Myths of rich and poor

[davinxtk]

I don't have much time right now and I already lost this post once...




Do you really believe that capitalism lends itself well to the egalitarian traits of human nature?
Do you believe that with the bottom line being stressed as a make it or break it situation, humans will reach out to those who fall behind on their own? Is that capitalism?
Are you under the impression that this farcical societal bent in human nature owes itself to anything other than religious or state encouragement?

Your "big 'C'" Capitalism is what capitalism is. We are the big it, are we not? This is capitalism in practice with a republic, and it isn't working.

If you really think that humans are anything but animals, we may never see eye to eye. Human nature combined with capitalism is the doorway to your animalistic existance.

It's bad capitalism to behave like anything but an animal.
Chew on that for now?

[kahljorn]

"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. "

I didn't necessarily say the accumulation of wealth. I said that Governmental power is limited by how much money is around. Governmental power is limited by the money it has, and when we have more money we have more power. I was essentially saying that Governmental power is a direct result of money. In an ECONOMICAL way, this makes sense(this is a thread about the economy, right?). It also makes sense in alot of other ways.

"would you set out to reach it by spending trillions of dollars on social programs?"

Hm, well, I have to say this is a decent point. However, it's pretty simple to see through. If it didn't invest in social programs people would be pissed and possibly rebel. It seems to me if I was trying to accumulate wealth/power I would strive to maintain a balance between getting alot of money and keeping people from getting too pissed off. That much seems obvious; because there's a demand for it.
If the government was really interesting in spending "Trillions of dollars on social programs" they could divide the trillion dollars by the amount of poor people in the world and give them all a shitload of money so they wouldn't be poor and tell them not to act like dicks or they won't get anymore.
Anyway, I don't really see how that argues my point, I just wanted to throw that in there for no reason ;(
Also, I never said that Government didn't invest in social programs.

"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. "

Um, okay. I have the ability to buy cattle, but you don't. I also have the ability to buy anything else i want, while you don't. I can do anything with my money, while you'd be lucky to afford a gumball. Big difference in power, because you have the power to do very little while I have the power to do alot. Having options is a part of having power. Just like having POWER OVER A PERSON doesn't necessarily involve you stabbing them with knives or forcing them to do your laundry, but just in the fact that if you wanted to, you could.

"Money may offer you advantages over those that have less of it, but not if it's just sitting in the bank doing nothing."

If it's just sitting in the bank doing nothing it's usually gaining interest. Having more advantages is having more power.

"What you see as a cash engine is a motor that runs on money but produces power."

Right, but it still needs money to produce power. Are you not making the distinction? If the government doesn't have money it doesn't have power. If the business' purpose is to create money, and the government's purpose is to create power from that money the seperation of State and Business has been ruined. Hence why it undermines your philosophy.

"That kinetic force was your potential power. "

And it's all based on money, further supporting my theory.

"One obvious example is to support the poor."

There's poor people in america? Because I thought this thread was about how there's no poor people in america, it's a myth, remember? Welp, about time to wrap this up!

[kahljorn]

No but seriously I'll respond to your other stuff, even if I don't have much to say about it.

"You tend to argue blindly, preferring to pick on the details of whomever you've decided to engage, ignoring the big picture."

Big pictures are made of details. Besides, this thread is all about details; "Well this many people have dishwashers, that's pretty good right?". "People in america aren't as poor as people elsewhere!" What about the whole social program part of your post? That's a detail. Let's not talk about details, because we all talk about details.
My big picture is the future world, and I look at everthing a person says and try to see what effect it could have. I simply look at your basic philosophy that you are going by, which effects all your other philosophies or rolls them into one, and I find a critical flaw. Whether it's important or not, you delegated importance to it due to the fact that you said the seperation of Government and Business is important; the idea is inherent in your basic philosophy, if it wasn't important why would you have a philosophy for it?
The fact that government creates it's power from the money created by business makes your seperation FLAWED. Besides that, it brings validity to many of my points. If you want to iron out the details of your philosophy, that's exactly what I'm doing.

Some of the shit you're saying basically runs down to this;
"Everything business does is fine because it's supposed to make money".
"Fuck american's their poor is better than other poor people help other poor people become as rich as the poor people in america while making poor people in america more poor".
"My plan is to make the poor of the world equally poor".

How is that looking at the big picture? The big picture is that there's ALOT OF POOR people and a few rich people. The big picture is that rich people want to become more rich and don't want to share their money with poor people(for the most part). Those are the big pictures. How can you ignore them in favor of the big picture of business needing more money so it can.. what? What will that do other than making rich people richer? What the fuck do they do with their money, because they certainly don't use it for the advancement of the human race like you might be implying.

"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. "

I guess the Government has too much "power" because instead of us having money and power we're poor and need help from the rich and powerful. I'm still failing to see how any of this argues that there is no rich or poor in america and everything is fine. If anything, everything you've said has agreed with the fact.

Anyway, I'm going to take that down a strange avenue called dependence. If you use your mind you could stretch it to include why government's create social programs, why they do the various things they do; dependence. Dependence is a sort of power, no? You have power over anybody dependent on you. That's why our government likes poor, disadvantaged and stupid people. The dependence is born out of the fact that these people have no money(or power), while the government does. It's a simple psychological ploy playing on people's need for a teet to suck on when they feel pathetic and alone. They do alot of other things like that, too, and why wouldn't they? (it's a way to gain power, and they are supposed to gain power, right? That's the other type of power government's seek to acheive; especially one's based on the foundation of 'Choice'/voting.)

What realms do you think the government should take part in? Obviously, economically, especially if you have an economy like america. Why social, though? Do we really rely on the government to tell us it's okay to be Gay, or that it's not okay to be gay? What do you think this does to the psychology of people in america? Again, I belive the most important goal of the government is the raising of healthy, successful people who are a credit to the nation and the world. I don't see how anybody could disagree with this. I think if you form your philosophy and principles based on that concept you'd find alot more balance. With healthy, successful people, you'd have more highly educated people. That's one way it fits into your philosophy. I'm sure it could fit all of your values dead on.

Anarchism and libertarianism are practically the same thing; I believe the difference is perhaps in scale.

P.S. Some of what I said is not as a paranoid as it sounds, try to take a more realist approach to what I said. Try to imagine the effects(at least the effects, even if not the motivation) as real.

[Preechr]

See, Kahl, just when I start to think you just aren't interested in hearing what I'm trying to say, you reverse course and explain it back to me. I think we are actually very close to understanding each other. There's a difference, BTW, in a "critical flaw" and just a flaw you think you see. You keep making me re-explain things, and I tend to get lost in the tangents.

That's Ok, though... Having to work this hard on this explanation is only making me better at it. Based on where you've gone with this and also on what davin just said, I think I can offer you guys a more general view of what I'm saying. I have to take care of a few of the details yet unaddressed, but I'll try my level best to wrap up everything we've covered so far this evening.

None of my friends are on MSN yet, so I might have a little bit to get some of this done!

[kahljorn]

I'm having you rexplain things because I don't understand how there can be a seperation of business and government when the Government runs off of the businesses, in every possible way.
Need plastic? Talk to a plastic business. Guns? Gun Business. Roads? Tar Business. Want roads built? Construction business.
The power the government has to actually manage it's states and resources is done by Business, especially in america. The place government gets it's money to do these things is from business, and people themselves. Probably mostly business, especially since the entire economy of the nation is based on business. Jobs come from businesses, resources come from business(who get it from the earth), businesses come from businesses.

Do you think that government is/should be responsible for our economical policies and patterns?

[Preechr]

I will answer that tonight. You'll love it.

[kahljorn]

Alright man. Sorry if I'm bugging you with my stupid questions, I don't want to frustrate you.

[Preechr]

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.

I submit that what you are calling "our society" is a product of our government and only a small part of our actual society at that. Additionally, I'll say that our "Entitlement Society" is what is responsible for our collective lack of the decent work ethic you mentioned. That, coincidentally, is also a product of the government for which We The People are ultimately responsible. Kahl kept bringing up the Ford layoffs as if they represented something evil. They can only be perceived as such from one perspective, and I happen to subscribe to a different one.

There is a big difference between that which is bad and that which is evil. Evil implies intention, and there is nothing but good intentions behind the Ford layoffs. They are ultimately based in altruism, yet they also carry the stink of failure. With failure, however, comes opportunity. There is also risk, but I prefer a less risk-averse life as the less stressful alternative.

The cause of the Ford layoffs is eventually the unrealistic promises made long ago to Ford's labor unions, most likely made to avoid a strike.

We actually do live in that "free country," but the idea that we can do "whatever we want" might be a bit misleading. Whatever we do must be governed by reason if we are hoping for successful outcomes. If I promise to give you something that I cannot ever hope to have for whatever reason, that might make you feel good for a while, but eventually, you are gonna get a little pissed that I led you on. I couldn't blame you for that.

I don't blame the laid off employees of Ford for being a bit upset at the loss of their jobs. I don't think they should ever have believed Ford could have violated the Golden Rule of business for any reason, even one that might serve their own interests, and stay in business without being forced to lay off employees.

When I sum this all up, I will address the difference between society as it is and society as it should be. For now, though, I'm gonna move on to your next point.

Originally Posted by davinxtk

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?

The big thing here is that I agree with you, but I don't believe Americans should be forced to do so. I do believe Americans can be convinced to behave moreso in their best interests. I think the beauty of freedom lies in it's abuse, actually. Maybe you could argue with that.

On one hand, I guess you could say that I see the bad activity you are pointing out as healthy, but I would add to that I feel our society could be doing a much better job of encouraging people not to partake of those things. That society is sick is the reason so many of us are self-destructive.

Originally Posted by davinxtk

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...

There are many points to which I need to respond here. First, you talk of correcting the financial missteps of the poor. I'm from the South, and we have a saying here: If you don't fuck nothin up, you ain't doin nothin. You can't allow yourself to be distracted by focusing on the entire concept of "the poor." Look at the individuals. There will always be "the poor," but the individuals that make up that group at any given moment in time always have the option of casting aside their infatuations with various forms of self-destruction and seeking a more productive path.

You can lead a horse to water...

But are we doing that?

I say no. Our society does not encourage healthy decision making. I doubt you'd argue with that, based on your earlier comments. We are way too quick to run to the rescue of whomever might be making bad decisions at any given point in time, throwing money at them before they have a minute to sit there in the mess they created and figure their own way out. There are a lot of cases where immediate and sustained aid is necessary, but there are also a lot of cases where immediate and sustained aid is premature and unhealthy... maybe even abusive.

If your brother comes to you every week with a new song and dance about some misfortune he's had to endure, asking for some money to make it through, are you really helping him if you loan him whatever he needs whenever he asks? Isn't it your moral responsibility to investigate his financial difficulty and make a few suggestions in order to set him on a better path?

We can use this analogy on the larger scale in a couple of ways. I tend to opt for smaller, more localized government structures, as they are always more efficient, but you could also go for the alternative of developing a federal "Big Brother" program that actively educates those that meet financial misfortune in hopes of helping them out in the larger sense.

You said these folks are owed a leg-up. What I am asking you to consider here is the form of that help. They would not be in need, generally speaking... and I'm not really talking about those with medical issues here... had they been making excellent financial decisions. Simply giving them a check isn't gonna help them in the big picture, is it? Can we expect more than just additional bad decision making from them?

Part of our society, to move on, is represented by your comment concerning "job openings." Again, we reference the "Entitlement Society" on which I previously commented. Before, I talked about my view of work. I trade my time for money. It is up to me to make a wise trade. It is also up to me to make sure that the time I'm trading has value to whomever I'm selling it to, right? It is unreasonable to assume that I might insist I do nothing and get paid, and it's just as bad to insist I be hired to do a job for which I lack the necessary skills.

I value my time very highly. Personally, I would not want a job that was not challenging. I would not take a job where I got paid to sit on a couch and eat Twinkies. I value my time more than that. The more responsibilites I assume in my job, the more valuable I am to my employer and thus the higher my pay... at least in a theoretical sense... right? If I have and then lose that Twinkie job, I think I should consider myself lucky to have had it when I did. I probably should not expect to be so lucky in whatever source of income I find next, should I?

I may even need to develop some more marketable skills at this point. I may need to make my own "job opening." Nobody owes me a couch-sitting, Twinkie-eating job. The reason companies "down-size" their employees is because their jobs are deemed to be unnecessary or unprofitable to the company. In many cases, these jobs were a bad idea from the start for the company... and in such cases: Shame on the company for hiring folks for stupid reasons. Often, though, technology makes certain jobs obsolete. Should we stop technology? People that used to make horse drawn carriages or TV antennae learned new skills and got new jobs.

Here's a timely example: It seems that the Democrat impetus behind protesting the sale of those American ports doesn't actually lie in real concern for security. In reality, they are attempting to protect the jobs of longshoremen who might get down-sized if the firm from Dubai were to take control and automate some of their jobs. The same thing happened a few years ago when new technology threatened to streamline the process of unloading ships, and they pulled a big strike, remember?

Speaking of that Twinkie job, did you know union longshoremen make around $100k/year to drive forklifts and cranes?

Originally Posted by davinxtk

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.

How so? Who's responsiblity is it to provide for my family? Your family? Max's family? It is up to each of us to make the best of our lives. I understand your example of Travolta's daughter, and I see where you are going with it. What you are not seeing there is that the daughter is obviously not being raised to survive in the real world... and one day she just might have to do that.

Even with the benefit of her dad's money, she will not be able to remain completely insulated from real life. She might go all Willie Nelson or Michael Jackson and squander her wealth on bad ideas, or she might hire some consultants to help her make some good decisions. Either way, that wealth will bleed back out into the economy because John Travolta apparently sucks at raising children, at least as I can assume from your anecdote.

So, she's got that job we were talking about: eating Twinkies on the couch for a living... and she's getting WAY overpaid for it. As I said up there, she should consider herself lucky, and be preparing herself for the inevitable end of her luck by educating herslef and attaining other skills. If she chooses to stubbornly insist someone else provide her with more found money when she eventually pisses hers away, do you think we should oblige her?

Wouldn't it be more moral to educate her at to how she lost all her Daddy's money, and help her to find a better path in life?

Originally Posted by davinxtk

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.

No matter how you choose to sell your time, the value of your trade will obviate what you were working for. In your "these people" example, I tried to show that Ms. Travolta (I assume) that is probably not trading time for money so well, as she is wasting her time and her money in such a wholesale fashion. Not that I wish to be labeled as the guy that likes to portray poor people as delightfully noble... though still poor... but what is so "uniquely American" about that broke lady is that she has a shot at being one of those folks that help to bilk Ms. Travolta out of her Daddy's money and teach her the lesson it sounds like she so dearly needs to learn.

Ever stop to think, by the way, that it would be nice if she was able to find education in order to develop better jobs skills? Back we go to the shameful mess that is government run education.

Originally Posted by davinxtk

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.

So, Ms. Travolta has all your money? I thought she got it from her dad? Maybe he got about twelve bucks of it from you, as long as (and God I hope this isn't true) you didn't pay to see him in "Michael" at the theater... but... I hope you aren't one of those slave people I heard that live on his private island, sewing shoes for gruel.

You do know that Trump is doing TV now because his chips are down, right? Did you hear Ted Turner still has yet to make good on that $Billion he pledged to the UN back in his heyday? Ran out of money. Poor Ted. Remember back when Bill Gates was worth $180 Billion? He was the richest man in all human history then. His net worth hovers around $50 Billion today... AND THESE GUYS WERE SMART ENOUGH TO EARN THEIR MONEY.

Each of these men, through their own decisions, accumulated vast sums of money and then, through their own decisions, RE-DISTRIBUTED Billions of their dollars back into the economy. Add in the heirs to Wal-Mart, and we've easily got a Hundred-Billion-Dollar-Over-About-Five-Years example of voluntary wealth re-distribution by just 1% of the top 1% of earners that pay half the tax money collected in this country each year.

The wealthy just do not hold on to their money, generally. Those that do so, especially over several generations, can easily be said to have invested some time into skill development (the skill of managing finances.) The best way to maintain fortunes is to invest them. Investment of fortunes create jobs. Yes, they can also allow for extravagent, even repulsive, lifestyles... But we can easily deduce that those extravagent lifestyles are always either leading up to either voluntary re-distribution of wealth through stupid decisions or jobs: The creation of wealth for those that work.

I'm not, by the way, a zero-sum guy. American English was the first language subset that phrased earning pay as "making money." Did you know that? Think of the implication there. To make something is to bring it out of a place where it did not previously exist. Thinking of finance this way shows us that there is not necessarily a finite amount of money in this world, factoring in for time. While each day may only have a specific amount of money to made, a product of the energy expended by all of us together, since money is a unit of measurement for time we can extrapolate that the exchange of time for money is only limited to the current exchange rate for every trade.

Thanks to Moore's Law, we have a neat little illustraion of this process. Techonology increases productivity, and technology is evolving at an exponential rate. Productivity is also increasing... go figure. With productivity increases, the sum total of wealth in the world increases. Wealth often encourages innovation, which creates technology. When wealth does not encourage innovation, providing jobs, it is said to be poorly invested and falls back into the general economy through various inevitable means.

Originally Posted by davinxtk

This is where your naivete complicates things. Business isn't the root of all evil, Preechr, this 'human nature' is.

Well, I think I just showed you how wealth follows more closely than you thought more naturally fair rules. This is social physics. Universal Rules based on every example with which we can experiment. What works for poor people works for rich people, as long as we don't accidentally build a society that screws with the natural order of things.

Ideally, we can trade our time for money using our formula involving only the variables of effort and ingenuity... until we add in for the pseudo-altruistic aftermath of the Post-Modern Era. When we multiply class envy into the formula, we have to chunk a fraction off our productivity and thus, wealth.


Man, I'm tired. Forgive me, but that's all I got for tonight...

I'll pick up here either late tomorrow, or Friday night. I've had a very busy week. Sorry.

[kahljorn]

I enjoyed reading your post, and again, I feel we agree on a few things:

"The cause of the Ford layoffs is eventually the unrealistic promises made long ago to Ford's labor unions, most likely made to avoid a strike. "

I didn't say the layoffs itself was evil, I did say it was BAD though. Then you brought up the union, and I said they are also "Evil". It's the same affliction, my friend. People who don't have money want money, people who have money want more money, people who have money want power, people who have power want money. Everybody wants money, and most want power, it's the one thing 97% of the people in the world could probably agree on.


"There will always be "the poor," but the individuals that make up that group at any given moment in time always have the option of casting aside their infatuations with various forms of self-destruction and seeking a more productive path. "

Tough-love, huh? that's a good idea, and I even agree with it to some extent so don't be put off by my 'moralist' exterior. In fact, most of the time I hope things will get so bad people won't have any choice but to get off of their asses and get pissed off. However, there's no point discussing that, it's a wasted conversation I feel. "You know what my plan is? To leave everything like it is".

"Our society does not encourage healthy decision making."

Exactly, thanks for agreeing with me. Healthy decision making makes healthy people. I've already brought up a few examples of ways to help people make healthy decisions, so how about if I bring up something unrelated that we discussed before, but I don't think you caught onto.
What do you think the policies of cheap busienss and poor quality does for people's decision making? Any normal, reasonably intelligent person would spend ten dollars extra for their cooking supplies, however, most people look for the cheapest knockoff item available as you have stated before(and I've bought pans like that, they fall apart a couple days later, burn everything and leave horrible tefflon stains on your food which is really unhealthy for you). Is this healthy decision making? Does it set up a good pattern for life? Is it healthy that, instead of looking for quality or something 'better' they are instead reliant on cheap, knock of products that offer sustanance only?
Personally, I don't see how people make decisions to live cheaply. I buy pants at walmart and they start falling apart a month later; I've learned my lesson, but for some reason these people don't, and you can't reasonably expect them to be able to figure it out on their own since it has been perpetuated for thousands of years.

"but you could also go for the alternative of developing a federal "Big Brother" program that actively educates those that meet financial misfortune in hopes of helping them out in the larger sense. "
I see you agree with me on educational reform.


Is it really that unreasonable for me to expect that business maintains some kind of integrity? So far what we have discussed has involved mainly the development of a healthy society, how does bad business policy play into that field? Personally, I feel if we are expecting to revamp society in any way we need to have all the corners covered.
Your suggestion is that, instead of making business integral we let the people figure it out for themselves. Or maybe we teach the people... but isn't it, societally, the responsibility of healthy, successful citizens who ARE educated and ARE capable of making healthy decisions to help these people make proper choices and develop a healthy lifestyle? Business isn't the only field where this is apt.

I still don't see how any of this refutes the fact that there are poor people in the world ;( I thought that's what this thread was going to be about.

"What works for poor people works for rich people, as long as we don't accidentally build a society that screws with the natural order of things. "

Natural order? Big animal eats little animal? I don't think you want that in our society ;(
However, personally I think the natural state of society can be acheived, but I think we are far from it because I belive a healthy society would have a healthy philosophy behind it. Not a healthy government, or a healthy religion; but a healthy philosophy and general psychology. My goal is to acheive that, even if it's just in my own social atmosphere. I work on affecting the world not only via message board conversations, but also in the way I accord myself in my day to day affairs. That's the most important part.

P.S. I see what you're saying about technology 'opening more doors' so to speak, and bringing in more money. However, more technology doesn't necessarily mean more jobs, and more technology doesn't mean a healthier society. If anything, society has actually become less healthy due to technology in some instances. I feel basing your philosophy on the hopeful development of society via technology and business innovation is a poor bet, but they are your chips. I however tend to base my philosophies in a more direct field, rather than sissy-footing around the problem because I'm afraid to confront it.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by davinxtk

Do you really believe that capitalism lends itself well to the egalitarian traits of human nature?
Do you believe that with the bottom line being stressed as a make it or break it situation, humans will reach out to those who fall behind on their own? Is that capitalism?
Are you under the impression that this farcical societal bent in human nature owes itself to anything other than religious or state encouragement?

Your "big 'C'" Capitalism is what capitalism is. We are the big it, are we not? This is capitalism in practice with a republic, and it isn't working.

If you really think that humans are anything but animals, we may never see eye to eye. Human nature combined with capitalism is the doorway to your animalistic existance.

It's bad capitalism to behave like anything but an animal.
Chew on that for now?

Ok... *sigh*

I really have already addressed this, but I'm gonna give it another shot on the assumption that I did it wrong the first time, leaving you understandably confused.

I believe that human nature is a two-sided coin. On one side, you have the life you live in private, shared with your family and close friends. On the other side, you have the life in which you must compete with others in the workplace for food, shelter, clothing and big screen televisions. It should be easy to see the differences between these two sides of your own nature no matter what kind of life you live. You can't very well treat your boss the same as you would your dad or your co-worker as your spouse, just as you might not want to treat your children as employees or your pet like it's the UPS guy.

When we deal with our families, we utilize methods specific to that side of our lives. If your brother needs a little cash to squeeze through a tight spot in his life, you can decide whether or not to help him out based on your close familiarity with his lifestyle and his history of decision making, known to you in detail because he's your brother. It's not just that, though... Family is family. Close friends are also special to us, and we go out of our way to look after them, just as they do us.

We use different methods on those that we encounter outside of that familial environment. You have a certain reaction to passing a homeless woman on the street, but if that drunken vagrant happened to be your mom... Well, you'd probably react somewhat differently.

The yang to our family yin is how we interact with people at work. When we leave for work, we trade in our familial nature... the on e that is forgiving, comp[assionate and long-term... for a more competitive one. As I said before, you and I enter the workplace together each day in order to compete for the limited amount of cash available for trade that day. We don't actually work in the same building or even the same trade, but in an indirect sense my industry is competing against your industry... My part of the economy is competing against yours. We also compete against those that we work with directly and those for whom we work. We compete with our customers. Our companies compete against government regulations and unions. It's just one big competition.

If some random guy knocks on the stall door while you are taking a big work-dump and asks if you could spare $20 for a week or so, you'd likely tell him to do something bad to himself and he'd leave no richer. What if he said to you, "But Dood! We work at the same company! It's like I'm your brother!" I doubt you'd change your mind. Maybe not. Maybe you would invite him into the stall so you could better aquaint yourself with his problems and his current situation in life in order to make a more compassionate decision regarding his loan proposal... but I still say I doubt it.

Now, on to why I specify whether certain words that start with c's should be capitalized or not in context...

The first side of our nature, the one we use to deal with family, functions remarkably similar to the precepts of the governmental form Communism. You know how people interact with their family members and close friends, and I've even given you a few examples in case you are an entirely unlikeable orphan with no imagination that lives in a bubble, and you probably know at least a little bit about how Communism works, so I'm gonna spare you a whole paragraph laden with further examples.

The second side of our nature, the competitive one, is the one that looks a lot like the form of human interaction we know as hard, cold Capitalism. When I speak of one or the other form of human nature, therefore, I use the same word, but I do not capitalize it. The natural, human communism, when practiced as a form of Government, is Communism. When we adopt the natural, human part of our human nature I call capitalism... or how we deal with one another at work... as an official foundation of our Governments, we capitalize the word and call it Capitalism.

Is this small part of my overall explanation clear so far?

I'm gonna break now so you can both just respond to this concept.

[Preechr]

Ok... Got that?

To sum up:

(c)ommunism is the half of natural, human nature that is interested in taking care of our closest friends and family, based in an ethic of "To each according to his ability, From each according to his need"

(c)apitalism is the other 50% of natural, human nature that represents our viewpoint in the workplace, where we compete against other humans for our share of the financial pie in order to finance our (c)ommunist home lives.

(C)ommunism is the political form of government that seeks to deny the (c)apitialistic animals that exist in each of us. Some folks believe it would be the best idea for everybody to utilize the awesome power of government to eliminate competition altogether and run the whole world like one, big, happy family.

(C)apitalism is the other form of government that hopes to reshape human nature in such a way as to purge familial instincts from our nature, reducing all of life to what can be easily monitored on a P&L statement.

Both the forms of government mentioned above acknowledge only one half of each of us. (L)ibertarianism is a political movement, and just about as flawed as any other political party or any other large structure involving people, where (l)ibertarianism is a philosophy based in economic conservatism and social liberalism, each in the classical senses of the terms. I will get back to this later on...

I hope we have now completely delineated the differences between Capitalism and capitalism as well as those between Communism and communism. Let's talk for a moment about what those differences mean, though...

Other than the inherent capitalization of the word, what else might change when we adopt one half of our everyday nature as the explicit policy of our government? Remember, whichever way you go, you are forming a tool for the use of your society. By opting for either of these policies for our governments, we are seeking to deny fully one half of our genetic impulses. Your government is one of the three pillars that suspend your society above basic existence. Your government is as much it's proposed citizens' collective conception of the perfect future as it is the practical mechanism you guys will be using to govern your disagreements with each other. Big Stuff here...

To say that we are Communists is to say that we reject the capitalistic side of our own nature as being needful of repression. Likewise, to capitalize Capitalism is to pick the kinder, gentler side of all of us as an enemy. Capitalism... the government form... is attacked by it's opponents as being "against the family," and probably righly so to a degree, while Communism is portrayed by Capitalists as against the excellence that is the goal of competition.

For this part of our program, I would like to suggest that we can indeed have our cake and eat it too...

If we naturally operate as I have suggested here when we function as individual units, doesn't it seem just a bit dumb to adopt a government that rejects 50% of our own human nature? Could we ever hope to feel more than half-satisfied with something like this?

Kahl, I just received a vision of your response to this section. You are planning to argue that (C)ommunism must result in naturally stronger family values in Communist countries where (C)apitalistic countries would inherently benefit economically because of their individual focus on one part of human nature... You are half-wrong.. Once again, you aren't thinking things through to completion, so you don't know why you are on the right track... so I'm not giving you credit.

See, you are thinking that each country has freedom of choice to decide on what they should place their focus. It's just not that easy. If you are negligent in the maintainance of your vehicle, and as a result it smokes and knocks yet actually will make it to the store intact, running on 3 out of 6 cylinders and a whole lot of luck, you should not be happy that it at least runs at all. It just needs to be fixed so it can function as best it can. A car is one thing, but we are talking about systems of government, and governments are the single most dangerous and powerful human invention ever conceived. Governents kill people moreso than anything else ever created by man, and our goal here is to find a form for this deadly but necessary function from which we receive the maximum benefit with the least amount of carnage possible.

It is simply wrong to base governmental philosophy in the partial repression of our own nature. A truly healthy government accepts us as we are and benefits from our natural function on every point. This type pf government is totally possible to conceive, and has even been practiced once upon a time: Here. We just don't do things that way anymore, though.

Do you guys see yet why I kept saying this would be a long, drawn out conversation? I am having to sit here and work my butt off just to get you through the basic building block fundamentals of government to even begin to discuss economics with you! I am gonna break here again so any comments or questions you might have can be easily referenced.

[Preechr]

I hate to repeat myself in conversations. My ego wants to assure me that what I say, in the fun way I like to say it, is entirely understandable to anyone with even a mild I.Q. and a willingness to listen... but my brain is building a helluva case to the contrary. That being typed, I would like to say here that my goal in this is not to educate anyone, but to learn for my own purposes... despite my somewhat preechy presentation.

I have spent a lot of time and energy developing these ideas I have. Right or ultimately wrong, I can assure you that you probably won't be able to dissuade me from believing as I do, though you CAN help me work out the details of my presentation or even add to my conceptio of reality by bringing up concepts I have yet to fully work out... as long as whatever you bring to the table doesn't conflict with the general flow of what I've already set in stone.

Proceeding from that point, I will re-state my fondest desire for someone, anyone, to prove me wrong completely. I am so open to all challenges on this that I even respond to the "UR TEH GAY" segment of our cuddly little internet peanut-gallery. To make good on this pledge, I will now engage Kiki on his stirring and somewhat legible scrawlings entered previously in this thread...

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

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

Buddy, you ARE teh gay. Seriously. What you are describing is religion, not government. Faith, by definition, is a lack of understanding. You just said that government is not supposed to be understandable. I've got a lot of cotton that needs to be picked... Why don't you just go get at it, boy? Don't make me break out the whip!

Don't worry though... as long as you keep your nose on my grindstone I will make sure you have adequate food, reasonable shelter and enough clothing on to hide your dumb ass from my sight. I will also make sure no one can hurt you more than I will. You will be able to believe you suffer each day for your own greater safety. I will make sure of it, and that you will.

You do know that the rhetoric with which you have chosen to represent yourself is that of a slave, don't you? When you are humming a melody in the crotch of a governmental official, the only promises you can take to the bank right then are that you have a dick in your mouth, regardless of whatever rights you were told would be stripped from whichever "freedom expressor" pissed you off to the point you sought to limit using the power of your "oral abilities."

Did you get that? Well, respond regardless of your ability to comprehend things... Isn't that what you're here for?

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

Income.... It is unimportant.

This is it for you. Whatever else you wrote made my eyes hurt, so I just can't respond to whatever it was supposed to mean.

This little bit stuck in my eye, though, and it was mostly intelligible even if only as an accident. Income is unimportant, eh? Ok... Let's discuss what it is that went on behind the closed doors of your higher functions when you posted that little turdlet of a thought.

By the time you came up with this contribution to our existing discussion, I had already established that money is a unit of measurement of time. Income, obviously, is a form of money. You state that money is irrelevant to life, and I hear that you believe time to have no bearing on it either. That's when I start calling you an idiot.

Right after that, I start wondering if ANYBODY could possibly achieve the level of idiocy required by such a position. Then, I consider what kind of person might express such a retraded point of view on a philosophy board, and a red-flag pops up. Right... Kiki's a troll. I forgot. Duh!

Sorry. Must have been a slow day when you elected to participate in this discussion. I understand completely that you couldn't help but say something somewhere that helped you experience that feeling of importance you get when you talk out of school among those that know better.

Run along now. Here's a little tip for you: When the adults are talking about big-people stuff, just go pull some crap off Drudge to distract the other idiots with instead of jumping in over your head. If that doesn't do it for you, just try masturbating more frequently if possible. I hear that helps people with your condition...

[kahljorn]

"You are planning to argue that (C)ommunism must result in naturally stronger family values in Communist countries where (C)apitalistic countries would inherently benefit economically because of their individual focus on one part of human nature"

I don't know what you're talking about because I don't care about all this big C little c thing. Big C, little c, who gives a shit.

"you are thinking that each country has freedom of choice to decide on what they should place their focus."

I think everybody's focus should be advancement of the human civilization.

[Preechr]

...and World Peace, right?

What are you, running for homecoming queen?

I'm explaining "all this big C little c thing" to you in hopes you might understand a little better what I am talking about. If you don't care to hear what I'm saying, stop posting here. This is MSNBC. If you want to hear more about Bradd Pitt, turn to freaking E!, dude.

Do you really think there is a significant force behind crippling the human civilization on the planet? I sometimes suspect cats of being behind such a diabolical organization, but I haven't yet found enough proof to tell Matt Drudge about it...

Look, I'm taking a break from this for minute. In a few days, I'll re-read this threada and maybe sum it up again. Maybe you could try digging back through and some of what I said before might make more sense this time around. I really have tried hard to explain every point you brought up, and I have really appreciated your input so far. I'll sum up soon and then we can move on... or you can switch over to E! and I'll try to get someone else on the hook.

[kahljorn]

I understand your big C little c thing, it's not that difficult. Little c is sort of how it pertains to "me" while big C is how it pertains to "Us". I hope that simple explaination suffices to show I know.

"What are you, running for homecoming queen?"

If we're talking about ideal situations we might as well be ideal. Advancement of the human civilization isn't some prissy desire, and I accept the fact it may have to go through many movements in order to truly advance in any realistic sense.

"Do you really think there is a significant force behind crippling the human civilization on the planet?"

Yes. It's called, "Bad human nature".

I'll try to respond more later, if that's what you want.

[davinxtk]

I really wish I had more time behind my computer this week.
I have plenty of input, so don't think I'm ignoring you, I just haven't had the time to actually sit down and iron it all out.

[Preechr]

No problem. No time for me either, this week.

As I said, I'll get back to thinking about this sometime next week. It takes a lot of energy, and I haven't had so much to spare lately.

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

I understand your big C little c thing, it's not that difficult. Little c is sort of how it pertains to "me" while big C is how it pertains to "Us". I hope that simple explaination suffices to show I know.

Well, you're close. "You" or "we" practice communism and capitalism when dealing with one another. They are two halves of our nature. When we base a government in one, to the exclusion of the other, I like to capitalize the letter. The only reason that I do that is to make what I type clear but pithy. Not making this distinction makes the conversation pretty difficult to follow.

Originally Posted by "kahljorn

If we're talking about ideal situations we might as well be ideal. Advancement of the human civilization isn't some prissy desire, and I accept the fact it may have to go through many movements in order to truly advance in any realistic sense.

Well... obviously. But saying you are for the advancement of the human race just puts you in a pretty large group. I mean, there's Lex Luther and Dr. Evil teaming up to destroy mankind, and then all the rest of us in your group.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

"Do you really think there is a significant force behind crippling the human civilization on the planet?"

Yes. It's called, "Bad human nature".

Ok, I suppose I made that to easy to mis-read. I should have asked: Who isn't for the advancement of the human race?

As I said, I suspect cats.


...and pigeons, but to a lesser degree since they never really get anything done at their meetings.

[kahljorn]

"Well, you're close. "You" or "we" practice communism and capitalism when dealing with one another."

I was just aiming for a quick explaination so you didn't need to feel like repeating yourself.

"But saying you are for the advancement of the human race just puts you in a pretty large group."

I guess it does. The difference is I take it to a fairly realistic level. Consider masonry as a means to building the human the race to it's full glory ;(

"As I said, I suspect cats. "

There's alovecraft book out where he gets saved by kittens because he fed one of them milk. For some reason that reminded me of that story.

I just think it's lame that you place so much of your focus on something so inanimate and virtually hallucinagenic like money and economy. These are impermanant ideals, and they are also nonexistant except within our minds. As an entirely human creation, I think it's a bad idea to place any focus on it, especially as far as IDEALS go. I certainly wouldn't place my life in the hands of a hallucination. (there's a bit of a paradox there, maybe ill address it someother time)
The effect of focusing on money and other invisible ideals could play a hefty dance upon man's psychology. Like I said, I'm for development of healthy people. I accept that, in order to acheive it, we may have to work on our economy, but we're also going to have to work on MANY OTHER FACETS. It's not a simple thing where you can put all your eggs in one basket and hope the other chickens catch on-- all aspects need to be worked on. We need to work on improving all aspects of government.

Anyway, sorry if that was hard to understand I'm in a rush. Till later.