Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: afflictedlife on June 28, 2012, 05:23 am
-
Here is an idea to start the ball rolling;
Is true freedom worth the price of opening everyone up more completely to the worst of human nature?
I'll check back in tomorrow and see if anyone replied at all.
but now for sleep, I abandon the internet.
Do not go gentle into that good night SR
-
Please rephrase question if possible... I think true freedom is worth any cost however why should there be any cost for freedom in the first place?
-
Everything has a price including freedom. It may not be monetary, but there will be a cost per sie.
-
Lol not only does freedom have a price but only certain people can/will pay it. That's why certain people get what they want and others do not. You have to be ruthless to survive.
-
Philosophy - 5,000 years of people slowly coming to the conclusion that there's nothing to find
-
Hoo, limetless is my kind or people, ruthless!
BB
-
Oscar Wilde once said, "Nowadays, people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing."
Haha Oscar Wilde was incorrect and correct.
Wrong in that he assumes that peoples once knew the value of things and correct in that he thought they did at his present time. That is because value is completely subjective to the individual and nobodies value of anything is truly the same.
Look at the difference between between a junky hooker and say..... someone earning a Mil a year. Junky hooker will sell her soul for £25 which will buy her a fix which is her whole world. Guy earning a Mil a year is maybe 2 drinks in a wine bar.
Says it all. :)
-
Oscar Wilde once said, "Nowadays, people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing."
Haha Oscar Wilde was incorrect and correct.
Wrong in that he assumes that peoples once knew the value of things and correct in that he thought they did at his present time. That is because value is completely subjective to the individual and nobodies value of anything is truly the same.
Look at the difference between between a junky hooker and say..... someone earning a Mil a year. Junky hooker will sell her soul for £25 which will buy her a fix which is her whole world. Guy earning a Mil a year is maybe 2 drinks in a wine bar.
Says it all. :)
Yeah well I watched The Rum Diary and Limitless last night lol so theres the oscar wilde quote.
Using your example then the hooker that just did unspeakable things to get her next fix probably appreciated that hit more so than the millionaire that can afford some Moet, but that depends how the millionaire obtained his money. If he got it spoonfed to him then it would be easy come easy go, but if he worked his ass off to be a millionaire then he probably savours every drop. Like you said it is all subjective
Indeed this is my point, it's entirely down to circumstance.
One of my favourite examples of this is conflict diamonds. What is worth around say, $10 to the poor minion that pulls it out the ground in Africa could be worth maybe £1-2K to some pretty young girl who's engaged to be married in London OR alternatively maybe 5 AK-47s with 1000 rounds a piece to the African warlord who is forcing the poor minion to pull it out of the ground for him. Or alternatively if the diamond could be split down and and go on to adorn a dress but having that diamond sequin effect makes what would be a £2000 wedding dress into a £4000 dress because of the work that goes into and more importantly because that is fashionable at the time. Or it could be only worth £500 to a jeweler in Dubai who recognizes the crystal structure (diamonds can be ID'd because they have different structures depending on where they are formed in the world) and knows it has blood all over it.
Everything is subjective. :)
-
Lord of War is quite a good example of it as well. You see him wandering around trading guns for Bing, Diamonds and all to all sorts of people. You should read up on who LOW is based on too, quite enlightening.
-
Lord of War is quite a good example of it as well. You see him wandering around trading guns for Bing, Diamonds and all to all sorts of people. You should read up on who LOW is based on too, quite enlightening.
Enlightening is an understatement!
-
Lord of War is quite a good example of it as well. You see him wandering around trading guns for Bing, Diamonds and all to all sorts of people. You should read up on who LOW is based on too, quite enlightening.
It's amazing how similar the story in real life of LOW is to that of Julian Assange who owns Wikileaks.
Firstly some small time country Belgium for Viktor Bout, Sweden for Assange, posts an interpol arrest warrant for some stupid crime, money laundering for Viktor, Sex without a condom for Julian Assange.
Next both resist the international arrest warrant, which was blatantly started by the US, when they both resist they get arrested in other countries for even more stupid crimes, such as missing court that they didn't even know they had to go to.
Next the DEA tries to deport them both, despite the fact neither of them had anything to do with drugs? ::)
-
“One cannot step twice in the same river.”
-
(on Lucy, so forgive me for my typos and bullshit)
I'm sadden to think that we as (humanity as whole) loves to think that we learn from our mistakes or learn from history. the opposite is true. We love to repeat our mistakes without consideration of consequences or our future generations. this is 2012, time is going by faster and faster. I'm afraid to think what my grandchildren would think of my actions today. would they believe that the things we do today was just to survive or just experimenting on ourselves? looking back to george washington, he was a genius of his time, what would he say to barback obama?
-
(on Lucy, so forgive me for my typos and bullshit)
I'm sadden to think that we as (humanity as whole) loves to think that we learn from our mistakes or learn from history. the opposite is true. We love to repeat our mistakes without consideration of consequences or our future generations. this is 2012, time is going by faster and faster. I'm afraid to think what my grandchildren would think of my actions today. would they believe that the things we do today was just to survive or just experimenting on ourselves? looking back to george washington, he was a genius of his time, what would he say to barback obama?
What would they say about Obama? Not much...
-
a black man as a president of one untied country, what a travesty and impossible/improbable concept! for the men who wrote the delectation of independence.
the government, for the people, by the people- Lincoln. (paraphrasing because I can't remember the exact quotation right now)
-
wait, its a travesty to have a multi-race/ethnicity president? a country that on a daily basis is becoming more mixed in its ethnicity and races?
-
it would be a travesty to have an ethnicity person to be president in 1775.
-
What is travesty is that this man is direct opposite of what so many thought he would be. They thought he's for the people, for the working man. For peace, not war.
For the poor, not the rich.
Turn out to be all opposite. What a joke, no?
BB
-
What is travesty is that this man is direct opposite of what so many thought he would be. They thought he's for the people, for the working man. For peace, not war.
For the poor, not the rich.
Turn out to be all opposite. What a joke, no?
BB
Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, if you want a government and leader that is:
for the people, for the working man. For peace, not war. For the poor, not the rich.
then you need a whole new coin, no, you need a whole new currency!
-
Capitalism is dead. One's opinion does not matter.
Capitalism is dead because it is unsustainable.
The Earth cannot replenish its resources at the rate at which humans pillage it for profit.
It is only a matter of time.
Either the Human race evolves past capitalism or perishes.
At the moment we have the resources and capabilities to shelter, food and clothe the entire population 3x's over.
We have the technology to reduce our pollution to near zero.
However this will never happen. WHY?
Because technological advancements are hindered and completely controlled by profit motive.
Capitalism is in fact restraining advancements in technology as those in power will do whatever necessary to ensure a new product does not enter the market that will undercut their earnings.
Capitalism is also preventing humans from living in balance with Earth.
The damage to the Earth is not part of the equation in Capitalism, only money, money, money.
Humans no longer have a symbiotic relationship with Mother Earth.
Every other living organism on this planet does. That should be a fucking wake up call.
Instead humans have decided to disconnect from nature. Modern civilization sees itself external of nature.
We treat Mother Earth as if it is our bitch instead of our partner. We are dominators instead of co-operators.
The symbiotic relationship between humans and Earth must be restored or all of mankind will perish.
Mother Earth will remain after we have died.
We are a culture of left-minded, ego-driven, male dominated assholes who have lost sight of the big picture.
It is time to blend the East with the West with the Aboriginals with the Natives.
It is time to take the best of both. To have balance. Ying and yang.
Rationalism is dead. The Eastern Mystics, Ancient Egyptians and Shamans of South America have known it for millennia.
Now the West has finally admitted the same with the acceptance of Quantum Mechanics.
By rationalism being dead, I mean in the traditional sense.
Can an object be in three places at one time?
The answer is yes.
You are at this very moment are in another dimension.
And people want to talk about Obama vs. Romney?
We still don't know how or why the pyramids were built.
But don't think too hard, there was another zombie attack in Florida and Snooki is pregnant.
So really I could give a damn about a greenback dollar. I cannot take it with me when I leave this plane.
I got my eyes on the real prize.
The next level.
Peace,
Brave New World
-
Capitalism is dead. One's opinion does not matter.
Capitalism is dead because it is unsustainable.
The Earth cannot replenish its resources at the rate at which humans pillage it for profit.
It is only a matter of time.
Either the Human race evolves past capitalism or perishes.
At the moment we have the resources and capabilities to shelter, food and clothe the entire population 3x's over.
We have the technology to reduce our pollution to near zero.
However this will never happen. WHY?
Because technological advancements are hindered and completely controlled by profit motive.
Capitalism is in fact restraining advancements in technology as those in power will do whatever necessary to ensure a new product does not enter the market that will undercut their earnings.
Capitalism is also preventing humans from living in balance with Earth.
The damage to the Earth is not part of the equation in Capitalism, only money, money, money.
Humans no longer have a symbiotic relationship with Mother Earth.
Every other living organism on this planet does. That should be a fucking wake up call.
Instead humans have decided to disconnect from nature. Modern civilization sees itself external of nature.
We treat Mother Earth as if it is our bitch instead of our partner. We are dominators instead of co-operators.
The symbiotic relationship between humans and Earth must be restored or all of mankind will perish.
Mother Earth will remain after we have died.
We are a culture of left-minded, ego-driven, male dominated assholes who have lost sight of the big picture.
It is time to blend the East with the West with the Aboriginals with the Natives.
It is time to take the best of both. To have balance. Ying and yang.
Rationalism is dead. The Eastern Mystics, Ancient Egyptians and Shamans of South America have known it for millennia.
Now the West has finally admitted the same with the acceptance of Quantum Mechanics.
By rationalism being dead, I mean in the traditional sense.
Can an object be in three places at one time?
The answer is yes.
You are at this very moment are in another dimension.
And people want to talk about Obama vs. Romney?
We still don't know how or why the pyramids were built.
But don't think too hard, there was another zombie attack in Florida and Snooki is pregnant.
So really I could give a damn about a greenback dollar. I cannot take it with me when I leave this plane.
I got my eyes on the real prize.
The next level.
Peace,
Brave New World
+1 GENIUS POST... I literally could not have written this any better myself, and you are sharing some of my exact thoughts...
:D :D :D
-
Clearly capitalism isn't dead... SR proves that...
-
Capitalism is dead.
But I do not have the balls to admit that in public.
Also, I do not know what a better way forward would be.
-
Capitalism is dead.
But I do not have the balls to admit that in public.
Also, I do not know what a better way forward would be.
Capitalism is FAR from dead lol, it's just entering a new phase of it's life Globalisation, we've only been in it for around 20 odd years so it's still teasing out the cracks lol.
-
I loved reading the arc of conversation. You all went in every direction its hard to know what to touch on next. I guess I will start by rephrasing the first question:
In a hypothetical world where everyone is completely free to do or say anything they may. a world without laws or restrictions acceptable on conduct. would said world be better or worse for being exposed to the full unfiltered range of human behavior? for example; a child molester, a cannibal, a teacher and a physician being equally accepted and free to pursue whatever they wish.
now to sleep again.
“I think insomnia is a sign that a person is interesting.”
― Avery Sawyer, Notes to Self
-
oday at 01:22 AM »
Insert Quote
Capitalism is dead. One's opinion does not matter.
Capitalism is dead because it is unsustainable.
The Earth cannot replenish its resources at the rate at which humans pillage it for profit.
It is only a matter of time.
Either the Human race evolves past capitalism or perishes.
At the moment we have the resources and capabilities to shelter, food and clothe the entire population 3x's over.
We have the technology to reduce our pollution to near zero.
However this will never happen. WHY?
Because technological advancements are hindered and completely controlled by profit motive.
Capitalism is in fact restraining advancements in technology as those in power will do whatever necessary to ensure a new product does not enter the market that will undercut their earnings.
Capitalism is also preventing humans from living in balance with Earth.
The damage to the Earth is not part of the equation in Capitalism, only money, money, money.
Humans no longer have a symbiotic relationship with Mother Earth.
Every other living organism on this planet does. That should be a fucking wake up call.
Instead humans have decided to disconnect from nature. Modern civilization sees itself external of nature.
We treat Mother Earth as if it is our bitch instead of our partner. We are dominators instead of co-operators.
The symbiotic relationship between humans and Earth must be restored or all of mankind will perish.
Mother Earth will remain after we have died.
We are a culture of left-minded, ego-driven, male dominated assholes who have lost sight of the big picture.
It is time to blend the East with the West with the Aboriginals with the Natives.
It is time to take the best of both. To have balance. Ying and yang.
Rationalism is dead. The Eastern Mystics, Ancient Egyptians and Shamans of South America have known it for millennia.
Now the West has finally admitted the same with the acceptance of Quantum Mechanics.
By rationalism being dead, I mean in the traditional sense.
Can an object be in three places at one time?
The answer is yes.
You are at this very moment are in another dimension.
And people want to talk about Obama vs. Romney?
We still don't know how or why the pyramids were built.
But don't think too hard, there was another zombie attack in Florida and Snooki is pregnant.
So really I could give a damn about a greenback dollar. I cannot take it with me when I leave this plane.
I got my eyes on the real prize.
The next level.
Peace,
Brave New World
you are so right. But my question is, what do we do about it? how do we bring about the change that the world needs? what dies it take to unite all those who must be united and to make them realize that now is the time to make the change that the world needs.
-
oday at 01:22 AM »
Insert Quote
Capitalism is dead. One's opinion does not matter.
Capitalism is dead because it is unsustainable.
The Earth cannot replenish its resources at the rate at which humans pillage it for profit.
It is only a matter of time.
Either the Human race evolves past capitalism or perishes.
At the moment we have the resources and capabilities to shelter, food and clothe the entire population 3x's over.
We have the technology to reduce our pollution to near zero.
However this will never happen. WHY?
Because technological advancements are hindered and completely controlled by profit motive.
Capitalism is in fact restraining advancements in technology as those in power will do whatever necessary to ensure a new product does not enter the market that will undercut their earnings.
Capitalism is also preventing humans from living in balance with Earth.
The damage to the Earth is not part of the equation in Capitalism, only money, money, money.
Humans no longer have a symbiotic relationship with Mother Earth.
Every other living organism on this planet does. That should be a fucking wake up call.
Instead humans have decided to disconnect from nature. Modern civilization sees itself external of nature.
We treat Mother Earth as if it is our bitch instead of our partner. We are dominators instead of co-operators.
The symbiotic relationship between humans and Earth must be restored or all of mankind will perish.
Mother Earth will remain after we have died.
We are a culture of left-minded, ego-driven, male dominated assholes who have lost sight of the big picture.
It is time to blend the East with the West with the Aboriginals with the Natives.
It is time to take the best of both. To have balance. Ying and yang.
Rationalism is dead. The Eastern Mystics, Ancient Egyptians and Shamans of South America have known it for millennia.
Now the West has finally admitted the same with the acceptance of Quantum Mechanics.
By rationalism being dead, I mean in the traditional sense.
Can an object be in three places at one time?
The answer is yes.
You are at this very moment are in another dimension.
And people want to talk about Obama vs. Romney?
We still don't know how or why the pyramids were built.
But don't think too hard, there was another zombie attack in Florida and Snooki is pregnant.
So really I could give a damn about a greenback dollar. I cannot take it with me when I leave this plane.
I got my eyes on the real prize.
The next level.
Peace,
Brave New World
you are so right. But my question is, what do we do about it? how do we bring about the change that the world needs? what dies it take to unite all those who must be united and to make them realize that now is the time to make the change that the world needs.
I strongly hope that this 2012 date everyone has been talking about is actually more of a spiritual awakening then anything. Some of the smartest people I know strongly believe that this date is truly significant because people will start to see that the people they put their trust in (government) are all full of shit. Will we be able to do something about it in her our lifetime? I hope so...
-
Lol nahhhh. It'll stay the same, people will have the same values as before and the world economy will roll on and eventually stabilise and then fuck up again, those that make money will keep making it and those that work for money will keep working for it. Been the same for 1000s of year, no point killing off a good things. ;)
-
Lol nahhhh. It'll stay the same, people will have the same values as before and the world economy will roll on and eventually stabilise and then fuck up again, those that make money will keep making it and those that work for money will keep working for it. Been the same for 1000s of year, no point killing off a good things. ;)
As much as a social revolution really SHOULD happen imo I can't say I am 100% comfortable with the idea. It's nice to have our view on the world and be on the "enlightened" side but hey... we probably all just do too many drugs ;)
-
Capitalism is dead. One's opinion does not matter.
Capitalism is dead because it is unsustainable.
The Earth cannot replenish its resources at the rate at which humans pillage it for profit.
It is only a matter of time.
Either the Human race evolves past capitalism or perishes.
At the moment we have the resources and capabilities to shelter, food and clothe the entire population 3x's over.
We have the technology to reduce our pollution to near zero.
However this will never happen. WHY?
Because technological advancements are hindered and completely controlled by profit motive.
Capitalism is in fact restraining advancements in technology as those in power will do whatever necessary to ensure a new product does not enter the market that will undercut their earnings.
Capitalism is also preventing humans from living in balance with Earth.
The damage to the Earth is not part of the equation in Capitalism, only money, money, money.
Humans no longer have a symbiotic relationship with Mother Earth.
Every other living organism on this planet does. That should be a fucking wake up call.
Instead humans have decided to disconnect from nature. Modern civilization sees itself external of nature.
We treat Mother Earth as if it is our bitch instead of our partner. We are dominators instead of co-operators.
The symbiotic relationship between humans and Earth must be restored or all of mankind will perish.
Mother Earth will remain after we have died.
We are a culture of left-minded, ego-driven, male dominated assholes who have lost sight of the big picture.
It is time to blend the East with the West with the Aboriginals with the Natives.
It is time to take the best of both. To have balance. Ying and yang.
Rationalism is dead. The Eastern Mystics, Ancient Egyptians and Shamans of South America have known it for millennia.
Now the West has finally admitted the same with the acceptance of Quantum Mechanics.
By rationalism being dead, I mean in the traditional sense.
Can an object be in three places at one time?
The answer is yes.
You are at this very moment are in another dimension.
And people want to talk about Obama vs. Romney?
We still don't know how or why the pyramids were built.
But don't think too hard, there was another zombie attack in Florida and Snooki is pregnant.
So really I could give a damn about a greenback dollar. I cannot take it with me when I leave this plane.
I got my eyes on the real prize.
The next level.
Peace,
Brave New World
Well said. :)
-
In a hypothetical world where everyone is completely free to do or say anything they may. a world without laws or restrictions acceptable on conduct. would said world be better or worse for being exposed to the full unfiltered range of human behavior? for example; a child molester, a cannibal, a teacher and a physician being equally accepted and free to pursue whatever they wish.
So what you're asking is whether worldwide anarchy would be "better" or "worse". Well, you're going to have to attach some qualifiers to what you mean by better and worse in this philosophical exercise if you want to get anywhere.
And to BraveNewWorld and those that agree with him above, I've gotta agree with Limetless. When capitalism so utterly dominates the economic practice of every sovereign nation on earth save North Korea and Cuba, how anyone can claim with a straight face that capitalism is dead is baffling.
Usually a system is declared dead when it's replaced by an alternative system. There isn't a viable alternative to capitalism right now ... there just isn't. And just like other systems, capitalism has its strengths and weaknesses. Its the job of governments to reign in the excesses of unrestrained neo-liberal, laissez-faire capitalism which when run amok can result in destructive characteristics harmful to the society practicing it. It sounds like your gripe is with the systems of government that have so far failed to reign in the latest iterations of capitalist excesses than with capitalism itself.
IMO, pinning all of the world's problems on the economic system of private ownership that forms the basis of capitalism is just silly. For instance:
At the moment we have the resources and capabilities to shelter, food and clothe the entire population 3x's over.
To blame starvation on capitalism instead of politics is missing the forest for the trees. If you're going to cite such an example, why do you conveniently ignore that capitalism deserves some credit for the steep climbs in output that have allowed us to produce enough food, shelter, and clothing for the world's population 3x over?
We have the technology to reduce our pollution to near zero.
However this will never happen. WHY?
Again, your gripe should be focused on the politics that have prevented green tech from proliferating rather than an economic system like capitalism that acts as a driver of bringing new ideas in green technology to market just as much as it drives the dirty energy market. Capitalism itself is neutral in this regard.
Because technological advancements are hindered and completely controlled by profit motive.
Capitalism is in fact restraining advancements in technology as those in power will do whatever necessary to ensure a new product does not enter the market that will undercut their earnings.
While I have no doubt that moneyed interests do play a significant role in repressing some technologies that are more environmentally friendly, to make a blanket claim accusing capitalism of restraining technological advancements is just silly. In many cases, capitalism and profit motives are responsible for bringing products to market that are of great benefit to the world. Not always, but to write off the entire capitalist system as dead just because some elements of capitalism need fine tuning and regulation is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. IMO, it's just brainless and lazy.
Now don't even get me started on your claim that rationalism is dead because of quantum mechanics. ???
-
Communism all the way, and that shit aside. Shouldn't we all just eat as much DMT as possible as to prepare our self for the SINGULARITY? They talked alot about it back in the days, when they felt that they were all-one, but they could only experience it in the ego-freedom of intoxication and not actually produce it as a matter of real existence. Now, some say, it's approaching us in tremendous speed. We will experience some kind of elevated consciousness in the next 20 years. Who will be better to prepare and guide humanity in to this new leap in evolution than those who've already wandered the other dimensions?
And oh yeah, capitalism is ugly. It's that simple. Everything beautiful, everything of real value is created outside of capitalism. Everything capitalism puts its hands upon withers, dries, crumple up and stink into something disgusting and revolting called "products". It's disgusting and ugly. It is as simple as that, that's why capitalism sucks.
-
So what you're asking is whether worldwide anarchy would be "better" or "worse". Well, you're going to have to attach some qualifiers to what you mean by better and worse in this philosophical exercise if you want to get anywhere.
semantics aside I mean generally and objectively better than the current existing state of affairs, for the human race, its survival, evolution, and progress. I do not feel that a concept as general and simple as "better than the status quo" or "worse than the status quo" really needs much in the way of qualification.
And oh yeah, capitalism is ugly. It's that simple. Everything beautiful, everything of real value is created outside of capitalism. Everything capitalism puts its hands upon withers, dries, crumple up and stink into something disgusting and revolting called "products". It's disgusting and ugly. It is as simple as that, that's why capitalism sucks.
I agree wholly and would expand to posit that capitalism's negative effect on the world is a symptom of a more fundamental problem within human nature.
No one can change the world.
No one can stop the evil banking cartels.
No one can stop the Military Industrial Complex.
But what you can do is CHANGE YOURSELF.
BNW is right to the crux of the issue here. Control of external things is, I believe, a convenient illusion adopted to make society possible. Real change is always and can only be internal, and personal. Mindfulness of oneself, as a gateway to effect personal change, and repeated in individuals en masse is the only solution. It is out of our collective apathy and ignorance that the power to corrupt and abuse large groups of people is formed.
Thank you.
Time is getting faster and faster.
It's crazy.
Better get on board quick people or you are going to miss the ship.
Open up those chakras and elevate your vibrations.
Do you think perhaps that time is merely a function of our limited view of the multiverse, and does not in fact exist? The more information I absorb on the subject of time and memory the less I believe either is a four dimensional function. There is a good deal of plausible theory flying around about time being an observation of a point on a membrane in a higher dimension and that if we weren't in a lower dimension we would see all of what we call time as a single unchanging event or bubble.
I think memory may be similarly strange, in that it is not a chemical storage of information, but instead an observation of a different point within the time event. Memory could possibly lack limitation on which branch of the divergent universe it observes, which would help explain memories of past lives, inaccurate memories within groups of people witnessing the same event, and even clairvoyance (remembering an event that hasn't happened yet in your universe branch).
And, just like that, another 30 minutes of this thing we call time slips away. I wonder if we will be able to stop or reverse it some day with only our consciousness. Or, perhaps do away with the illusion altogether. Till then I still need sleep, so have a great cycle SR
-
You're forgetting one very important thing... WE ARE HUMANS
We aren't some perfect species that will suddenly start living in harmony with the Earth. It is our NATURE to be this corrupt. Whether you think so or not, it obviously is. Or perhaps we should learn from the Ancient cultures that were apparently so aligned with the Earth, and start sacrificing babies and owning slaves again?
Maybe if there was some mass revolution of consciousness we could live without money.. But money is just an abstraction of services/resources. And we are abstract creatures. It's always going to happen.
You are asking humans to suddenly stop being human.
Stop living in the clouds, this shit is DEEP DEEP DEEP in our nature. Whether we have a deeper nature that is more in harmony with the universe.. perhaps I would agree with you. But it certainly isn't the mode of operation for 99.99% of us.
So revolution of consciousness comes first, and then when we NATURALLY EVOLVE into a system of no money, then that's cool.
But right now, you're talking about the very unpleasant primate species to which we belong, and the self interested fantasies it will continue to generate, one of which is the system of politics.
-
In all probability our species will most likely kill itself off prior to any Utopia manifesting itself. This is the nature of our species, as a matter of fact. What else could be the nature of organisms existing in a universal, infinite singularity, whose contents are those stolen from the immediately preceding moments? What else could we be but creatures that posit ourselves so absolutely we can strive for nothing else but our own deaths?
In accepting the early tribal forms of male/female dichotomous social hierarchy we established patterns of repetition which could both allow us to progress to unforeseen heights as well as cause a great deal of suffering. The belief that because we are an evolved form of electrical activity and are thus somehow superior is completely subjective. Subjectivity is complete bullshit- partiality imparts a degree of subjectivity to all matters, but it is in the objective, molded only with the stains of interpretation, that we may find a suitably irrational solution to the horrors of our daily rationalities.
Technology imparts either detachment or complete involvement and participation in all forms of media. "All media work us over completely." Whether you choose to accept capitalism, communism, or otherwise, is ultimately irrelevant, as we are constantly in the midst of a civil war, which we are either losing or winning- depending upon the interpretation.
We will kill ourselves before we kill the earth, and it is likely that we will realize this potentiality very short periods of time from now (biologically speaking).
Perhaps honey bees, or potatoes, will be he next evolved species? If we as human beings have proven anything, it is that potatoes can certainly conduct electrical activity- and at the very least are good for a cheap Christmas dollar(:
To those of you who love moolah, cash, greenbacks, verdant sliders, wet ones, wetbacks, the ever lovin' dollar, that stuff that you can't eat but need to live (?),
Enjoy the path to your own death, as I am certainly enjoying mine(:
-
DMT is the answer
-
But the same technology would mean that the same governments of the world could simply put everyone into a fake reality Matrix style, have no-one be able to tell, whilst they're living it up in the real world.
-
But the same technology would mean that the same governments of the world could simply put everyone into a fake reality Matrix style, have no-one be able to tell, whilst they're living it up in the real world.
I think it is safe to say we have only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to crazy.
Shit is going to be off the wall bananas in the upcoming 20 years and most people don't even care or find it exciting.
As George Carlin said, "When you are born on this planet you get a ticket to the end of the World. When you are born in America, you get a front row seat."
Sit back and enjoy the show folks.
-
In a way, I kinda like the world as it is because apart from technology advancing that's all that will change.
Regarding our political systems and the status quo, I personally have just come to accept it for what it is. Humans are by their very nature corrupt and greedy so why fight it? Take for example everybody's favourite bug-bear here. Legalisation. Does anyone REALLY believe that anything will change even if that happened? Nah would it fuck. The government that did it wouldn't let us all become potential millionaires overnight for shit, that's just fucking naive. What they would do instead is issue licenses like they do any other illegal drug and let people like Pfizer and all the rest of them monopolise the shit out of it and then we would be pissed off that they were making junkies and it being corrupt as fuck and taking all the cheddar. In reality, under prohibition we actually retain a certain level on control over the drug trade even though it brings all sorts of negatives. You'd be simply trading that for some sort of weird fucked-up Brave-New-World scenario. Nuts to that.
Also when people say "Yeah Communism would work".....if it was gunna it would have by now. Look at what happens when the state is already intruding on your ass under a "Democratic" system in comparison to say....Soviet Russia, or present day China or even fucking worse North fucking Korea where shit really is 1984. Problem with socialism is that once the revolution is over and all that worker freedom and all that shit has been won the leaders of said revolution don't tend to want to let go and if you look at the red-revolutions that become a rather fuckin annoying habit of theirs. "Freedom for the worker! Freedom for the worker! Hmmmmm now we have freedom we better stick the worker in the Gulag to make sure he doesn't want too much freedom" THAT shit, every, single, time. So as this is the case then we may as well have a trickle down system where if you work had enough and have a bit of ambition and grit you can get somewhere fairly decent. Also what communism also does is deny an inescapable truth - we AREN'T all equal and NEVER will be. If we were why are some smarter than others? Some more athletic than others? Some more creative than others? It's because society needs different people to fill all the different gaps and communism robs those of a chance to exorcise their talents and creativity and independent thought.
So given all of the above....I'd definitely rather be in a world where everybody takes their cut and we all get paid.
My two cents.
-
I wanted to take the time to dissect this post because I believe all the rationale is supported by inaccurate assumptions.
Capitalism is dead. One's opinion does not matter.
Capitalism is dead because it is unsustainable.
The Earth cannot replenish its resources at the rate at which humans pillage it for profit.
It is only a matter of time.
Either the Human race evolves past capitalism or perishes.
Capitalism does nothing of the sort. It is merely a means by which one human acquires what he or she wants from persons competing to provide a better service for a better value than the others doing the same thing. Without capitalism one cannot have freedom. Capitalism is merely the existence of economic liberty. The "down side" of this is that some folks are better at earning an income and thriving in an environment where one is capable of failure. Because of this capitalism requires that some will succeed, and some must fail, while the majority, like a bell curve (I realize the distribution is not exactly a bell) do well enough to be mostly content and meet the majority if not all of their needs.
To evolve past capitalism is to lose the current economic freedom that we have. The old saying 'the rich get richer while the poor get poorer' is easily explained by two facts; the rich keep doing what it was that made them rich, and the poor keep doing what it was that made/keep them poor, and half the people are below average.
At the moment we have the resources and capabilities to shelter, food and clothe the entire population 3x's over.
We have the technology to reduce our pollution to near zero.
However this will never happen. WHY?
Because technological advancements are hindered and completely controlled by profit motive.
Capitalism is in fact restraining advancements in technology as those in power will do whatever necessary to ensure a new product does not enter the market that will undercut their earnings.
Capitalism is also preventing humans from living in balance with Earth.
The damage to the Earth is not part of the equation in Capitalism, only money, money, money.
What you call the 'profit motive' is indeed a real thing. However, I do not share your negative connotation with it. Stating that society at large is able to provide all of it's citizens with the necessities is a true statement, but one which I consider almost evil. To make the provision of food, clothing, shelter, and (dare I say) health care a 'basic human right' is one of those things which sounds good, but is evil. Why do I say evil? Well, consider this. If one has a right to something (in the form of a service or product) then by definition another has duty to provide it. One cannot provide a service or product without sacrificing their time. By saying someone has a right to a service or product means that someone is forced to provide it. Either by one person bearing the burden, or by society collectively stepping in to compensate the providing party with compensation.
Therein lies the problem. The economic freedoms of others are compromised.
To your other point. The Earth's resources are indeed finite. Capitalism may well cause the depletion of these resources sooner, but they will, no matter what we do, be depleted at some point. What capitalism provides is a way out. Asteroids, for instance, are full of gold, silver and diamonds. Eventually that profit motive will get us there. There may not be fossil fuels on these extraterrestrial bodies, but there is value there. We will never get there with gas. Capitalism provides the drive for humanity to do more.
There are some instances, I'm sure, of new technologies being suppressed by the established industries, but they cannot, and never have, suppressed them forever. What has to happen, though, is the technology has to increase to a point where it can be made profitable. One that comes to mind is new power sources for automobiles. You hear a lot about hydrogen fuel cells. They can make a working prototype, but the infrastructure is not in place, nor is the technology cheap and reliable enough to implement full scale at the moment.
But one day it will be. And when that day comes, some rich people will jump start the industry. It will work when it can work.
Humans no longer have a symbiotic relationship with Mother Earth.
Every other living organism on this planet does. That should be a fucking wake up call.
Instead humans have decided to disconnect from nature. Modern civilization sees itself external of nature.
We treat Mother Earth as if it is our bitch instead of our partner. We are dominators instead of co-operators.
The symbiotic relationship between humans and Earth must be restored or all of mankind will perish.
Mother Earth will remain after we have died.
This is untrue. There are many species that are not symbiotic. Locusts hatch every so often and eat everything in sight and a great many of other species starve. I will admit, there is some superficial truth to your above assertions. However, there is a logical and biological reason for these things. Humans are, and have been for a long time, the very top of the food chain. What this means is that our population is under no external threats. Most other species are controlled by predators. When the deer population gets too high, they all starve as well. As deer are currently in many parts of the country. What does that mean? Their population is too high and they are out eating the things on which they survive. The same problem you claim is exclusive to humanity.
All it is is a side effect of not having any predators.
We are a culture of left-minded, ego-driven, male dominated assholes who have lost sight of the big picture.
It is time to blend the East with the West with the Aboriginals with the Natives.
It is time to take the best of both. To have balance. Ying and yang.
I agree with this, as humanity would be better served as a more united, than divided planet.
Rationalism is dead. The Eastern Mystics, Ancient Egyptians and Shamans of South America have known it for millennia.
Now the West has finally admitted the same with the acceptance of Quantum Mechanics.
By rationalism being dead, I mean in the traditional sense.
Can an object be in three places at one time?
The answer is yes.
You are at this very moment are in another dimension.
And people want to talk about Obama vs. Romney?
We still don't know how or why the pyramids were built.
But don't think too hard, there was another zombie attack in Florida and Snooki is pregnant.
So really I could give a damn about a greenback dollar. I cannot take it with me when I leave this plane.
I got my eyes on the real prize.
The next level.
Peace,
Brave New World
I will agree that our current culture is too focused on bull shit. However, to say modern society is male driven is absurd. Based on what, human history? Females in the west, anyway, have more freedoms than ever and have used that to climb higher in society than they ever have, except for in isolated pockets of a few cultures in places in the past.
However, I still do not know what the 'death of rationalism' and quantum mechanics have in common.
I realize capitalism creates winners and losers, and it sucks if your a loser. I am not what I would call a winner by any means. But a know some and they all work harder than I do, and have made better decisions in their past than I have in mine. I can also say that most of the folks I know who are losing compared to me dont work as hard and have made even dumber decisions than I have in their past.
What I am thankful for is a society in which I can apply my abilities and provide for myself. This is much nicer than many of the other methods we have used and are currently using. Which would I rather be, a 13th century surf, or a modern North Korean, Chinese, or Indian peasant? It is a toss up.
-
Politics cannot reign in capitalism because capitalism has highjacked politics.
There is no longer any representative republican form of government left on Earth.
WHY?
Money.
Due to SuperPacs and the case of Citizens v. United States, lobbyists have been enabled to buy off every single politician in office.
They don't represent the people, they represent corporations.
Yet you want to talk about politics reigning in capitalism?
Capitalism already seduced, fucked, beat and left for dead politics.
You make me laugh.
I fundamentally disagree with you, simply because you seem ignorant of historical perspective. Have you never heard of the Gilded Age between 1865-1929? I encourage you to read up on it. We've been here before. During that time the American upper class was experiencing unprecedented wealth due to runaway laissez-faire capitalism. Then, as now, the top 1% was hoarding and consolidating its grip on wealth and power and forming a New Aristocracy. Doomsayers just like you were trumpeting the death of capitalism. You would have made a fine communist mouthpiece during those times. It was true that capitalism was cannibalizing itself.
So what happened? Precisely what you mockingly claim can't happen. Politics reigned in capitalism. First Teddy came along and trust busted the monopolies that proved to be stagnating economic growth with a lack of competition. Then it all changed in 1929 with FDR. FDR and others neutered the Wealth Aristocracy in America, in large effect. Thereby saving Capitalism. If you don't believe me, believe (your hero?) Stalin. He remarked that FDR had given Capitalism another thirty years of life.
You don't seem to comprehend that representative democracy mixed with capitalism is not just imperfect, but represents a constant work in progress. There are going to be times when the pendulum swings one way with powerful moneyed interests overreaching that requires the natural forces of perpetual progress to force it back the other way whether that be a sharp and courageous leader or the mass awareness of a problem that leads to an organic protest movement to reign in the excesses of special interests. If you study political science you'll learn our government was designed to be this constant yo-yo tug of war for power between the masses and powerful interests, and is never a finished product devoid of hope like you're envisioning. In light of the successes of the past, I have much more confidence in democratic form of governance than you do. Outside your propensity to trash capitalism as hopeless and unworkable I have yet to hear you propose a viable economic system to capitalism.
-
Yes. In order to truly experience the absolute best our consciousness and species can offer, we must also experience the absolute worst. There is not one without the other and one cannot overpower the other. They must exist in duality meaning both must be occurring simultaneously. What we think of as good will never win over evil, and evil will never win over good, they must both exist equally - for one is not superior to the other because one cannot exist without the other. This simple rule of "everything has an equal opposite" is what creates the infinitely gradient richness we all can choose to see. For example, there is no limit to how great or how destructive life can be, meaning anything is possible and everything that is possible will eventually happen - either here or in another universe/dimension. We created incredibly complex machine language with this same principle: 1's and 0's or positive and negative electrical charges. That turned out to be something pretty special, no?
The Universe, and ultimately the multiverse and beyond, is actually incredibly easy and intuitive to understand because we are made of it and it exists within us. Our bodies are essentially star dust and our consciousness is a force just like gravity in that it's all relative ;) We existed even before the 'Big Bang' because our consciousness is eternal and if it doesn't exist here, it will exist elsewhere. What we see and experience could not be possible without a universe and the universe could not be possible without us - or any observer - observing it. In other words, the universe wouldn't exist without us and we wouldn't exist without the universe. By 'us' and 'we', I'm including all life anywhere. Hope this answers your question.
-
In a way, I kinda like the world as it is because apart from technology advancing that's all that will change.
Regarding our political systems and the status quo, I personally have just come to accept it for what it is. Humans are by their very nature corrupt and greedy so why fight it? Take for example everybody's favourite bug-bear here. Legalisation. Does anyone REALLY believe that anything will change even if that happened? Nah would it fuck. The government that did it wouldn't let us all become potential millionaires overnight for shit, that's just fucking naive. What they would do instead is issue licenses like they do any other illegal drug and let people like Pfizer and all the rest of them monopolise the shit out of it and then we would be pissed off that they were making junkies and it being corrupt as fuck and taking all the cheddar. In reality, under prohibition we actually retain a certain level on control over the drug trade even though it brings all sorts of negatives. You'd be simply trading that for some sort of weird fucked-up Brave-New-World scenario. Nuts to that.
Also when people say "Yeah Communism would work".....if it was gunna it would have by now. Look at what happens when the state is already intruding on your ass under a "Democratic" system in comparison to say....Soviet Russia, or present day China or even fucking worse North fucking Korea where shit really is 1984. Problem with socialism is that once the revolution is over and all that worker freedom and all that shit has been won the leaders of said revolution don't tend to want to let go and if you look at the red-revolutions that become a rather fuckin annoying habit of theirs. "Freedom for the worker! Freedom for the worker! Hmmmmm now we have freedom we better stick the worker in the Gulag to make sure he doesn't want too much freedom" THAT shit, every, single, time. So as this is the case then we may as well have a trickle down system where if you work had enough and have a bit of ambition and grit you can get somewhere fairly decent. Also what communism also does is deny an inescapable truth - we AREN'T all equal and NEVER will be. If we were why are some smarter than others? Some more athletic than others? Some more creative than others? It's because society needs different people to fill all the different gaps and communism robs those of a chance to exorcise their talents and creativity and independent thought.
So given all of the above....I'd definitely rather be in a world where everybody takes their cut and we all get paid.
My two cents.
This is a very good point.
Honestly I think some level of nihilism is the most insightful philosophy. There is no meaning to anything, and as such there is no right and wrong. No karma. People do things to because it benefits them, no other reason.
For this reason I don't think society will ever achieve a utopia, because there will always be someone who sees a way to benefit at the expense of others. Hell, I see several ways I would benefit myself in such a society, right off the bat. In my honest opinion looking at everything and determining how each individual party will benefit is the best practical philosophical advice one can give. This is why people will (and do) act in any given scenario.
Having said that that I'm an anarchist at heart. If it was realistic I would love to see a world where everyone can do what they want when they want, and we all as a society support this. I don't think I'll see it though.
-
Here's a question for you.
If you were told, we can solve all world hunger, poverty, and house/feed/shelter everyone, but the west has to give up phones/internet/movies/music/cars/commercialised food industry/transport etc and grow your own food.. Would you?
My personal answer, no. You can call that selfish, and yes, it is.
But I think deep down, most people would be apprehensive about giving all of that up. I mean, who actually cares about world poverty? I mean if you ask me, I'll say "well of course its bad".. And if you actually sent me over to Africa or somewhere, I'm sure it'd hit me harder. But on a day to day basis, who ever thinks about it? Some people will, but most of us? We. just. don't. give. a. fuck. Admit it. Obviously we don't give a fuck, because if we all gave a fuck, we would have done something about it, wouldn't we?
It's just another example of people and their lofty morals that they spout off as beliefs but don't really believe.
For example I find that most people that talk about the amount of civilian deaths in Iraq, do so to win points when arguing against the right wing, and not out of any sort of genuine empathy for the victims.
People are scared to say "I just don't care about all these people dying. It doesn't impact me in any meaningful way as it isn't near me." And the thing they're scared of, is the condemnation of OTHER people who also don't really give a shit, but just have so much unerring self belief that they can't tell the difference between the point they're making to win an argument and a genuine caring for the victims of war.
Even the people who are most forceful in their beliefs. Most of the time, they're doing that for ego reasons. It's not because they REALLY REALLY care about this stuff. They just really want to see themselves as superior to you so use an example like 100,000 dead Iraqis. And those that really honestly do care.. they're in the minority.
Yet I know for a fact it is the mindset of most people that we don't really give that much of a fuck, its blatantly obvious. It's reflected in the news. 100,000 dead civilians is on for about 20 minutes, whereas 1 white middle class blonde girl kidnapped in the Algarve is front-page news for over a year. And why is that? It's because we care about our own entertainment, and stories, and we don't give a fuck about how many dead people there are. Sorry if you're offended, I didn't create humanity. Be mad at nature, you know the instincts that would make a lion rip your throat out.
I don't make the rules, I just play the game. I care about myself, my friends, and my family, and doing things I enjoy. On a global scale, it is a very selfish mindset to have, but I don't give a shit, and I don't mind saying so. And I'm not even saying that not caring about people is a good way to live.
I'm just saying, let's be honest about our motivations here. Humanity is a shit species. We all say we care about each other but really we're looking out for number 1. If you want to try and further a cause for helping people, do so because you really care, and not because you want to look good or so you can look in the mirror and tell yourself you're a humanitarian.
-
Here's a question for you.
If you were told, we can solve all world hunger, poverty, and house/feed/shelter everyone, but the west has to give up phones/internet/movies/music/cars/commercialised food industry/transport etc and grow your own food.. Would you?
My personal answer, no. You can call that selfish, and yes, it is.
But I think deep down, most people would be apprehensive about giving all of that up. I mean, who actually cares about world poverty? I mean if you ask me, I'll say "well of course its bad".. And if you actually sent me over to Africa or somewhere, I'm sure it'd hit me harder. But on a day to day basis, who ever thinks about it? Some people will, but most of us? We. just. don't. give. a. fuck. Admit it.
Exactly my point. Apologies if I don't express this in the best possible way in one post.
There is no good and bad, only things that benefit an individual, or hurt an individual. By that notion, feeding the world at the detriment of myself is not a good outcome for me.
So I am of course not going to give up what I have to achieve that. but do I think it is an unworthy cause? No, of course not.
-
Here's a question for you.
If you were told, we can solve all world hunger, poverty, and house/feed/shelter everyone, but the west has to give up phones/internet/movies/music/cars/commercialised food industry/transport etc and grow your own food.. Would you?
My personal answer, no. You can call that selfish, and yes, it is.
But I think deep down, most people would be apprehensive about giving all of that up. I mean, who actually cares about world poverty? I mean if you ask me, I'll say "well of course its bad".. And if you actually sent me over to Africa or somewhere, I'm sure it'd hit me harder. But on a day to day basis, who ever thinks about it? Some people will, but most of us? We. just. don't. give. a. fuck. Admit it.
Exactly my point. Apologies if I don't express this in the best possible way in one post.
There is no good and bad, only things that benefit an individual, or hurt an individual. By that notion, feeding the world at the detriment of myself is not a good outcome for me.
So I am of course not going to give up what I have to achieve that. but do I think it is an unworthy cause? No, of course not.
I find that the argument about good and bad is corrupted by the religious, who frankly use non sequitirs to make a problem where there isn't one.
There is about as much "good" "bad" "evil" as there is "benefit" "detriment".
They're all abstract ideas. The religious have stolen the argument by saying "good and bad must come from God. Anything that doesn't come from God isn't really good or bad".
Therefore we say, in reply, "good" and "bad" don't exist.
And in the religious sense, they don't. Because the religious idea of morality, doesn't make any sense at all.
But they do exist, as very real, abstract ideas. So in that sense, we can say that good and bad exist. You know, the actual ideas of good and bad. Not this religious idea of a definitive, 100%, good or bad, that is a totally meaningless thing to say anyway, because no idea exists in that sense. "Chairs" don't exist. Just bits of wood and plastic.
It's the same with good and bad. We act one way and we call it good, we act another way and we call it bad.
There are various caveats and changes depending on cultures but things such as murder and rape, we can say with confidence that they are bad. We don't need a sky daddy who can make things good or bad simply by making them good or bad.. It just comes from evolution.
If a species didn't have solidarity, it wouldn't evolve. Simple as that. If a species practiced rape and murder habitually, it would die out. And societies that do glorify such things, do die out. And that's why these things hit you in the heart. That's the way nature has evolved these things to affect you... so that our species may survive. For the same reasons, we hate the people that commit these acts.
That's where morality comes from, and in that sense, good and bad are very real. They just aren't real in the ludicrous sense that the religious expect them to be.
-
Here's a question for you.
If you were told, we can solve all world hunger, poverty, and house/feed/shelter everyone, but the west has to give up phones/internet/movies/music/cars/commercialised food industry/transport etc and grow your own food.. Would you?
My personal answer, no. You can call that selfish, and yes, it is.
But I think deep down, most people would be apprehensive about giving all of that up. I mean, who actually cares about world poverty? I mean if you ask me, I'll say "well of course its bad".. And if you actually sent me over to Africa or somewhere, I'm sure it'd hit me harder. But on a day to day basis, who ever thinks about it? Some people will, but most of us? We. just. don't. give. a. fuck. Admit it.
Exactly my point. Apologies if I don't express this in the best possible way in one post.
There is no good and bad, only things that benefit an individual, or hurt an individual. By that notion, feeding the world at the detriment of myself is not a good outcome for me.
So I am of course not going to give up what I have to achieve that. but do I think it is an unworthy cause? No, of course not.
I find that the argument about good and bad is corrupted by the religious, who frankly use non sequitirs to make a problem where there isn't one.
There is about as much "good" "bad" "evil" as there is "benefit" "detriment".
They're all abstract ideas. The religious have stolen the argument by saying "good and bad must come from God. Anything that doesn't come from God isn't really good or bad".
Therefore we say, in reply, "good" and "bad" don't exist.
And in the religious sense, they don't. Because the religious idea of morality, doesn't make any sense at all.
But they do exist, as very real, abstract ideas. So in that sense, we can say that good and bad exist. You know, the actual ideas of good and bad. Not this religious idea of a definitive, 100%, good or bad, that is a totally meaningless thing to say anyway, because no idea exists in that sense. "Chairs" don't exist. Just bits of wood and plastic.
It's the same with good and bad. We act one way and we call it good, we act another way and we call it bad.
There are various caveats and changes depending on cultures but things such as murder and rape, we can say with confidence that they are bad. We don't need a sky daddy who can make things good or bad simply by making them good or bad.. It just comes from evolution.
If a species didn't have solidarity, it wouldn't evolve. Simple as that. If a species practiced rape and murder habitually, it would die out. And societies that do glorify such things, do die out. And that's why these things hit you in the heart. That's the way nature has evolved these things to affect you... so that our species may survive. For the same reasons, we hate the people that commit these acts.
That's where morality comes from, and in that sense, good and bad are very real. They just aren't real in the ludicrous sense that the religious expect them to be.
You've called me out. But I like that. Nothing better than being challenged in your opinion. Forces you to be right, or if you're wrong, to become right.
What I have to ask though, is if a society were to experience true freedom, where anything goes, would murder still hit us as hard? Or would the 'eye for an eye' justice be enough to sate that? After enough murders and equal punishments would we be left with utopia, or would we simply die out, with no one left?
I guess what I want to get across is that there shouldn't be a right and wrong. The world doesn't care if what you do benefits others, or only yourself. At the end of the day it will tick over as it always has.
-
You've called me out. But I like that. Nothing better than being challenged in your opinion. Forces you to be right, or if you're wrong, to become right.
What I have to ask though, is if a society were to experience true freedom, where anything goes, would murder still hit us as hard? Or would the 'eye for an eye' justice be enough to sate that? After enough murders and equal punishments would we be left with utopia, or would we simply die out, with no one left?
I guess what I want to get across is that there shouldn't be a right and wrong. The world doesn't care if what you do benefits others, or only yourself. At the end of the day it will tick over as it always has.
Murder would hit us harder.. because I do believe that there are some people that are only held back by the potential consequences of their actions, but I don't think that most people would escalate to such barbarism.
The point I was making is that the reason most people wouldn't suddenly start killing others (at least unprovoked, self defence is a different issue), is because of our innate "morality" that comes from the solidarity that we evolved in order to be a successful species. I cringe at the word morality because of the absurd and nonsensical connotations it carries, but nonetheless I claim the original meaning without the religious baggage.
If this is heading toward a what would happen if there was 100% pure freedom debate, I agree that the world would tick on, and that we wouldn't die out as a species. But the only reason we wouldn't die out, is because we have our innate instincts, whether we call our actions dictated by those instincts "right" or "wrong" is up to the individual, but I think I would.
Personally I think that if there was suddenly absolute freedom, lots of problems would arise. Things like energy, electricity, water, food.. these are the resources that keep the world as is going. Therefore possessing these resources gives you power. With no laws, it wouldn't be a second before these things were seized by criminal enterprises and the population held hostage to their demands. Now you may say that that is the case already with corporations/governments, and in a sense I would agree, but when looked at in specifics I don't think that that idea, whether you hold it or not, stands up to the evidence. Governments at least have some form of accountability, dilapidated and laughable as it is.. But it would be like comparing British Gas to the mexican drug cartels.
They both control resources and therefore wield power, but only one uses brutal murder as a weapon of fear to destroy morale and maintain profits.
I think that we'd be seeing a whole lot more of that in a world with no law, and 100% freedom.
But most people would get by, we'd just be slaves to newer, more brutal owners. The reason we'd get by is because we'd have to, as a species, or we'd die out. And we would come together, because its in our nature too. But we'd never be left with utopia. We are after all quite numerous on this planet, 7,000,000,000 of us. Even though solidarity is a part of our evolution, there are of course aberrations and mutations and a great deal of variance in the way our genes are realised in this material world. And don't forget, it only takes 1 fucked up prick to kill 100 normal people. So no, utopia is not achievable as long as we remain human, in the sense that we are now.
But we wouldn't die out, because we are at least on a deeper level aware of the need for solidarity. We're very selfish too, but we need others to survive and they need us. Our DNA reflects this. I call this "morality," whether you agree with that definition is up to you. There is no tangible, ineffable, right or wrong. Such a concept doesn't even make any sense. There are simply actions, that have causes, and we give those things names. That's enough for me
-
You've called me out. But I like that. Nothing better than being challenged in your opinion. Forces you to be right, or if you're wrong, to become right.
What I have to ask though, is if a society were to experience true freedom, where anything goes, would murder still hit us as hard? Or would the 'eye for an eye' justice be enough to sate that? After enough murders and equal punishments would we be left with utopia, or would we simply die out, with no one left?
I guess what I want to get across is that there shouldn't be a right and wrong. The world doesn't care if what you do benefits others, or only yourself. At the end of the day it will tick over as it always has.
Murder would hit us harder.. because I do believe that there are some people that are only held back by the potential consequences of their actions, but I don't think that most people would escalate to such barbarism.
The point I was making is that the reason most people wouldn't suddenly start killing others (at least unprovoked, self defence is a different issue), is because of our innate "morality" that comes from the solidarity that we evolved in order to be a successful species. I cringe at the word morality because of the absurd and nonsensical connotations it carries, but nonetheless I claim the original meaning without the religious baggage.
If this is heading toward a what would happen if there was 100% pure freedom debate, I agree that the world would tick on, and that we wouldn't die out as a species. But the only reason we wouldn't die out, is because we have our innate instincts, whether we call our actions dictated by those instincts "right" or "wrong" is up to the individual, but I think I would.
Personally I think that if there was suddenly absolute freedom, lots of problems would arise. Things like energy, electricity, water, food.. these are the resources that keep the world as is going. Therefore possessing these resources gives you power. With no laws, it wouldn't be a second before these things were seized by criminal enterprises and the population held hostage to their demands. Now you may say that that is the case already with corporations/governments, and in a sense I would agree, but when looked at in specifics I don't think that that idea, whether you hold it or not, stands up to the evidence. Governments at least have some form of accountability, dilapidated and laughable as it is.. But it would be like comparing British Gas to the mexican drug cartels.
They both control resources and therefore wield power, but only one uses brutal murder as a weapon of fear to destroy morale and maintain profits.
I think that we'd be seeing a whole lot more of that in a world with no law, and 100% freedom.
But most people would get by, we'd just be slaves to newer, more brutal owners. The reason we'd get by is because we'd have to, as a species, or we'd die out. And we would come together, because its in our nature too. But we'd never be left with utopia. We are after all quite numerous on this planet, 7,000,000,000 of us. Even though solidarity is a part of our evolution, there are of course aberrations and mutations and a great deal of variance in the way our genes are realised in this material world. And don't forget, it only takes 1 fucked up prick to kill 100 normal people. So no, utopia is not achievable as long as we remain human, in the sense that we are now.
But we wouldn't die out, because we are at least on a deeper level aware of the need for solidarity. We're very selfish too, but we need others to survive and they need us. Our DNA reflects this. I call this "morality," whether you agree with that definition is up to you. There is no tangible, ineffable, right or wrong. Such a concept doesn't even make any sense. There are simply actions, that have causes, and we give those things names. That's enough for me
Two things I have to say to to this:
1. If what you say is accurate, there a lot of people out there that shouldn't bother with psychedelics. In my experience these are only going to exacerbate any disillusions with society, especially considering your points. And that isn't something that's easy to deal with.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out something that needs to be considered. Why let people awaken to the 'truth' only to send them into a depressive cycle that doesn't help anyone? That's like taking someone out of the matrix, only for that person to off themselves the next day.
2. I'm one of those people that is only held back by potential consequences of my actions. Hence my being here. The consequences are I get caught and go to jail/rehab for my drug use, which I'm fine with, as I've made peace with these options. Not only that, bust as a pessimist/nihilist I have already prepared to make the best of the worst situation.
One thing I will say is this. Although it is consequences that hold me back most, the consequences of losing friendships/relationships/other partnerships are included in this. I'm not a heartless prick who only looks after himself, but if something doesn't benefit me I'm not likely to entertain it as an idea.
Look at anyone who says they did something for someone else, and tell me honestly you can't find another motive. Sex, career advancement, monetary gain, it doesn't matter really, everyone will do anything for themselves.
-
You can't equate "having a conscience and submitting to it" as a fear of consequences.
It's one thing to say I fear consequences in the sense that I fear getting caught or in trouble. But saying that the hurt you may cause your family/friends, the guilt you may feel.. to say that these are consequences, is to extend the meaning of the word consequence in this context well beyond what it refers to.
Sure, even if you are guilty and change your behaviour, it is still giving in to your own guilt. And in that sense, you are doing something for yourself.
But that's a bit of a blanket statement to say that that action is therefore selfish isn't it? Selfishness is a lot more specific than that, namely doing something with no regard for anyone else. Having guilt doesn't fall into that category, because whilst its a feeling that you yourself feel and are thus affected by, is still subject and dependent upon the input of others. I don't think we can blanket all actions as selfish or individualistic just because they are performed by an individual. I think that cheapens the idea.
And I didn't really understand your point on psychedelics. The world may be fucked up, but just because you take psychedelics doesn't mean you have to spiral into depression. You can still live in a fucked up world and enjoy yourself. You think those guys in North Korea aren't getting their dicks sucked?
-
Here's a question for you.
If you were told, we can solve all world hunger, poverty, and house/feed/shelter everyone, but the west has to give up phones/internet/movies/music/cars/commercialised food industry/transport etc and grow your own food.. Would you?
My personal answer, no. You can call that selfish, and yes, it is.
But I think deep down, most people would be apprehensive about giving all of that up. I mean, who actually cares about world poverty? I mean if you ask me, I'll say "well of course its bad".. And if you actually sent me over to Africa or somewhere, I'm sure it'd hit me harder. But on a day to day basis, who ever thinks about it? Some people will, but most of us? We. just. don't. give. a. fuck. Admit it.
Exactly my point. Apologies if I don't express this in the best possible way in one post.
There is no good and bad, only things that benefit an individual, or hurt an individual. By that notion, feeding the world at the detriment of myself is not a good outcome for me.
So I am of course not going to give up what I have to achieve that. but do I think it is an unworthy cause? No, of course not.
I find that the argument about good and bad is corrupted by the religious, who frankly use non sequitirs to make a problem where there isn't one.
There is about as much "good" "bad" "evil" as there is "benefit" "detriment".
They're all abstract ideas. The religious have stolen the argument by saying "good and bad must come from God. Anything that doesn't come from God isn't really good or bad".
Therefore we say, in reply, "good" and "bad" don't exist.
And in the religious sense, they don't. Because the religious idea of morality, doesn't make any sense at all.
But they do exist, as very real, abstract ideas. So in that sense, we can say that good and bad exist. You know, the actual ideas of good and bad. Not this religious idea of a definitive, 100%, good or bad, that is a totally meaningless thing to say anyway, because no idea exists in that sense. "Chairs" don't exist. Just bits of wood and plastic.
It's the same with good and bad. We act one way and we call it good, we act another way and we call it bad.
There are various caveats and changes depending on cultures but things such as murder and rape, we can say with confidence that they are bad. We don't need a sky daddy who can make things good or bad simply by making them good or bad.. It just comes from evolution.
If a species didn't have solidarity, it wouldn't evolve. Simple as that. If a species practiced rape and murder habitually, it would die out. And societies that do glorify such things, do die out. And that's why these things hit you in the heart. That's the way nature has evolved these things to affect you... so that our species may survive. For the same reasons, we hate the people that commit these acts.
That's where morality comes from, and in that sense, good and bad are very real. They just aren't real in the ludicrous sense that the religious expect them to be.
You've called me out. But I like that. Nothing better than being challenged in your opinion. Forces you to be right, or if you're wrong, to become right.
What I have to ask though, is if a society were to experience true freedom, where anything goes, would murder still hit us as hard? Or would the 'eye for an eye' justice be enough to sate that? After enough murders and equal punishments would we be left with utopia, or would we simply die out, with no one left?
I guess what I want to get across is that there shouldn't be a right and wrong. The world doesn't care if what you do benefits others, or only yourself. At the end of the day it will tick over as it always has.
Yes and no. Laws do not stop murderers from murdering. Just like laws do not stop drug users from using drugs. I'm sure we've all felt like killing someone, but would we actually do it if murdering were legal? I think not for the most part. That doesn't mean we should allow it, and is a reason a government is needed for now, however small and non-intrusive it must be. There is still a small role for government to play - at least at this stage in our evolution until we can attain true enlightenment and then will have no need for it. I also think the government should be 100% voluntary. I, for one, would volunteer and I know I can't be the only one. Thankfully, life has sort of a built-in code of ethics that tells us going around killing your kind would not be good for the continuation of your species. We must evolve to the point where we don't need leaders and governments to assure us of our rights. It's only a choice.
-
Exactly.
I don't think one can enjoy themselves in this world until they have come to grips with the fact that this world IS fucked up.
If one lives life in denial of the fact that humans are ruining the Earth, one will simply never learn the truth or see the light. Is one happy or just dumb?
Once one has accepted the fact that this world is on the path to extinction, one becomes Angry.
However, anger leads to forgiveness.
Once one has forgiven, one can be happy and enjoy themselves.
Honestly, I was far less than sober when I last posted, and I think that coloured/muddied some of the thoughts and ideas there.
It's a good point about me extending the definition of consequences beyond the original intention of the discussion, but I did that because that's how I see the world, or at least how I do right now.
I also like the point about seeing that the world is fucked up before being able to appreciate it for what it is. Sort of reminds me of Fight Club - "Only when you have lost everything are you free to do anything." Different I know, but similar as well. Something for me to think over a bit more anyway (and isn't that the point of these discussions?)
Yes and no. Laws do not stop murderers from murdering. Just like laws do not stop drug users from using drugs. I'm sure we've all felt like killing someone, but would we actually do it if murdering were legal? I think not for the most part. That doesn't mean we should allow it, and is a reason a government is needed for now, however small and non-intrusive it must be. There is still a small role for government to play - at least at this stage in our evolution until we can attain true enlightenment and then will have no need for it. I also think the government should be 100% voluntary. I, for one, would volunteer and I know I can't be the only one. Thankfully, life has sort of a built-in code of ethics that tells us going around killing your kind would not be good for the continuation of your species. We must evolve to the point where we don't need leaders and governments to assure us of our rights. It's only a choice.
I think I agree with you here at a fundamental level at least. But as I said above, I think I need more time to think this over. But hey, that's a good thing in my books.
-
Exactly.
I don't think one can enjoy themselves in this world until they have come to grips with the fact that this world IS fucked up.
If one lives life in denial of the fact that humans are ruining the Earth, one will simply never learn the truth or see the light. Is one happy or just dumb?
Once one has accepted the fact that this world is on the path to extinction, one becomes Angry.
However, anger leads to forgiveness.
Once one has forgiven, one can be happy and enjoy themselves.
Seeing the world as being 'fucked up' is a choice. I'm not saying you're worldview is wrong or anything, but it's simply a choice. Meaning that it's personal. I also choose to view the world pessimistically at least for now.
Humans have the capability to both ruin and create or 'save' Earth - and how arrogant of us to think we are a threat to Earth right now. Sure, we can extinguish all life on this planet with our nuclear weapons, but we don't have the capability to destroy a planet just yet. The earth will still be here long after we choose to either extinguish ourselves as a species or continue to evolve.
One can be happy without having to forgive. Needing forgiveness implies the universe made a mistake, and the universe doesn't make mistakes. The very fabric of the universe is consciousness. And funny thing about consciousness is that it is only experienced subjectively. which is why it is impossible to fully understand the universe while in physicality. The only way to know something, is to be it. You are you in physical form, and in death when your mind is released and expands to the ends of time - then you are the universe or maybe what is beyond. That is until we can illuminate the other 90% of the brain we don't use while in physical form. Fortunately, drugs (mainly psychedelics) and of course dreaming can help us do that. My drug of choice is weed btw, I tend not to mess with the harder stuff but I'll have a beer occasionally.
-
Where does morality come from?
As to the question of "if you could solve world hunger"... getting rid of all that shit in the west? Are you kidding? You solve world hunger by adopting the morality that originally STARTED the west down its several-century path to the greatest prosperity in the history of the human race. The only reason we aren't wallowing around in the mud and making sacrifices to the sun in our backyards is BECAUSE the west, up until the 20th century, had a generally strong moral footing and at least a decent understanding of the goods and bads of human nature.
That has been completely flipped on its head, especially in the last half-century.
I'm going to call out Lim, from way back on page 1. Yes, all value is subjective. It must be. All action comes from the mind, first.
But 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. The manufacturer of a cell phone needs to bring together tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people, thousands of hours of design and testing, millions of dollars of resources that have been refined and created by thousands more people, logistics, marketing, software programming, finance, etc. You are talking about maybe a million people working together in some connected way to create something, all orchestrated because the end consumer has a need that he wants filled.
That 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.
-
Where does morality come from?
As to the question of "if you could solve world hunger"... getting rid of all that shit in the west? Are you kidding? You solve world hunger by adopting the morality that originally STARTED the west down its several-century path to the greatest prosperity in the history of the human race. The only reason we aren't wallowing around in the mud and making sacrifices to the sun in our backyards is BECAUSE the west, up until the 20th century, had a generally strong moral footing and at least a decent understanding of the goods and bads of human nature.
Actually, 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.
That has been completely flipped on its head, especially in the last half-century.
I'd say it seems more like in the last 12 years you've really seen this strong anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-logic, pro-rhetoric, sophist movements like never before.
But 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.
That 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.
-
@ Anarcho
On the point about stopping all the cool stuff in the west to solve world poverty.. If you read, I didn't actually say it would, or could. The point wasn't that that was a legitimate method, it was just to ask the question of people, what do they value more, the ease of their life, or the survival of the rest of the world.
I didn't actually say it would solve world poverty, or even imply that it would.
-
The U.S. alone could clothe, feed, shelter, and educate the entire world population - not one being excluded - if we spent all the money we use bombing other countries for this purpose. It would pay for itself many times over and we as a species could explore outer space together. I believe a great philosopher by the name of Bill Hicks once said this.
-
I cant wait until we become a singularity, terence mckenna, aldous huxley, albert einstein... they all seemed to have the same message.
-
Actually, 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.
But 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.
That 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.
-
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.
<--snip-->
Nope, you're still not getting it. I'm not referring to innovation or ingenuity in designing a superior product with a competitive advantage that benefits consumers when it's brought to market. That's the fairytale you've been brought up to believe. Not saying there's still not some truth to that, especially as a first gen pioneer bringing an innovative product to brand new markets. But there are plenty of superior products that should enjoy a competitive advantage that fail all the time because of other darker market forces at work, which I believe BNW made some reference to up-thread.
I'll give you a fairly sanitized example. In the early nineties, a host of innovation in office application software run on the MS platform began coming up. WordPerfect for windows was such a product with a superior feature set that made it the word processor of choice at the time. But Microsoft's extreme wealth from owning 80+% of the desktop market and creator of the platform these apps ran on placed it in a dominant position when they decided to "compete" in the office app sector. After introducing their office apps like msword they simply gave it away for free until it drove all competitors into bankruptcy. They could afford it, it was no skin off their back since their bread and butter was the OS market. And they got away with it with a slap on the wrist, a mere fine. Gates had catapulted to the pole position of world's wealthiest and was determined to stay there. So they repeated this market strategy with some new wrinkles when they decided to go after Netscape and own the browser market. Not only did they make their Internet Explorer free, but they used the fact it ran on their OS to unfair advantage by making it run at higher priority, and therefore faster, than anything an independent software developer like Netscape would have been capable of doing. Not because NS developers lacked the innovation and ingenuity to do so, they had plenty of both and NS was a superior browser feature wise at the time, but because they didn't have access to Microsoft's proprietary and protected source code and couldn't optimize it to prioritize Netscape legally even if they did. And back during the days of dial-ups and limited e-commerce, speed was all that really mattered.
So as you all know, Netscape was run into the ground. But this event turned some heads since Netscape was far bigger than WordPerfect and was also a Wall Street darling. And we should all know by now why Wall Street titans are referred to as Masters of the Universe and that it can be precarious walking into the cross-hairs of the MoU without some political cover. An epic, multi-state and multi-country antitrust lawsuit ensued against MS. Gates was somewhat late in getting into the game of political lobbying, one of the common playgrounds of oligarchs, but once he committed to the game in late '98 he tackled it with the same single minded tenacity as he had in becoming the dominant force in the OS market. And why wouldn't he? Because of his ruthless, value destroying anti-competitive practices in his dogged pursuit of markets he felt entitled to own, his baby was now under threat of being smashed up into 3 separate companies. In '99 when judge Penfield Jackson overseeing the case announced that MS was going to pay, he was pretty much telegraphing the certainty of the breakup, that MS had repeatedly ignored gov warnings about wielding their near monopoly unfairly, and this was the last straw. Working in the industry at the heart of silicon valley, I remember after that announcement no one in their right mind thought MS would survive.
Yet a few weeks before the ruling was expected to come down Gates was furiously lobbying congress meeting personally and donating generously to members of the senate commerce committee, lobbying the White House, and announced that his foundation was donating 1 billion to organizations that provided scholarships to black Americans. Then two weeks following the ruling, the gov announced it would be going into arbitration with MS to figure out how to proceed, if at all. It was announced that judge Jackson had chosen his colleague Judge Richard Posner, a libertarian and freshwater trained legal scholar, to hear the arbitration and decide the case, shocking MS's enemies.
The rest, as we know, is history.
Now there are cases of the wealthiest using black practices far more unsavory and destructive than what Gates did in this fairly sanitary example. But it happens often enough, and far more deviant things happen behind the scenes than the public is even aware, that it should be considered the rule and not the exception. And think about it. Someone worth in the tens of billions doesn't play by the same rules that you or I since they don't have to. They have enough to buy anyone, compromise any institution, assemble their own private black-op militias to do whatever dirty work they want including sabotage and industrial espionage of up and coming competitors while maintaining enough insularity to create plausible deniability that they'll never get anything more than a slap on the wrist even if caught. And if you think I'm exaggerating, one of the wealthiest and most prolific had his multinational corps caught doing precisely these things in recent years. As a thought experiment, I'll let you figure out exactly who that is.
I personally have a very low tolerance for conspiracy theorists and without personal, firsthand knowledge of the kind of shenanigans that go on, might be more inclined to believe the fairytale since it's nice, safe, and comfortable to think the wealthiest in the world should be idealized for "pulling humanity forward". It's never so simple. When I look at the wealthiest 100 only Warren Buffet stands out as someone who *might* not have gotten his hands dirty (although it wouldn't surprise me if he had) since his talent is in investment rather than corporation building and market share pwning. He's also one of the good guys who's used his position to rail against the wealthy for stealing from the middle class while bringing awareness of the tactics used by the .01% to his great personal detriment. After a sustained propaganda campaign by his wealthy enemies which ended up with middle class tools he was sticking up for turning on him, calling him a socialist (I know, Buffet a socialist? rotfl) and he became the target of a politically motivated IRS investigation into 1 billion of his finances he backed off, but is still putting his efforts behind trying to get the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.
And those are just the individuals on the Forbes list. There are plenty that are in that sphere that hide their wealth in corporations because they know the limelight places unwanted oversight on their underhanded strategies and tactics.
So when I said I believe you suffer from a certain mainstream naivete, you really shouldn't take it so personally that you turn around and try and accuse me of the same ... it's just that, well, you do.
-
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.
<--snip-->
Nope, you're still not getting it. I'm not referring to innovation or ingenuity in designing a superior product with a competitive advantage that benefits consumers when it's brought to market. That's the fairytale you've been brought up to believe. Not saying there's still not some truth to that, especially as a first gen pioneer bringing an innovative product to brand new markets. But there are plenty of superior products that should enjoy a competitive advantage that fail all the time because of other darker market forces at work, which I believe BNW made some reference to up-thread.
I'll give you a fairly sanitized example. In the early nineties, a host of innovation in office application software run on the MS platform began coming up. WordPerfect for windows was such a product with a superior feature set that made it the word processor of choice at the time. But Microsoft's extreme wealth from owning 80+% of the desktop market and creator of the platform these apps ran on placed it in a dominant position when they decided to "compete" in the office app sector. After introducing their office apps like msword they simply gave it away for free until it drove all competitors into bankruptcy. They could afford it, it was no skin off their back since their bread and butter was the OS market. And they got away with it with a slap on the wrist, a mere fine. Gates had catapulted to the pole position of world's wealthiest and was determined to stay there. So they repeated this market strategy with some new wrinkles when they decided to go after Netscape and own the browser market. Not only did they make their Internet Explorer free, but they used the fact it ran on their OS to unfair advantage by making it run at higher priority, and therefore faster, than anything an independent software developer like Netscape would have been capable of doing. Not because NS developers lacked the innovation and ingenuity to do so, they had plenty of both and NS was a superior browser feature wise at the time, but because they didn't have access to Microsoft's proprietary and protected source code and couldn't optimize it to prioritize Netscape legally even if they did. And back during the days of dial-ups and limited e-commerce, speed was all that really mattered.
So as you all know, Netscape was run into the ground. But this event turned some heads since Netscape was far bigger than WordPerfect and was also a Wall Street darling. And we should all know by now why Wall Street titans are referred to as Masters of the Universe and that it can be precarious walking into the cross-hairs of the MoU without some political cover. An epic, multi-state and multi-country antitrust lawsuit ensued against MS. Gates was somewhat late in getting into the game of political lobbying, one of the common playgrounds of oligarchs, but once he committed to the game in late '98 he tackled it with the same single minded tenacity as he had in becoming the dominant force in the OS market. And why wouldn't he? Because of his ruthless, value destroying anti-competitive practices in his dogged pursuit of markets he felt entitled to own, his baby was now under threat of being smashed up into 3 separate companies. In '99 when judge Penfield Jackson overseeing the case announced that MS was going to pay, he was pretty much telegraphing the certainty of the breakup, that MS had repeatedly ignored gov warnings about wielding their near monopoly unfairly, and this was the last straw. Working in the industry at the heart of silicon valley, I remember after that announcement no one in their right mind thought MS would survive.
Yet a few weeks before the ruling was expected to come down Gates was furiously lobbying congress meeting personally and donating generously to members of the senate commerce committee, lobbying the White House, and announced that his foundation was donating 1 billion to organizations that provided scholarships to black Americans. Then two weeks following the ruling, the gov announced it would be going into arbitration with MS to figure out how to proceed, if at all. It was announced that judge Jackson had chosen his colleague Judge Richard Posner, a libertarian and freshwater trained legal scholar, to hear the arbitration and decide the case, shocking MS's enemies.
The rest, as we know, is history.
Now there are cases of the wealthiest using black practices far more unsavory and destructive than what Gates did in this fairly sanitary example. But it happens often enough, and far more deviant things happen behind the scenes than the public is even aware, that it should be considered the rule and not the exception. And think about it. Someone worth in the tens of billions doesn't play by the same rules that you or I since they don't have to. They have enough to buy anyone, compromise any institution, assemble their own private black-op militias to do whatever dirty work they want including sabotage and industrial espionage of up and coming competitors while maintaining enough insularity to create plausible deniability that they'll never get anything more than a slap on the wrist even if caught. And if you think I'm exaggerating, one of the wealthiest and most prolific had his multinational corps caught doing precisely these things in recent years. As a thought experiment, I'll let you figure out exactly who that is.
I personally have a very low tolerance for conspiracy theorists and without personal, firsthand knowledge of the kind of shenanigans that go on, might be more inclined to believe the fairytale since it's nice, safe, and comfortable to think the wealthiest in the world should be idealized for "pulling humanity forward". It's never so simple. When I look at the wealthiest 100 only Warren Buffet stands out as someone who *might* not have gotten his hands dirty (although it wouldn't surprise me if he had) since his talent is in investment rather than corporation building and market share pwning. He's also one of the good guys who's used his position to rail against the wealthy for stealing from the middle class while bringing awareness of the tactics used by the .01% to his great personal detriment. After a sustained propaganda campaign by his wealthy enemies which ended up with middle class tools he was sticking up for turning on him, calling him a socialist (I know, Buffet a socialist? rotfl) and he became the target of a politically motivated IRS investigation into 1 billion of his finances he backed off, but is still putting his efforts behind trying to get the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes.
And those are just the individuals on the Forbes list. There are plenty that are in that sphere that hide their wealth in corporations because they know the limelight places unwanted oversight on their underhanded strategies and tactics.
So when I said I believe you suffer from a certain mainstream naivete, you really shouldn't take it so personally that you turn around and try and accuse me of the same ... it's just that, well, you do.
No offense to you, but your example is, again, full of fallacies.
First of all, why should MS have been prevented from GIVING AWAY something? Hell, why should they have been prevented from doing whatever they hell they wanted with the resources from the profits of windows? (There are some fucked up things with MS but they all have to do with artificial violent constructs like copyright and IP, and they don't need to be touched on here because that is TRILLIONS of dollars of misallocated resources around the world, and it's not due to some evil "oligarchs".)
The "value destroying" argument you made was actually microsoft employing its resources to create a web-browser (that, at the time, was better than netscape) and give it away to its customers. It didn't destroy value, it freed up the several billion dollars per year that customers were originally deploying towards netscape's browser. That's not "ruthless", it's just smart. And the customers win.
Now, MS has since switched over to charging for its Office pack, but that has already been spanked by the free market again, as Open Office is completely free.
What you are saying right now is that we should be shutting down Google for creating the android OS and charging ZERO licensing fees to use it. You are saying that it is value-destroying that people in Africa can purchase a basic chinese spartphone for $89.00 running the Android OS, that would cost them about $200 to run Windows for phone, and would be impossible to get from a company like Apple (also running proprietary and soon to have some major failures on that front).
What you are railing against is progress. It's not "ruthless", just because it does something better or cheaper than someone else. If the customers win, and no violence is employed, why the hell should we want to try to destroy the institution enriching society by giving it more, for less?
Have you ever heard of an actual consumer filing an anti-trust lawsuit? Accusing a company of being "monopolistic"? US Steel got broken up because they were putting their competitors out of business with their superior production methods and low prices. The price of steel rose by over 20% because of this. The customers got hurt, not the businesses that should have failed.
By what merit or measurement do you choose, based on your strange and (from my view, anyway) arbitrary definition of someone who is innovating and someone who is "ruthless" (by whatever it is that your definition of that word is)?
-
First of all, why should MS have been prevented from GIVING AWAY something? Hell, why should they have been prevented from doing whatever they hell they wanted with the resources from the profits of windows? (There are some fucked up things with MS but they all have to do with artificial violent constructs like copyright and IP, and they don't need to be touched on here because that is TRILLIONS of dollars of misallocated resources around the world, and it's not due to some evil "oligarchs".)
The "value destroying" argument you made was actually microsoft employing its resources to create a web-browser (that, at the time, was better than netscape) and give it away to its customers. It didn't destroy value, it freed up the several billion dollars per year that customers were originally deploying towards netscape's browser. That's not "ruthless", it's just smart. And the customers win.
Again, you're just not getting it. Customers don't win when there are monopolies. Competition is what drives innovation in the marketplace. So yeah, if you don't have a problem with monopolies, then there's nothing wrong in your worldview with giving away inferior desktop applications. Just don't go around claiming that customers win because after the initial phase, they don't. They lose. I encourage you to learn a bit in the field of economics. The problem with monopolies is really elementary stuff. I already mentioned that IE was a superior browser because it was faster and NS was unable to compete in this area. And what happened after NS was driven to bankruptcy? There were many years of no new innovation in browser tech. MS stopped developing IE because they had "won". Until opensource software like Firefox, Opera, and Chrome began to drive MS into developing again.
What you are saying right now is that we should be shutting down Google for creating the android OS and charging ZERO licensing fees to use it. You are saying that it is value-destroying that people in Africa can purchase a basic chinese spartphone for $89.00 running the Android OS, that would cost them about $200 to run Windows for phone, and would be impossible to get from a company like Apple (also running proprietary and soon to have some major failures on that front).
Once again, it's clear you're running up to the limitations of your knowledge. You're comparing apples and oranges. First of all, the Android distro was not "created" by Google like MS created their desktop applications or created IE. Android is a linux based distro for mobile devices completely developed and maintained by the opensource community committed to developing and maintaining free software. Linux is an OS that's been freely licensed and developed by the opensource community since the first kernel was written in '92 by Linus Torvald dude. Google purchased Android in '05 after the distro had already been created and they lead a consortium that develops free software for mobile based devices specific to Android, but are prevented by the strict rules of the GNU licensing agreement developed by Linus from anyone profiting off the sale of freely developed software on an OS he created. So Android must be free.
The opensource community is a great benefit to consumers by once again providing competition to MS to make better products. I already mentioned how it drove them to start developing their browser again. That's just one example of many, but it should be clear that opensource software is of great benefit by offering consumers more choices. Not destroying competition and limiting them. In light of this, the crux of your argument of why Google should be shut down is absurd. You're simply not understanding that competition is beneficial to everyone (good) while monopolies only benefit the few (bad). Maybe this is all too technical for you to understand, or maybe terms like opensource and distinction between "distro" and "OS" are over your head. If so, I encourage you to learn about them to get a better grip of what you're arguing.
What you are railing against is progress. It's not "ruthless", just because it does something better or cheaper than someone else. If the customers win, and no violence is employed, why the hell should we want to try to destroy the institution enriching society by giving it more, for less?
Sorry dude, monopolization of a commercial sector is not progress. It stifles progress. You seem mentally incapable of recognizing that the only reason MS was able to give away their desktop apps software was not because their desktop apps were markedly better and cheaper than the competition because they weren't, but because they owned an entirely different market, not the desktop application market, but the desktop OS market, that gave them the resources to give away their desktop apps until competitors in the desktop apps market went out of business. Just like your inability to acknowledge that rewriting the MS desktop OS source code which they owned to give IE a higher priority that competitors like NS did not have access to and were unable to do is using their monopolistic power in an entirely different market to unfair advantage. It can't be anymore clear than that and if you don't see it, I'm probably not going to be able to point it out to you. Just that there's not a lot of people that would agree with you.
I'll try one last tact though it's an imperfect analogy. I see you sell weed on SR. Let's say SR was the only viable market to sell drugs and a competitor came along who owned the markets in all the other drugs sold on SR. Now they they wanted to own the weed market and offered products competitive to yours and all other vendors but made their products free. After a while, you and other growers would no longer be able to stay in business since the cost of keeping your grow ops can't be supported when you can't sell your product. They were able to do this not because their weed was of such superior quality that no one wanted to buy yours, but because they owned other markets and could afford to make their weed free as a market strategy to capture the SR weed market too. But of course, you'd think this was perfectly fair and wouldn't consider it ruthless right? After all, this would have great initial benefits for consumers since they get their shit free ... but only up to a point. There would be no need to improve the strains or offer more variety to the consumer, nothing to drive innovation. After you declared bankruptcy they would first buy up all your assets in the fire sale of bankruptcy court, and with you and the rest were dead and gone, they would likely introduce a price that would offset some losses but still make operating costs all but unbearably impossible for new vendors that might consider entering the market. But since they owned all the other drug markets combined, they could more than afford it just to own the market since it the cost was only a tiny fraction of their total revenue. This is very much like what MS did to own the office app market.
Now, imagine that in place of the conglomerate that owned all the other SR drug markets, this was actually the creator of the SR market itself, DPR, who had the vast funds that he made from SR commissions as well as all the other markets at his disposal and wanted to own the SR weed market. So he starts producing weed competitive to yours and all other vendors and not only offers them for free, but makes sure that when a buyer goes to buy weed his listings show up first while your products that actually cost money show up last. Of course, you don't understand why anyone would see this as ruthless right? It's perfectly fair that you have to shut down shop because after all, he owns the platform, he can dictate whatever he wants to do with it. This is like what MS did to own the browser market.
The reason I say it's an imperfect analogy is that it actually costs money to keep running a weed grow-op and giving away weed for free whereas after MS "won" the browser war it cost them nothing for a number of years as they did nothing to continue to develop and improve it.
One last note is on your example of bringing up US Steel. FYI, US Steel wasn't a total monopoly. They had 70% of the industry before their breakup. But their competitors were forced be much more innovative and efficient to stay competitive at all. You note that US Steel was able to offer the product cheaper. I wouldn't say their production methods were better, just that they cost less. But of course they did. I encourage you to learn what the term "economies of scale" means. That's what happens when you own 70% of the market and manufacturing process. And of course prices went up initially after their breakup. That's what always happens right after the breakup of a monopoly because you no longer have one company taking advantage of economies of scale. It takes a while for competition and innovation to bring prices down again but it's still better long term.
So I mentioned already that I think you suffer from a certain mainstream naivete. But it's also become clear you have a fundamentally poor grasp of economics and how markets work and I strongly encourage you to take a basic economics class. Since you're a SR weed vendor, I really think you'd have a lot to gain and find it a super educational experience. If you're familiar with that show The Wire while still in syndication you'll remember that's what Stringer Bell did and he was able to apply the knowledge to great affect. :)
-
I am entirely too high for this thread today ;D .....Thank you MrYellow for helping me shut off my overly complicating brain.
-
First of all, why should MS have been prevented from GIVING AWAY something? Hell, why should they have been prevented from doing whatever they hell they wanted with the resources from the profits of windows? (There are some fucked up things with MS but they all have to do with artificial violent constructs like copyright and IP, and they don't need to be touched on here because that is TRILLIONS of dollars of misallocated resources around the world, and it's not due to some evil "oligarchs".)
The "value destroying" argument you made was actually microsoft employing its resources to create a web-browser (that, at the time, was better than netscape) and give it away to its customers. It didn't destroy value, it freed up the several billion dollars per year that customers were originally deploying towards netscape's browser. That's not "ruthless", it's just smart. And the customers win.
Again, you're just not getting it. Customers don't win when there are monopolies. Competition is what drives innovation in the marketplace. So yeah, if you don't have a problem with monopolies, then there's nothing wrong in your worldview with giving away inferior desktop applications. Just don't go around claiming that customers win because after the initial phase, they don't. They lose. I encourage you to learn a bit in the field of economics. The problem with monopolies is really elementary stuff. I already mentioned that IE was a superior browser because it was faster and NS was unable to compete in this area. And what happened after NS was driven to bankruptcy? There were many years of no new innovation in browser tech. MS stopped developing IE because they had "won". Until opensource software like Firefox, Opera, and Chrome began to drive MS into developing again.
What you are saying right now is that we should be shutting down Google for creating the android OS and charging ZERO licensing fees to use it. You are saying that it is value-destroying that people in Africa can purchase a basic chinese spartphone for $89.00 running the Android OS, that would cost them about $200 to run Windows for phone, and would be impossible to get from a company like Apple (also running proprietary and soon to have some major failures on that front).
Once again, it's clear you're running up to the limitations of your knowledge. You're comparing apples and oranges. First of all, the Android distro was not "created" by Google like MS created their desktop applications or created IE. Android is a linux based distro for mobile devices completely developed and maintained by the opensource community committed to developing and maintaining free software. Linux is an OS that's been freely licensed and developed by the opensource community since the first kernel was written in '92 by Linus Torvald dude. Google purchased Android in '05 after the distro had already been created and they lead a consortium that develops free software for mobile based devices specific to Android, but are prevented by the strict rules of the GNU licensing agreement developed by Linus from anyone profiting off the sale of freely developed software on an OS he created. So Android must be free.
The opensource community is a great benefit to consumers by once again providing competition to MS to make better products. I already mentioned how it drove them to start developing their browser again. That's just one example of many, but it should be clear that opensource software is of great benefit by offering consumers more choices. Not destroying competition and limiting them. In light of this, the crux of your argument of why Google should be shut down is absurd. You're simply not understanding that competition is beneficial to everyone (good) while monopolies only benefit the few (bad). Maybe this is all too technical for you to understand, or maybe terms like opensource and distinction between "distro" and "OS" are over your head. If so, I encourage you to learn about them to get a better grip of what you're arguing.
What you are railing against is progress. It's not "ruthless", just because it does something better or cheaper than someone else. If the customers win, and no violence is employed, why the hell should we want to try to destroy the institution enriching society by giving it more, for less?
Sorry dude, monopolization of a commercial sector is not progress. It stifles progress. You seem mentally incapable of recognizing that the only reason MS was able to give away their desktop apps software was not because their desktop apps were markedly better and cheaper than the competition because they weren't, but because they owned an entirely different market, not the desktop application market, but the desktop OS market, that gave them the resources to give away their desktop apps until competitors in the desktop apps market went out of business. Just like your inability to acknowledge that rewriting the MS desktop OS source code which they owned to give IE a higher priority that competitors like NS did not have access to and were unable to do is using their monopolistic power in an entirely different market to unfair advantage. It can't be anymore clear than that and if you don't see it, I'm probably not going to be able to point it out to you. Just that there's not a lot of people that would agree with you.
I'll try one last tact though it's an imperfect analogy. I see you sell weed on SR. Let's say SR was the only viable market to sell drugs and a competitor came along who owned the markets in all the other drugs sold on SR. Now they they wanted to own the weed market and offered products competitive to yours and all other vendors but made their products free. After a while, you and other growers would no longer be able to stay in business since the cost of keeping your grow ops can't be supported when you can't sell your product. They were able to do this not because their weed was of such superior quality that no one wanted to buy yours, but because they owned other markets and could afford to make their weed free as a market strategy to capture the SR weed market too. But of course, you'd think this was perfectly fair and wouldn't consider it ruthless right? After all, this would have great initial benefits for consumers since they get their shit free ... but only up to a point. There would be no need to improve the strains or offer more variety to the consumer, nothing to drive innovation. After you declared bankruptcy they would first buy up all your assets in the fire sale of bankruptcy court, and with you and the rest were dead and gone, they would likely introduce a price that would offset some losses but still make operating costs all but unbearably impossible for new vendors that might consider entering the market. But since they owned all the other drug markets combined, they could more than afford it just to own the market since it the cost was only a tiny fraction of their total revenue. This is very much like what MS did to own the office app market.
Now, imagine that in place of the conglomerate that owned all the other SR drug markets, this was actually the creator of the SR market itself, DPR, who had the vast funds that he made from SR commissions as well as all the other markets at his disposal and wanted to own the SR weed market. So he starts producing weed competitive to yours and all other vendors and not only offers them for free, but makes sure that when a buyer goes to buy weed his listings show up first while your products that actually cost money show up last. Of course, you don't understand why anyone would see this as ruthless right? It's perfectly fair that you have to shut down shop because after all, he owns the platform, he can dictate whatever he wants to do with it. This is like what MS did to own the browser market.
The reason I say it's an imperfect analogy is that it actually costs money to keep running a weed grow-op and giving away weed for free whereas after MS "won" the browser war it cost them nothing for a number of years as they did nothing to continue to develop and improve it.
One last note is on your example of bringing up US Steel. FYI, US Steel wasn't a total monopoly. They had 70% of the industry before their breakup. But their competitors were forced be much more innovative and efficient to stay competitive at all. You note that US Steel was able to offer the product cheaper. I wouldn't say their production methods were better, just that they cost less. But of course they did. I encourage you to learn what the term "economies of scale" means. That's what happens when you own 70% of the market and manufacturing process. And of course prices went up initially after their breakup. That's what always happens right after the breakup of a monopoly because you no longer have one company taking advantage of economies of scale. It takes a while for competition and innovation to bring prices down again but it's still better long term.
So I mentioned already that I think you suffer from a certain mainstream naivete. But it's also become clear you have a fundamentally poor grasp of economics and how markets work and I strongly encourage you to take a basic economics class. Since you're a SR weed vendor, I really think you'd have a lot to gain and find it a super educational experience. If you're familiar with that show The Wire while still in syndication you'll remember that's what Stringer Bell did and he was able to apply the knowledge to great affect. :)
Find me one instance where a monopoly has been able to actually exist within any market, WITHOUT the use of government force (and excluding the absolutely inane idea of intellectual "property", which is also a government construct). Otherwise, your entire post was just a long-assed waste of time and possible carpeltunnel.
Go find me those lower steel prices, too...
-
Ahh, the joys of watching people debate over things. 8)
-
Back to the original question. There's a difference between 'freedom' and 'license'. Freedom comes with responsibilities and it a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of others. I demand the right to take drugs because it doesn't harm others but I don;t have the right to drive at 100mph on the road because it reckless and could kill someone. Freedom doesn't reveal the worst in people, license does.
-
Back to the original question. There's a difference between 'freedom' and 'license'. Freedom comes with responsibilities and it a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of others. I demand the right to take drugs because it doesn't harm others but I don;t have the right to drive at 100mph on the road because it reckless and could kill someone. Freedom doesn't reveal the worst in people, license does.
I would personally argue there are two types of freedom that people discuss.
There's Individual Freedom, which is the more frightening kind which says everyone is free to do whatever they find themselves capable of.
Then there's Social Freedom, in which everyone is free to do as they can without harming others or denying their social freedom. Really, the specifics of social freedom are completely dependent on society. Naturally.
Almost forgot, Kapp, I greatly enjoyed your contributions to the discussion, they're very well written. (I read back a bit but not too far) My first actual +1 to you for a clearly expressed and understandable perspective.
-
Here is an idea to start the ball rolling;
Is true freedom worth the price of opening everyone up more completely to the worst of human nature?
I'll check back in tomorrow and see if anyone replied at all.
but now for sleep, I abandon the internet.
Do not go gentle into that good night SR
Just brilliant quoting Dylan Thomas' "do not go gentle into that good night" deserves an answer. But tomorrow, 'now for sleep'...
Now could say that freedom, it's not freedom of the Subject, but freedom from Subject...
-
Freedom is all in the mind because it's quite clear we aren't and can never be socially or literally free. It's impossible because if you try to be the consequences are you either get locked up or shot or something shitty. We can be free in what we think though, nobody can take that away from you even if they try. You can always disagree with someone and that's where your sanctuary should be because what you think is what makes you you.
-
Please rephrase question if possible... I think true freedom is worth any cost however why should there be any cost for freedom in the first place?
Well if a nation was truly free most laws would be abolished. Such things that are usually looked down upon would become legal, and some people may partake in these activities. For example Bestiality would be legal and you would have to put up with people who committed these acts, but I doubt they would let this information become public.
-
Well if a nation was truly free most laws would be abolished. Such things that are usually looked down upon would become legal, and some people may partake in these activities. For example Bestiality would be legal and you would have to put up with people who committed these acts, but I doubt they would let this information become public.
That really depends on the freedom you're talking about. One variation of social freedom could include that animals should not be treated that way as they can't confirm that they desire it. It depends on who/what society feels should have freedom.
If you are not allowed to engage in relations with your dog, you can argue that's a limitation on freedom. If your dog is subject to your bestial desires then it can be seen as a limitation on your dog's freedom to spend its life engaging in more normal acts with members of its own species.
"True freedom" is far from an absolutely defined idea.
-
Find me one instance where a monopoly has been able to actually exist within any market, WITHOUT the use of government force (and excluding the absolutely inane idea of intellectual "property", which is also a government construct). Otherwise, your entire post was just a long-assed waste of time and possible carpeltunnel.
Huh? Look, if you're going to define yourself as an anarcho-capitalist don't you think you owe it to your brand of libertarian anarchism to be able to coherently defend your movement's ideals? I see you trying real hard ... you've put a lot of effort into trying to connect the unfair, anti-competitive practices of the private sector monopolies we've been discussing to being all the fault of government regulation and force. But so far, you've done a piss poor job of explaining how the two are related at all and I sense your mounting frustration. I'm sorry you didn't take kindly to my suggestion to take an economics class, but I made it sincerely. Don't you want to have a firmer platform from which to engage in debate in hopes of one day being able to eviscerate your opponent?
I've met some sharp libertarian anarchists capable of mounting a cogent and impassioned defense of their politico-economic philosophy. But knowledge of economics was imperative to shoring up innate weaknesses. This is not a knock on libertarianism per se, since all political philosophies have their unique strengths and weaknesses, I'm just trying to emphasize the importance of economics when debating politics since they go hand in hand. And really, a social science based on tenets of personal self interest and finance should appeal to hardcore capitalists of all persuasions, and even more so to one that defines himself as an anarcho-capitalist. :)
Oh, and BTW, I learned a long time ago that carpel tunnel can be avoided by practicing good posture when you type. You should try it. :)
-
Find me one instance where a monopoly has been able to actually exist within any market, WITHOUT the use of government force (and excluding the absolutely inane idea of intellectual "property", which is also a government construct). Otherwise, your entire post was just a long-assed waste of time and possible carpeltunnel.
Huh? Look, if you're going to define yourself as an anarcho-capitalist don't you think you owe it to your brand of libertarian anarchism to be able to coherently defend your movement's ideals? I see you trying real hard ... you've put a lot of effort into trying to connect the unfair, anti-competitive practices of the private sector monopolies we've been discussing to being all the fault of government regulation and force. But so far, you've done a piss poor job of explaining how the two are related at all and I sense your mounting frustration. I'm sorry you didn't take kindly to my suggestion to take an economics class, but I made it sincerely. Don't you want to have a firmer platform from which to engage in debate in hopes of one day being able to eviscerate your opponent?
I've met some sharp libertarian anarchists capable of mounting a cogent and impassioned defense of their politico-economic philosophy. But knowledge of economics was imperative to shoring up innate weaknesses. This is not a knock on libertarianism per se, since all political philosophies have their unique strengths and weaknesses, I'm just trying to emphasize the importance of economics when debating politics since they go hand in hand. And really, a social science based on tenets of personal self interest and finance should appeal to hardcore capitalists of all persuasions, and even more so to one that defines himself as an anarcho-capitalist. :)
Oh, and BTW, I learned a long time ago that carpel tunnel can be avoided by practicing good posture when you type. You should try it. :)
and again, I'll ask you for just one.
I'm too busy BEING to sit and type for hours. Hence the fact I'm on here at 1:30 in the morning replying to the inane ramblings of someone attempting to define what I live by. Give me a tangible example (if you could ever possibly find one) and I'll give you several hundred that prove the exact opposite of the point you are uselessly trying to make. Monopoly is not possible without monopoly violence, i.e. government. Show me one instance where it was, that lasted more than the two seconds it takes for a competing entrepreneur to smell those fat margins and start setting up shop.
Why don't you give my username a search and read through some of the posts on economics I have done here over the past 13 months. I don't have the time to do it now as it's busy season for my business and it's fucking BUSY (this is (one of) my legit businesses I'm talking about, here). I'm still not seeing any point to the last few paragraphs you wrote - good posture or not - as you basically just made a long-winded attempt at patronizing my understanding of economics. All I asked for was one, single instance of monopoly where government wasn't involved. Still waiting, here.
-
The world is composed of a million different minds/viewpoints
The world is insane
To control the world is the most Holy act their is
-
The world is composed of a million different minds/viewpoints
The world is insane
To control the world is the most Holy act their is
How about no.
-
and again, I'll ask you for just one.
I'm too busy BEING to sit and type for hours. Hence the fact I'm on here at 1:30 in the morning replying to the inane ramblings of someone attempting to define what I live by. Give me a tangible example (if you could ever possibly find one) and I'll give you several hundred that prove the exact opposite of the point you are uselessly trying to make. Monopoly is not possible without monopoly violence, i.e. government. Show me one instance where it was, that lasted more than the two seconds it takes for a competing entrepreneur to smell those fat margins and start setting up shop.
Why don't you give my username a search and read through some of the posts on economics I have done here over the past 13 months. I don't have the time to do it now as it's busy season for my business and it's fucking BUSY (this is (one of) my legit businesses I'm talking about, here). I'm still not seeing any point to the last few paragraphs you wrote - good posture or not - as you basically just made a long-winded attempt at patronizing my understanding of economics. All I asked for was one, single instance of monopoly where government wasn't involved. Still waiting, here.
You lost the plot dude. Remember how you were having a real tough time understanding why the monopolistic practices deployed by MS are considered unfair? I tried patiently to explain using a simple analogy that I thought you might be able to relate to. You responded with a bizarre non sequitur on government force and remain baffled as to why I would try. So clearly I failed. I overestimated you. BTW, I'm already familiar with the argument you're begging to make. I just don't see the point in continuing when you haven't exactly inspired confidence that you won't lose the plot again.
To be fair, you might just be too busy right now to debate this subject. It can take time to process an argument and follow a train of thought instead of starting a new one. We all have IRL responsibilities, and there are some months I'm far more invested in the demands of business so if you've got other commitments I understand. For me it's not a waste of time if you can coherently debate a subject. But if you're incapable, for whatever reasons, then you're right ... it is a waste of my time.
-
and again, I'll ask you for just one.
I'm too busy BEING to sit and type for hours. Hence the fact I'm on here at 1:30 in the morning replying to the inane ramblings of someone attempting to define what I live by. Give me a tangible example (if you could ever possibly find one) and I'll give you several hundred that prove the exact opposite of the point you are uselessly trying to make. Monopoly is not possible without monopoly violence, i.e. government. Show me one instance where it was, that lasted more than the two seconds it takes for a competing entrepreneur to smell those fat margins and start setting up shop.
Why don't you give my username a search and read through some of the posts on economics I have done here over the past 13 months. I don't have the time to do it now as it's busy season for my business and it's fucking BUSY (this is (one of) my legit businesses I'm talking about, here). I'm still not seeing any point to the last few paragraphs you wrote - good posture or not - as you basically just made a long-winded attempt at patronizing my understanding of economics. All I asked for was one, single instance of monopoly where government wasn't involved. Still waiting, here.
You lost the plot dude. Remember how you were having a real tough time understanding why the monopolistic practices deployed by MS are considered unfair? I tried patiently to explain using a simple analogy that I thought you might be able to relate to. You responded with a bizarre non sequitur on government force and remain baffled as to why I would try. So clearly I failed. I overestimated you. BTW, I'm already familiar with the argument you're begging to make. I just don't see the point in continuing when you haven't exactly inspired confidence that you won't lose the plot again.
To be fair, you might just be too busy right now to debate this subject. It can take time to process an argument and follow a train of thought instead of starting a new one. We all have IRL responsibilities, and there are some months I'm far more invested in the demands of business so if you've got other commitments I understand. For me it's not a waste of time if you can coherently debate a subject. But if you're incapable, for whatever reasons, then you're right ... it is a waste of my time.
So what you are essentially saying is that your subjective interpretation of "fair" bears more weight than a universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth... nice. Microsoft's actions with IE might not have been "fair" (to whom?? on what basis?), but they were certainly moral.
-
So what you are essentially saying is that your subjective interpretation of "fair" bears more weight than a universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth... nice. Microsoft's actions with IE might not have been "fair" (to whom?? on what basis?), but they were certainly moral.
How interesting that you find the need to put words in my mouth in order to set up your little straw man... nice, well not really.
But what I find entertaining is your implication that you hold the keys to a "universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth" (says who? you?) that somehow supersedes subjective interpretations you accuse me of harboring.
Alright! I've gotta make some popcorn to watch how skillfully you can squirm trying to avoid hypocrisy on this.
Fire away!
-
So what you are essentially saying is that your subjective interpretation of "fair" bears more weight than a universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth... nice. Microsoft's actions with IE might not have been "fair" (to whom?? on what basis?), but they were certainly moral.
How interesting that you find the need to put words in my mouth in order to set up your little straw man... nice, well not really.
But what I find entertaining is your implication that you hold the keys to a "universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth" (says who? you?) that somehow supersedes subjective interpretations you accuse me of harboring.
Alright! I've gotta make some popcorn to watch how skillfully you can squirm trying to avoid hypocrisy on this.
Fire away!
What hypocrisy. All human beings are endowed with negative inalienable rights that can ONLY be rights if, by exercising them, they are not violating the commensurate rights of another human being.
For example. I cannot own your car 100% while you own it 100%. I can tell you I think you're a fucking asshole for not selling them to me, and that doesn't infringe on your right to tell me I'm a dick for offering way too low of a price. You see? how that works? There are certain actions you are able to perform that are voluntary and right/moral, in that they don't violate the rights of another human being.
Now, I'd like you to explain your subjective interpretation of "fair" in the instance of Microsoft. What would you, wise benevolent overlord of the morality of the planet earth, decree upon those of us who wish to serve our customers by giving them something they are currently paying for for nothing, while simultaneously freeing up billions of tied-up capital, human intellect and labour, and scarce resources to be put to use in a better consumer-serving capacity. Please, bestow your wisdom upon us.
You build a business model on a shitty idea, eventually you go bust. Henry Ford was a fucking nightmare to the hundreds of thousands of carriage drivers and builders and ferriers and horse-feed growers and shippers, etc. He was extremely unfair. Just as Rockefeller was so unfair to all of those whalers out there hunting whale oil so that we could burn our insanely expensive lamps at the time. I mean, fuck, rue the day that average humans actually got to stay up after dark because someone invented this brilliant product called kerosene that destroyed the whale-oil industry and dropped the price of lighting a human house by about 90%.
You are going to be swimming around in that disgusting swamp called the postmodern subjective for a while, so I'll leave you to it. Let me know when you've decided what "fair" is (please make it something that can be applied to more than just Microsoft or another disruptive business move that saves consumers money). And leave Kodak out of this - they tried, film was great for a while, but those evil digital camera people that made taking and sharing infinitely replicate-able images ridiculously easy and cheap just destroyed Kodak's business model. It's not "fair" that a consumer can take 500 pictures for $2.00 of battery power. Sickening. They should be paying $50 - $100 for the film alone! Think of all those people who worked in film manufacturing and development!
-
What hypocrisy. All human beings are endowed with negative inalienable rights that can ONLY be rights if, by exercising them, they are not violating the commensurate rights of another human being.
Starts well.
For example. I cannot own your car 100% while you own it 100%. I can tell you I think you're a fucking asshole for not selling them to me, and that doesn't infringe on your right to tell me I'm a dick for offering way too low of a price. You see? how that works? There are certain actions you are able to perform that are voluntary and right/moral, in that they don't violate the rights of another human being.
Love your example.
Now, I'd like you to explain your subjective interpretation of "fair" in the instance of Microsoft. What would you, wise benevolent overlord of the morality of the planet earth, decree upon those of us who wish to serve our customers by giving them something they are currently paying for for nothing, while simultaneously freeing up billions of tied-up capital, human intellect and labour, and scarce resources to be put to use in a better consumer-serving capacity. Please, bestow your wisdom upon us.
Enjoy your 50th +K, good sir, for a very well written post with persuasive points. Not that I wasn't already on that side of the debate.
-
Now, I'd like you to explain your subjective interpretation of "fair" in the instance of Microsoft. What would you, wise benevolent overlord of the morality of the planet earth, decree upon those of us who wish to serve our customers by giving them something they are currently paying for for nothing, while simultaneously freeing up billions of tied-up capital, human intellect and labour, and scarce resources to be put to use in a better consumer-serving capacity. Please, bestow your wisdom upon us.
Honestly, I don't believe you have the capacity to understand fairness. I wasted a lot of effort trying to explain and illustrate why MS's practices would be considered unfair. I even tried to simplify things using an analogy you might be better able to understand and relate to by using your weed growing business. If you don't understand the concept of fairness by now, it's obviously too nuanced of a concept for you, and I'm certainly not going to be able to explain it to you.
-
A month later and this thread`s still bursting in flames. ::)
-
Now, I'd like you to explain your subjective interpretation of "fair" in the instance of Microsoft. What would you, wise benevolent overlord of the morality of the planet earth, decree upon those of us who wish to serve our customers by giving them something they are currently paying for for nothing, while simultaneously freeing up billions of tied-up capital, human intellect and labour, and scarce resources to be put to use in a better consumer-serving capacity. Please, bestow your wisdom upon us.
Honestly, I don't believe you have the capacity to understand fairness. I wasted a lot of effort trying to explain and illustrate why MS's practices would be considered unfair. I even tried to simplify things using an analogy you might be better able to understand and relate to by using your weed growing business. If you don't understand the concept of fairness by now, it's obviously too nuanced of a concept for you, and I'm certainly not going to be able to explain it to you.
Truly the God from on-high. Your high-brow benevolence, your wisdom, your great ability to bestow righteousness upon us lowly serfs is too far beyond my intellectual faculties and moral foundations. I understand. I will not try to ask you to bestow your wisdom on us further, your worship, as you clearly have important things to do regarding the cosmos and such.
I'd be sorry to leave without first noticing that you have not actually pointed out anything concrete in your post(s), only pulled from the sludge of your post-modern understanding of "fairness" and morality and attempted to see if it links with a consensus on here. I'll quickly breeze over the fact that this is the type of action a child in a playground would perform. I won't even bother to spend a lot of time on the substance-less arrogance and complete lack of direction of your posts, since they are not rooted in any consistent philosophy and instead appear to be based on some bits and pieces of shit you read around the internet and managed to pack them into your existing worldview, so that's just peachy. In other words, you just came on here to suck your own dick in front of everyone, which is pretty creepy shit.
I don't need analogies from whatever muck you are going to attempt to pull them from, because they are likely completely off-base (simply in-line with your previous posts, is what I'm saying). You were completely wrong the first time you tried, since you have no consistent philosophy that you can base your assertion on (it's an inherent double standard), and I would be willing to bet you would be completely wrong in any further attempts, or use the wrong type of analogy..
Now let me finish waving my incense at your bronze likeness (or gold, if that's what you prefer, although I'm going to have to save up for a while), so I can go off and continue working on the paperwork for my "non-weed" business that generates about 15x the annual sales of everything I've sold on the silk road in the last 14 months. And you can keep pondering what you must teach me about business, economics, morality, and human interaction. I would have thought a god would have come up with something at least a little clever, by now.
-
I'd be sorry to leave without first noticing that you have not actually pointed out anything concrete in your post(s), only pulled from the sludge of your post-modern understanding of "fairness" and morality and attempted to see if it links with a consensus on here. I'll quickly breeze over the fact that this is the type of action a child in a playground would perform. I won't even bother to spend a lot of time on the substance-less arrogance and complete lack of direction of your posts, since they are not rooted in any consistent philosophy and instead appear to be based on some bits and pieces of shit you read around the internet and managed to pack them into your existing worldview, so that's just peachy. In other words, you just came on here to suck your own dick in front of everyone, which is pretty creepy shit.
Coming from the guy that lost the plot and tried to start another one while jumping convolutedly from one topic to the next, your accusations don't mean a whole lot.
I don't need analogies from whatever muck you are going to attempt to pull them from, because they are likely completely off-base (simply in-line with your previous posts, is what I'm saying). You were completely wrong the first time you tried, since you have no consistent philosophy that you can base your assertion on (it's an inherent double standard), and I would be willing to bet you would be completely wrong in any further attempts, or use the wrong type of analogy..
Sure, of course. You have difficulty following the plot so you call it off base and say I'm wrong. We're at loggerheads. So of course I'd be wrong in any further attempts to explain fairness to you, no matter how many times and with however much precision and clarity I did, you'd consider it off base and that I'm wrong. No surprise there. Like I said before, I tried and it went completely over your head, so I failed. I overestimated you. But that doesn't mean I'm going to keep trying every time you demand an explanation of fairness. Fool me once, shame on you.
Now let me finish waving my incense at your bronze likeness (or gold, if that's what you prefer, although I'm going to have to save up for a while), so I can go off and continue working on the paperwork for my "non-weed" business that generates about 15x the annual sales of everything I've sold on the silk road in the last 14 months. And you can keep pondering what you must teach me about business, economics, morality, and human interaction. I would have thought a god would have come up with something at least a little clever, by now.
I assume this is a final attempt to salvage some dignity for yourself? Since I have no idea what you net from your weed biz, saying you have a legit business that nets 15x as much doesn't really tell me much except that you like to define yourself by how much you make; nor would I expect anything less from an anarcho capitalist. So okay, since it seems to make you feel better about yourself, who am I to begrudge you your self flattery?
-
Someone has said it better than I, so I shall quote my philosophy of the moment. >:(
I don't care what colour you are. I don't care where you're from. I don't care what you do for a living. I don't care what class you are, how you dress, what you smoke or drink or who you know or whom you've fucked.
I hate you all. I hate every last living, breathing, snot and feces producing, promiscuously copulating, celebrity obsessed, opinionated one of you. From right here in Toronto right around the planet and back, coast to coast, nationwide and internationally. Every. Single. Last. One. Of. You.
Fuck love. Fuck your insipid grasping at some abstract concept of chemical imbalances and reasonless actions, fumbling around in the crowd trying to find some cinematic supposition for real human interaction. Fuck lust, too. Fuck you all, from the lowlife dirtbags that think dropping trou and waving the little soldier in a sloppy arc is a pick-up line to the sniveling of the desperate 'nice guys' who never get the girl due to a total lack of testosterone grown stones. Fuck you all, from the crazy, under dressed sluts that judge a persons character by the price of their shirt, right down to the fat, flabby chicks that think personality is enough.
Fuck you drivers, for thinking that a yellow light is a sign that says 'step on the gas'. Fuck you wheelmen and women that think it's okay to sit in a left hand turn in the middle of morning traffic, even though there is a protected left in the intersections before and after where you need to make your turn. Fuck you too cyclists - you're not exempt from the traffic laws just because your peddling, you miserable spandex covered neon reflective fucks. Fuck you too, pedestrians. Use the fucking crosswalk if you don't want to get hit, and use it before the little countdown clock says '3'. You don't have enough goddamn time to lope across four lanes of traffic.
Fuck you chick on your cellphone. Fuck you attitude packed minimum-wager that makes my coffee. Fuck you cops that spend all their time handing out speeding tickets. Fuck you douche bag doing ten over the limit in the passing lane on the highway. Fuck you lady using exact change at the counter at the grocery store. Fuck you kids having a conversation in the doorway. And fuck you also for not getting the fuck out of your designated handicapped seat when a pregnant or elderly person gets on the fucking bus.
Fuck taxes. Fuck welfare. Fuck the whole selfish, over politicized and party driven government system. I'm sick and fucking tired of policies and new laws with seven hundred bylaws that nobody but you and your cabinet reads. Fuck you councilors and your stupid 'district improvement' plans. Fuck you unions, for asking for so much and giving nothing more that what you already give. Fuck the whole process that allows people who are supposed to be working for us work for interests that only benefit the next campaign. Fuck your short-sightedness, your rush to the bandwagons, and your incessant arguing over fuck all. Fuck the parties, fuck the conventions, and fuck your campaigns. Do some real fucking work for a change.
Fuck you bottles of water. You're water. You're not worth two fucking dollars.
Fuck you trendsetters, fuck you fashionistas. Fuck your little dogs and and your idiotic outfits. Fuck your high heels in the snow. Fuck your five dollar coffees and your fifteen dollar veggie burgers. Fuck your health kick, your diet or your fucking new interest in kickboxing or sushi.
Fuck your culture. Fuck your race. Fuck your sense of entitlement. Fuck your sense of uniqueness. Fuck you all for the belief that you have something unique and interesting to contribute. Fuck you for filling the internet with your useless garbage. Fuck your blogs, your wikis, your forums. Fuck your name calling. And most of all, fuck whatever you believe. It's all wrong. Fuck it.
Fuck your complaints. Fuck your addictions. Fuck your dependencies. Fuck your pain. Fuck your tears. Fuck selling whatever it is you sell. Fuck your manipulation of others. Fuck movies. Fuck fucking. Fuck everything you own. Fuck your allergies. Fuck your stupid commons sense. Fuck your spelling and fuck your lack of education, or your ignorance, whatever is applicable.
I don't give a fuck. Shut the fuck up and just get on with it.
-
I agree with limitless capitalism is not fucking dead.
The problem with people is fear. But there's no need to fear. Rest easy in the arms of the dragon. Whatever is going to happen has already happened. The big bang has happened so fast that our current reality is just a shockwave rolling by
-
So what you are essentially saying is that your subjective interpretation of "fair" bears more weight than a universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth... nice. Microsoft's actions with IE might not have been "fair" (to whom?? on what basis?), but they were certainly moral.
How interesting that you find the need to put words in my mouth in order to set up your little straw man... nice, well not really.
But what I find entertaining is your implication that you hold the keys to a "universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth" (says who? you?) that somehow supersedes subjective interpretations you accuse me of harboring.
Alright! I've gotta make some popcorn to watch how skillfully you can squirm trying to avoid hypocrisy on this.
Fire away!
There is no such thing as a "universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth". Morality is very culturally specific. What is morally acceptable in one country is not necessarily so in another. Not only that, but it is also specific to the time, ie what was considered morally right 20 years ago might be considered immoral today. I could go on.....morality also changes in accordance to religious belief systems. The only 'universal' agreement of morality exists in the form of international agreements on human rights.
-
So what you are essentially saying is that your subjective interpretation of "fair" bears more weight than a universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth... nice. Microsoft's actions with IE might not have been "fair" (to whom?? on what basis?), but they were certainly moral.
How interesting that you find the need to put words in my mouth in order to set up your little straw man... nice, well not really.
But what I find entertaining is your implication that you hold the keys to a "universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth" (says who? you?) that somehow supersedes subjective interpretations you accuse me of harboring.
Alright! I've gotta make some popcorn to watch how skillfully you can squirm trying to avoid hypocrisy on this.
Fire away!
There is no such thing as a "universally applicable moral code that applies equally to all human beings on earth". Morality is very culturally specific. What is morally acceptable in one country is not necessarily so in another. Not only that, but it is also specific to the time, ie what was considered morally right 20 years ago might be considered immoral today. I could go on.....morality also changes in accordance to religious belief systems. The only 'universal' agreement of morality exists in the form of international agreements on human rights.
Couldn't agree more. But according to anarcho47's subjective perspective there is a universal moral code and anyone that doesn't agree with him he accuses of "postmodern subjective" as if that will make him sound more intelligent. It really does not.
-
There is a universal morality. It is called the Natural Law. It is a moral existence that all human beings can embrace and exercise to the fullest without infringing on any other human being's ability to do the same.
I'm not talking about "drugs are bad so we'll throw you in a fucking cage if you try to buy them" type of "morality", or "if you go over the speed limit you will be forced at gunpoint (if you follow it down the line enough) to pay an arbitrary amount of your property to the state as penance". That is not moral. It is in violation of the laws of nature, which pretty clearly dictate the laws of morality.
Every culture that has taken human beings from wallowing around in the muck for 14 hours a day attempting to meagerly feed, clothe, and shelter themselves has embraced at least some element of this morality. The more it was embraced and universally recognized, the greater that culture became and the better quality and quantity of lives each human was given the opportunity to live.
Now, instead of deflecting, oh deity who decides the definition of "fair", please do lay out what I requested from your greatness. It should be merely a trifle, seeing as you are obviously able to lay out the ever-changing moral code and guidelines under which we all must function. Mine do not change. They are static. They are based on humanity, and all individual humans, at that. Keep swimming in Jell-O.
-
Now, instead of deflecting, oh deity who decides the definition of "fair", please do lay out what I requested from your greatness. It should be merely a trifle, seeing as you are obviously able to lay out the ever-changing moral code and guidelines under which we all must function. Mine do not change. They are static. They are based on humanity, and all individual humans, at that. Keep swimming in Jell-O.
I have a great idea. To get an idea of what I mean by 'fair' why don't you reread my MS example slowly, maybe try to focus on the analogy I put forth using your weed growing business if the MS example is too complex, and try to point out why I'm wrong within the framework I spelled out for you. I know you will probably find this quite challenging seeing as to how my original message thoroughly baffled you and you lost the plot. But if you want to continue debate, you need to first demonstrate the ability to carry on a debate with a minimal level of competence that you have not shown. Because I'm sure that most individuals with even an average IQ would have understood the point I was trying to make while you did not. Even a libertarian anarchist with some modicum of intelligence would have been willing to challenge 'fairness' within the framework I provided instead of asking for another one. So take this as a challenge to flesh out your ideas irrespective of how much time it takes away from the other challenges in your life, and prove that you're capable of processing ideas put in front of you instead of throwing a temper tantrum about the other demands on your time. Otherwise, there's really no point for me to continue spoon feeding you unless you show some potential.
"... I have developed, over the years, some sense of the difference between real horseshit that you can step in and Ideal Platonic Horseshit that exists, evidently, only in the contemplation of those who worship such abstractions; and I continue to notice that Natural Law bears an uncanny resemblance to ideal Platonic Horseshit." ~~Robert Anton Wilson, "Natural Law"