What to do in the mad, mad world?

I suppose I just disagree with the idea that you can cure the 'madness' of the world with a certain political system.

 

Walsh

Maybe I just took it as a theoretical challenge - to quote the question from the OP

The point about a well functioning democracy is that in it the influence of the majority vote should balance the influence of the powerful few. In a monetary based system power can often come with wealth so to me a step in the right direction would be to try and separate the influence of powerful wealth from gaining the upper hand.

I think this would not only be good at a local level but also globally.

Try reading - Manifesto For a New World Order by George Monbiot

*

 

Why would you think the 27 amendments aside from the 18th need to be disregarded? There are a couple of other amendments that I would like to eventually see repealed, those being the 16th and 17th in particular.

 

Why don't you go ahead and post for me then?

 

Indie

Yes that was the one, evasion, thanks again,


*

 

The two above statements, both yours, are contradictory of each other.

They must have an answer if you are distinguishing "needs".

We are in fact free, on that point. We do, choose who we identify with.

One to one is the fundamental societal arrangement. If everyone treated every one else with the most basic courtesy, then society would be courteously oriented. There is a saying that charity begins at home.

Certainly, that makes "success" an unreliable metric.

Could be mental confusion for any reason. You could act on false information.
I am certain that you didn't tie your shoes with acumen on your first attempt, or get every answer right on every test.

I understand your position and it seems intuitive but there are elements of your narrative that draw on distortion. For instance, your argument that not everyone slips at some point is predicated on the idea that some can be unremittingly successful, but the term successful itself is an arbitrary measure.

As long as the demographical proportions are the same, there is no reason that the aged population should out grow the younger population. The reason our social net system is stressed at the moment, is because of a statistical change in the demographic makeup of the population, "baby boomers". I don't know if it is a conservative view but there is a mathematical certainty to what I just described.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

 

Tell me, would you consider yourself a Socialist or a Communist? As best I've been able to tell, you appear to feel that private ownership should be eliminated or diminished greatly and placed under the ownership and control of the governed collective. Am I close or would you like to elaborate.

 

I know you didn't ask me but, I feel that it is the propriety model itself that creates social distortions. The idea that people own any portion of the world is a fantasy that is not supported in truth. We may control an area for a while by force or agreement, but all those arrangements are temporary.

 

But why? If the powerful few were sane, there would be no need for all that separation. The red lights should have been flashing when the "enemy of the common man" came up, why that is, and how to make it not so.

 

We create what we wish to call necessities.

We might all agree that food and shelter are necessities, but much beyond that is difficult to reach a consensus on.

I find that to be the case most often dealing with strangers, unless they try to rob or harm me.

Should we each have to define success equally?

I see it as a personal measure. You might see me as a failure, while I am quite happy with my past achievements and also happy with the future outlook.

I'm not sure I catch what you refer to as a mathematical certainty, and even so it appears that population is going to continue to grow although at a slightly slower rate which creates increasing demands on society.

Boy, have you misjudged me. I believe you should be rewarded according to your abilities and efforts, and be free to use the rewards as you desire, charitably if you wish. Redistribution of wealth should be a choice made by the holder of the wealth.

 

We do have laws that provide us the rights of ownership to property, although governments who implement taxes on property can force us to give up our property. The House my Dad bought when I was young is now taxed much greater than his original purchase price. Luckily, he sold it many years ago, but still has a relationship with the current owner. Perhaps one reason to accumulate massive wealth and pass on to your heirs, so that they can retain ownership of their inheritance.

 

^u pretty much described how it creates social distortion..
i think theres much more negatives to having rules of property than there are positives. property as a concept branched off of greed itself.

the sad fact is that those necessities are denied by many for the sake of wealth and "fending for one's self".

 

I fail to see the negatives that might outweigh the positives. I find that envy is a greater problem than greed.

I don't see any necessities being denied, they are available to all those who exert the effort to acquire them.

 

don't complain too much about capitalism, its the reason you're on the internet

 

Envy and greed are synonymous in their desire for more. Do you find and identify many people who are out to take your share? why do you find envy a problem? Envy could be a desire to have something like what you have but not necessarily the actual items that you are in possession of.

Not so. Space is limited. A property owner of a 1,000 acre ranch or farm takes that much productive area out of general circulation. Your determinations do not address the idea of need at all, but only the idea of want. I could have all the talent and determination in the world, but none of that gives me any access to the produce of the land that you "own".
In a proprietary system the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It does not represent a test of fitness but of serendipitous favors.

The proprietary model did not overwhelm the world because of it's fitness but because of it's diseases. Disease set the stage for the proprietary takeover of the new world.

 

Just dance, put on ur shoes and dance the blues.

 

Each of us is entitled to the fruits of our own labors. Being a member of a society does not mean that you are entitled to a share of anything at all.

Check the ads in the newspapers, there's always some land for sale. That 1000 acre ranch or farm, while out of general circulation, may produce some of your necessities found in the market. Your access to the produce of the land I or others may own is often found in the market, and your labors are what produces the means by which you gain access. In reality, some of the rich get richer and some of the rich get poorer while at the same time some of the poor get poorer and others get richer. In 2009 Bill Gates saw his wealth decrease by $18 billion, Warren Buffett down $25 billion, and they were not the only ones. Most of the wealth is on paper and not sitting around in cash.

I only use open source and avoid most everything proprietary, and the world is quite old.

 

I understand the selfish attitude but the question was do you in fact, find many who are out to take your shit, stuff.

Some of that decrease of the wealth of those individuals you cite is from the bursting of an economic bubble. regardless you can hardly call that the rich getting poorer, they are no less rich. That there are new participants from time to time in the ledger of the haves or the rich, their appearance to the greatest extent, is a matter of chance opportunity rather than calculated endeavor. Many people start out way ahead, it is not a level playing field as you suggest.
I don't know what country you live in, but there is a huge difference in opportunity between one country and the next , and most often a person has no choice in where they begin. There are countries where all of the arable land is monopolized by large holders.

proprietary :
1. relating to owners or ownership: relating to an owner, ownership, or something owned
2. privately owned: privately owned and run
3. exhibiting characteristics of ownership: exhibiting characteristics that indicate ownership of somebody or something
The child kept a proprietary hold on the toy.

4. used with exclusive legal right: used, manufactured, or sold by a person or company with an exclusive property right such as a patent or trademark
a proprietary drug

You did not account for all the conjugations of the proprietary. You confined your conclusion to just #4. My comment was in regard to every conjugation of the proprietary. The proprietary model is responsible for economic inequality, not how devoted a person is to work. You ever hear the term sweat shop?

 

Actually it is necessary to have food, water, shelter, all together security.
Beyond that there are no necessities.

But if you want to make an argument based around the idea of necessity then that idea must be consistent throughout. If it is not, then your argument is flawed because it is based on arbitrary measure.

Exactly why the term need or necessity is an unreliable metric.

It is true even then. That person standing in front of you represents the full measure of the society you live in.

Yes, for it to be a meaningful statistic in a discussion regarding the societal challenges we all face.

I don't know you at that level and I don't regard human beings in terms of success or failure. Being is testament to itself, you cannot fail to be. Regardless, for the purposes of clear communication, "success" is an unreliable metric being a term that is arbitrary to the individual. Not only is it unreliable communication between individuals but also in the situational awareness of the individual himself, as your own measure for success may vary over time and sometimes even from one moment to the next.

If you have a spike in birth rates, then you have unusual demand on the regular system. That is what I mean by mathematical certainty.

I was not commenting on you personally but the argument you were putting forth about communism, first getting control and then administering the ideal.
Your arguments are weak on consistent premise and don't account for the uneven distribution of resources or opportunity. These comments are about your stated positions, not you as a person.

 

What you do, the best revenge, is to live your life well.
THEY can never control you, just as YOU cannot control a bird.

The worst you can do is cage a bird, and it will sing and die.
The worst they can do is jail you, and you will dream and die.

What you do now with your freedom is far beyond the grasp of any corporation, head of state, policeman or pastor.

You are free at any time to do as you please, even in North Korea. You have three choices in this world.

1. Beg your master
2. Become the master
3. Disobey your master, become your own.

One of those will change this mad, mad world you live in. Choose wisely.

EDIT: A fourth option came to my mind.
CHANGE masters (although most are the same)