People not rising up in U.S.?
Why not?
I mean with the media basically transformed into a propaganda tool, why aren't the people rising up?
Against the government? The government is not the true state. The plutocracy is the true power structure in the United States today. The government is basically competing with it, trying to stay independent of it. But it's losing, and as it does, our insecurity mounts.
It is time to start the revolution - Resist the plutocrats, withdraw consent, withdraw your capital from their systems. Start a cooperative, join together... with producers, craftsmen, tradesmen... control your own destiny, let the insecurity fade away as you take decisive action, bring the power into your own hands... or shoot some rich people in the face.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
IEE-Ne
LOL that's not what's needed. We just need to turn back the tide, roll back the influence of the psychotics.
Because the world isn't filled with Betas and Gammas.
(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
Hit the streets with a sandwichboard? Petition your government to purge the psychotics from positions of influence.
restrict coorporate funding and coorporate access to politicians, get the leaders to spend more time with normal everyday, hardworking americans and less time with their succesful, educated, rich elitist peers?
How do you remove privilage from American politics?
IEE-Ne
The American left is pretty moderate centrist and unwilling to use hardline tactics that have been used in other countries. The 1950's McCarthyism and cold war rhetoric more or less made any sort of left leaning sentiment a act of communism.
There's been protests in Wisconsin as state legislators try to attack the unions right to collective bargain.
The unions have already agreed to the budget cuts, but they are still pressing the issue on the bargaining rights.
The issue isn't about balancing the budget at this point, but about a assault on unions. I think once legislation like this start going thru and the unions start fragmenting, you will start seeing hardline groups develop from the the left over groups and they will be very disciplined and motivated. I takes a long time for these groups to connect, educate others and organized and even longer for them to gather enough steam to make a impact. But ultimately some of these disaffected Americans will provide a base for future movements.
The situation in the US isn't likely to improve with a aging population, widening disparity of wealth as well as a anesthetized population brought up on right wing propaganda, fundamentalist Christian movements and fantasy economic theory.
Like any organization, unions have their share of faults and problems. But without them, individual workers have limited power to negotiate. The common argument I hear is that people can just go get another job, but try doing that with 2 kids, a mortgage and a car note. The economic pressures can make employment mobility very difficult if not impossible. It's pretty easy for most business to shed employees, they have many other employees who they can cover for any lost employees. They are organized to not be concerned about the loss of individual employees, in the end the power belongs to the business in negotiations without a similar level of organization amongst the laborers. Ultimately businesses are simply organizations just like unions except their profit motive is for it's shareholders and owners. And they can substantially improve their primary motive by reducing labor costs, they have little interest in negotiating with their expendable employees.
In America, there is a large amount of collective bargaining power which many unions hold which have let them peacefully negotiate with employers. In the future, with these rights eroded and organizations limited in ability to negotiate. Their options starts becoming protest then strike then violence. The current system(including unions) does need reform and restructuring and I'm not even sure if it's possible without serious violence and many years of deteriorating conditions.
It's still too early for an uprising in the U.S. It's not yet clear whom to rise up against. Say you're living in some suburb of Los Angeles and are fed up with the status quo, the lies, deception, whatever... Where do you go to uprise? There is not yet a clear enough connection in people's minds between their woes and a specific person or organizational entity that they perceive as oppressing them. The entities bothering people today are too abstract to rise up against. They have to be concreticized first.
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.
Here is a global movement you might be interested in:
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
Unlike most doomsayers, these guys are actually chalk full of sensible solutions.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
We don't need ordered chaos we need chaotic chaos.
(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
Won't change anything; revolutions go in 360 degrees.Well fuck crispy I was about to post that. Becoming an engineer for that movement specifically; can't wait to work without pay!Down with the monetary system!
http://www.thevenusproject.com/ :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.
From what I've read so far very interesting, I will be joining.
IEE-Ne
Seems like hippy utopian insanity that usually ends up with babies being bayoneted.Won't change anything; revolutions go in 360 degrees.
Well fuck crispy I was about to post that. Becoming an engineer for that movement specifically; can't wait to work without pay!
http://www.thevenusproject.com/ :3
I bet you half a days insane hippy utopian food allowance that no babies will be bayoneted as a direct result of this hippy utopian insanity.
IEE-Ne
Because the media makes people dumb and the general non-collectivist sentiment divides people to the point where the very protestors seem to other individuals as eccentric or out of the base line and so not regarded with any sense of importance. Protests seem to evaporate into thin air.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I've been making faces at the government, but they haven't done anything bad enough yet for me to attack them.
Why are Americans supposed to be rising up? Tough economic times forcing you to delay your plasma TV purchase? Telecoms throttling your 5g terrabit iphone facebook app? A black dude is the president?
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Because it extorts us in the form of taxation, licensure, tariff, fine, and fee, and in some cases even murders us at will. These are the same reasons to rise up against any form of coercive government.
Haha, Americans.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Haha.
Anyway, I'm not an advocate of violent revolution as a means of uprooting the state. I believe in a more peaceful campaign of education and passive civil disobedience. My revolution is an intellectual revolution, winning the hearts and minds so to speak.
One word: Walker. Not the Texas Ranger.
The Tea Party is aiming to increase anxiety across the land by removing social safety nets of all kinds. It's even gone so far as to aim for the abolition of unions.
So? These would actually be steps in the right direction. The Tea Party are by no means my political equivalents, but they do seem to be useful idiots in advancing libertarian causes. Unfortunately, I don't think they are taken seriously enough by either party to be a formidable vessel for real change.
Would you have us return to the robber baron era of the 1890s?
Obviously. They can't be any worse than the modern day Robin Hood era -- except this one steals from the rich and the poor, and keeps all to himself.
Seriously, though, labor unions and social welfare are hardly the guardians of economic growth and prosperity. Unions have historically been a source of anti-capitalist propaganda, and welfare being nothing more than the redistribution of wealth is a massive extortionist shell game. If everyone were allowed to keep what they have earned, and not be taxed on their earnings or spending, we would all be that much wealthier to afford the kinds of goods and services we actually need and utilize.
Those who are unable to work won't be wealthier, neither will their children. What would you propose doing to/for those people, should their children be given the opportunity to go to school and access healthcare or should they be discarded.Obviously. They can't be any worse than the modern day Robin Hood era -- except this one steals from the rich and the poor, and keeps all to himself.
Seriously, though, labor unions and social welfare are hardly the guardians of economic growth and prosperity. Unions have historically been a source of anti-capitalist propaganda, and welfare being nothing more than the redistribution of wealth is a massive extortionist shell game. If everyone were allowed to keep what they have earned, and not be taxed on their earnings or spending, we would all be that much wealthier to afford the kinds of goods and services we actually need and utilize.
IEE-Ne
Define those who are "unable to work." I know, or have known, plenty of people who qualify as "disabled" under the American Disabilities Act, many of whom choose to work anyway either under-the-table because they feel Social Security doesn't pay them enough, or because their medical profile allows for limited work. Even people who have lost limbs or have diminished mental capacities can still perform the basic functions of most jobs -- both entry-level and professional.
In fact, my mother-in-law right now is in the middle of a disability claim for her chronic back pain. In truth, I don't think there is a lot wrong with her, she could perform even sedentary work if she really wanted to. But because of the existence of ADA, she chooses not to work in favor of indulging her laziness. I don't blame her or look down upon her for the choice she has made, but it does highlight how otherwise well-meaning regulations and government safety nets can, and often are, abused at the expense of the taxpayers.
In the case of people who are completely, 100% disabled, either due to some physical ailment or mental handicap, it is ludicrous to assume that some sort of help and support would not exist in the absence of government. Many of these individuals probably weren't in that condition their entire life (which means they had to have worked at some point), and even if they were, most have the support of family and friends. Even in the presence of government safety nets, there are plenty of non-profit organizations that supplement these safety nets and even take on the roles of advocates for their particular "class" of disabled people.
There are still people who either cannot work or who would find it impossible to obtain a job and maintain in within a competative marketplace, whilst these people may well be able to get some support from the not for profit sector and family, what would be your solution to those that have dependant children. Do you reject the idea of universal education? Would these people also have access to places such as parks or public roads, how would these things be paid for - would they again be voluntary not for profit organisations?
IEE-Ne
Stand up and be counted ye modern day revolutionaries.
Here's the truth, good wages is not wealth redistribution, good benefits is not wealth redistribution, good working conditions is not wealth redistribution. It's about human decency.Obviously. They can't be any worse than the modern day Robin Hood era -- except this one steals from the rich and the poor, and keeps all to himself.
Seriously, though, labor unions and social welfare are hardly the guardians of economic growth and prosperity. Unions have historically been a source of anti-capitalist propaganda, and welfare being nothing more than the redistribution of wealth is a massive extortionist shell game. If everyone were allowed to keep what they have earned, and not be taxed on their earnings or spending, we would all be that much wealthier to afford the kinds of goods and services we actually need and utilize.
Here's the truth, the rich are not being robbed, they're only getting richer. They're doing the robbing, so let's take it back.
The reality of the situation is that the rich have gotten richer and richer, and the poor and middle class is getting poorer. The government is bankrupt, the poor are bankrupt, the middle class is bankrupt, the rich are richer. How could it possibly be that the rich are being robbed?
High wealth disparity is one of the primary cause of social unrest and eventual revolution and the wealth disparity in the US have only widened. 30 years of economic policies that have been fraudulent and based on fantasies, first started by Reagan and continued by the two Bush presidents have only plunged America into debt and reduce the real wages of the middle and lower class. The rich however are richer. Maybe one day the middle class and poor will realize it's time to take it back.
Residential real estate scams bankrupted a new group of middle class Americans. Price increase way beyond inflation by corporations during a time of economic recession so they can fatten their profit margin is an additional burden on poor and middle class Americans, who spend a large proportion of their of money on these products. The rich take their profit at low capital gains taxes on stocks and dividends and then ship the jobs over seas. Deregulated utility companies try and put into law mandating increases in utility costs so that they will ALWAYS profit... at 12%, higher then the stock market growth of the last 60 years. Robbery in any other words.
The truth is, the rich pay less taxes then the middle class, and the only people who pay fewer taxes are the destitute.
I hope one day the middle class and poor will figure out who is really screwing them. The people that advocate continued deregulation of capital markets, privatization of energy markets, busting of unions so workers have less ability to negotiate, price fixing companies that collude with each other, energy companies making record profit during a era of diminishing energy stability. The US needs a bit of fair wealth distribution, because the alternative is and always will be bloodshed.
There's too much beurocracy.
I live in the U.S. and I rise up out of my bed every single day.
On a serious note, for reasons others have mentioned here. I think once unemployment continues to climb, and the depression hits, the somber reality will hit Americans hard, and they'll rebel.
Actually, we've already 'risen up' in certain ways, voting a lot of the liberals out of Congress, as well as some chaos, threats against politicians, even the one Congresswoman who was shot in the southwest... horrible, but it will continue as things get worse.
Of course, the economy could somehow miraculously get better!!!
My dad said there was a big rebellion in the 60s.
Why do you assume the children would be so much worse off as the parent? Maybe they were prudent savers when they did work (assuming they did) and have a stable "retirement" fund. Maybe the support they receive is sufficient for the sustainment of minor children. Maybe they have a working spouse, or at least one as well-to-do as they are. I don't pretend to know the reasons for opportunity, but I do recognize the benefit to the greater good that could be afforded everyone without the burden of mandatory statism.
We're getting way off-base from your original argument, but I will follow your slippery slope to the bottom. As with the negative externality argument, the "why" is not important from the economist's point of view. Man, when presented with certain choices, chooses in the form of his actions. Man's actions reveal certain truths about his preferences. Even if man does not act, he is still expressing a preference based on his inaction. Why he chooses to act is irrelevant, he is acting with prejudice toward a specific goal. Each action explains his preferences toward a better satisfaction. This is known as praxeology.
Under a free market, without the burden of taxation and the costs imposed by government monopoly, an individual would earn much more of their own money, increasing not just consumption, but savings and discretionary funding. This gives the individual a wider berth of choices in their palette of purposeful behavior. This effect on economic prosperity is scalable, too; from the richest venture capitalist to the poorest vagrant, everyone is suddenly that much better off.
The free market doesn't have answers to specific questions, it is a process not a system. If man can conceive of legislature to force people to help others, he can surely conceive of a business opportunity to help these same people free-of-charge. Whether that's through a for-profit or not-for-profit company is entirely up to the entrepreneur.
Of course I do. It's not an efficient system as it is, and so long as education remains in the fictitious realm of a "public good," it won't get much better.
I agree. Your mistake is in assuming that these things are afforded by government.
Of course they are. They are also rampant throughout the political class. Big business is well known to be in bed with big government. So there's nothing really surprising here.
I doubt you would say that productivity is a primary cause of social unrest and an "eventual revolution," so why you mention the wealth gap is beyond me. But you are only proving my point. The upper echelon are dominated by the ultrarich and ultrapowerful, in terms of a political hierarchy which exists only because coercive government does.
You're blaming capitalism for woes spawned by interventionism and bureaucratic malfeasance. Did you forget that the monetary system in this country is controlled by the Federal Reserve? A banking cartel authorized to control the nation's entire money supply, independent of congressional review or audit and without presidential oversight.
It must have completely slipped your mind, then, that the housing bubble was caused primarily by the Fed's manipulation of interest rates. You must also have forgotten that the Fed realized what was happening, yet did nothing to stop it.
Inflation is a side-effect of an increase in the monetary supply, something which can only occur when the Federal Reserve buys more government debt from the Treasury.
Contrary to popular belief, boom-and-bust cycles are inherent features of market interventionism, not of the market itself.
And yet none of this has anything to do with capitalism. Taxation is one of the primary sources of government funding, it is outright robbery as you are plainly dancing around with your argument. Of course the tax burden falls upon the poor. Not just in the form of income taxes, mind you, but through taxes on consumption as well. My point exactly is that without the burden of compulsory taxation, the poor are that much wealthier in the long run.
I am not defending the government at all in my post. I never mentioned the government AT ALL. I was criticizing the conservative moment, which is politicized against the government but really just a mouth piece for corrupt super rich capitalists.
What I was support was unions, all unions not just public ones, which are worker organizations which can collectively bargain for wages, benefits and work environment. People may dislike unions but they are a necessary organization, just like businesses and governments.
At this point you've engaging in total cognitive dissonance.
You mention capitalism in a way that it doesn't really exist, and likely never have. It's a fantasy. It's religious. It's bogus. You want to white wash all the ills of capitalistic organizations while demonizing governmental and worker organizations. The same ills I criticize about business are the same ills I can criticize about Government or Unions or the Fed or any other sort of organization. Your fallacy is that you believe in some form of organization, or some ideal about capitalism that seems to be immune or largely immune to these problems, and that is fantasy.
In this world, if you organize, either through a loose confederation of individuals or through a disciplined army of soldiers. You can be stronger then the sum of your parts. A business is merely a organization, a government is merely a organization, a union is merely a organization, a mafia is merely a organization. And each of these forms of organization seeks to preserve and fight for their goals and can be managed well or mismanaged.
There is a form of checks and balances that occur thru the power struggles these organizations undergo against and with each other. But currently one side(the conservatives) seeks to eliminate various forms of organization such as government(not really, they just want to own it) and unions(they do want to eliminate this entirely) or the mafia(not really, they're pretty much criminal). The various conservatives have also show that they aren't willing to negotiate under any terms, because they do not believe in workers rights, although they cynically are big government supporters. Ultimately, without that check and balance between these organizations, the dominant organization(s) will fall into corruption. You can see this in the fall of the communists in Russia and various other places. You can see the fall of the Czars who ruled Russia before the communists. You can see this in the chaos of Mexico which is a battle ground for mafias.
I believe people have a right to organize and thru that organization negotiate their rights, whether it be workers, thru business, or thru entry into the existing political system or even thru outlaw behavior.
Ultimately the United States thru the actions of those who seem to promote small government and promote sound fiscal policy, have only contributed to giant increases in debt and spending thru their unsound fiscal policies and wars. All the while FAILING to improve the condition of the average citizen. America is not a place where only "Capitalists" should have the right to life, liberty or happiness, but capitalists, communists, workers, all people have that same right.
The failure of those that sought small government is either due to their incompetence or their fraudulent nature, in every sense, the policies are suspect, the people are suspect, the rhetoric is suspect, the goals are suspect. It's only my hope that their sway over the political rhetoric and policies of our time will be reversed and that the institutions that currently exists will be reformed.
I make no assumptions, I'm perfectly aware of the situations you present, I am also aware of the inequalites that form when a stable state structure is removed. There are of course very legitimate arguments for and against big and small states, however your opinion is a nonsense and is responded to by hkkmr more eloquently than I could express.
IEE-Ne
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
I don't know about you guys, but the idea of being able to spend all of my income on booze and cigarettes is pretty appealing.
I mean, it'll really work out that way, because unlike the comporations who are currently ripping off the middle class within a tightly regulated regime, those same corporations under a complete ack of regulation will behave altrustically and won't rip us off in the least. You know why? Market forces.
Repeat it with me. MARR-KUT FOUR-SEZ.
If you still don't understand it, just assume it to be true like I do by repeating the phrasology. It really alleviates a lot of those nagging concerns in the back of your head that complicates things. Pure ideology is really good at making a complex and ever-changing reality seem constant and simple.
For example, the idea that the public funds are necessary to complete those projects that require an amount of capital exceeding the limits of private investment?
MARKUT FOURSEZ.
The idea that wealth redistribution allows for the affordable extraction of resources in undeveloped areas to the benefit of all?
MARKUT FOURSEZ.
The idea that sole end of private companies is to maximize shareholder wealth and not the common weal?
MARKUT FOURSEZ.
The idea that the failures of laissaize-faire capitalism led to the reformed liberal state inthe first place?
MARKUT FOURSEZ.
Consider yourself libertardized.
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
