. economy. Â 1. Re-institute Glass-Steagall. This law was overturned by a Republican move to deregulate the banking system and allow commercial banks and investment houses to no longer be separate entities. Therefor, banks began taking unnecessary risks with derivative trading and other high risk investment schemes. Â 2. Naked short selling must be made illegal. E.g. Goldman Sachs, can borrow billions short term from the Federal Reserve, at very low interest rates and with the use of HFT (high frequency trading) manipulate the market to it's advantage. See Matt Taibbi's investigative work on this. Â 3. Place a tax on commodities trading while limiting the contract size by any given entity so that bubble markets never occur. Margin trading should be well below 5-1 and re-institute "take delivery" when the contract expires. This will prevent Wall Street banks from manipulating the oil futures and farm commodities market. Â 4. Stop tax breaks to corporations that outsource jobs abroad. Â 5. Import taxes from goods made in China to equal the cost of manufacturing in the U.S. Â 6. Enforce the Sherman anti-trust act. Reagan's advisors advised stopping enforcement through a belief that markets were efficient at large scales. Markets are not and are predatory by nature at economies of scale. Â 7. Make lobbying in the Congress and Senate illegal. Edited November 28, 2011 by ralis 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TzuJanLi Posted November 28, 2011 Greetings.. Â Here are a number of solutions that can begin to restore economic sanity to the U.S. economy. Â 1. Re-institute Glass-Steagall. This law was overturned by a Republican move to deregulate the banking system and allow commercial banks and investment houses to no longer be separate entities. Therefor, banks began taking unnecessary risks with derivative trading and other high risk investment schemes. Â 2. Naked short selling must be made illegal. E.g. Goldman Sachs, can borrow billions short term from the Federal Reserve, at very low interest rates and with the use of HFT (high frequency trading) manipulate the market to it's advantage. See Matt Taibbi's investigative work on this. Â 3. Place a tax on commodities trading while limiting the contract size by any given entity so that bubble markets never occur. Margin trading should be well below 5-1 and re-institute "take delivery" when the contract expires. This will prevent Wall Street banks from manipulating the oil futures and farm commodities market. Â 4. Stop tax breaks to corporations that outsource jobs abroad. Â 5. Import taxes from goods made in China to equal the cost of manufacturing in the U.S. Â 6. Enforce the Sherman anti-trust act. Reagan's advisors advised stopping enforcement through a belief that markets were efficient at large scales. Markets are not and are predatory by nature at economies of scale. Â 7. Make lobbying in the Congress and Senate illegal. Hi Ralis: Thanks for thinking about 'solutions', we simply can't afford rhetoric and picking sides anymore.. you have chosen bold measures for stabilizing the unbalanced system, thanks for the courage to care.. Â I am leaning toward overhauling the system itself, as i guess you could discern from my posts, but.. as you have pointed-out, first the power structure must be wrested from the grips of the power brokers, and your measures move in that direction.. Â I wish Twinner could apply his Utopian Idealism to a practical application for a globally interconnected civilization.. Compassionate Pragmatists and Social Democracies can restructure a functional Creed that guides the individualistic efforts of people and groups toward a functional civilization.. i do not propose the following lightly, but.. i am convinced that religion and, to a lesser degree, philosophical belief systems, are dysfunctional artifacts of human evolution.. i wholly approve of understanding the historic significance and the emotional effects of these artifacts, but.. at this place in the evolution of the human experience, those influences confuse the mind's understanding of the actual issues that threaten the future of the human experience.. climate change/global warming being paramount among the issues.. oops, i'm rambling, enough for this evening.. Â Be well.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
9th Posted November 28, 2011 i am convinced that religion and, to a lesser degree, philosophical belief systems, are dysfunctional artifacts of human evolution.. i wholly approve of understanding the historic significance and the emotional effects of these artifacts, but.. Â For the most part I would agree with this, and since we cannot rely on much of the methodology of ancient civilizations (conquest, slavery, genocide, human sacrifice, etc.) it should be evident that other ancient methodologies can be similarly outmoded in our current era. And as you say, we must also be able to engage a depth of discernment that will prevent the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. Blanket generalizations may be a useful device in a literary context, but life itself is not nearly as neat and tidy. Since our society has not raised people to be anything other than cogs in the machine, it wont happen overnight, and it wont happen without sufficient growing pains. Most people cant even govern their own minds, much less anything else... Â Â cuz your father will tell you "Sonny, you must do as you are told"And you'll say the same thing to your kids when you're 32 years old And unless you can react against the brainwash from the start Your government will rule your mind and your mind will rule your heart You'll conform to every social law and be the system's slave From birth to school to work to death, from the cradle to the grave.... Â - subhumans Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted November 28, 2011 The US government currently borrows what, 40% of every dollar it is spending? Annual deficits of 1.8 trillion? ~17 trillion total on paper? Â Ralis, none of your ideas will fix the ridiculous overspending problem our government has. "Bending the spending increases down 100 billion over 10 years" is such a small drop in the bucket, we will end up like Greece long before the ten years is up if we keep promising the world to all kinds of people - without the means to pay for it. Â Is the entire idea simply to spend us into oblivion just to crash up the current system we have, "just so we can equalize things?" We know that's what cloward & piven recommended as the only way to get rid of that evil capitalism, and frankly that seems to be a trajectory a bunch of you are subscribing to - and then having the utter gall to speak in such things in the context of compassion! Such an occurrence would produce massive suffering, I'm curious how those of you who support such methods can think such things and then look into the mirror and feel remotely honest with yourself. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) The US government currently borrows what, 40% of every dollar it is spending? Annual deficits of 1.8 trillion? ~17 trillion total on paper? Â Ralis, none of your ideas will fix the ridiculous overspending problem our government has. "Bending the spending increases down 100 billion over 10 years" is such a small drop in the bucket, we will end up like Greece long before the ten years is up if we keep promising the world to all kinds of people - without the means to pay for it. Â Is the entire idea simply to spend us into oblivion just to crash up the current system we have, "just so we can equalize things?" We know that's what cloward & piven recommended as the only way to get rid of that evil capitalism, and frankly that seems to be a trajectory a bunch of you are subscribing to - and then having the utter gall to speak in such things in the context of compassion! Such an occurrence would produce massive suffering, I'm curious how those of you who support such methods can think such things and then look into the mirror and feel remotely honest with yourself. Â I said nothing about government spending! Please read my post! Â My proposals are nothing new and any reasonable person can see where the current problems started. E.g. The overturning of Glass-Steagall by the Gramm Leach Bliley bill denotes the problems with the banking system in the U.S. and by extension Europe. Â I am not interested in your Tea Bagger right wing narrative propaganda and single minded BS. The problem with your mindset is a lack of rational cooperation! Edited November 28, 2011 by ralis 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TzuJanLi Posted November 28, 2011 Greetings.. Â The US government currently borrows what, 40% of every dollar it is spending? Annual deficits of 1.8 trillion? ~17 trillion total on paper? Â Ralis, none of your ideas will fix the ridiculous overspending problem our government has. "Bending the spending increases down 100 billion over 10 years" is such a small drop in the bucket, we will end up like Greece long before the ten years is up if we keep promising the world to all kinds of people - without the means to pay for it. Â Is the entire idea simply to spend us into oblivion just to crash up the current system we have, "just so we can equalize things?" We know that's what cloward & piven recommended as the only way to get rid of that evil capitalism, and frankly that seems to be a trajectory a bunch of you are subscribing to - and then having the utter gall to speak in such things in the context of compassion! Such an occurrence would produce massive suffering, I'm curious how those of you who support such methods can think such things and then look into the mirror and feel remotely honest with yourself. You are interested in protecting "the hand that feeds you", that leads you around to do its bidding and make it rich and powerful.. some of us are interested in distributing the resources, wealth, and power more fairly.. others, like you, are interested getting what you can, doing the bidding of those with more, and the suffering of those with less be damned.. in every instance of social justice in the US it has been the Liberal that leads the way for change, conservatives are self-interested and morally deficient in matters of social justice.. Â Be well.. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted November 28, 2011 Greetings.. Â Â You are interested in protecting "the hand that feeds you", that leads you around to do its bidding and make it rich and powerful.. some of us are interested in distributing the resources, wealth, and power more fairly.. others, like you, are interested getting what you can, doing the bidding of those with more, and the suffering of those with less be damned.. in every instance of social justice in the US it has been the Liberal that leads the way for change, conservatives are self-interested and morally deficient in matters of social justice.. Â Be well.. Yes, I do keep my hands away from spinning blades when that's what I'm working on. Those hands work as well as feed me. Or are you saying that since I dont wish America to collapse under the weight of our government's spending, all I'm doing is playing right into my secret puppet masters' hands? Â Why is this always led back to rich vs poor when the more pressing concern we have is solvency vs insolvency? Even the Spaniards saw the folly of Progressive thought which took their country from relative riches to the precipice of disaster in what, 7 years, and elected conservatives there so that they may return their economy to reality. The US is right on the tails of European insolvency and in simply making this a rich vs poor argument we're missing the underlying issue of your government pissing our money away like there's no tomorrow! If we taxed the hell out of all the rich people, and hell, the top 2.3rds of the middle class while we're at it, it still will not make up for that 40% of every dollar spent being borrowed, but it would go far in terms of reducing the number of 10s, Js, Qs, Ks in the deck - forget about ever getting rid of the aces and jokers! Â Letting things crash because we refuse to control our spending is not going to magically somehow result is people being more compassionate. Are we seeking to flatten the entire world, or are we seeking to make the world a better place? Â Sounds like you guys would rather punish anybody with money at any cost than do anything that would produce positive results, when its our growing entitlements that are poised to crush our finances. Â Hate to make it mostly about money, but for shit's sake, a country must have its fiscal house in order. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TzuJanLi Posted November 28, 2011 Greetings.. Â Â Hate to make it mostly about money, but for shit's sake, a country must have its fiscal house in order. As time allows i will post more, but.. no, it's not about 'money', well it is to conservatives, but.. we could remove money from the equation completely, and that would send the power-brokers into a tail-spin.. we do not need money. Money could be useful if used ethically, it is not used ethically, especially in the capitalist systems.. Â "Hard work for good pay"??? No, and not even close.. Spend a day in the shoes of a migrant farmworker, a sun-up to sun-down day, at less than minimum wage and with no benefits.. the wealth and 'good-life' you enjoy is dependent on someone filling those shoes.. to avoid losing too much of your wealth, you are willing to put others in positions of poverty and suffering.. otherwise, you would pay more for goods and services to insure that others could have a share of the the wealth that they 'worked hard' for, too.. Â Higher taxes across the board.. pay for equal distribution of services that are basic human rights, Life, health care, education.. Higher taxes to pay for excessive spending in the past, and.. cut spending, no.. slash spending, intelligently.. but, no one wants to lose the cash-cow that is the government's protection of their banking system's corruption.. Â Anyway, more later.. Be well.. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shizukanako Posted November 29, 2011 Very good arguments from opposing viewpoints. And this is exactly why nothing will ever change. An almost even split in our populace, and almost all candidates being voted in by the same 2 party system who never agree on anything. The system is too bogged down in bureaucracy, and is too broken to change, IMO. Its like one of those giant fat guys that cant get out of his room, and he's either going to die or the fire department will break down the wall and haul him out. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aaron Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) Life is full of trade-off's. Of course, it generally requires time & effort to attain wealth. So, the beauty of capitalism is that it allows each person to determine their own desired balance in that trade-off. Â If you want to apply yourself more for more money, fine. If you don't want to as much for less money, fine. You are free to choose. Â You are also free to choose how and what you spend your money on. No one puts a gun to your head and forces you to keep up with the Joneses... Â So, sounds like capitalism is working relatively fine to me. Of course, the key word here is WORK. In capitalism, you get what you work for. But for those who don't want to work...obviously that poses a problem.. Â Hmm, how do I get the same results as others without having to work so dang hard!!! WAHHHH!!! Â Oh, I KNOW! Let's redistribute all wealth equally! Yes, let's focus ONLY on equal results...but NOT equal WORK! Â Forget about this old, harsh, uncaring, "uncompassionate" type of math: 1+1=2 2+2=4 1+5=6 Â We NEED to replace this with a new, "egalitarian," utopian, compassionate liberal math! Where: 2+2=4 0+50=4 -3-587=4 5,000,000x3654=4 Â YESSS!! Now, isn't that SO much simpler, compassionate and EQUAL!! DEUURRHHH!! Â Â Â BTW, who's actually more compassionate? Someone with a well-paying regular job who is paying high taxes that fund various welfare programs - or someone irregularly-employed who pays little to no taxes at all? And is often even drawing on social services, leaving less for others? :blink:WTFF? Have you been secretly reading the Libertarian textbook, Ralis?! :lol:Lol, that was a baseless Leftist lie that even they couldn't prove in their own articles, akin to WMDs in Iraq.Well, that's a symptom of deeper cultural problems like a rapidly-diminishing work ethic combined with a rapidly-spreading victim/entitlement mentality that also encourages short term instant gratification over long term planning. End result being we are spending waaayyyy more than we are producing... Â I guess I'll end this discussion with this... Â Â I bow out of this debate. It solves nothing, it's all conjecture. Nothing we do here will matter, so I think it's best not to waste any more energy. Â Aaron Edited November 29, 2011 by Twinner Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taooneusa Posted November 29, 2011 What we are missing,is the ability to be constantly compassionate.We favor our children above all else and are at our best when we choose to trust them.Compassion is what the powers that be resist the most because compassion brings conscience.and Conscience enables consciousness - the reason we are all here. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted November 29, 2011 (edited)  BTW, who's actually more compassionate? Someone with a well-paying regular job who is paying high taxes that fund various welfare programs - or someone irregularly-employed who pays little to no taxes at all? And is often even drawing on social services, leaving less for others? :blink:WTFF? Have you been secretly reading the Libertarian textbook, Ralis?! :lol:Lol, that was a baseless Leftist lie that even  Most of the jobs have been outsourced to China and other countries. HP shut down U.S. operations and sent 50,000 jobs to China. Further, the Koch bros. are behind the Tea Bagger party and are very anti-union.  http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/02/18/koch-brothers-behind-wisconsin-effort-to-kill-public-unions/ Edited November 29, 2011 by ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TzuJanLi Posted November 29, 2011 Greetings.. Â I guess I'll end this discussion with this... Â Â I bow out of this debate. It solves nothing, it's all conjecture. Nothing we do here will matter, so I think it's best not to waste any more energy. Â Aaron That song, in its more vulgar form, is how conservatives express compassion, and.. in a discussion where some people are interested in real solutions for ALL members of society, you choose to reference that song?? thankfully, you have bowed-out. Â Conversations like these open people's eyes and point to solutions that can actually improve all of society, and that is not what conservatives want to hear.. conservatives 'need' cheap oppressed labor to support their excesses. No, it's not "all conjecture", like the rest of society you are beginning to realize the inequities of the US Capitalist model, and that scares you.. the 'truth' that sets men free, is usually the 'truth' they do not want to hear.. Â Be well.. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TzuJanLi Posted November 29, 2011 Greetings.. Â Life is full of trade-off's. Of course, it generally requires time & effort to attain wealth. So, the beauty of capitalism is that it allows each person to determine their own desired balance in that trade-off. Let's talk about "time and effort", there are people working 12 hours a day, busting their asses, putting more "time and effort" than you could hope to muster.. Â If you want to apply yourself more for more money, fine. If you don't want to as much for less money, fine. You are free to choose. Whoa there, when the system rewards "time and effort" equally, then we have that discussion.. but, the system rewards 'specific' kinds of 'time' and effort', rigged against those not approved by the system.. Â You are also free to choose how and what you spend your money on. No one puts a gun to your head and forces you to keep up with the Joneses... For the 'working poor', the minimum wage Joe.. that 'gun' is food, health care, and shelter.. Â So, sounds like capitalism is working relatively fine to me. Of course, the key word here is WORK. In capitalism, you get what you work for. But for those who don't want to work...obviously that poses a problem.. Most couldn't keep-up a week's worth of the work with a real labor crew, your whiny 'it's 'mine' attitude and your style of ridicule, indicates you would likely fall in with the 'most'.. So, how do you account for those that work their asses off sun-up to sun-down on their FIRST of 2 jobs, while you play on your computer.. seems that by your standard of "time and effort", they deserve more than you.. Â Hmm, how do I get the same results as others without having to work so dang hard!!! WAHHHH!!! Don't be an ass.. you don't get it, no one here (well, maybe Twinner) is suggesting anything of the sort of sensational inflationary rhetoric you want people to believe.. what is so confusing about a "more equitable" distribution of resources? What you are proposing, is that you see yourself as deserving more for doing less.. Â Oh, I KNOW! Let's redistribute all wealth equally! Yes, let's focus ONLY on equal results...but NOT equal WORK! I've got a better idea, you pay the people that do the work you won't or can't do for yourself, the same rate per hour that you earn.. "time and effort". Â Forget about this old, harsh, uncaring, "uncompassionate" type of math:1+1=2 2+2=4 1+5=6 Â We NEED to replace this with a new, "egalitarian," utopian, compassionate liberal math! Where: 2+2=4 0+50=4 -3-587=4 5,000,000x3654=4 Â YESSS!! Now, isn't that SO much simpler, compassionate and EQUAL!! DEUURRHHH!! Why do conservatives resort to ridicule, sarcasm, smoke and mirrors, deception, and abuse just to try to convince others that it makes sense to rig a system that oppresses many for the benefit of the few? because you can't change the math, the 1% is always 1%, and.. the US poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1%.. Â Â Â BTW, who's actually more compassionate? Someone with a well-paying regular job who is paying high taxes that fund various welfare programs - or someone irregularly-employed who pays little to no taxes at all? And is often even drawing on social services, leaving less for others? :blink:WTFF? we are producing... "Someone with a well-paying regular job who is paying high taxes that fund various welfare programs" who is lobbying their representatives to lower their taxes even more than the lowest they have been in 3 decades? the same someones that want to cut health and socials services so they can make more money?? The solution is the US is that we begin to act responsibly across the board, we all suffer higher taxes for a decade, at 35%-40%.. and we leave no one behind. No, not everyone shares equally, those unwilling to bear their fair share of the "time and effort" needed to fix the problems only receive the minimum standard of reasonable care and services.. We re-institute programs like the CCC or WPA along with Americorps and the Peace Corps, and.. no benefits unless contributing, providing someone is physically able.. the US welfare policies have no alternatives, no provisions for getting a product on the investment.. welfare and unemployment recipients must DO something for the money.. this provides services to the nation, training for the recipient, and an incentive to find regular employment.. Â I do not suggest 'labor camps', there are many useful projects that can put welfare and unemployed people into useful positions and paying them a fair wage.. beautify America, restore the infrastructure, bring the internet and other services to rural and remote communities, restore the environment, and.. all of these are teachable skills.. build and maintain regional 'welfare colleges', staffed by unemployed or semi retired educators.. THIS is how higher taxes are used to rebuild a system that rebuilds self-esteem and a Nation.. and, that is the source for the revenues that pay-down the National Debt.. Â I'm a consultant for environmental projects, restoration and rehabilitation of wetlands and water resources.. i experience government waste at levels that are insanely criminal.. mountains of redundant paperwork in a "paperless" system, corruption at every level.. from the selection of consultants through bidding and negotiations, and the entire management process, even closing a project out means you will need to 'take care' of issues.. The reward for whistle-blowers needs to be substantial enough to expose the processes, and protections guaranteed.. the penalties need to be so severe that it's just not worth it.. one of my competitors said, "i make so much by bending the rules, that the occasional fine or slap on the wrist is well worth it".. it is a deeply entrenched culture of corruption that justifies itself by believing that it's just the way business works.. as my attorney said, "How much justice can you afford"? Â If the existing system can be cleansed and overhauled, i'm all for it.. but, i see no evidence that it is possible, every new crop of idealistic falls prey to the system or is beaten by it, and.. it is the conservatives that finally gave up and chose to make the system of greed and corruption work for their own agendas of wealth and power.. Â Some suggestions: Â Do not re-elect any incumbents for the next 20 years, breaking the connections between big money special interests and career politicians.. Â Legislate Citizen's United into the dumpster, corporations are not 'people'.. one person one vote.. Â ALL campaign contributions MUST be anonymous and no larger than $1000.. Â Supreme Court Justices are elected by by the Deans of the the nations accredited Law Schools for one 8 year term, half on alternating 4 year cycles, with the Chief justice staying on for an additional 4 years. Â Each Bill or Law must be voted on separately, no 'riders'. Â Be well.. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted November 29, 2011  Supreme Court Justices are elected by by the Deans of the the nations accredited Law Schools for one 8 year term, half on alternating 4 year cycles, with the Chief justice staying on for an additional 4 years.  yeah, that'll help clean up corruption! As if the universities havent already become corrupted themselves.  The government simply puts everyone back to work and all jobs are considered equal. You might as well spirit travel to that reality and tell us all how wonderful it is, because that aint happening here. It is no small fact of the world that many jobs exist, and they dont all pay the same - that's almost as far out as some of Aaron's wishes.  but of course, if we simply do away with money, that'd fix that part, right?  You're still suggesting nothing short of tearing the entire system within which we live down - and that is going to cause a whole hell of a lot more suffering than we currently have - all under the guise of fairness and equality for all - oh, and compassion too, gotta have that - and nevermind all of the misery getting there, it'll just take a couple decades  You can keep that fantasy in the bottle. I'd really rather not have an asteroid mash into the planet, because that is just about the only way the size changes are going to happen that you "recommend." 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Birch Posted November 29, 2011 I'd like to make a point that the systems and subsequent rules and institutions were designed (in other words "made up")in the first place. They're not in effect due to some cosmic diety-given right (although trying to get people to swallow that one has worked for a while) The effects we're seeing today are a result of those designs and people doing what people do in relationship to them. We acknowledge that people can be both greedy and altruistic. Suggesting a redo is actually quite a logical suggestion. Of course the people that would lose out the most don't want it. They tend to prefer civil war or bloody revolutions, apparently. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TzuJanLi Posted November 29, 2011 Greetings..  yeah, that'll help clean up corruption! As if the universities havent already become corrupted themselves.  The government simply puts everyone back to work and all jobs are considered equal. You might as well spirit travel to that reality and tell us all how wonderful it is, because that aint happening here. It is no small fact of the world that many jobs exist, and they dont all pay the same - that's almost as far out as some of Aaron's wishes.  but of course, if we simply do away with money, that'd fix that part, right?  You're still suggesting nothing short of tearing the entire system within which we live down - and that is going to cause a whole hell of a lot more suffering than we currently have - all under the guise of fairness and equality for all - oh, and compassion too, gotta have that - and nevermind all of the misery getting there, it'll just take a couple decades  You can keep that fantasy in the bottle. I'd really rather not have an asteroid mash into the planet, because that is just about the only way the size changes are going to happen that you "recommend." Stop tearing down solutions that don't preserve the status quo, you only want to protect your own kind.. the system isn't functioning well, it rewards "time and effort" unfairly and disproportionately, and everybody knows it, and.. finally, people are willing to change that system, and THAT is what's bothering those that might have their wealth dependent 'social status' compromised.. you can swim against the flow of change and be a casualty of it, or.. work to build a more fair and equitable system..  I hope you are not suggesting that the life-terms of Supreme Court Justices are appointed fairly.. the appointment and confirmation is political theater, and no less corrupt than the system that writes that script..  Political Parties are simply well-dressed gangs of sophisticated thugs, taking what they can under the guise of representative democracy.. they serve the highest bidder or the most influential potential investor in their re-election.. The American Dream is an amazing potential, but it has been corrupted to the point that it has to radically cleanse itself and restructure its wealth distribution "more fairly".. are you, the one percent, willing to give up a moderate amount of wealth gained through an oppressive system, in order to repair and preserve that system, or.. will your greed clench onto that ill-gotten excess until those that suffered by the system's oppressive policies revolt and take it from you? Now is the time to work together to rescue the American Dream, but all i see from conservatives is resistance, their way or no way.. Change it or lose it  Be well.. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
