Myths of rich and poor

[Preechr]

We have record employment numbers, man.

You were talking before about BAD capitalism. Can't you see that THAT's what led to the layffs in the auto and air industries? Right along with forcing employees into slave labor is making promises that just cannot be kept, even if they are to labor unions.

You say we are losing jobs, I say that we are streamlining. Yeah, it may be considered cruel to say so, but NOBODY is "entitled" to a job as far as I'm concerned as long as someone, somewhere in this world is sitting at home starving because there's no job to be had.

See how I'm supposed to be some sort of hyper conservative, yet I'm also being "Un-American?" Funny that.

[davinxtk]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Let it be said I totally get where you're coming from. This post was really well made as well, though possibly moreso than most for you. I've honestly been laboring under the impression that you really weren't ever gonna see eye to eye with me enough to phrase your comments with such determined civility.

I honestly thought you'd be kicking my ass by now.

Thanks for not doing that.

I've come to respect your opinion on a great deal of things; even where I don't agree with you, you seem to have at least thought about things before coming to a conclusion. You're one of the few people on here that can be expected to have a solid foundation to what they're saying even if it's pretty extreme.

You riffed on the concept of "healthy." I said: "I like human nature, when it's healthy." . . . you're basically saying that consideration for the weakest of the community is primary over consideration for the individual needs of the strongest producers within that community, right?

Not... really. The argument for a greater distribution of wealth is a rather nuanced one, provided you're trying to keep some semblence of a capitalist free market alive in your theories. It's not that consideration for the weakest of the community is primary over that for the strongest producers, it's that production is accross the board a rather abstract concept. You can't use the same scale of production for a waiter as you do for a coal miner or a deli clerk or a CPA or a mechanic or a dry-cleaner or a cabbie. Does every one of them need food? Do many of them have families that as well need food? Health care? Housing? Running water, electricity, heat, clothing? Do you think enough consideration is given when setting wages to cover these aspects for everyone who works a full time job? Do you think it's directly related to productivity in even fifty percent of circumstances?

The subtext here is that I feel your devotion to a free market clouds your judgement about the healthiness of its practices. We'll get to this in a moment, though.

I'm fine with [communist principles], at least in one half of my life. That's exactly how I feel about dealings with my family. Most families run on communist principles. I have a complex life, however. When I get out of bed in the morning, and decide what I want to do on any given day, most days I go to work. See, some of my family obligations require money to fulfill. For that, as well as the ever present requirement to feed, shelter and clothe my own self, I need to sell some of my free time in the form of a job well done in exchange for cash.

When I leave the house in my work clothes, I am sacrificing part of my life to fund another. Since work, though rewarding for some (very much so for me,) is generally less fun and fulfilling than hanging out at the house with friends and family, I cannot very well take the for-home attitude about life with me outside now, can I? I need to adopt a less giving, more taking attitude, one of a very competitive point of view. I owe this to my first priority: my private life: the reason I go to work. I need to become a capitalist pig. We all do.

For the most part I agree with the concepts presented here. I must concede to the fact that a decent work ethic is hard to find among many citizens, but in a society that attempts to teach us from day one that we can "do whatever we want" in this "free country" only to be delivered to harsh economic realities often in our teenage years you have to expect at least some discontent. If your argument is that Americans need to toughen up and get down to business, quit fucking around with popular culture and advertisements and bling and cribs and the like and actually do what's best for themselves... how can I argue with you? But this isn't going to be spurred by the poor suddenly waking up and correcting their horrendous spending habits, getting second and third jobs, and finding the motivation (and job openings) to move into management from entry-level positions. The trickle-down economy isn't quite working right, too much of the resources flow immediately back to the top. The initial sacrifices are going to have to be made by the rich, as it's the poor who need the leg-up..

A competitive, capitalistic economy, well maintained by all of us, will provide the most for all of us, right? If we are gonna spend time NOT doing what we love, then we owe it to ourselves to get the biggest economic bang for each of our incremental bucks... and such. So, while we're at home, we are free to live however makes us most happy, and that's typically in a more or less communistic fashion. When we leave our homes, however, we enter the cold, hard world of capitalism, and we are only hurting ourselves if we fail to make that transition gracefully and readily.

Once again it's hard to argue these points. There is, however, quite a difference between trying to provide for your family and trying your damnedest to live like a king.
These people are approaching "Let them eat cake." status.
I caught about five minutes of MTV at a friend's house, and found out that John Travolta's daughter, on a first-class commercial flight, asked "Who are all of these people on the plane?"
This isn't because she's unfarmiliar with flight, it's because she's used to Travolta's private Boeing 707 that he flies them around on. It had never occurred to her that that's NOT how the majority of people travel.
Not only are these people privileged, they don't know how privileged they are. Remember when Bush said at a press conference that that lady lived a "uniquely American" life, working three jobs to feed her children? This capitalist economy has become little more than modern feudalism. The upper echelon of the economy hordes the wealth and lets just slightly less enough than the barest essentials slip out to keep us working.
This is where your naivete complicates things. Business isn't the root of all evil, Preechr, this 'human nature' is.
In the kind of economy where you can either give two employees raises or take another $5,000 into your bonus salary for keeping your profit margins high, the capitalist component of human nature is going to be the cause of your problems.

I'm not really talking much about economics. This is gonna have to be a long conversation, as it really only concerns the future. Economics is a branch of the science of life. If you don't understand how we live, you can never hope to understand how we might live better, right?

I'm not having a hard time here, I find this to be a very relevant and rather fascinating conversation. We both seem to agree that things aren't even pretending to work the way they're set up currently, but where to go with it is the debate.

Ultimately, I'm gonna try to convince you that libertarianism (notice, not capitalized) is the ultimate form of govenrment, and that my fundamentalist attitude toward our American Constitution stems not from some sort of loyalty to tradition, but to a concept that was only hinted at briefly in a long age of various experiments in human slavery.

We are in such an age now. Misunderstanding vital components of human nature any further won't be getting us to the place we need to be any quicker.

Bring it on

[kahljorn]

"We have record employment numbers, man."

Really? When does guiness 2006 come out with this information? Maybe the reason there's no decent jobs anywhere is because the government wants us to join the military. THE GIUBERMANT.

"You were talking before about BAD capitalism. Can't you see that THAT's what led to the layffs in the auto and air industries?"

Well great, whatever led up to this event that occured not too long ago is why I'm saying our economy(well, actually business ethics) is bad because alot of people lost their jobs because of it a couple of months ago that's right thank god our ogvernment has put us back onto Good Capitalism eh now maybe things will be just a little bit better.

"You say we are losing jobs, I say that we are streamlining"

That's fine man; doesn't change the fact that a bunch of people lost their jobs due to the fact that a corporation wanted more money(and of co urse to supply poor people with jobs all while creating new poor people in our homeland!.)
Now what did I say? I said I hate business because it only cares about money and I feel that is bad business ethics. I don't see how any of this revokes that point.

"Yeah, it may be considered cruel to say so, but NOBODY is "entitled" to a job as far as I'm concerned as long as someone, somewhere in this world is sitting at home starving because there's no job to be had. "

I never said entitled, but that doesn't change the fact that they themselves need jobs as long as they plan on staying less poor than the people in brazil(including owning their fancy dishwashers, I don't own a dishwasher right now. GUESS MAYBE I SHOULD MOVE TO BRAZIL).

"See how I'm supposed to be some sort of hyper conservative, yet I'm also being "Un-American?""

Personally i consider president bush un-american. I respect your views, and I don't really care if you're conservative. It's nice people in other countries are getting jobs, but it does the "Global economy" no good to take jobs from one place to deliver them to another, because america is part of the global economy.


As to a solution to global economy: Perhaps we should just bring slaves back? I mean, think about it. There were tons of poor people and we took them in and gave them shelter and food, more than they could ever ask for for a hard days work! Why was slavery ever a problem in the first place? Geez brazil, you are our shining beacon of "Example". I like the fact that people who were making enough money to support themselves and their family lost their jobs so people in brazil could make enough money to probably barely support themselves, depending on how their wages work there.

[kahljorn]

I read your posts to stave off boredom, but they were interesting. I feel we agree on a few things from what you've stated, and if you realize where I'm coming from you'll see there's some similarities.

Me: "Business in america seems to have no loyalty to america, nor to their employees and consumers. They are so focused on the money and less on delivering their product." (for clarity)
You: "Your comments are exactly what stands in the way of the problem as you see it."

How is that standing in the way of Businesses making shitty products? Is it wrong to expect quality out of business? What is the point in doing business in the first place if you're not receiving what you need? Then it becomes something more akin to stealing. Well sir I'll give you five buffalo nickles for a dollar.

"I believe our primary responsibility in life, as individuals, is to be happy."

How can you be happy with big business fucking everyone over? How can you be happy when there's people in america starving(and elsewhere, as you said), while they have plenty of money. Then when they shaft people out of jobs to move to another so they can pay cheaper wages (so they can have more money to themselves) you say they are helping starving people? Do you think this is a good trend to continue? Do you think it will somehow help the world?

Please tell me how. Is your definition of globalization, then, to make the entire world an upper-low class? Or lower middle-class? Let me ask you a question here, are the wages they are paying to the people in other countries really that good? How much of a decrease is it from our wages?

"I tend to think that capitalism is human nature and that government is it's restirction. I like human nature, when it's healthy."

You seem to want to seperate the government and "Capitalism" when most of the most successful examples of "Capitalism" are currently a part of the government or is sharing close ties. Since when has greed and whatever diseases afflict them been a part of good human nature? Why isn't the government "Restricting" them if in your opinion the Government's responsibility is to restrict human nature(and I'm inclined to say you believe it's to restrict bad human nature)?
I'm not saying it's bad to be able to work towards a good life or to have to earn things, you can't expect to just have things handed to you, but on the same token you can't respect people who make it alot worse than it needs to be.

"you're basically saying that consideration for the weakest of the community is primary over consideration for the individual needs of the strongest producers..."

Do they need their excess billions that bad? Don't you mean want. I know this wasn't directed at me, but I just thought I should throw that out there.

Everything else makes me think that, at core, you are an anarchist.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I read your posts to stave off boredom, but they were interesting. I feel we agree on a few things from what you've stated, and if you realize where I'm coming from you'll see there's some similarities.

Me: "Business in america seems to have no loyalty to america, nor to their employees and consumers. They are so focused on the money and less on delivering their product." (for clarity)
You: "Your comments are exactly what stands in the way of the problem as you see it."

Once again, you are hitting the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

How is that standing in the way of Businesses making shitty products? Is it wrong to expect quality out of business? What is the point in doing business in the first place if you're not receiving what you need? Then it becomes something more akin to stealing. Well sir I'll give you five buffalo nickles for a dollar.

Business exists to make money. That is it's primary function. I know me saying that is producing a very negative reaction in you right now, but I want to encourage you to see the bigger picture here, kahl.

You, as a consumer, are much less likely to purchase products from a company that you know treats it's employees badly or that has a reputation for shitty products. Maybe you watch out for businesses that have a reputation for harming the environment. There's a whole lot of negative criterion you could apply to any one or all of your purchasing decisions. In addition, you also apply positive criterion to those same decisions, to reward businesses for doing whatever it is you might value.

In this way, you are exactly like any average consumer. We all do that stuff, and we all weight the same set of criterion in different ways. I think it's pretty safe to say that the vast majority of consumers have very similar weighting tactics for their purchases, in fact. On average, by and large, most of us want cheap, defective knock-offs of good products that were developed largely by an entirely random and wholly unrelated process of raping monkeys and sold to us by unbathed indentured servants from the third world.

Well, that may be more comedic overstatement than a valid point, but it goes to motive, Your Honor.

What do you think would happen if we ALL got together and decided none of us would buy any more products from Wal-Mart? That's right: They'd go out of business the very next day. We have not yet done that. "We" shop there. I'm not making any personal statements about Wal-Mart, as I have no personal problem with what they are doing. It's not that I favor all of their commercial practices, it's just that I recognize that they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

They are delivering the maximum value possible to their stockholders. PERIOD. That is their only job. When they put a pickle company out of business by letting them agree to a badly conceived contract, I blame the pickle company for not doing THEIR job. When they abuse eminent domain legislation and use the power and greed of government to take Farmer Johnson's family plot away from him in order to erect yet another big concrete box entirely unuseable to anyone after the big box fad passes I do not blame them... I blame the government for being greedy and WAY too powerful. Well, I actually blame you for everything the government does. It too is only just doing what it is supposed to do. It was your job to limit it.

When Wal-Mart hands it's employees brochures advertising government healthcare solutions available to them in lieu of corporate benefits, how can I blame them? It's there. It's free! Why spend a bunch of money providing something for them they can get elsewhere at no cost to them or Wal-Mart? That would only hurt their stockholders, which would be a violation of the Golden Rule of business.

To further complicate my example, I will now compare business as I'm describing it to a gun. It actually makes sense to do so...

Any normal, right-thinking, Red-Blooded American son or daughter of God knows that the gun was invented and then enshrined into our Constitution for one purpose: The Protection of our Lives and Property. By suggesting that we change the nature of business into something less possibly dangerous, you might as well be suggesting that we change the nature of the legal gun so as to only shoot flowers and sunshine.

Good luck protecting your family with your new pussy gun... and good luck making a living at a company that avoids it's primary responsibility for any sort of reason. When you violate any of your principles, you doom all of your associated efforts. I have worked for companies that followed alternate paths of altruism. I just does not ever work. The employees, customers and their stockholders will always destroy them. THAT's what's happening to the American automakers and airlines.

However... and there's always a catch... if a company changes it's policies to be more altruistic and something more like virtuous because they see a desire within their consumer base for such a move, it will be rewarded for it's actions with the only thing it cares about: Profit. To do anything else would be bad business, or bad capitalism.

Union labor used to be a big selling point among American consumers, so companies abused themselves with it willingly. Unfortunately for them, and us, unions used government to their favor and our detriment, and THAT, dear kahl, is 90% of your problem with Ford. As our automakers and airlines restructure themselves in the coming years, bet against unions. Bet on profit.

Businesses also have been known to use the awesome power of government to entrench themselves within markets that measures of their profitablity alone would not allow. Look at the Oracle and Apple inspired anti-trust cases against Microsoft of just a few years ago for a good example there, but that's not the only or even best exhibit of such bad business available to us... only the most likely memorable.

Please don't take my use of that case as some sort of admission that I respect Microsoft, though... I believe them also to be guilty of much bad business, though also the victim of it. Microsoft had it's origins in pure capitalism, though it's history since has been a collage of crap they really should not have been allowed to get away with... BY YOU. I don't look to government to fix problems caused by me or you because I recognize that government is not responsible for that. You and I are.

Now, that being said, I can expect a little help from the government that I employ in these endeavors, can't I? I believe so.

What I would like to see is a government less actively involved in the overt management of commerce and more actively engaged in helping us make better informed decisions, whatever our collective criterion.

How so, you might ask? Oversight instead of Regulation.

Let me explain: What if you were able to go to a government website that allowed you to view, for example, every record of every company in regard to it's compliance with current environmental standards. What if you could cross reference that data with similar records concerning labor practices and the countries of orgin of the raw materials used to manufacture the end products of these companies?

You and I could be sitting around discussing how to weight all this data in our purchasing decisions, instead of arguing theory based in ignorance and untruths.

Were I to be looking to buy a Big Screen or a new car, I think I'd like that. My question is: Why do we support a government that would rather keep us in the dark on such valuable information in favor of a system where it has the power and opportunities to blur this data however it chooses in such a way as to actually encourage companies to "play the game" rather than submit to our actual desires?

Rather than continue on this diatribe, let me instead respond a bit more to what you were actually talking about....

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"I believe our primary responsibility in life, as individuals, is to be happy."

How can you be happy with big business fucking everyone over? How can you be happy when there's people in america starving(and elsewhere, as you said), while they have plenty of money. Then when they shaft people out of jobs to move to another so they can pay cheaper wages (so they can have more money to themselves) you say they are helping starving people? Do you think this is a good trend to continue? Do you think it will somehow help the world?

Now that I've rambled on for a bit, accidentally responding to most of this, let me address one new point you just brought up: Specifically, your mistaken assumption that there are jobs enough for everyone in the world.

In one way, you are right, but you are mostly wrong in your premise. Let's just say you didn't know just how you were right, so I'm not giving you credit for it...

As it stands, the kinds of jobs available in the world are very limited. American politicians, working for bad capitalists, have made sure that all our manufacturing, assembly and agricultural jobs were well protected for many decades past the point where such protection was bad for all of us. America has always been known as the Mecca of innovation. Whether it was getting you to work on time, cooking your dinner or blowing your shit up, Americans have always been your go-to guy for the newest, fastest and most efficient way to do so.

That's what we do.

Now, you want a bunch of factory workers to show up on time and dilligently maintain standards of quality? Check out Germany or Japan, man. They got that shit going on. Prefer style over function? You should see what's happening over there in Italy and France. You want it done cheaper, at the cost of quality and performance? Mexico, China and India are waiting, Sir. Not cheap enough? Two words: Thailand.

Now, though that's approximately the situation as it currently exists, it won't always be so. In the 50's, products of Japanese manufacture were regarded as something similar to what you might expect to purchase in today's former Soviet states. Basically, crap... excluding Vodka, of course. In a similar way, when you factor in for time, one day we may be looking to the steppes of mother Russia herself for our agricultural or manufacturing needs... and maybe one day, India might be the fountainhead for technological innovation. Who can tell?

What I do know is that we all need to stick to what we do best right now. Isn't that what we expect of each other as individuals? If your best friend was intent on being the next Picasso despite his color-blindness and complete lack of anything close to talent, wouldn't you be being the best friend you could be by encouraging him to find another career path?

I see only enough room in a healthy, modern America for only two types of worker, save the obligatory though entirely necessary local manufacturers and assemblers: The highly paid but incredibly focused innovator and the service provider. There is enough of that to do for all of us, and it focuses us on what we do best as a country. If you don't quite get that, let me know and I'll answer your questions, but for the sake of time and pithity, I'll move on...

To be very specific, the help desk jobs we've so far "outsourced" to India SHOULD be there, as long as the service quality doesn't violate the Golden Rule of business we've previously discussed. WHY should we forcibly retain them HERE if we can get these services at the same quality at a lower cost? Your answer, as I see it, would be that Americans can earn money filling this need, so we should give them these jobs based on that alone.

Have you stopped to consider it might be better for those Americans to be doing something more "American?" Sure, they'd need more and better education to be small business owners, executives or scientists, but shouldn't you be pointing at our own government's motivations and, ahem, government run education system when you start to play your blame game?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Please tell me how. Is your definition of globalization, then, to make the entire world an upper-low class? Or lower middle-class? Let me ask you a question here, are the wages they are paying to the people in other countries really that good? How much of a decrease is it from our wages?

It's a start. India is pretty much at the same place we were in our 1960's. Mexico is in our 20's or 30's. Shouldn't we be helping them to advance? I personally refuse to believe that our advantage over developing nations is that we are just temporarily ahead of them technologically. I see an unlimited future of innovation, and that we have the advantage in that regard. We will retain that advantage only by adopting a considered plan that emphasises more innovation, rather than stifling any possible competition by using our advantage as some sort of defensive measure.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"I tend to think that capitalism is human nature and that government is it's restirction. I like human nature, when it's healthy."

You seem to want to seperate the government and "Capitalism" when most of the most successful examples of "Capitalism" are currently a part of the government or is sharing close ties. Since when has greed and whatever diseases afflict them been a part of good human nature? Why isn't the government "Restricting" them if in your opinion the Government's responsibility is to restrict human nature(and I'm inclined to say you believe it's to restrict bad human nature)?

Really good observation there.

You said you didn't get the difference between the capitalized and non-capitalized versions of capitalism and communism, yet you picked the right way to use Capitalism in your question.

You capitalize the word when you adopt the method as your form of government. That's pretty much why when I speak of them in terms of idealizing a future I don't capitalize them. I believe them both to be the yin and yang of human nature, and that you cannot hope to build a successful society by beginning with the exclusion of one half of who we are.

That being said, I suppose I need to address your assertion that I believe it's "the Government's responsibility is to restrict human nature." Let me be perfectly clear if not so engaging: Just as I have said that I believe it is the primary function of any commercial function to accumulate profit, I believe it is the primary function of a government to accumulate power. Commerce and government are two of the three pillars of human society, the third being religion, which exists to accumulate truth, ideally.

Imagine two 2D circles existing on parallel planes, separated by three equidistant supporting columns. The lower circle is the realm of the individual, but the circle itself represents all of us, working as a group. The upper circle represents our civilization and all of our accomplishments as a whole. To support whatever we hope to achieve most effectively, we utilize these three constructs to maximum effect.

In commerce, cash is the medium of exchange. Power is the currency of politics, and within the pillar of religion, we speak in terms of truth. In no way can any of our current systems be said to be operating purely, of course... We have yet to adequately define their parameters and task them, y'know... One of the cornerstones of American government ,though, is the separation of state from religion, and with good reason! What happens when you establish an exchange rate between the currencies of religion and that of politics and/or commerce, power and profit, respectively?

Would you choose to trade truth for cash or advantage over a rival?

How about cash for power over a rival or the public's perception of truth?

Unlimited power for cash? ...For the ability to control what people believe is true?

Unfortunately, our founding fathers were not so prescient as to include a specific wall between commerce and state, as is made obvious by even a cursory examination of the current state of economic affairs in our modern system of governance.

How does this answer the question I originally highlighted? I'm not really sure, but I hope my tangent was enlightening. I've really put a lot of work into this so far, and despite whatever misspellings and inconsistencies this diatribe will wind up containing, I don't think I'm wanting to proof-read it. I think I'm gonna just stand behind whatever happens when I press the Submit button, Ok?

You can always ask further questions, and I'll answer. Unlike most of the people you've met on message boards, I'm actually here to learn, and I LOVE to be proven to be an idiot.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I'm not saying it's bad to be able to work towards a good life or to have to earn things, you can't expect to just have things handed to you, but on the same token you can't respect people who make it alot worse than it needs to be.

"you're basically saying that consideration for the weakest of the community is primary over consideration for the individual needs of the strongest producers..."

Do they need their excess billions that bad? Don't you mean want. I know this wasn't directed at me, but I just thought I should throw that out there.

Everything else makes me think that, at core, you are an anarchist.

Not really. There's a fine line between anarchy and libertarianism. Basically, the line is defined by whether or not you truly would bet on human nature or not. I like people, and I trust them to strive for a better life, generally, and given the most encouragement to do so possible.

As for whether or not billionaires deserve their money, I think I've at least so far given you somewhat of a clue as to where I stand on that...

[kahljorn]

I see, here's where I think we come to some differences.

I enjoyed your idealisations and find that in some capacities it's true, but I believe you are mistaking the idea of Ideal for Present. If you imagine business a priori, you could imagine two people engaging in the simple task of bartering. One person has something the other wants, and the other person has something the One has. They trade. Both of them are happy because they got what they want. This scenario instead implies Desire and Aquisition. Then it becomes a situation that is not merely one-sided like you seem to be postulating.

That's your entire problem is that you seem to imagine this as a one-way situation involving only one circumstance.


"Sure, they'd need more and better education to be small business owners, executives or scientists, but shouldn't you be pointing at our own government's motivations and, ahem, government run education system when you start to play your blame game? "

Sure. I've said plenty of times that part of the problems here is that we have a shitty education system. As one of the most modern and supposedly innovative nations, as you put it, we should be capable of bringing up healthy people, right? I mentioned that in another thread not long ago. I don't really know why the government does it, but they seem to like people stupid.
But the simple fact is we don't, for some reason people in this country are barely educated. Aren't we one of the only countries in the world who charges for college? Thanks "Capitalism!". Sure, there's options for financial aid and such, but who wants to be in debt most of their lives? Most people are too stupid to find grants or some kind of cheap system. Why aren't the colleges teaching them how to get them..? What was it you said, they are more interested in 'Profit'?
I'll take this down a purely pointless angle to elicit emotional response: what if our children's toys were made by people who are "Profit". Think about our children, good sir, and the idea that their education is mostly maintained by people our for profit.
Which brings me to my next point; we're talking about a country that had at least some vested interest in oil obtained through a war by a presidency who's company is reaping the rewards? How do you expect educated people and a good education system with a government that is more reliant on profit than quality?
If the government's job is to make profits, how is it going to restrict business? Why would it? That's the entire method for republicans, right, the trickle down effect or whatever. How does that work when companies are relocating for more profits?

With philosophies like that you're going to breed a nation of starbucks employees and business owners/operators. But then, you said the government's purpose is to gain power; but having power isn't good when your motivations are placed in the thing you're supposed to restrict. I suppose that it's impossible to be entirely detached from it, but there's certainly more eligible angles available.

The rest of what you were saying was just another attack on bad human nature. Essentially that people are slothful, and not really interested in being motivated towards any greater goods. Essentially saying "We" let it get out of control. No, "We" did nothing. I believe people who suffer from personality afflictions like greed and sloth are alot different than I am, because they have no motivation to make anything better but just to perpetuate their lifestyle as simple as possible. (I'm not really saying this to say I'm better than them, simply to point out the results of the system we are discussing.)
You say the Government is designed to restrict this nature, but how can you expect them to do so when they suffer the same afflictions? Many of these ethics stem from problems like big business and government themselves. Rich people abusing their wealth and keeping people poor and uneducated isn't some new thing.

"Union labor used to be a big selling point among American consumers, so companies abused themselves with it willingly. "

Yea ;/ More examples of people who wanted profit. I'm sure the union board people weren't slicing the tabs, were they?


I expect that you reasonably agree with most of the above?


"Shouldn't we be helping them to advance?"

Yea, that's not unreasonable at all. Remember that food for oil thing. That was a great effort, I thought(kind of). Didn't it suffer from some strange leech like beast? How can you expect to really advance the world up to "our point". Why would we want to? It's not like we're the healthiest bunch of rascals. I'd rather see things fixed in a good state here before we start cutting off limbs. Kind of hard to heal up if you don't have that good nutrition.

"Unfortunately, our founding fathers were not so prescient as to include a specific wall between commerce and state, as is made obvious by even a cursory examination of the current state of economic affairs in our modern system of governance. "

No but seriously I agree entirely. That plithy statement earlier and this would be in line together. Considering I imagine the connections between Government and "Capitalism" to be thinly seperated, you'll see we agree entirely. Maybe we should demand serperation of Work and State ;(

"I like people, and I trust them to strive for a better life, generally, and given the most encouragement to do so possible. "

That's exactly what anarchism is about, who told you otherwise? It emphasizes a "Family and friend's" community that is self-sustaining(food and water, possibly clothing) while maintaining connections with modern day technology and knowledge, essentially. Each person is charged with maintaining needs of the community. It's sort of like the Amish, in a way, but as i said; maintining connections with modern day technology(solar lighting, eg) and without the stiffy philosophies and nature.

I realize there was alot more that you wrote, but my writing is getting too disorganized.

[Preechr]

I'm gonna go ahead and respond point for point, but there's about to be a lot of repetition here. You are hearing things I'm not actually saying, and ignoring a lot of what I AM saying. We haven't actually gotten to the point at which you will decide to disagree completely with me yet, so I'm gonna take a run at this and then try to re-engage davin.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I see, here's where I think we come to some differences.

I enjoyed your idealisations and find that in some capacities it's true, but I believe you are mistaking the idea of Ideal for Present.

I'm gonna take a wild, screaming leap at what this means. When I talk about the ideal society and it's structure, I am referencing a blueprint mostly just contained in my head. It is based in various philosophies and studies, though much of it is just crap I've made up. That being said, I'm fairly confident in it, but since I'm discussing it with random folks I meet here and there, one could surmise that I'm willing to take criticism on it. You'd have to know me a bit better to realize that I take criticism fairly well, and that discussions like this one are how I hack out the details of my general ideas.

There are two ways you should look at my presentation here in order to understand where I'm going with it. Yes, I am speaking of an idealized, possibly romantic and unrealistic version of a future that could happen... But I am also basing my ideas in extrapolations of history. You already know that I'm a big fan of the origins of the great American experiment. I love the Founding Fathers, the Constitution... that whole point in history. Think about that real hard and read very carefully what I'm about to type for you.

Up until that point in history, humans were at the tail end of a pretty fucked up path. The ideas America was founded upon were not just something a few colonists pulled out of their asses one day after drinking a bit too much at a pool party. The concepts were revolutionary only because they were actually implemented into the formation a big new government. The Constitutional Conventions were basically just a bunch of smart guys sitting around discussing the newest concepts and the most revolutionary ideas in governence and seeing if they could squeeze them all into one cohesive plan for a baby government.

They pretty much pulled it off. It was pretty cool. Remember the little Saturday morning cartoon about the Shot Heard Round the World? That's what they were talking about.

Unfortunately, we have since somewhat strayed from the path we originally committed to forge for the world. We were doing very well up until the Civil War, but we took our black eye and got right back to business. We once again struck to our idealistic and naive path. Unfortunately, a few things got in our way, and combined with the recent experience with war and a few weirdos that got a kick out of it's effect on the people as well as the profits such a thing might generate for a few well-invested weirdos, we got ourselves mixed up in WW1.

Even more unfortuante for us, as well as what might have been the world's more immediate future, another seed of destruction was also being sewn into the fabric of our experiment: Communism. There was a reason that particular style of government was in such fashion about that time. It was the new "war." It was the newest innovation in slavery. The weirdo war-profiteers we had developed here in the states were just now catching on to the concept and beginning to find influence in our government, and their European brothers were already moving on to the next big way to eliminate freedom.

By the end of WW2, our experiment in Libertarianism was under attack by two well-formed enemies, one within and one external, and they had learned to work together.

Now, our government is in the control of folks that have developed a plan for combining the best elements of both plans for the domination of mankind. I'm not saying Bush is that guy, nor am I saying he's an ignorant or well-meaning pawn or on the other side.
I am saying that the concepts and precepts of Socialism had been imbedded at that point so well into the fabric of our society over here, at a time when Americans were at the lowest point yet in their diligence for and understanding of the experiment in freedom they represented, that arguments against it just were not strong enough.

We have yet to recover.

Now we are spreading Socialism through War. Cool, ain't it? We are funding it through leashing capitalism, which is just another way of saying economic freedom, too...

Again, I am NOT suggesting any sort of government conspiracy here. Make no mistake: This is a Democratic time in which we are living. "We the People" are responsible for all of our current events, just as are all of the citizens of the modern world. Within us lies the blame for our failures so far, just as in us lies the solutions. Either way, the future of the world is up to us.

Thank you if you read through that.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

If you imagine business a priori, you could imagine two people engaging in the simple task of bartering. One person has something the other wants, and the other person has something the One has. They trade. Both of them are happy because they got what they want. This scenario instead implies Desire and Aquisition. Then it becomes a situation that is not merely one-sided like you seem to be postulating.

That's your entire problem is that you seem to imagine this as a one-way situation involving only one circumstance.

I'm not exactly sure, again, what it is you are saying or where you are getting it from.

I'm trying to imagine a one-sided situation using the framework of your alternate example, but I guess I'm just coming up short in the imagination department tonight...

Instead of doing more of that, maybe I'll just re-explain my previosly stated position: Doing business with one another is, as I see it, you competing with someone else for some sort of value you might gain. In the world of business, business-people assign a name for this value: Money. Cash. Rather than fully explain to you, in yet another tangent, how a Mom-and-Pop grocery store can be sold for financial remuneration, I'm gonna define just exactly what I mean by money.

It's often said that money is the root of all evil, but I consider that an incredibly cynical point of view. There's another old saying: "Time is Money," and I like that one better. I REALLY like the corollary to that one: Money is Time. Just as miles are a unit of measurement of distance, money is a unit of measurement of time. I'm all over that crap, man!

From there, I can imagine a world without inequity. The only variable is how happy you can make yourself feel about whichever of each you have. Human unhappiness, I'll propose, is more the root of all evil than is collected time. A man without a job generally has no money, but a man might trade some of his time for money by getting a job. Past that, that man might invest his time wisely and maximize the money he takes in trade for it.

There is always the other option, however. I hate to bring up Brazil again, but it serves as a great example here. Now, I'm gonna introduce you to the concept of complimental currency, to which I was introduced by a very liberal professor of economics. In many poor countries, the people have developed a method for attaining certain things that their culture requires of them yet their financial situation might obstruct. Again, a good example is the Carnivale celebrations of South America...

These are celebrations that honor the poor of that continent. These folks have established themselves in communities, and each community contributes to the overall celebration. Here's the kicker, though: None of the communities want to be perceived as less than any of the others. Common sense will tell you that all of these communities have different economic pictures, but competition requires that they each contribute to Carnivale equally.

Those that do not have as much money as others to invest invest their TIME to a larger proportion. Those that have more money to invest save their time. Everybody has a good time at Carnivale.

You want another example? The people of Japan honor their elderly much moreso than do we in the West. It is expected of the young to care for the old, yet their society has also adopted a very aggressive view of commercial activity, which often requires a producer to live wherever she can find the best job. The monkey wrench in there is that grandma and grandpa won't go with you to wherever your new job takes you, and yet you are still expected to provide for them to a point and GIVE THEM THEIR BATHS.

Notice, this is not a poor society I'm talking about here, either. The same sort of cultural clash with economics exists here, and again, the time is money (money is time) thing sorts it all out. If I leave my grandaprents in Tokyo to work in Nagasaki, and you leave Nagasaki to go to college in Tokyo, we can arrange to trade time spent bathing each other's elderly as if we were swapping yen or even putting money in the bank to pay for future needs required of an elderly relative that's not in need just yet of such services.

It's a really interesting diversion. Go Google the words: fureai kippu. I'll get to the point...

If you want to say that I think of commerce as a one sided situation, I'll go with that. I think it is, because I am honest enough with myself to understand that I can only ever hope to see life through my own eyes, and I see business as me making money for whatever reason I personally desire to do so. I can only assume you would do the same.

In that light, maybe I do believe commerce a one sided situation. Were you suggesting that I venture out into the hard, cold world of the daily grind worried that I make sure each of my competitors do better than me?

God, I hope not...

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"Sure, they'd need more and better education to be small business owners, executives or scientists, but shouldn't you be pointing at our own government's motivations and, ahem, government run education system when you start to play your blame game? "

Sure. I've said plenty of times that part of the problems here is that we have a shitty education system. As one of the most modern and supposedly innovative nations, as you put it, we should be capable of bringing up healthy people, right? I mentioned that in another thread not long ago.

I said we were inoovative by nature. I inferred that our educational system and our economic model is built in such a way as to leech that out of us. I believe in the "American Spirit." We are all related to people that threw their lives away and moved to a totally different part of the world in search of a dream. Those that belong to families that stuck around in Crap-town, waiting on a dream to come to them, are not cut from the same cloth as we are. Additionally, I am verifying my supposition by simply looking at the record history has made available to me and sitting down to figure out what made what happened so. I tried to do that from an unbiased perspective, but I might not have succeeded...

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I don't really know why the government does it, but they seem to like people stupid.

THAT just made my sig, dude.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

But the simple fact is we don't, for some reason people in this country are barely educated. Aren't we one of the only countries in the world who charges for college? Thanks "Capitalism!". Sure, there's options for financial aid and such, but who wants to be in debt most of their lives? Most people are too stupid to find grants or some kind of cheap system. Why aren't the colleges teaching them how to get them..?

Why indeed?

Wait, let's start over at the beginning of that... I see the need in this because I've already read the rest of your post and I can see a big idea you are missing.

Let me ask you a question: What in this world have you ever had that you valued yet which was given to you for nothing? Think real hard about the way in which I phrased that question, please. What is nothing? I'm not talking about something that was given to you for the price of something which you valued. Nothing. Remember, I consider time to be on an equal value level as money. If you spend a lot of time with your grandpa, for example, and he leaves you his time-share in his will, you value that property in relation to the time you two spent together.

I know I could spend a lot of time droning on and on within this thread of logic, however I have become accustomed to your style of communication enough to understand that you won't get this the first time, and in deference to the other readers (and davin as well as for the sake of time,) I'm gonna move on, leaving you with another phrase to ponder: "Found Money."

Originally Posted by kahljorn

What was it you said, they are more interested in 'Profit'?

I'll take this down a purely pointless angle to elicit emotional response: what if our children's toys were made by people who are "Profit".

That's totally NOT sig-worthy. What does that even mean?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Think about our children, good sir, and the idea that their education is mostly maintained by people our for profit.

I would propse to you that our government run educational system is run for the purposes of government. What is it that I told you constitutes the currency of government? POWER. Public education is a function of the transfer of power.

Now, it used to be that education was intended to leave one with a well-rounded knowledge base on many levels. Not so, anymore. Now, we feed our children directly into the chipper-shredder of the business world, and the educators have taken up the flag of "training our kids to make money and be successful."

Is that what you believe you got from you education? At what point were you trained to balance a checkbook in school? Please contrast that date with the date on which you received your first credit card offer in the mail.

Hopefully, you can see that government funded education is only ever gonna hope to leech power from you; to enslave you. The only hope we have comes from education for which you might actually have had to sacrifice something.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Which brings me to my next point; we're talking about a country that had at least some vested interest in oil obtained through a war by a presidency who's company is reaping the rewards?

Ok, geggy...

Originally Posted by kahljorn

How do you expect educated people and a good education system with a government that is more reliant on profit than quality?

Easy. Get government out of the education industry and give it back over to the people most interested in making sure our kids don't wind up slaves to someone: our parents.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

If the government's job is to make profits...

IT'S NOT! GOVERNMENT EXISTS TO ACCUMULATE POWER.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

...How is it going to restrict business?

IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO!

Did you read the thing I wrote about the three pillars of society? Business is one, Government is a separate one. We don't want to form an exchange rate between money and power.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

That's the entire method for republicans, right, the trickle down effect or whatever. How does that work when companies are relocating for more profits?

You have yet to grasp that what happens is not exactly best summed up as those who propose to sum it up for us wish to do so. You hear R's talk about trickling down and you contrast that with the D's summation of reality to such ideology, and without any additonal data garnered from some sort of logical supposition of your own creation, it's easy to see how you could jump to the conclusion that those that do not wish to give you stuff for free... stuff such as a job... would decide instead to give your job to someone on which they could could save a bit of salary.

Ever considered earning a living?

Originally Posted by kahljorn

With philosophies like that you're going to breed a nation of starbucks employees and business owners/operators.

You gotta think that through some more. I'm saying that our economy would be healthiest when based in highly paid though highly educated (continuously) innovators and supported by varying levels of service entrepreneurs. Remember: Time is money. Each of us can choose to trade however we wish in whatever way makes us happiest.

Rather than being a narrow set of options, we'll actually have the most career freedom possible. Get a corporate job in today's America if you need more background on where we're currently headed.

You know what? I'm gonna stop going point for point for you for the sake of pithity. I'll continue to respond, but I'VE GOT TO GET TO BED. Money is time, y'know...

Please let me know where this has got you headed, but tomorrow night I'm going to respond to davin's earlier comments first, in hopes of drawing him back into the conversation... no offense...

I stand by all of my earlier tangents, however, as the best way I know of to have contributed to this discussion.

HAVE A NICE DAY.

[kahljorn]

"I'm not exactly sure, again, what it is you are saying or where you are getting it from. "

My point was that business isn't just merely the accumulation of money but the aquisition of desires(especially since currency didn't even originally exist, not that I'm saying it's a bad thing). This may involve trading "Money" or it may involve trading chickens, but the fundamental purpose of business for all of man-kind(not just the businesses) is aquisition of things you need/want. Somehow contrast that with your ideas of life supposed to be happy etc. Essentially I was just undermining one of your three pillars...

The reason I said "Government is out for profit" is because, for the capacity of this thread, they are. I don't think we've ever had a government like this before that had such a vested interest in money(not to say that others haven't, because all of them have). You can argue that it doesn't have any interest in money(national deficit), but have fun trying to explain why money(Budget) was taken out of New Orleans to be put into iraq so they could get oil. I don't really care if you consider that paranoia, the simple fact is they invaded a country and are now receiving oil through the vice-president's former company. Don't think he's not getting some money from that.

"I'm trying to imagine a one-sided situation using the framework of your alternate example"

It wasn't supposed to be one-sided, it was supposed to fit the capacity of multiple circumstances, that is why I said, "Your entire problem is that you...". Business making money is good for people who run businesses, but not good for the how many ever other millions who are running on the concept of, "Desire and Aquisition".

"Doing business with one another is, as I see it, you competing with someone else for some sort of value you might gain."

I don't really believe you can "Gain value". That's all a myth that was created, but I do think you can gain Food and shelter and other things necessary to your survival. That's what business was all about, originally. "I have no food but you do but you have no horse shoes how about I make you some horse shoes for some food". Get it? Business is done so people who don't have certain things they need for their survival(like food) can receive it in trade for an item of equal 'value'. This is how humans think who don't own billion dollar businesses.

"I said we were inoovative by nature. I inferred that our educational system and our economic model is built in such a way as to leech that out of us."

Me too.

"THAT just made my sig, dude. "

Is that an honor or something?

"Public education is a function of the transfer of power. "

Then why is it that one of the biggest concerns for public education is how much funding it receives? Why indeed? Could it be because our government places it's "Power" in how much money it has? Could it be because that is how most governments are based? Notice, the more powerful countries usually have more money(and are usually doing things to earn more), while the poorer ones usually have less or have it more concentrated in their government then in their people. How exactly does that fit in?
Like I said, you seem to be confusing ideal for the present.

"What does that even mean?"

It means the people who make our children's toys make cheap knock of products or whatever you said because they are more interested in money than delivering a product, which could unintentionally harm our children. Like I said, Purely emotional response.

"Is that what you believe you got from you education? At what point were you trained to balance a checkbook in school? Please contrast that date with the date on which you received your first credit card offer in the mail."

I learned that the government cares more about pocketing a couple million from cutting the education budget than they do about actually educating.

"Hopefully, you can see that government funded education is only ever gonna hope to leech power from you; to enslave you."

Yea, I can see that and I even understand it. That's why I said "Healthy citizens" and all that jazz, and commented on how the government likes stupid people. YOU JUST MADE MY SIG!

"Get government out of the education industry and give it back over to the people most interested in making sure our kids don't wind up slaves to someone: our parents. "

Hand education over to people who were barely educated by our government? Over to people who may or may not be chester the molester?

"Government is a separate one. We don't want to form an exchange rate between money and power. "

Our entire government is based on money. It's ability to have the power to "Build roads", "Goto war" and "Refurbish a city" (even making laws costs money for some reason) or whatever governmental power you want to talk about is going to be based on how much money the budget can spare for it. Dare I say, "Duh"? That's why I said "If" at the begining, it was a hypothetical situation imagining the people who run our government as being interested in money and considering it in their day to day affairs when they appropriate their governmental "Power". Oh so hypothetical.

"IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO! "

It's supposed to restrict, "Bad human nature" (according to you) and I'm saying that many businesses are run by "Bad human nature". What do you consider bad human nature exactly? You know what, nevermind. Just ignore the idea that government should restrict business from treating everyone like slaves. Minimum wage? Who needs it! Those bastards deserve a penny for every piece of clothing they stitch! Think of all of that profit

"it's easy to see how you could jump to the conclusion that those that do not wish to give you stuff for free... stuff such as a job... would decide instead to give your job to someone on which they could could save a bit of salary. "

What does this even mean? That it's okay to give jobs away because I don't have a job and I demand one for free? People ALREADY HAD THESE JOBS. They were, ALREADY EARNING A LIVING. I really only threw the trickle down effect as a "Hey why the fuck not" type thing, but you are essentially outlining the trickle-down effect when you say businesses purpose is to create profit, even at the price of quality and whatever sins they commited in the process.

"I'm saying that our economy would be healthiest when based in highly paid though highly educated (continuously) innovators and supported by varying levels of service entrepreneurs."

Now you're somehow completely forgetting the present. How are people in our country going to be highly educated with a shitty education system that is shitty because our government is more interested in money than educating people? I agree that that would be awesome, but that's not the way things are. This article was about the present, right, not 50 years in the future? The majority of this country is not "Highly Educated". End of story.

The philosophies you are describing are currently in effect, and really aren't working too well. I've never seen a business that wasn't out for profit, I've never seen a government that didn't want power. The only thing that's different in the seperation of Work and State.

Again, though, with parents educating you're touching on anarchist ideas again.

The entire problem with your philosophy is that you are essentially quoting a rock paper scissors game. Business beats the people, but government beats business, and the people beat government! They don't beat government when they are 'stupid' and poorly educated, and Government doesn't beat business when business is supplying the Government with it's power. Our government practically is a business, that's why you might notice a trend of most of our presidents being successful business men who are all millionaire's or more.

P.S. Since you're a big fan of corny sayings, have you ever heard this one? Money is power.

[davinxtk]

I'm waiting.

[kahljorn]

Surprisingly, so am I. Almost suspensful, but I'm in fear of an anticlimatic situation ;(

[Preechr]

Sorry guys. I was away for work Thursday, and busy as hell since. I'll be back on later this evening and I'll review where we're at and file an update.

[Preechr]

Ok... Hopefully TONIGHT I will have the time to sit down and do something with this mess. Sorry for the delay. Hopefully ya'll have had plenty of time to read through what I've already posted really well.

[Preechr]

Ok... back to it. I hope I have the energy to delve as deeply back into this as I want to...

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

I can't say I ever understood the "stuff" argument to begin with. First of all, that's all relative. Consumption is bound to go up across the board, especially if we've outsourced all of the "stuff" making.

Honestly, that fails the logic sniff test. If we've outsourced all the "stuff-making," how do we still have enough jobs to generate the income for the increased consumption you are claiming is proportionate to the jobs we've lost?

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Secondly, doesn't most "stuff" become a negative asset, or equity whatever, once it has been bought? (I recall the story of the new car leaving the lot)

Does being a nation of people with a lot of worthless stuff make us wealthy?

Personal property does devalue over time, but the point of the "stuff" was to show that the luxurious encoutrements allowed by our our modern economy add to the quality of our lives. That is very true. Our lives are quantitatively better now than in frontier days or the middle ages. People love stuff. We have more stuff than we used to. That's why the "stuff argument" is effective.

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

"As of 1970, for example, only about a third of American homes had both central heating and air conditioning, while more than four-fifths had both in the 1990s. Moreover, the homes themselves were more than one-third larger. "

Larger, cheaper, and built with lower quality ("McMansions" anyone?). I think things such as this are poor indicators of wealth.

I agree with you, but you are tilting at windmills here. The economy cannot be blamed for shoddily built homes, Kev. If you want a viable argument against the article, you are gonna have to shoot more towards the idea that a managed economy on the level that we currently enjoy is bad, which would be a fiscally conservative argument I don't know you are ready for.

[Preechr]

Ok, here we talking to davin...

Originally Posted by davinxtk

Not... really. The argument for a greater distribution of wealth is a rather nuanced one, provided you're trying to keep some semblence of a capitalist free market alive in your theories. It's not that consideration for the weakest of the community is primary over that for the strongest producers, it's that production is accross the board a rather abstract concept. You can't use the same scale of production for a waiter as you do for a coal miner or a deli clerk or a CPA or a mechanic or a dry-cleaner or a cabbie. Does every one of them need food? Do many of them have families that as well need food? Health care? Housing? Running water, electricity, heat, clothing? Do you think enough consideration is given when setting wages to cover these aspects for everyone who works a full time job? Do you think it's directly related to productivity in even fifty percent of circumstances?

I can do exactly that when I buy into the idea that the cabbie and the waitress go to work with the best interests, at least as best as they can individually discern, of their respective families in mind. Remember, I believe that government is inherently the LEAST effective method of delivery for societal services. You are apparently operating from the point of view that governemnt is inherently the accepted mechanism for this kind of distribution.

We will knock heads on this if that's right, y'know...

You said: "The subtext here is that I feel your devotion to a free market clouds your judgement about the healthiness of its practices."

I would counter that your devotion to altruism has devaluated your priorities in such a way as to have made the concept of personal responsibility about as important to a healthy society as cat hygiene.

Please recall that I'm always giving capitalism a pass on whatever evils might be blamed upon it. If I am devoted obsessively to anything, it is the pipedream of PURE capitalism as it might one day yet exist. Whenever you might point to some sort of "E-e-evil of Capitalism," I'll invariably object that you've chosen to highlight a perfect example of capitalism practiced badly which is only allowed to survive and flourish thanks to an unholy alliance with the incredible power of government, practiced badly.

I'm holding this stance for the same reason you've chosen to allow room in your idealization of life for free markets. I simply refuse to accept that capitalism as we have it is as good as it gets, just as do you. The big difference between us on this is that I think the leash needs to disappear where you think it should be tightened. I accept competition as a natural, healthy part of the human life experience where you believe it should be managed and diluted to the point that nobody gets hurt.

I like the idea that people are naturally punished for bad decisions. I know that that process does in fact exist naturally, and that it's existance has benefitted me personally to a very considerable degree. It's not that I like punishment... it's just that I like the idea that a higher order is existant. I choose not to believe in a human experience based in animalistic existence. You, as it happens, do not. On the whole, you would prefer to believe that the best of us at any given moment are naturally charged with the responsibility for the rest of us.

I just don't think so highly of me.

I recognize that I am quantitatively forwards of most of us standing in this line. I'm willing to bet I can see you and most of us here from my position. I have learned, however, to avoid the entry level trap of believing that my own particular natural excellence has any bearing whatsoever on my immediate future. That, I would submit, is entirely up to me.

Originally Posted by davinxtk

For the most part I agree with the concepts presented here. I must concede to the fact that a decent work ethic is hard to find among many citizens, but in a society that attempts to teach us from day one that we can "do whatever we want" in this "free country" only to be delivered to harsh economic realities often in our teenage years you have to expect at least some discontent. If your argument is that Americans need to toughen up and get down to business, quit fucking around with popular culture and advertisements and bling and cribs and the like and actually do what's best for themselves... how can I argue with you? But this isn't going to be spurred by the poor suddenly waking up and correcting their horrendous spending habits, getting second and third jobs, and finding the motivation (and job openings) to move into management from entry-level positions. The trickle-down economy isn't quite working right, too much of the resources flow immediately back to the top.

There's a reason for that. Care to guess where I'm gonna point you now? I've already told you. Hint: Bad Capitalism.

Just because Republicans glommed onto the term "trickle down" doesn't necessarily mean that they own it's meaning... no moreso than that Communists started calling themselves progressive means that they are for progress or that Bud Light actually tastes better than something.

Trickle down works. What we have is not a trickle down economy. What we have is a managed economy. You, just like most of the folks that might be reading this, were born a bit above the rest of us in terms of what with which you might be one day sucessfully accused.

Originally Posted by davinxtk

The initial sacrifices are going to have to be made by the rich, as it's the poor who need the leg-up..

Since you typed this in, I have gone on to state pretty boldly that the false reality that wants you to believe that discouraging the activity of producers might somehow encourage non-producers to get up off the couch and make fucking something out of them-fucking-selves is pretty much a load of crap, so I will try my best to avoid restatement of my previously stated position.

If you need a potato, you are the one I can trust most to make sure that need is fulfilled. Should I go to the potato farm and steal you a potato? What about the farm owner? Why is it somehow better if I steal your potato when you won't? Somewhere, the idea that you might be inspired to seek your own potato goals by the example of my own potato growth success has gotten lost in favor of some sort of sick-ass, twisted version of how things really work...

You said you believed in a work ethic, and you implied that you understood that you get the value of capitalism in at least a general sense. I'm thinking you can work out where I'm headed here. It's way too late now for me to keep this up. Throw me some of what you got in the way of argument.

[Kulturkampf]

Modern culture is shit, and ancient culture is shit; but punk rock is forever and it is better.

Fuck the rich and the poor and a concept of income.

You aren't your job, you are each beer you drink in the evening.

Love your nations because you love the mountains, lakes, rivers, deserts, and wide expanses that make up your beautiful nation, and because you are your father's son.

Income.... It is unimportant.

[Spectre X]

SHUT UP YOU FUCKING SPAZ

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by Spectre X

SHUT UP YOU FUCKING SPAZ

Modern culture is trash and you should only listen to yourself and do exactly what you want.

do not be defeated by anything, and do not let anything get you down, and you cannot think of the world from perspecive of an economic loss.

we become stronger through a suffering and we are going to be the best.


we cannot do anything but work.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

Modern culture is shit, and ancient culture is shit; but punk rock is forever and it is better.

oi oi oi???

[kahljorn]

Was what I said about Governmental power being based on money too stupid to respond to or something? I thought it was a good point, but maybe I'm too thick in the drug haze or something. What do you guys think?

KK: Those poems are one of the few things you've ever said that made me laugh.

[Kulturkampf]

My poems are a comedy and a tragedy for everyone, and those weren't poems; they were just thougts that were not organized or bound by modern definitions of writing and style. Who knows what they were?

Government is powerful because of Faith -- faith in pieces of paper representing actual value, faith in ideals that keep us as united and protected.

[kahljorn]

Yea, I figured they weren't. I just combined them all in my head like a horrible sonnet or something.

[El Blanco]

All this discussion about the wealthy and the poor, and no ranxer or Zuhkov.

[Preechr]

Isn't that odd?

Kahl, it's not that. I was trying to respond in order last night, but I was also trying to do some other stuff and I got a bit distracted. I didn't post as much as I wanted.

To answer your point, though, in a general sense I still think you're looking at it wrong. Yes, politicians get paid to do their jobs, and yes, most of what the government does day to day is shuffling money around. You have to ask yourself though: Why do they do what they do? What is their motivation. The answer is clearly not involving the accumulation of wealth.

If your goal was the accumulation of wealth, would you set out to reach it by spending trillions of dollars on social programs? Would you waste cash on the level that governments do? Power is a decidedly different thing from money. If you have 10 million dollars and I have but ten cents, you have no inherent power over me until you decide to buy some power with your money... Just as you have no cattle until you BUY some with your money.

Money may offer you advantages over those that have less of it, but not if it's just sitting in the bank doing nothing. What you see as a cash engine is a motor that runs on money but produces power. When the government levies a tax on you, yes, it reduces your bottom line, but the net effect is that you lose the potential advantage of having that money in your pocket. The money was potential energy, where those advantages you might have gained from spending it however you might have had it not been taken from you would have been an active, kinetic force to be used to your benefit, given you hadn't planned on pissing it away on tina and lottery tickets. That kinetic force was your potential power.

The government taxes you in order to remove your power in certain ways. One obvious example is to support the poor. I work with handicapped kids, and thus within the confines of what Medicaid will pay for. Confront any parent of a handicapped child with libertarian theories on social programs, and prepare yourself for a heated argument. Many people, especially those living every day in direct need of financial help at the risk of their child's health or even survival, believe that were it not for government taking on the responsibility of forcing their neighbors to contribute to their aid they would be left to shrivel and die.

To a point, they are kinda right. The situation is much more complex than one for which I could reasonably offer you a quick fix. I believe very much in people. I also believe our society, at least the American part of it with which I am most familiar, is sick. When I am told that were government social programs to disappear, many good people that depend on that assistance would suffer and die because people will only care for them when forced, I ask why that is. I would propose an answer: Because we have grown accustomed to government handling these sorts of responsibilities for us. We have learned that it is Ok to ignore other people's problems... that government will take care of them for us.

You wake up each day with the power to make a very real difference in the lives of those you might meet. You have the potential power to change the world around you for the better. What we have done by delegating these responsibilities to the State is that we have transferred what is possibly our most important powers over to government. We gave "at the office."

I tend toward being a Romantic. I can easily be accused of living in a fantasy world by what I post on message boards. IRL, I let my ideologies govern my decisions, but I live very much in the real world we all share. What I am asking of you, kahl, is to walk with me into my ideology and help me iron out the details while figuring out for me how the transition from our world to this might best be made. You tend to argue blindly, preferring to pick on the details of whomever you've decided to engage, ignoring the big picture. Argument is a process of agreement, not dissent.

You can be pretty frustrating to talk to, and I have ignored you in the past because you over-focus sometimes on points I don't think can be made... and sometimes you're just too high to make any sense... but in this discussion I will try my best to address any point you bring up. I work a lot though, so you might have to be patient with me between posts. Before jumping to attack, try attempting to fit each question you have into a larger picture of a world you might actually enjoy living within.

I'm gonna go back and work on the posts I've missed now...

[Kulturkampf]

Certain programs are needed to help out the most impoverished and provide opportunities to people, however I still have to say that we cannot view wealth as a problem or as an issue to consummate our whole lives.

The strength of a nation is in a willingness to pull itself up by the bootstraps as opposed to bring down the more fortunate people.

[Preechr]

I'm working on one here, but it's beddy-time.

Nite Nite