.
Why the U.S. is going downhill
.
Last edited by aixelsyd; 08-12-2011 at 06:56 AM.
Well... I think that the US is going downhill due to poor economic policy and incompetent leadership.
I feel that the leadership of this country in particular is corrupt, and the voters don't really have good choices anymore. We just pick from candidates that are pre-approved by those in power. We no longer have a real voice.
The country is being run into the ground by greedy people who don't care, and can just move away to another one and live happily after they ruin this one.
It's Just Time.
http://www.contrahour.com/ItsJustTim...nArmstrong.pdf
It's not just the US. The whole world is dying of a social pathology:
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
YEA! I want to respond to this, but I want to do it right, so I'll wait till I have the energy. There are several problems, I think people have said "it's not just the USA it's the world"... but me personally I think it is the "US", but its not like the burden of blame lies with the US, it is more complex than that, it has to do with the US's recent role in global politics, I think the important slice of time to analyze is how the US rose to power at the dawn of modernism around the 1950's and how that is a result of our current situation in the US and how the US has affected western society and how the west has affected global society. I think the US has spear headed a lot of the problems we face now and the rest of the world has followed, its not entirely the US's fault though as after imperialism the torch was handed to the WEST for supreme power/leadership and after WW2 that torch was handed to the US in specific. Who knows what will happen, but in one scenario, the torch is passed to someone else and they get all the blame for the problems of the world. It's not technically sufficient to blame all the problems of modern society on the US but the US is the flagship for them I think.Originally Posted by aixelsyd
Like I said though, I want to flesh this idea out right, so I'll post in detail later.
Also yea @ crispy, the zeitgeist movement is rather intelligent, and that guys presentation is epic worthy.
Last edited by male; 03-12-2011 at 02:15 AM.
Well, democracy (cough, oligarchy, cough) and capitalism are downright silly and will lead to poor decision making and suffering to start off. One involves the vote of the many and the opinions of the few, the other an outdated system of resource exchange that is no longer relevant.
How specific can you get with such a broad OP? I tried to be specific, but then I realized there's no sense in being specific if you can't justify it, and then I began to justify it, and realized you can't justify such things without providing evidence and contextual information, which is useless without proper citation, and then realized I was writing a book/research paper. Perhaps you could share where you stand on the subject so we know where you're coming from? And I am very surprised to hear that the people you know think that the US is better than ever... old nationalistic habits die hard.
^^Haaaaaaa Crispy, some Peter lecturing I missed. I shall enjoy listening to it :3
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
the West is going down because it excessively leveraged itself. In every other respect, the decline is relative, because other locales are learning what we known by sheer osmosis.
Leverage turns relative declines into absolute ones.
Cronyism: Man, being a business is hard work. Always competing against other businesses? Constantly having to innovate and work hard to stay ahead of said competition? Why do that when you can just use your wealth and influence to buy a politician? Just dump money into his campaign and watch the you-friendly legislation, grants, and stimulus money just roll in the front door!
Shit-tastic Infrastructure: Hi-Speed Commuter Rail? You mean High-on-Weed Communist FAIL, right? Ha ha. Who wants to crowd into an efficient, cost-effective means of mass transit when you can just shit up the air in your very own car! It's the American Wa- Oh. All of the roads have potholes than can swallow a Honda Civic whole, you say? That's... Well just don't drive then! Stay in your very own American Home, turn on your American Lights and watch some American TV! Brought to you by Coal power! Who needs that sissy-puss Alternative Energy, right? More like... Like... Balls-ternative... En- no. Give me a second here... Hell, you didn't like breathing anyway, right?
Retarded Foreign Policy: Hey! I know! Let's get involved in not one but two pointless fucking wars on the taxpayer's dime! What's that? The taxpayers are firmly against this? Let's just drop taxes three or four times! That'll make them happy! I'm sure the cavernous budget shortfall we're about to create will balance itself out somehow!
Stupid Drinking Laws: (Well ok, this is MOSTLY a Utah thing but whatever) There is no way in heck that we can let children see a bar in a restaurant because if they do then they will think that drinking is ok! And we can't let grocery stores sell anything other than piss-weak shit-beer that no sane man would buy and keep all of the good stuff in state-run liquor stores because... because... Tssssss.... (Actually I have no idea why people thought this would be a good idea). And let's not let young people drink until 21, because surely if we legislate it, it will be so, right? There's no way people would be apathetic enough to just figure out the numerous ways to get around the minimum drinking age. We promise.
Also, just for the hell of it, let's come down on cashiers who sell alcohol to underage drinkers, because clearly they deserve to lose their jobs for someone else breaking a retarded law. This makes absolute sense, what are you talking about?
Unofficially Official Theocracy: No gays can't marry! It would destroy the country! It would quite literally open up a massive chasm right down the middle of the country and all of America would be pulled into its fiery depths! I mean there is absolutely no basis, scientific, legal or otherwise for us to be such dicks about this, but that isn't going to stop us because we have misread a few key bible verses so that we can justify our backwards little prejudice!
Oh, what, abortions now? Abortions are evil, don't you know! You're committing murder after all! What's that? You say that you know that you're committing murder and you're ready to deal with the consequences of that on your own without the government stepping in to make all of the hard decisions for you? WELL TOO BAD, BITCH! You may have the right to do what the hell ever with the rest of your body, but your uterus is property of the Yew-Nited States of Ameria-kee!
(and I can't think of any more)
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...056610,00.html
Fareed Zakaria is a good place to start. Seriously, if I were President, I would take him on as an advisor.
It was a good run, you gotta admit.
*Sigh*
It ain't like it used to be.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
INTERCEPTION!
The term and meaning of a Resource-Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.
Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.
A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.
Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.
In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.
We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.
Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.
At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.
A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.
Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.
A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.
What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.
As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.
With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.
If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.
Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
^ There are so many things wrong with that.
The most apparent being automated technology. Do you understand the effects of implementing highly efficient automated technology? It means displacement. It means humans don't have jobs to work. It means automatons do all our work while we do...what exactly do we do?
There's no incentive to live if everything is perfect. The flaws of paradise.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Already 2 steps ahead of you.
If anyone else has any reasons why they think this system wouldn't work, I got a gigantic FAQ full of thought-provoking material on tab.I find it so sad when people ask, "What will people do?". Their brains have been so flattened that they have no other options in their lives other than a job and in most instances it is one that they do not like. Children are curious about everything and if nurtured they could have a much greater range of interests and abilities. This culture does a wonderful job of limiting peoples' interests, opportunities, and abilities, and it conditions them to be lazy. People are not born that way any more than they are born with bigotry, hatred, prejudice, or particular values. We are aware that it is the environment that shapes people and if the culture is not changed there will be little change in human behavior.
Monotonous and dangerous jobs will inevitably be done away with by the advance of technology. People in a resource-based economy will be given the opportunity to engage in all manner of research and development, the creative arts and crafts, travel and exploration, and participation in all of the other limitless horizons the future has to offer.
The ultimate realization of the potential of cybernated and computerized technology solely to improve people's lives could produce the most revolutionary system ever to evolve. It will eventually eliminate all superficial boundaries set up by nations; as we are beginning to witness with the introduction of satellite communication and personal computers, it is almost impossible for nations today to censor ideas and information.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
This may take a long while, but I'monit!
EDIT: I'm not sure I understand how the bounded rationality argument makes the decision making process in a resource based economy unworkable but the main question seems to be: "Since rational decisions are limited by available information/limits of cognitive function/finite time needed to make decisions, how can a resource based economy ensure that it is making optimal decisions rather than satisfactory ones?"
Since it is correct that total optimization is unreachable due to the listed limitations I will focus on how to ensure decisions are as optimal as possible and particularly, more optimal than they could ever be in a monetary based economy.
The Venus Project advocates using Cybernation as the role of Decision Maker in society, the details of which are in the following paragraph:
Since the problem of Bounded Rationality is that which affects both Monetary Based Economics and Resource Based Economics it would be wise to consider how drastically it affects each system. Which system collects the most available data, has the least issues with cognitive function limits, and uses the least amount of time to make decisions? To me it seems the system that uses computers to make decisions will suffer a lot less from lack of information, human error, and time expenditure than the system we rely on today for "satisfactory" decision making.When computers eventually have sensors extended into all areas of the physical and social complex, we will be able to achieve centralization of decision-making. In a global resource-based economy, decisions would not be based on local politics but on a holistic problem solving approach.
This centralized system could be connected to research labs and universities, with all data monitored and updated constantly. Most of the technology needed for such infrastructure management is currently available. The major difference between today's computer technology and the system we recommend is that our system extends its autonomic nervous system (environmental sensors) into all areas relevant to the social complex. It coordinates a balance between production and distribution, and operates to maintain a balanced-load economy. This technology of industrial electronic feedback can be applied to the entire global economy.
For example, with electrical sensors extended into the agricultural region, computerized systems would manage and control agriculture by monitoring the water table, insects, pests, plant diseases, soil nutrients, and so forth. The information processed will enable us to arrive at more appropriate decision-making based on feedback from the environment.
Computers and artificial intelligence will serve as catalysts for change. They will establish scientific scales of performance. It is doubtful that in the latter part of the twenty-first century people will play any significant role in decision-making. Eventually, the installation of AI and machine decision-making will manage all resources serving the common good.
This will result in a more humane and meaningful approach for shaping tomorrow's civilization that is not based on the opinions or desires of a particular sect or individual. All decisions would be made on the basis of a comprehensive survey of resources, energy, and existing technology without allowing any advantage to a particular nation or select group of people.
This may be accomplished with large-scale, computer-based processors that can assist us in defining the most humane and appropriate ways to manage environmental and human affairs. This is essentially the function of government. With computers processing trillions of bits of information per second, existing technologies far exceed the human capacity for processing information and they can arrive at equitable and sustainable decisions about the development and distribution of physical resources. With this potential, we would evolve beyond political decisions made on the basis of power and advantage.
NOTE: There's a good chance I misread that entire article or otherwise misinterpreted what argument it was supposed to bring up... sheeeeet. I'll work on the rest later...
Last edited by Crispy; 03-12-2011 at 08:01 AM.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
But where's the incentive???
This piece of expository writing is over generalizing in what people want out of life. Maybe some people like to work hard. Maybe some people like to be down and depressed. Everything being imperfect, gives us something to live for - emotional fulfillment.
Why would we care about "research and development, the creative arts and crafts, travel and exploration, and participation in all of the other limitless horizons the future has to offer" if we already have it made?
Basically I'm against a highly'd society, it's just too dehumanizing.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
If people like competitive activities for example they could spend all their time training for sports and/or chess and/or to outwit each other in scientific debates. Plently of people take part in competitions that lack a monetary reward (me included - oftentimes glory feels better than money). The real problem is economic calculation - it would be impossible to know how much "human value" can be assigned to energy expenditure, how much exactly can/should be produced of good X or Y, etc. (I'm dumbing down the concept, but there are some formal proofs around).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The main problem I have with this is thus: What happens in the transitionary phase?
I'll give you an example.
Take the replacement of barcodes with RFID tags. Just grab whatever you want from the grocery store, set it in your cart, and walk right out the door. A RF-scanner picks up the tags on all the products you have, totals your order, charges it to your card, and it's all over and done with in a moment. Makes cashiers completely and utterly obsolete.
To make a fundamental assumption for this hypothetical scenario, let's say that this technology is far more cost effective on introduction than hiring a team of cashiers and is easy to implement, such that every major grocery chain in a single state implements them and rids themselves for their cashiers.
Where do those cashiers go? They are, as of that moment, unskilled workers. The skillset they have honed over the years is now worthless, given that every company in their area has adopted this newer, better system. They could find new work, but how will they, when they are uneducated, and inexperienced in any field they may try out for, and therefore strictly an inferior choice over someone with more experience?
What will these displaced workers do before the cotton candy future kicks in?
# Would people lose their incentive?
You have been brought up to believe people are inspired by rewards or money.
The free-enterprise system does create incentive to achieve, however it also breeds the incentive for corruption, theft, and greed. Our aim is to encourage a new incentive system, one no longer directed toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth, property, and power. Today, financial barriers place enormous limitations on innovation, individual creativity, and personal incentive. In The Venus Project, money would not be required to help one achieve or create, as facilities would be made available to serve everyone's needs.
I worry about people whose main motivation is money. For instance, if this is the motivation of a doctor instead of the desire to solve problems in the field of medicine and health and enhance people's lives, to many others, and me the services are not very trustworthy. It is a tremendous myth perpetrated on people in a monetary system that people are mostly motivated by money to achieve and produce. I could give you endless examples of people who fought, studied, created, and excelled without the allure of money as a reward, there are much more meaningful rewards than that. It depends on the value system that one is given and the culture that one is raised in that reinforces what is meant by a reward.
In essence all of the people we have admired in the past, Michael Angelo, da Vinci, Bell, the Wright Brothers, Darwin, and many others worked because they were interested in problem solving, not financial gain. This in some cases was a by-product. Usually money-oriented people become business men, or stock brokers; they are rarely creative. I have always felt threatened by people whose sole motivation is financial gain. On islands in the South Pacific, people had more than enough resources. Although banana, coconuts, fish and breadfruit were abundant, the natives worked continuously building navigation equipment, canoes, huts, and weaved cloth. Although no money was used, their incentive improved their standard of living.
In the early days in America a man and wife could build a log cabin in several months. Today it takes 30 years or so to pay off a house with the additional funds to bankers and others that actually have nothing to do with the building of the house.
If you examine your statements carefully of people who have access to all the necessities of life you will find that many wealthy people do not eat 25 meals a day even though they have access to it and they do not stuff their environment with hundreds of musical instruments and accumulate hundreds of cars. It is not the availability of resources that is disturbing to people, it is the lack of resources that is responsible for most crimes, embezzlement, deception of all kinds, etc.
Consider this when few nations control most of the worlds resources and exploit other nations with their positions of differential advantage.
All of the technical staff and everyone else will have access to a very high standard of living; the incentive, which will propel people, is the end of war, territorial disputes, economic hardship, debt, and the basis for most crimes as they will all be eliminated. In this new society as proposed by The Venus Project, the environment in which people are raised and educated will be based upon the fundamental principles of science and the comprehensive knowledge of the interrelationship between people and the environment, which sustains all life.This statement is completely nonsensical to me. Down and depressed by definition is what people don't like to feel like.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
It doesn't have to make sense. It's emotions dude.
You don't get it.
I'll reply to the other section in the morning. tired.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
This example does not refer to the transitional phase, as it is something that can happen (is happening) even in the monetary system we have today. If the supermarket company thinks its in its best interest to do the RFID chips today, they will do it. The resource based economy is not what is allowing mechanization to replace human workers; that is happening regardless. Right now 90% of the jobs these days are in the service industry, because agriculture and everything else is already mechanized. There is nothing the cashiers can do in the current system and must wait until the transition to a sane society is completed.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
If you want to work hard (I don't) Who is going to stop you? Isn't emotional fulfilment and being depressed mutually exclusive?
I don't understand, if you want to be miserable, why do you have to be miserable for the sake of money? Why not for it's own sake?
Let's keep everything as it is, beacuse it has emotional character? Sorry this is just
EDIT: Go to a sweat shop and ask an "employee" how much they like working 16 houres a day 6 days a week for 5c an hour?
Last edited by Bluenoir; 03-12-2011 at 08:54 AM.
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
This is pretty neat. I just realized that the Public and Private waves Armstrong describes in this article are the tops of the Ti/Fe and Te/Fi axes respectively in the quadra progression model.
The U.S. is going downhill because it's voters are arrogant, uneducated, and succumbing to delusion pure and simple.
Actually I'll take that back -- education is part of the problem because it is increasing the arrogance level amongst the middle class. Arrogance is the root of the issue.
+1
I just read this article. This man is like a more intelligent version of myself. I've noticed a lot of the same patterns myself, but I just didn't understand math or Economics well enough to grasp it the way he did.
I knew about the nature of a wave, and Hegelian philosophy... and I sense that what we're doing is unsustainable, but I couldn't really explain WHY. This guy did. It's terribly complex, but it seems right to me.
Greed.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Short-term self-interest of those with capital and power trumps the long-term interests of the population as a whole.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
That has always been the case.
The U.S. sucks cuz all the citizens are soulless vampires.
I do, of course
1) Short-term interest of elected official = get reelected
2) Short-term interest of commercial entity = increase profits and assets relative to competitors
3) Long-term interest of population = maximize population on a given territory while preserving resource base and homeostatic relationship with environment
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
We need a republic, randomly selected, from the pool of college graduates and the military. Just to change things up.
The Devil still loves the USA.
DEATH TO STATOLATRY!
Oh God No! No!
Believe me, I am very far from any sort of utopianism. Maybe too far. I tend to think of society as consisting of participants acting in predictable ways based on evolutionarily successful algorithms. It's hard to come up with any sort of utopia with that perspective.Good answer. Thank you for not making me gofrom reading some elaborate workaround explanation about how some as-of-yet-unrealized utopian system is going to somehow resolve that dilemma by deciding it for us.
I agree #1 is obviously a problem. But why is #2 necessarily non-conducive to #3? Given that a commercial entity can only remain viable so long as it continues to satisfy a consumer demand; especially if #1 isn't around to distort the markets by awarding unfair leverage to politically-connected cronies, or destabilize the currency whenever they print money to cover the budget deficits on all those grandiose re-election promises they made?
#1 is actually only a problem in democracies. If all monarchs were wise, then a monarchy would be better than democracy (at least for large countries, I think) because the monarch knows he is in it for the long run and benefits from developing his "property" for long-term rather than short-term success and growth.
#2 seems to generally be conducive to #3, but only if there is a mechanism to monitor the use of renewable and nonrenewable resources and establish the rules for their use. This is the main failing of modern economies.
The long-term "goal" of any species is to maximize its own population density within an ecosystem, and to expand its habitat as much as possible — not just for a few generations, but for the long-run. From this perspective, the optimal homeostasis for man is to discover (by trial and error, scientific research, or whatever) the maximum _sustainable_ extraction rates for various types of resources and divert all these resources for human consumption.
On small territories human communities seem to discover these extraction limits naturally and enforce them locally through social mechanisms. On larger territories where there are too many people for community-based mechanisms to work (because not enough people have perfect knowledge about what is happening over the entire territory), the only way to achieve and not exceed optimal extraction rates is to have some sort of organizational mechanism.
It probably doesn't matter so much what mechanism is used — executive order, environmental monitoring and restrictions, or clever economic mechanisms to get commercial entities to naturally maintain the correct balance as they pursue their own self interest — as long as the maximum sustainable extraction rates are not systematically exceeded.
Without such an organizing mechanism, consumption tends to grow exponentially (just like any species' population when enjoying a period of plenty) until resource extraction rates begin to drop, causing a population crash. Why would it be any different with Homo Sapiens? You'd think though that with our rational mind and scientific achievements we'd be able to exercise our foresight and begin to establish the necessary organizational mechanisms _before_ resources are exhausted, but it seems modern governments are too easily corruptible by powerful commercial interests.
If we fail to create rational self-regulatory mechanisms and continue to "suck," then natural selection will prepare for us a more down-to-earth mechanism for resource management. It will breed out of our species the genes responsible for "excessive" intelligence, technical innovation, and entrepreneurship, leaving a populace that is more lackadaisical, traditional, and uninclined to experimentation and innovation than our current population.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
There is no "free" market, this is a fantasy. All markets are weighted towards those that have wealth and against those that do not have it.
Ownership rights, patents, copyright, property and all inheritance by gift or heredity creates only the tyranny of the few and the enslavement of the many.
But we can neither abolish property or inheritance entirely, for these are goals and ends by which many human beings aspire to. However, to advocate that more should go to those that have more, to say that those that have less deserves less, that those who inherited their wealth were somehow better then the poor that toil for their sustenance is villainy. To advocate that we do nothing about it is negligence. And to those that advocate that this consequence, by which so many are ensnared, is their right, freedom, and entitlement, it is tyranny.
It is no surprise that when in the United States, when the establishment of slavery was put on the executioner's block, that the myriad slaver owners contested this act by rhetoric of property rights, states rights, divine rights, all in the name of freedom. They protest the tyranny of others in order to protect their own tyranny.
For their tyranny, they deny others decency. While the rich may fight for their freedom to profit, they provide nothing for man's survival except to offer labor and at a price they determine. It is no surprise that the rich do not consider many basic necessities and comforts of life a right, rather they are a privilege and product, to be dispensed at a price they determine.
It is as economically rational for a slave-owner to defend their right to their economic property, as it is for the capitalist to defend theirs. However, the result is the same. The many institutions of the United States which seek to rectify this issue without violence but with law and regulation. They are not there to tyrannize the rights of the rich, their wealth already affords them luxury and privilege surpassing others, especially in the area of necessities and comforts. They are there to prevent the tyranny of the rich, where they would use their power and privilege to deny others the same basic decency which come so easily for them. We live in a enlightened time, where men of good conscience, rich or not, know the importance of preventing vast disparities of wealth which turn to tyranny, these enlightened views on policy and the increase in wealth brought about by technological advancement has brought prosperity to many people. This is slowly ending, wealth is consolidating from the poor to the lower middle class to the middle class to the rich.
In my eyes, it is certainly in our interest to prevent this. And we should not endorse it and especially not promote a fantasy.
Last edited by mu4; 03-16-2011 at 03:36 AM.
So what exactly would a CPig/Ashton ticket promise to do when elected. I hear a lot about the benefits of a free market and little government and so on, but how exactly would you go about it on a policy level?
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
And leave the country in utter ruins? I am seriously looking for realistic measures of implementing the little government / free market ideology that I see proposed by you, CPig, and dj, among others. Firing all employees is hardly realistic.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Firing all government employees is very realistic, and beneficial as they provide nothing for society. The country is in ruins right now. Can you not see the debt slavery chains encompassing you as it does us all?
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
4w5 sp/sx
