Quote from: jpinkman on July 08, 2012, 10:39 amActually, I would argue that our progress is less about "strong moral footing" and more about the birth of rationalism during the 17th century Enlightenment era. Logic, reason, and empiricism were once again valued as the highest and most noble forms of thought modeled on the Ancient Greeks. The morality comes from rational observation of the world. And when I say morality, I mean what rights a human being has that he can defend, and what rights he doesn't have. The "natural law" as it were.QuoteBut you don't have to be "ruthless" to survive. You have to have vision, and you have to have the balls to make your vision become a reality, but that's not ruthlessness. The wealthiest men on the planet (except those who obtained their fortunes by piggy-backing on immensely violent institutions) were those that created the most co-operation between humans. To survive? No, you don't have to be ruthless. But if you're talking about the wealthiest on the planet, that's a whole lot more than mere survival. I think you have a certain mainstream naivety of what it takes to become one of the wealthiest on the planet. It's not all just holding hands singing kumbaya with your employees. It does require a particular take no prisoners ruthlessness to get on that level; a willingness to destroy your competition and all obstacles in your path by any means necessary. And the more wealth you accumulate, the easier it becomes to play only by the fast and loose rules of oligarchs rather than nation states. Your perspective I would argue is naive. "Destroying" competition by offering something better or cheaper or solving a problem in completely new, more effective way is not "destroying" anything. It is pulling humanity forward. If I can figure out how to digitize something so that it can be instantly replicated ad infinitum for what is currently fractions of a cent (and grows cheaper every day), and I "destroy" the publishing industry because the majority of people switch over to the convenience, access, and affordability of digital format, what have I done wrong? All of those resources being allocated towards the physical publishing books are no longer required - I have come up with a far more effective means of serving the customer's wants, and I can do it for a fraction of the price. to boot, all of the capital being allocated towards physical book publishing can now be put to a better use (this all takes place via the process of profit/loss which tell entrepreneurs whether their goods or services are necessary in the economy - the more profit you make (and keep in mind this is in the absence of violence - the sate), the more your good or service is needed, and the more other entrepreneurs will be attracted to engage in your type of business, which eventually brings prices down and benefits consumers).You might see it as destroying something, I see it as freeing something up and progressing the human race. Henry Ford "destroyed" hundreds of thousands of carriage-driving jobs and wagon constructing jobs, and ferriers and leather saddle manufacturers, etc. But he gave humans the freedom of mobility that we had never had in all our documented history. All of those resources put towards horse and buggy were freed up and could be used somewhere else to benefit mankind. I don't think it's kumbaya, it's breaking out your balls and taking massive risks and organizing thousands or tens of thousands of people and finding the best talent to do what needs to be done. It's hanging everything you have on an idea that you want to bring to reality.QuoteThat is some in-fucking-credible shit. And we take a fucking dump on it every day, our culture treats these people like depraved sociopaths who deserve to have everything stolen. What. The. Fuck.Well because public awareness of some of the tactics used by the .01% to maintain their wealth and power have been exposed and the masses are realizing that the playing field is not level ... not even remotely. Personally, I think, actually I know rather, that the tactics that have gotten a lot of press are really only the tip of the iceberg of the world and rules of multi-billionaires and that if the extent of how these moguls in suits with PR teams really played the game in the "civilized" modern world ever became known, it would shock. But anyone who really thinks about it, knowing human nature to be what it is, really shouldn't have any reason to be surprised. Again, this is about morality. The CEO of Lockheed Martin and his 15 million dollar paycheque is not a benefactor to mankind. 83% of his company's revenues come from the barrel of a gun (i.e. taxes). They are immoral. The existence and size of the institution is immoral. Anyone who uses violence to appropriate resources is the scum of the earth, and a lot of these billionaires wouldn't be able to become billionaires without using the states violence to appropriate property, artificially create barriers to entry (a good example is pharmaceuticals - the FDA is the only door into the business in the US, and right now it costs about $180 million to bring a SINGLE drug to market. how many people can afford to compete with the oligopoly of Big Pharma with that sort of theshold on the door?), monopolize products (copyright, patents, IP law), etc. This ALL comes at the expense of the consumer, because the consumer doesn't have a say in whether or not these businesses are of benefit to society, because they are either the only solution to a problem (because anyone else who tries to improve it or compete will get thrown in prison), or they are being paid through theft.When people's inalienable rights are violated, the person doing the violating, whether himself or by hiring a gang of thieves, is a scourge on humanity's existence.