Would the world be better off if we destroyed the large rich profit mongering conglomerates?

Yahoo, Exxon, General Electric, General Motors, Citigroup, Bank of America, AOL, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, Nike, AT&T, McDonald's, Nike, 7-11, Pfizer, Chevrolet, Ebay, Nestle, Verizon, Lockheed, Hilton, Dell, Sony, Phillip Morris, Walt Disney, Visa, the list goes on and on.

Hundreds of conglomerates around the world destroying the world. Car companies, computer companies, food companies, apparel companies, banks, industrial companies, media companies. They are all the rich. They are all enemies.

Would anybody know how we would go about taking these huge empires down?

You are determined to destroy my retirement funds, millions of jobs and the life style that the West has chosen to live? OK. The task is very simple. Persuade consumers to stop buying the goods and services provided by these companies.

Would the world be better off if we destroyed the large rich profit mongering conglomerates?

Yahoo, Exxon, General Electric, General Motors, Citigroup, Bank of America, AOL, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Coca Cola, Nike, AT&T, McDonald's, Nike, 7-11, Pfizer, Chevrolet, Ebay, Nestle, Verizon, Lockheed, Hilton, Dell, Sony, Phillip Morris, Walt Disney, Visa, the list goes on and on.

Hundreds of conglomerates around the world destroying the world. Car companies, computer companies, food companies, apparel companies, banks, industrial companies, media companies. They are all the rich. They are all enemies.

Would anybody know how we would go about taking these huge empires down?

Yeah, right!!!!!!!!!!

And since over half the country is going to be unemployed, are YOU going to feed everyone and pay their bills??????????????

Isn't it strange what people who don't know, can say or suggest??? ...LOL!

And worse, what they can say/ask such questions without giving it any thought on their own?

Baron Max

Isn't it strange what people who don't know, can say or suggest??? ...LOL!

And worse, what they can say/ask such questions without giving it any thought on their own?

Baron Max
How true! :D

And giving thought to something is a whole lot more effort than many seem to want to expend. :mad:

Would the world be better off if we destroyed the large rich profit mongering conglomerates?


NO, they should not be destroyed but,........

They should be kept out of politics.

They must not be allowed to become monopolies in industries that don't need to be monopolies. They should not be allowed to collude as US oil refiners are to keep supply low. We could use another Teddy Roosevelt now.

They should not be allowed to write contracts that controll the prices that their suppliers sell to their smaller competitors at. Volume discounts given by suppliers should not be in excess of the benefits gained by efficiencies of scale. Otherwise better run small companies can fail to outcompete worse run large companies simply because of unfair supplier contracts.

They should not be allowed to pollute more than at the level of pollution to productivity that society deems to be acceptable.

They should not be given tax breaks not available to smaller companies.

They should not be reckless with their employees and customers health. For example, when a company discovers asbestos is dangerous they should publish their findings and quickly phase out the harmfull use of asbestos. Some efort needs to be made to look for health hazards rather than just waiting until the health hazards make themself obvious.

If GE did not play political games, then there would be no particular benefit or harm to the economy or GE stockholders for GE to be as large as it is. You could cut GE into two huge corporations without having an impact on the economy or stockholders. If GE's size is making people nervous then maybe GE should be split in half. Teddy Roosevelt would have already busted up Microsoft by now. A bust up of Microsoft would probably be good for the economy.

Maybe we should crack down on the publishers womans magazines and any other corporations that make money by making people feel inadequate and then trying to peddle fixes for the manufactured inadequacy.

What ever is good for the economy is probably good for human happyness. Whatever is good for human happyness is probably what should be done. Let the cororations do their thing as long as they play by the rules and benefit the economy.

Big business corporations are not beneficial to the economy. They are the enemy. Shouldn't we be doing something about taking them out?
Perhaps if we all got together, and blow up thier offices and plants.
Would that work?

Just because you work for them does not mean they are not your enemy. Have you never heard about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

I agree with nikakar wholeheartedly bout keeping them out of politics. So many times has government overlooked the needs of the individual for the sake of supporting the needs of the business.

If big business went down, we would have to revert back to a very localized set of economies. Mostly agrarian, with very little trade outside of state boundaries. Long distance transport is too tedious and expensive for anything besides big business and govenment to handle.

Ok. Kill the oil and other fossil fuel industries because only big companies can afford the costs involved with the extraction and shipping of that stuff. Kill off anything that runs on that stuff. Abandon just about anything that can't be grown or produced locally. This means luxuries like most fruit, coffee, tea, etc. Stop almost all organized research because only big business can afford to do the real work in that field. No new medicines, most things don't improve anymore. Kill all factories above the cottage industry range.

And suddenly we are reduced to an agrarian, generally impoverished existence.

Big business corporations are not beneficial to the economy. They are the enemy. Shouldn't we be doing something about taking them out?
Perhaps if we all got together, and blow up thier offices and plants.
Would that work?

Hah, someone has been sleeping through economics class. Taking out big business is putting the final nail in the coffin for poverty. Big business creates many things apart from jobs, they regulate commerce, prices, and provide general stability. Also wealth is synonym for inflation and a little inflation is needed to curb underproduction. There is always going to be a wealthy organization in a capitalist system, or best just get rid of capitalist all together. That is in fact the premise of capitalism. It will be chaos, just imagine everybody in your family equaly rich, nobody will do the peripheral jobs and respect for anyone will be out the door. Also imagine if microsoft wasn't this rich, computer software prices will be sky high. Estalishing quotas on the amount of wealth is what we need; a sort of communism. We cannot completely throw communism out the door, we need to reform it and implement these type of measures. But hey man never establishes an eco-social balance with nature so who am I to say he will do the same to his own kind just yet.

someone has been sleeping through economics class.
Irrelevant. It's not my fault that many of the going theories today about economics are nothing more than pseudoscience that will probably (or hopefully) cease to exist in the far future.

The big businesses are weilding power and control the same way a baby infant weilds a gun or a knife. People get hurt.

If we all stop spporting them, and retaliate, we can put a stop to them.

To me big business means capitalism so I think it is capitalism we should be after. But to honest big business keeps prices low or we may heavily subsidize by the government, which is leaning towards communism, either way the savings have got to come from some where. Look at walmart can you get anything cheaper from a department store? I hate big business myself in the sense that they make life boring; every where you go now its the same old starbucks and subway. Its insane I tell you.

It does not mean they are not the enemy.
Big businesses hinder social economic progress. It is not fair, and should not be allowed to continue.
Big business means capitalism, and therefore we should pursue capitalism?
It does not make sense.
Anyody interested in protecting the earth and humanity would be best to know who to protect from. The enemy. Corporations. Incompetent governments such as the United States.
We really must discontinue allowing them to get away with their tormenting.

The docile always mention how the corporations provide them with jobs. It is the docile fool of a slave that thanks the master for providing him with work so the measter doesn't have to do it. They have no right. But they sure do have the might. This is why we must be resilient. Because their might is something that gives them an upperhand. We must be wise so that we can find an upper hand to work with against them.

Cool Skill, you need to do some more, a lot more, thinking about this topic. It's obvious to the most casual reader that you don't know jack-shit about how the economy works or how businesses operate. You've lumped everyone, every business, every businessman, into one horrid, vicious, nasty, mean group ....and that's not different to racism or bigotry.

Please, study and think a bit more about the topic before you rant and rave about how horrid something is.

Baron Max

It does not mean they are not the enemy.
Big businesses hinder social economic progress. It is not fair, and should not be allowed to continue.
Big business means capitalism, and therefore we should pursue capitalism?
It does not make sense.
Anyody interested in protecting the earth and humanity would be best to know who to protect from. The enemy. Corporations. Incompetent governments such as the United States.
We really must discontinue allowing them to get away with their tormenting.

The docile always mention how the corporations provide them with jobs. It is the docile fool of a slave that thanks the master for providing him with work so the measter doesn't have to do it. They have no right. But they sure do have the might. This is why we must be resilient. Because their might is something that gives them an upperhand. We must be wise so that we can find an upper hand to work with against them.

Just let this one go, people. It's obviously one of two things - either just a troll or someone incredibly undereducated.

I tend to think it's the first one because it's difficult to see how anyone could be so naive. :D

Cool Skill, you need to do some more, a lot more, thinking about this topic. It's obvious to the most casual reader that you don't know jack-shit about how the economy works or how businesses operate
Ad hom.
Irrelevant.

You have yet to provide a relevant counter or position.
Do you believe corporations and the rich are friends of humanity and the earth?

There is a difference between providing somebody with jobs that ultimately allow me to profit than actually helping people.
You are not helping a person by making him work for your profit.
You are helping a person by providing them with needs. Food, shelter, education, medicine, supplies etc.

The rich do nothing but exhaust resources. All this money gives them alot of power. Power to that is misused in their hands, and justified by the docile who allow them to continue.

Ad hom.
Irrelevant.

You have yet to provide a relevant counter or position.
Do you believe corporations and the rich are friends of humanity and the earth?

There is a difference between providing somebody with jobs that ultimately allow me to profit than actually helping people.
You are not helping a person by making him work for your profit.
You are helping a person by providing them with needs. Food, shelter, education, medicine, supplies etc.

The rich do nothing but exhaust resources. All this money gives them alot of power. Power to that is misused in their hands, and justified by the docile who allow them to continue.

Oh, well. More useless trolling...

Cool Skill: I couldn't care less about why corperations do what they do. Everyone has a selfish motive for everything they do, should they know it or not. What it all comes down to is that they do their job and in doing so they keep all the gears of the world turning.

The rich do nothing but exhaust resources.

And the poor and middle class does nothing to exhaust resources? And don't forget that there are lots, LOTS more poor and middle class people!

Baron Max

Cool skill,

I understand your plight but I think its monopolization and cartels you are really antagonizing. These problems are fundamental econnomic problems and are in fact necessary by-products of our type of commerce. But we are doing something about it, remember the microsoft anti-trust trials? But unfortunately the moment we resolve a giant body other ones rises some where as unions, corporations, NGO's, GO's, religious sects, special interest, e.t.c. Even organizations like NATO and the OPEC are special examples of what you are talking about. I also agree they destroy the earth, I am with you here but everybody including your local Indian supermarket destroys the earth as well, corporations just do it is a bigger "in your face "way. However many corporations like coke at least say they recycle their products, which is way too expensive of an ordeal. Also we have many corporations responsible for the cleaning up of the earth. Nonetheless I think it is us that need to stop pumping a baby out of a mother's canal every 2 seconds, if this keeps ocurring over the next 100 years the last thing we will be worring about is corporations and cartels. If you somehow divide the earth's pollution between corporation's and non- corporations the non-corps will still take the cake by a landslide. In my opinion.

The big businesses do not keep the gears of the world turning.
They prevent them from turning.
The poor are still poor, and getting poorer.

The earth should have no problem dealing with the population over the next thousand years as long as we get it together.
Part of "getting it together" is taking down of these giants once and for all.
Sure they are big, but so is a human compared to a bee.
A single bee can cause some pretty good damage.
Certain insects have been known to carry diseases that can kill a human all together.

We need to colapse these monsters. They are monsters. They do nothing good. They do not make gears turn. They prevent them from turning. Without them, we can truly pursue the full well being of the individual. With them, the only individuals that get to do anything are the rich.

I'd like to know why everybody seems to think society is functioning properly.

I operate from a paradign of abundance.
The earth is an extremely abundant planet.
It is a fact that the earth can easily support the entire growing human population without the slightest hram.

It follows no logic that the entire basis of our flawed economic pseudoscience is based on scarcity.
It is illogical to say that it is acceptable that not every individual is living an abundant fullfilling life with bursting vitality.
Everybody should be fed well, very highly educated, living in a beautiful clean environment, living a life of confort, convenience, health, and happiness. We could be far more advanced technologically and in ability.

But what is the society that we like to consider functioning? Only the rich are able to afford a great lifestyle of abundance and a high standard of living. People are fat, psychotic, diseased, uneducated tec. The rich oppress the poor who do all the work for them so the rich don't have to. They wage wars. The tear the planet up, exhausting valuable resources on useless things that harm the plantet, and take people's lives in the process. It is acceptable to pursue material self interest, and unnacceptable to pursue justice and the true freedom of the individual. People are not free. People are not happy. People are not living abundant fulfilling lives.

Question:
Why choose to live destructively over living productively?

I'd like to know why everybody seems to think society is functioning properly.

Which society are you asking about? American? Indian? Chinese? New York City? Los Angeles? London? Baghdad? Tehran? Sydney?

There are about a gazillion human "societies", Cool Skill, and few of them operate the same.

Baron Max

USA. The powerful one.

I'd like to see some answers.

USA. The powerful one. I'd like to see some answers.

But which society in the USA? There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different societies? Ye're lumping every US citizen into ONE society ...and that's just totally ignorant.

There's a society in southwestern Missouri that's close to an "anarchy". They raise most of their own food, they smoke MJ whenever they want, they have "council meetings" to decide the society's goals and tasks, etc. They go bare-ass naked whenever they want, make love when and where they want, ....and any number of such "peacenik things".

Is that the society of which you speak?

Baron Max

But which society in the USA? There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different societies? Ye're lumping every US citizen into ONE society ...and that's just totally ignorant.

There's a society in southwestern Missouri that's close to an "anarchy". They raise most of their own food, they smoke MJ whenever they want, they have "council meetings" to decide the society's goals and tasks, etc. They go bare-ass naked whenever they want, make love when and where they want, ....and any number of such "peacenik things".

Is that the society of which you speak?

Baron Max

Seriously, Max, why bother?

He's either just pulling your chain or is unbeliveably stupid! I used to think it was the former but it now seems the latter is much more likely.

And either way, he's making you do all the work here.

I think the troll here is Light. He's only here trying to tear down a discussion. That is what trolls do.
You canot call me a troll unless you can show me evidence that I am trying to put a halt to or damage somebody's discussion.
Get lost. Troll.

I think the troll here is Light. He's only here trying to tear down a discussion. That is what trolls do.
You canot call me a troll unless you can show me evidence that I am trying to put a halt to or damage somebody's discussion.
Get lost. Troll.

Nice try - but it won't work. ;)

It's very clear, as I said before, that you're either trolling for the purpose of starting a (useless) argument or else you know practically nothing about how the real world operates.

Everything you've said has ALL been said before. By whom? All the silly young students in the 1960 who were "crusading" against big business (while living of the hard-earned income of their working parents). They were the ones who said "profit" was a dirty word, industry was destroying the environment and the resources, etc., etc. They marched, rioted, held "sit-ins" and did nothing useful the whole time. Just like you.

Wonder what ever happened to all of them? The biggest majority woke up (gained a little intelligence) and eventually went to work for the very same companies they had been protesting against! :D

Why? Because that's the way things REALLY work. That was just about 40 years ago and the Earth hasn't been destroyed. And most of your "oppressed" people enjoy a higher standard of living than they did then.

So all of your mindless rambling is completely worthless because it has no relation to reality. Yes - you're just a very stupid troll trying to pick a fight. Most of us can see that's all you are, nothing more.

not me, the guy has a point. All your accusations does not change the fact that corporations are destroying the earth, exploiting people and culture, exhausting resources, and all together inhibiting humanity. But what are you going to do...

Describe what you think the world would be like after business and trade are destroyed. Explain to me how it will work. I really want to hear this.

Perhaps someone is thinking of

http://www.bethel.edu/~kisrob/ens305kx/Class2/hunter_gather.jpg

not me, the guy has a point. All your accusations does not change the fact that corporations are destroying the earth, exploiting people and culture, exhausting resources, and all together inhibiting humanity. But what are you going to do...

No, not really. All the doomsayers have been telling that same story for a very long time.

There have been a lot of improvements, in case neither he nor you have noticed. But I'll bet you have - and just want to complain anyway.

Here's just a few examples and there are tons more.

We no longer just dump garbage in the sea like we once did.
Strip mining companies have had to restore the land for a very long time now.
The vast amount of aluminum used in the U.S. is recycled.
Practically every discarded automobile is recycled for it's steel and other metals.
Acid rains in North America - from burning coal - have been drastically reduced.
Paper companies use HUGE amounts of timber and the biggest majority of it comes from planted timber farms.
Automobile (lead acid) batteries no longer go into the waste stream.
The majority of used motor oil is recycled.
Used tires still pose a problem but new uses for them have been found.
Industries cannot just dump process waste into streams (been that way for along time.)

And as I said, that's just a few.

Exploiting people? Do you consider having a job as being exploited???

And aside from the possibility of global warming, just which companies are "destroying the Earth"??????????

Like I said everybody plays their part in pollution, corporations just do it “in your face” style. Consider oil spills, ozone depletion, global warming, air pollution, specie and habitat termination, war and genocide, soil structure pollution, and culture. However commercial activity causes pollution NOT corporations. But corporations exploit people by paying cheap labor, manufacturing cheaply and selling at exorbitant price levels, outsourcing, lobbying to governments for special interests, influencing political outcomes and structure, causing geographic inflation, commercializing everything cultural and circularly native including Christmas, monopolizing markets, hoarding goods, inflating assets values. Profiteering from war and conflicts alike, monopolizing the media and mind alike, putting companies with lesser assets out of business, coagulating money supply, centralizing democracy, and general public disturbance. Hmm… sounds like the average guy on my street but hey!

Describe what you think the world would be like after business and trade are destroyed. Explain to me how it will work. I really want to hear this.
The objection is not to trade, but to unregulated trade and to organisations that are too large, at the the expense of the individual, society and, for that matter the smaller company.

Nice try - but it won't work. ;)
Obnoxious.

If you do not wish to participate, exit the discussion. Your presumptious attitude about people starting a topic just for the sake of argument shows how warped your brain is. You have made some points that are prefectly relevanty to the conversation, but you have an obnoxious obsession to calling people trolls and trying to destroy a discussion. The real troll is you. Get lost.

Obnoxious.

If you do not wish to participate, exit the discussion. Your presumptious attitude about people starting a topic just for the sake of argument shows how warped your brain is. You have made some points that are prefectly relevanty to the conversation, but you have an obnoxious obsession to calling people trolls and trying to destroy a discussion. The real troll is you. Get lost.

I have no obsessions. And it's very rare for me to label someone a troll.

But I'll go with the subject. Carefully look back over your original post and tell me - are you really that stupid????? You actually want to throw millions of people out of work? Because that would be the result of what you are advocating.

The objection is not to trade, but to unregulated trade and to organisations that are too large, at the the expense of the individual, society and, for that matter the smaller company.
You do understand how royally government screws things up when they have tried to put their hand in trade in recent centuries. At its best, you had pre-1800s mercantalist period. At its worst, you have the trade-smothering policies of the Soviet Union or North Korean Communism.

A story I heard was from an old Soviet Union glass making factory. They were going to be give bonuses to the division that processed the largest volume of glass. They made big, worthless bricks of the stuff as that was the quickest way to rack up points for volume. Now the government changed the requirment to square footage. And now they made giant rectangular panes of glass too big and delicate to be shipped. What did the employees care if this stuff was useless? A communist society can't exactly fire someone and nobody thought you could drive a country to bankruptcy.

Anotherwas about a Soviet Union farm. The government didn't quite meet their quota of something last year, lets say turnips, so they were going to have more planted next year. They go and tell a number of the farmers to grow turnips. The next hear, hardly any turnips come up because it was simply the wrong climate and the guys who wrote the order didn't know gack about turnips or the area. Thats what happens when things are dictated by a pencil pusher instead of leaving it to those who know best: the guys actually doing the work. Let the farmers do things as they see fit and reap the profits from their labors. The essence of capitalism. The same holds true on a larger scale.

My next point is that sometimes large organizations are necessary for some stuff. Do you really think a small business of fourty people can afford to put up a billion dollar oil rig or transport tons and tons of cocao beans all the way from the shores of Africa on a daily basis?

I guess some people just do not believe that poverty exists or that there are real problems with the environment?
There is no poverty? Nobody is sick?


Or is it that they believe that there is poverty, sickness, oppression etc. But there is simply nothing we can do about it?
Do you actually believe large corporations improve humanity and the environment?
Is it OK that poor people are made to be responsible for doing all the hard labor it takes to keep society functioning in a way that allows the relatively very few rich to live abundant worry free lives. The rich can live easy lives because they do not have to plow the fields, construct the buildings, and work the sanitation dumpsters. Why? Because the poor are doing it for them. Do you believe this is OK? If so, what is your justification?


Exploitation in terms of job. I give you the work that allows me to get richer and live a better life. I pay you just enough so that you can continue to stay alive and be healthy enough to work for me. If you die or get disabled, I find another healthy individual to do the work for me. Furthermore, I expect you to appreciate me for providing you with work that allows you to live.
I believe that you are not helping anybody by giving them work unless you are not profiting off of their labor. Helping people is simply not a profitable activity. If you want to help people, give them food, shelter, education, medicine etc. It will not profit you in anyway.

Do you believe that providing the poor with work instead of proper means of improving the quality of their lives is not exploitation?


Do you not believe in the objective of freedom for all? Is it because you do not believe in the possibility of freedom for all?
A high standard of living for every individual. Not most individuals. Not the very few handful of individuals as in today’s society. The objective of maximizing the quality of living, freedom, and physical/mental health of all individuals.


Do you not believe that we are a nation of fat, indulgent, ignorant, petty, obsessed, mongrels? We have all the resources and potential to be a nation/planet of level headed, sophisticated, intelligent, well adjusted, accountable, considerate, humans.

Do you not think that most all transactions between the rich and the poor do not almost always favor the rich? Thereby widening the gap.


United States CIA has a world fact book: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
Here is the page for the largest economy in the world: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

ECONOMY:
“Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade and budget deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.”


There are numerous processes in the effort towards a better world. Taking the money away from the rich (corporations and such) is just one of the important things we can do. They do not deserve anything. Regardless of how long it took them to build their empires or how many decades they have been working to become obscenely rich. The objective is to collapse the rich, and rebuild a society that truly takes care of people and truly protects the freedom of people.

We do not want everybody to live under ridiculously rich lifestyles. Is it so unreasonable that we ensure that everybody including all poor people throughout the world is provided with all facilities and services they need to become truly healthy individuals with high education, awareness, and functionality? The poor do all the labor so that the rich can enjoy their riches. Meanwhile cannot all this labor, all these resources, all the unfathomable amounts of that we waste could be used to provide a good life for all without obligation?

I have no obsessions. And it's very rare for me to label someone a troll.

But I'll go with the subject. Carefully look back over your original post and tell me - are you really that stupid????? You actually want to throw millions of people out of work? Because that would be the result of what you are advocating.
You do not agree with something I say. Or probably you do not understand something I say. Therefore, your excuse is that I am only saying it specificially to incite an argument. Therefore, I am a troll trying to destroy a forum. Are you aware of how completely ignorant you are?

Think whatever you wish to think, moron. I am here for 2 reasons.
1. To get feedback from people on what would be a good way to take down the conglomerates. Ideas about various methods and things we can do to get them off of their thrones. Reasonably because I am trying to get more ideas on how to go about doing this.

2. To understand the opinions of others that do not wish to dethrone what I consider to be monsters.

You on the other hand have been doing nothing here but arguing and bickering. If I was some sort of expert that had all the ideas, and knew how to go about doing this, I would not have started this thread for the purpose of getting ideas. If you really were not a troll, you would be trying to enlighten the person you disagree with. If you think my idea is unreasonable, you can do the following:
1. Enlighten me with what you believe to be reasonable.
2. Get lost.
3. Argue, bicker, make obnoxious presumptuous comments. The typical adult tantrum. Not far from a child kicking and screaming.
4. Troll. (Go out of your way specifically to destroy this thread by repeatedly obsessively telling people that the thread is all about trolling and inciting arguments.)



So answer this if you can. If you wanted to destroy the rich and their huge corporations as well as their capitalist system, how would you go about doing it? Not saying that you personally would want to do this. More like saying "if" you did wanted to do this. Or do you think it is not possible even if you wanted to do it?

You assume that a market economy is a zero sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum)game. This is a mistake. Whenever trade is performed on any level, both sides by definition must feel that the transaction makes them better off. Let them think they are exploiting me. I will only become richer for it.

And now I will answer your question. If I wanted to destroy the rich and big businesses, I would buy a farm in the backwoods of Arkansas and drop out of the game with as many friends as possible. Don't play their game. Any other action you do will only slough money from one place to another, further driving the system. It has a lot of experience profiting from the mad struggles of those such as you.

So answer this if you can. If you wanted to destroy the rich and their huge corporations as well as their capitalist system, how would you go about doing it? Not saying that you personally would want to do this. More like saying "if" you did wanted to do this. Or do you think it is not possible even if you wanted to do it?

Yes, I could tell you some very effective ways to do what you want but I'm not about to. Why? Because helping your "cause" would be insane.

It's clear that you haven't got the slightest idea of how things must work! For one thing, without the big businesses there would be NO research, no improvement in products, no new medications, never a cure for cancer, HIV & AIDS and thousands of other things that have improved life and the standard of living for everyone.

And you say "take from the corporations and give to the poor? How utterly dumb! Do you actually know who owns the corporations? Yes, many rich people own stock but the vast majority of the corporations are owned by plain, ordinary citizens. A lot of it is owned by pension and trust funds that were established to support people after they become too old to work. Do you want to make them penniless?

Now let's talk about your "poor" that you seem to be trying so hard to be the champion of and for. Do you really know why most of them are poor? It has nothing to do with "oppression" as you so blindly claim. The reason can be summed up in these three things: stupidity, laziness, and an unwillingness to manage their money. An individual person's problems result from one, two or a combination of all three. They waste what money they have on things that do not advance their situation and don't bother trying to save anything. Look at all the "Rent To Own" places. Who keeps them in business? People who pay $35/week to rent a BIG expensive TV (which if they actually finished paying for would have cost four times it's retail price anywhere else) that they keep for a few months - and then it's repossessed. Then it's rented to a different idiot. But that's what they want - rather than saving and buying an ordinary TV like most of us have.

You are MUCH too quick to blame big business for causing people to be poor. But the real truth is that it is the poor themselves that make themselves poor.

Anyway corporations are greedy butt holes too. I mean look at Wal-Mart, they move into vicinity and all mom and pop stores are in jeopardy. And saying people are poor because they deserve it is pushing it, and I know you know better so I am not even going to go into that. Yes corporations cause people to be poor because unless you have inflation corporations decrease the amount of money in circulation, they don't necessarily make you poor but they certainly won't make you rich either. A far example of this is the first world and third world nations. Oh yeah poor people spend because they want to be happy, you will do the same if you have to put up with a lot of shit day in day out, which is the sole reason why illegal drugs in it's varieties are in demand. Have you heard of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the former president of the United Arab Emirates and ruler of Abu-Dhabi. If you see his palace, let’s just say....Buckingham palace in England looks like a servant's quarters. They are many other rich oil tycoons in the Middle East who live very opulently, that’s good for them as I have no problem with it. Some of them have good heads on their shoulders while some just don't give a hoot, others...well plan terrorist attacks on the West in the name of greed. However the issue is that all this vast wealth can be reinvested into societal welfare if we establish quotas on how much a corporation can have in assets at any given time, but who's going to even bother with such ludicrous initiatives? Certainly not me either...sorry coolskill. There is no doubt in my mind and place that we need a little communism, maybe that will even...I don't know! Stop the wars and oppressions everywhere perhaps. But like I said man never gave a fuck about attaining balance with nature so who's to say he will with his friends. Ideally the rich need the poor more than the poor need the rich if you excuse me by taking a second look at economics carefully, but it is the white collar that takes home much of the cake. Between the two harlots the white collar guy works the least, if you have ever worked hard labor you know what I am talking about, which is compounded by how much you get at the end of the two weeks. Moreover white collar guys fuck up and its all laws, dribbles, and spins, the clue collar fucks up and he is shown the door or jailed immediately. Economics is like nature everybody plays their part equally but like nature will have it not every ass wipe is equally rewarded. That to me is the beauty of it all.

And saying people are poor because they deserve it is pushing it, and I know you know better so I am not even going to go into that.

Hold it right there!!!! I never ever said the poor deserve it! Talk about trying to twist someone's words - sheesh!

I said they were poor because they MAKE themselves stay poor. And I don't give a hoot for your argument that they buy drugs because they "want" things and are trying to escape their misery (that's the way I took that, sorry if I got it wrong). All they accomplish by buying drugs and the other stuff I talked about is KEEPING themselves poor! Can you not see that? And that's precisely why I say they are doing it to themselves.

There are some that are really trying, and I give them full credit. But far too many of them just blow away their money.

I said they were poor because they MAKE themselves stay poor.

No one MAKES themselves poor. It is same as saying it is your fault it is raining. Humans live is a society to take care of each other. Otherwise what is the function of a family, a state or a country? If everyone is out for themselves like animals then why have a country and rules to live by?

There are some that are really trying, and I give them full credit. But far too many of them just blow away their money

And you think corporations don't do the same? May we mention the lavish parties, the opulent housing, the enormous bonuses, the jet flying and island buying transactions, e.t.c. A CEO in New York once recently made a huge purchase of a forty million dollar apartment in NY...yes apartment. Everybody has a point here, no need for further arguments. And besides not everybody has the capacity to think like an empire owner, which is why we should look out for our friends. This is what coolskil is basicaly saying.

Really, all a family or country is can be thought of as a circling of the wagons. There are lots of people and groups out there who would eat you alive if given the chance so your only chance is to cluster together and hope they go after easier targets. Then they get more men and you need an even bigger circle to stay alive. It doesn't matter if you hate the guts of the man next to you, you need him. Every living man on your side bearing a gun increases your chance of seeing the morning by a small fraction. When things change, you might be back to being enemies in a second.

This is the basis for all civilization. This is all that separates us from animals.
We play the same game as them. Only we are better at it.

well spoken. like my mate at work. I don't think he really likes the job but he sure makes life easier for me

Really, all a family or country is can be thought of as a circling of the wagons. .......
This is the basis for all civilization. This is all that separates us from animals.


I'm not so sure that it even separates us from the animals, Clockwood. Most herd animals, if not all animals, do exactly the same thing ....circle the herd, protect the "women and children" until the threat is over. Then the males go right back to fighting with each other to see which ones get to breed with the females!!

Every time I see something about how "human" we are, I'm always drawn to see those correlations in the animal kingdom. We just ain't so far removed as we like to think we are.

Baron Max

I freely accept and embrace that we are still animals. I just think we have a little bit tacked on top for good measure. Animals react. We plan, scheme, and innovate. Each time man or mankind faces something, we come away in some way better. We learn new tricks, better way to make our circles, ways to slip our way into bigger and better circles. Eventually, if skill and luck are enough, perhaps even to run your own circle.

Like I said: We play the same game as them. Only we are better at it.

No one MAKES themselves poor. It is same as saying it is your fault it is raining. Humans live is a society to take care of each other. Otherwise what is the function of a family, a state or a country? If everyone is out for themselves like animals then why have a country and rules to live by?

Wow! All I can say is that you must know little about people and pay even less attention than most to what is going on around you.

What about the millions of individuals and families that have gone into bankruptcy primarily through credit card spending? did the companies force them to buy all that stuff - or did they want it themselves and DO it to themselves?

As to humans taking care of each other, that's only to a very limited degree and, as such, has little bearing on what I'm trying to get you to realize.

Hold it right there!!!!
Light

I don't know but this is one of the funniest light's post I ever read. Its the "hold it right there" that really made me laugh. It just sounds....Funny. I like most of your posts and that one was nice too.

It's clear that you haven't got the slightest idea of how things must work!

How “must” things work?
Says who?
Must there be poverty?
Must there be rich and poor?
Must there be people living in desperation while few get to enjoy luxury?
How would you say things "must" work?



For one thing, without the big businesses there would be NO research, no improvement in products, no new medications, never a cure for cancer,

HIV & AIDS and thousands of other things that have improved life and the standard of living for everyone.
With no big business, there would be none of these things?
Proof?
Big business exhaust resources to create waste.
If all this tons of wasted resources could be used for real progress, we would not have all these problems.
What makes you think that we would not have more and better improvements without big businesses?

What exactly is your indication of a successful economy?
An economy where desperation is minimized or maximized?



Do you want to make them penniless?
Of course. That is the whole objective. They are the enemy. The rich are the enemy.
In one way or another, we are forced to support the rich.
We really have no choice.
Either work for them, invest in their stocks, and use their products. Or live in the jungle.
You consider this freedom?
We do not have the choice.



The reason can be summed up in these three things: stupidity, laziness, and an unwillingness to manage their money. An individual person's

problems result from one, two or a combination of all three. They waste what money they have on things that do not advance their situation and don't bother

trying to save anything.
You do not think the system ensures that poverty exists?
You believe that the system allows for every single person to live a rich abundant lifestyle as long as they take it?
Why are they stupid, lazy, and unwilling to manage their money?
Are you stating that people are not being manipulated by the media?
You do not think that these big businesses are competing to be the one to take the money of the poor?

As far as I am aware, big businesses oppress the poor in many ways to keep them poor.
You do not think that people are being oppressed?
Do you think people are being nurtured and well taken care of?

Is it OK for big businesses to take advantage of people?
Is it OK for big businesses to manipulate the law so that they win in any legal dispute?
What is your view of independence?
Do you think being dependent on big businesses is how we should live our lives?
We should depend on big businesses for jobs, products, services, technology, and everything short of the air we breathe?


Should we be thanking the corporations and the rich? How is that different from the slave thanking his master? Thanks for letting me do all of your work

while you give me barely enough to live on. And thanks for taking advantage of my stifled environment to ensure that I lack the education/intelligence that

should prevent you from manipulating me into giving you all my money for your worthless products.


Do you believe it is not possible for everybody to live abundant lifestyles?
Do you believe that no matter what, there will always be somebody in poverty?

If people are stupid and lazy, would they not be more intelligent and active if they were exposed to more freedom and better lifestyles?
Babies who are in a nurturing environment where they can learn and grow will be physically and emotionally healthier in later life than children who live in

stifled environments.
Or is this science fiction?






And now I will answer your question. If I wanted to destroy the rich and big businesses, I would buy a farm in the backwoods of Arkansas and drop out of the

game with as many friends as possible. Don't play their game. Any other action you do will only slough money from one place to another, further driving the

system. It has a lot of experience profiting from the mad struggles of those such as you.
Good idea.
We should have our own currency too.

CoolSkill, you obviously have about as much understanding of how society functions as a 9-year-old kid who advocates anarchy as the "best way."

Why don't you climb on top of a very tall mountain and scream your ideas at the rocks and trees? You'll get a much better response from them than you'll ever get from people - who can actually think and reason.

CoolSkill, you obviously have about as much understanding of how society functions as a 9-year-old kid who advocates anarchy as the "best way."

Geez, I don't know ....I think most 9-yr old kids have a better grasp of it than Cool Skill, don't you?

Now as to fantasies and dreamworlds, Cool Skill might surpass a 9-yr old! :)

Baron Max

Geez, I don't know ....I think most 9-yr old kids have a better grasp of it than Cool Skill, don't you?

Now as to fantasies and dreamworlds, Cool Skill might surpass a 9-yr old! :)

Baron Max

Agreed. That would be a major fantasy for sure. ;)

You have yet to answer the questions. Trollish comments show you know nothing.

You have yet to answer the questions. Trollish comments show you know nothing.

Yes, I actually know quite a bit, thank you.

If you'll limit yourself to asking a maximum of three questions at one time, I'll make a serious attempt to address them. But I'm not even going to bother if you toss out something like 50 at once like you did a few post back. It's impossible to carry on a clear dialog with a volume that large all at one time.

1. Must there be poverty? Is poverty/desperation inevitable? Why? Is human nature a factor, and if so, what is your opinion of human nature?




2.
The objective in city design is usually to design a society that utilizes the earth's abundant resources in a way that nurtures the individual and noursihes the environment in a way that will allow it to renew itself. The key to understanding city design is understanding the individual. It is only natural that the more happier, healthier, and well adjusted the individual is, the less problems will be in the city. Dealing with problems places a burden on the city as a whole. Problems cause the city to expend resources. A competent city is able to avoid unecessary problems with proper planning and organization. In understanding the individual, there are various factors that are known to contribute to health/well being.

The antithesis of this theory is the idea of the deprivation of the individual. As such, these theories state that if you provide for the indidivual, they will be in fact less productive. Therefore, it is impossible for a city to function in a way that nurtures the individual. Because of human nature, so to speak, the individual that is provided with a high level of well being would be less productive due to lack of the incentive of desperation.

Freedom is a relationship between access and obligation.
Obligation and access are on opposite sides of a scale.
Therefore, as you move towards the "access" end, you are at the same time moving away from the "obligation" end. Therefore, your level of freedom is increasing. In the same way, your level of freedom decreases as you move towards the obligation end of the scale. This is where oppression comes in.


Is it unreasonable to feel as if society is taking advantage of you? Does the individual have any sort of obligation to society? If so what is the individual's obligation? Should the individual have the choice of whether or not to support a society without obligation? What if the individual feels that society is taking advantage of him? Should the individual retaliate against the society instead of support it?




3.
Superman is more powerful than a normal person. Therefore, Superman feels it he must watch that he does not use is superior powers in a way that would hurt others. The rich have more power than the poor in terms of money, ability, and influence.


Does the fact that somebody worked hard to obtain a certain level of power necessarily mean that they are well capable of handling it without hurting anybody? If Superman would use his power to hurt another person, should we hold that person responsible for their plight? If a rich corporation hurts a poor person (whether knowingly or unknowingly), who is at fault? Are there enough legal restrainst to prevent the rich from abusing their power/influence? What is preventing the rich from manipulating these legal restrainst to get away with hurint the poor?

Oh, god, Cool Skill, it's a wonder to me that anyone responds to you at all!?? Ye're so fuckin' idealistic that nothing would satisfy you short of absolute perfection. You live in such a fantasy world, such a dream world, that talking to you is an effort in self control.

Baron Max

1. Must there be poverty? Is poverty/desperation inevitable? Why? Is human nature a factor, and if so, what is your opinion of human nature?

Absolutely. That's a given. Why? The reason is simple - because people are people. It is a very basic part of human nature to attempt to get the most of anything it can while exerting itself as little as possible. And it gives no consideration as to whether or not that causes harm or discomfort to others. It also explains, in part, why some become rich and others stay poor. But there are other factors as well - things like ambition and laziness that also come into play. Along with intelligence and the lack of intelligence. Your nice, idealistic ideas will never remove those elements.

And if you will really, really think about that for a few minutes you will find that it answers ALL the questions you have posed here.


2.
The objective in city design is usually to design a society that utilizes the earth's abundant resources in a way that nurtures the individual and noursihes the environment in a way that will allow it to renew itself. The key to understanding city design is understanding the individual. It is only natural that the more happier, healthier, and well adjusted the individual is, the less problems will be in the city. Dealing with problems places a burden on the city as a whole. Problems cause the city to expend resources. A competent city is able to avoid unecessary problems with proper planning and organization. In understanding the individual, there are various factors that are known to contribute to health/well being.

The antithesis of this theory is the idea of the deprivation of the individual. As such, these theories state that if you provide for the indidivual, they will be in fact less productive. Therefore, it is impossible for a city to function in a way that nurtures the individual. Because of human nature, so to speak, the individual that is provided with a high level of well being would be less productive due to lack of the incentive of desperation.

Freedom is a relationship between access and obligation.
Obligation and access are on opposite sides of a scale.
Therefore, as you move towards the "access" end, you are at the same time moving away from the "obligation" end. Therefore, your level of freedom is increasing. In the same way, your level of freedom decreases as you move towards the obligation end of the scale. This is where oppression comes in.


Is it unreasonable to feel as if society is taking advantage of you? Does the individual have any sort of obligation to society? If so what is the individual's obligation? Should the individual have the choice of whether or not to support a society without obligation? What if the individual feels that society is taking advantage of him? Should the individual retaliate against the society instead of support it?




3.
Superman is more powerful than a normal person. Therefore, Superman feels it he must watch that he does not use is superior powers in a way that would hurt others. The rich have more power than the poor in terms of money, ability, and influence.


Does the fact that somebody worked hard to obtain a certain level of power necessarily mean that they are well capable of handling it without hurting anybody? If Superman would use his power to hurt another person, should we hold that person responsible for their plight? If a rich corporation hurts a poor person (whether knowingly or unknowingly), who is at fault? Are there enough legal restrainst to prevent the rich from abusing their power/influence? What is preventing the rich from manipulating these legal restrainst to get away with hurint the poor?[/QUOTE]

Idealists are the onlys ones that makes change. They are more realistic.
Realists should not be called realists because they are not realistic at all.
They only see face values. They are disillusioned.
For example: "Poverty is inevitable".
This would go out the window in any real city design because it is a childish cop out.
Instead of stating that poverty is inevitable, how about putting a stop to it so that it is no longer inevtiable?
Realists only believe in impossibility.

Fantasy. Yes, it's crazy. In fact, it's even worse than that, it's nuts. You wanna hear something really nutty? I heard of a couple brothers who wanna build something called an airplane, you know you get people to go in, and fly around like birds. It's ridiculous, right?

Realists. There is no bigger troll against progress technological and otherwise than those that put an end to any attempts at improvement before they even begin by regurgitating about how it will never happen.
"There will always be poverty". This is serious brain damage.

Idealists are the onlys ones that makes change.

No, that's not true! Idealists do a lot of non-sensical talking, while the realists of the world actual make things happen -- sometimes even some of what the idealists are spewing!

The world could do quite well without the idealist, but without the realist, nothing would ever get done!!

Baron Max

Idealists are the onlys ones that makes change. They are more realistic.
Realists should not be called realists because they are not realistic at all.
They only see face values. They are disillusioned.
For example: "Poverty is inevitable".
This would go out the window in any real city design because it is a childish cop out.
Instead of stating that poverty is inevitable, how about putting a stop to it so that it is no longer inevtiable?
Realists only believe in impossibility.

Fantasy. Yes, it's crazy. In fact, it's even worse than that, it's nuts. You wanna hear something really nutty? I heard of a couple brothers who wanna build something called an airplane, you know you get people to go in, and fly around like birds. It's ridiculous, right?

Realists. There is no bigger troll against progress technological and otherwise than those that put an end to any attempts at improvement before they even begin by regurgitating about how it will never happen.
"There will always be poverty". This is serious brain damage.

There's no brain damage here. Not on my end.

the problem with idealists is that they don't have a good grasp on reality. Their hearts are in the right place and they want to make things better, but in their haste to make improvements they make one big fatal error - they completely fail to understand why things are the way they are now . And it's that human element I tried to explain to you.

See if you can learn anything about people from this real-life example.

I used to work very near where a government-subsidized housing (apartments) was being built. I saw it twice every day as I went back and forth to work. It was for use only by the true poverty-stricken and their part of the rent payment ranged from a high of $62/month to a low of zero.(Source: the local newspaper and government publications.)

This was a program pushed by the idealists and paid for by everyone. The families that lived there also received food stamps (a requirement to become a tenant) and many also received Aid to Dependent Children.

It filled up completely just days after it opened. It covered an entire city block, consisted of single-story apartments and housed something like 85 individuals including children.

Within a matter of weeks, there were broken windows, doors off the hinges and other visible signs of damage to the buildings. Repair crews were there every day for years as I went by.

After nearly a full six years, the whole project was shut down because the city said it could no longer afford repairs.

Now... My question to you - the idealist - is what went wrong? Who failed here? Did the government fail to provide enough food and shelter for these people? (Incidentally, the utilities were paid for through another give-way program - everything except phone service.) Was it the fault of big business or industry? Did the citizens of the town not pay enough tax and that somehow forced these people to keep destroying their free homes? Did the "rich people" oppress them in some way that caused the destruction?

How do you answer this, Mr. non-brain-damaged Idealist? Where was the fault?

Groupping disfunctional people together was a dumb Idea. (If we are not going to kill them, then) They sould be scattered among the functional so that they can learn funcional culture and so that the functional can see what is happening and make the government take the correct steps to address the situation.

Do you ever see a burnt out car sitting for weeks outside homes in the middle class side of town? Even within the same city, in one neighborhood if the resident calls to complain about the burnt out car the city will take the car away emediately. In the other neighborhood it will sit their for weeks and the residents will learn to stop complaining. On the wealthy side of town they would do everything in their power to have mayor removed from power if he let burnt out cars remain in front of their houses.

Of course people don't burn cars in front of the wealthy peoples homes.

You are right about idealists not being in touch with reality; BUT Watch Out!; This does not mean that anti-idealists are in touch with reality. If the Idealist is fifty percent out of touch and fifty percent in touch with reality, then somebody who, just because the idealists really screw things up sometimes, opposes everything that the idealists believe, will also be out of touch with reality fifty percent of the time.

You can put a white lab coat on a man, but that does not mean that he will be logical. Working the look of a realist is not the same as being a realist. For a person able to see the weak thinking of the idealists he does not have to be a stronger thinker than the idealists he just has to not be blinded by the same set of biases that blind idealists.

How can anybody know what a realist is when we all see reality through the filters of our biases?

There's no brain damage here. Not on my end.

the problem with idealists is that they don't have a good grasp on reality.
No. That is the problem with realists.
Realists cannot grasp reality.
They live in a demented disilusion.
It's nothing short of brain damage.

Realists arbitrarily make "always" "never" false statements with no practical purpose.


How do you answer this, Mr. non-brain-damaged Idealist? Where was the fault?
What kind of dumb question is that? Who do you think failed?
Do you even have any idea what you are talking about?
Since when are quick fix programs ever effective.
The fault goes to the idiot/s that created, implimented, and facilitated it.
Dumpy designs that do not target real problems get dumped.

Poor, poor Cool Skill .....still trying to show that you know what the fuck ye're talkin' about?? ...even when everyone else can see it all so clearly that you don't!?

Baron Max

Personal attack due to your illogical lack of self control.

No. That is the problem with realists.
Realists cannot grasp reality.
They live in a demented disilusion.
It's nothing short of brain damage.

Realists arbitrarily make "always" "never" false statements with no practical purpose.


What kind of dumb question is that? Who do you think failed?
Do you even have any idea what you are talking about?
Since when are quick fix programs ever effective.
The fault goes to the idiot/s that created, implimented, and facilitated it.
Dumpy designs that do not target real problems get dumped.

I expected something similar to that.

Yes, try to place the blame where it suits you most. But the real truth is that it was the fault of those receiving nearly (or completely) free housing and food. The didn't have enough respect for themselves, the property or those who provided it for them to take care of it. Instead, they slovenly destroyed their homes - and kept on destroying them.

And that, Mr. UncoolSkill is part of what the real world is made of. Not the warm and fuzzies of your warped imagination.

I'd like to know why everybody seems to think society is functioning properly.

Because I'm not dead and my family is relatively healthy and safe.


I operate from a paradign of abundance.

It seems to me that you operate from a pardigm of ignorance and fantasy. You make a lot of accusations and generalization you can't support, and draw conclusions about how things "should be" based on your ignorance. Your logic, being based purely in generalizations of dubious application - is simply absent.

Justify this paradigm. Is this your proof:


The earth is an extremely abundant planet.

? What does "abundant" mean. Please define it and demonstrate how it applies to you.


It is a fact that the earth can easily support the entire growing human population without the slightest hram.

What exactly comprises "support", and how do you know this to be true? The anthropic principle implies you're exactly wrong.


It follows no logic that the entire basis of our flawed economic pseudoscience is based on scarcity.

Then you apparently don't understand what scarcity means. I'll demonstrate the basic logic to show you're wrong:

I want something.
I don't have the something I want.
Therefore, subjectively what I want is scarce to me at this time.
It will require resources of some amount for me to get them, if nothing else, my time and mostl likely something to trade for them. I'll probably also have to provide resources for transporting what I want to where I am.

That is logical. You are wrong.


It is illogical to say that it is acceptable that not every individual is living an abundant fullfilling life with bursting vitality.

Yet you provide no logic to support it. Why? If you really had a point, why wouldn't you support it rather than simply state it to be illogical that something you think should be so, isn't?

I posit that again, you are simply wrong. I base my objection on the term "acceptable", as while it might not be to you, you have no authority to make such a claim in the general sense as there is no factual basis for an opinion of what should or shouldn't be acceptable. Further, I posit that you are incorrect even if you were to have the authority. This is because for you to take such an authority in the first place puts YOU in a position of having more than everyone else.

Further, it is simply ignorant to utilize subjective terms like "vitality" and "fullfillment" and make a flat statement that "everyone's lives should be bursting with it" because you neglect the conflicting range of values that these terms must necessarily reflect. For instance, if my "fullfillment" requires your death or that you are deprived of joy - we have an impass that crushes your premise. I do not desire your death or to deprive you of joy, but someone does. I'm not sure who, but it's obvious that there are seemingly infinite cases of divergent values amongst subjective implementations of "fullfillment" and or "vitality" that renders your premise that everyone should be "bursting with it" completely false.


Everybody should be fed well, very highly educated, living in a beautiful clean environment, living a life of comfort, convenience, health, and happiness.

So you say, but what if someone disagrees on what comprises health, education, cleanliness, comfort, convenience, or happiness? I guarentee that people will disagree with you on this. I'm positive that you and I would disagree at some point on at least one of the terms you've expressed. You add these disagreements up in varying degrees across all agendas, motivations and values and you get yourself a completely busted premise.


We could be far more advanced technologically and in ability.

Could is moot point. What IS, is what matters. Can you wrap your mind around the possiblity that everything you've said you desire here is actually in play, right now? For any of the things a person desires - they may pursue it. Any thing they may desire requires some resource allocation to acquire (time, money, study, etc.). All they have to do to acquire it is pay the allocate adequate resources to do so. If they do not have the resources, they can pursue those too. If someone is not willing to do so, who's fault is it that they don't have what they want?


But what is the society that we like to consider functioning? Only the rich are able to afford a great lifestyle of abundance and a high standard of living.

Then get rich and stop complaining about it. Rather than a logical analysis, this rant of yours seems like you're simply whining that you don't have what you want and aren't willing to do what needs to be done to get it. It's no one's fault but perhaps your own that you aren't willing to overcome whatever barriers keep you from satisfying whatever you think would make you feel "fullfillment" or "vitality". If you're disabled, then that's a shame and you will be provided for to some extent within society so long as you're noticed.


Further, you really should note that you're further employing relative terms to make some sort of logical case that can't be made in the terms you're using. No two people fully agree on what is "rich", "abundance", or a "high standard of living".

I'll bust your premise further below.


People are fat, psychotic, diseased, uneducated tec.

More relative terms of lacking substance.


The rich oppress the poor who do all the work for them so the rich don't have to.

What about the rich who give incredibly generously to organizations like "moveon.org" or charities? Your generalization is innappropriate for making a logical argument, yet you are complaining about a lack of a logical argument on the other side - which you didn't even present or attempt to directly dismantle. Do you expect to be taken seriously with such a weak argument? If you think you can, you really ought to put some work into supporting yourself better on this point. I know people I consider rich who have given me plenty of work for good pay, and done the same for others. Perhaps they wouldn't hire you as you hate them before ever meeting them, as BM noted - you present a bigoted argument.


They wage wars.

Some do, some don't. Some poor people do, some don't. Your point is moot.


The tear the planet up, exhausting valuable resources on useless things that harm the plantet, and take people's lives in the process. It is acceptable to pursue material self interest, and unnacceptable to pursue justice and the true freedom of the individual. People are not free. People are not happy. People are not living abundant fulfilling lives.

This is your point of view. It is reflective of your attitude. It is a sweeping generalization that is obviously false, as there are many exceptions to every assertion above.


Question:
Why choose to live destructively over living productively?

Most people think they're living productively, if they care about that sort of thing at all. What if they don't care? Who says what consists of "productive"? "To what end" is the obvious question. If you say "to the end of everyone being fullfilled and vitalized", then please present a plan that ethically resolves diverging values to the point where we can all agree on what road leads to "fullfilled and vitalized". Then I'll point out that everyone having the same idea of what they are and how to get there would be an clear sign of the impending extinction of the species, as there would be no diversity and as such - no strength.

Anyway corporations are greedy butt holes too.

I used to think like this until I realized that corporations are not people and as such, cannot be greedy. They are public organizations concieved to generate money for stockholders. If you found some wal-mart stock in a shoebox in your attic from 1975, odds are your tune would change dramatically and you'd be very happy that they made all that money for you. Corporations work for their stockholders, as their entire purpose is generally to drive up the value of the company and as such, the value of their stock.


I mean look at Wal-Mart, they move into vicinity and all mom and pop stores are in jeopardy.

You didn't see the southpark on this topic? It made the point perfectly. It's not wal-mart. If they go, someone else comes. It's economic evolution. It's a reflection of what is valued - more for less. Walmart is a study in innovation leading to economic efficiency and smart business. You could learn a lot from their story.

I expected something similar to that.

Yes, try to place the blame where it suits you most. But the real truth is that it was the fault of those receiving nearly (or completely) free housing and food. The didn't have enough respect for themselves, the property or those who provided it for them to take care of it. Instead, they slovenly destroyed their homes - and kept on destroying them.

And that, Mr. UncoolSkill is part of what the real world is made of. Not the warm and fuzzies of your warped imagination.
Yes the typical "that is the real world" disillusion.
So why exactly did they not have respect for themselves or whoever they did not have respect for?

Yes the typical "that is the real world" disillusion.
So why exactly did they not have respect for themselves or whoever they did not have respect for?

It's no delusion. You are just too simpleminded and idealistic to see it, that's all. You truly do NOT understand anything about human nature. You seem to think that everyone is honest, wants to work, isn't lazy, wants to improve themselves and their conditions and a dozen other incorrect ideas about how people really are.

The reason they have no respect, etc., is as equally simple to understand IF you know anything about people. There are many, many of them who actually ARE lazy. They have learned that the idealists of the world will provide for them, so why worry? They don't take care of what's given to them because it will be replaced. So go ahead a tear it up - who cares.

They really aren't interested in improving themselves or their conditions. Why bother? They were raised to believe that (they saw it working as children) and they teach it, by example, to their own children.

If you cannot see how it's a never-ending cycle that feeds on itself then your are even denser than I suspected. All you have to do to understand is get out into the world, get to know these people first hand and most of them will actually TELL you what I have just told you.

As long as you just sit in your cozy home and dream all this idealistic junk, you will always wonder why it isn't working.

Because I'm not dead and my family is relatively healthy and safe.
Irrelevant. Utterly subjective.
Ignorance is applying what is true about yourself to everybody else.



"should be" based on your ignorance.
Get real. I talk about what "could be". You're twisting a "could" into a "should".



What does "abundant" mean

Abundance in this case means that the earth is able to support humanity in a way that allows us to live very well, and in abundant health. If the economy handles itself incorrectly, suffering and problems occur.
What happens when you do not handle your own life correctly?
You do not pay your bills on time. You do not eat right and exercise. You do not take care of yo9ur children. You will suffer, and have problems. Society is no different. The society gets their act together, the less suffering and problems occur.

Regarldless of the method I propose, the objective remains the same. To lessen suffering in the world, and make life better for all. You are not arguing my method, but my objective. What is the purpose?



The anthropic principle implies you're exactly wrong.
Everything I am saying supports the anthropic principal.




I want something.
I don't have the something I want.
Therefore, subjectively what I want is scarce to me at this time.
Wrong.
Scarcity means that there is not enough of X to go around.
Therefore, less than 100% of population P may have X.

Abundance means that there is more than enough of X to go around.
Therefore, 100% of population P may have X, with uneeded surplus.



That is logical. You are wrong.
That is not logical.
It is completely off and illogical.
You are wrong.



For instance, if my "fullfillment" requires your death
It is obvious that you have no clue what you are talking about.
I take it that you are completely unaware about the study of human physical and mental health?
You must completely unfamiliar with biology and how a person's overall physical health is affected by a wide range of factors.
You are completely ignorant of the fact that there are ways to nuture babies and children in a way that will support their self esteem and overall emotional state. In the same way there are ways to damage babies and children that will make them depressed, agressive, impulsive, arrogant psychos with low self esteem such as yourself.

There are a number of factors that will allow your car to operate at peak efficiency.
Humans are far more complex, but you are denying that there are a number of factors that will allow the individual human to operate at peak efficiency.

Such methods for children and babies work the same for adults.
All people are better off living and working in an environment that is clean, positive, and cultivates their health.
All people are worse off living and working in an environment that is dangerous, hazerdous, and damages their health.

I suggest you stop ranting and raving how illogical I am, and get some professional help.
Maybe then you will understand how important it is to pursue a society that does not keep only you alive and realitively healthy and safe while thousands of others suffer and die unecessarily every day, and are far from healthy and safe.




what if someone disagrees on what comprises health, education, cleanliness, comfort, convenience, or happiness?
If people disagree that is perfectly great. At least we can study and see what works and what doesn't.
This is of course is as long as we are not deluding ourselves by falsely assuming nothing will work, so therefore, we should not even pursue a better world.



Could is moot point. What IS, is what matters.
OF course not.
What is possible matters just as much as what is occuring.



Then get rich and stop complaining about it.
Why?
How will me alone being rich change the fact that poverty still exists?
The objective is to pursue practical methods of



Your point is moot.
Your whole life is moot. Everything about you is moot. Get over it.



They are public organizations concieved to generate money for stockholders.
Yes a real great cause. You go thank them.

The question remains.
Why so opposed at improving the lives of others, and the world in general?
Why be opposed to the pursuit of better economic systems that allow for less suffering, better standards of living, and less problems?

*sigh*

Talking with you is utterly pointless, trolling moron.

In economics, "scarcity" = "finite", meaning "there is not infinitity of this stuff to go around".

The question remains.
Why so opposed at improving the lives of others, and the world in general?
Why be opposed to the pursuit of better economic systems that allow for less suffering, better standards of living, and less problems?

It's impossible to tell who you are replying to since you quoted nothing and gave no other indicator either. (A rather bad practice, don't you think?)

But I'll assume it was me and respond.

I have NO opposition to improving the lives, etc. of others. None whatsoever.

The difference once again, is in your blind idealism and true realism - no matter how you might try to argue and pretend otherwise.

Have you ever heard "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink?" Well, the same principle applies to people as well. You could pay for and provide everyone in the world with all the tools they need to improve their lives. But you still cannot force them to use those tools. And it's made all the more difficult by all the "free" support programs we furnish them with. Millions world-wide would still chose to live just as they do now - of the generosity and goodwill of others.

And the sooner you face up to that simple truth the sooner you will understand what the world and the people are really like - and why your idealistic ideas are forever doomed to failure.

Idealism is about truth and possibility.
Realism is about blind impossibility.
Idealism is more practical.

I never mentioned anything about forcing anybody to do anything.
Your argument supports forcing people.

My objective is to allow people to be free to have access to food, education, health care, freedom from persecution, shelter at high standards without obligation. Where did I ever mention forcing anybody?

What would you suggest?
Have no laws and let everbody do whatever they want?

Idealism is more practical.

...RAFLOL!!

Baron Max

Idealism is about truth and possibility.
Realism is about blind impossibility.
Idealism is more practical.

I never mentioned anything about forcing anybody to do anything.
Your argument supports forcing people.

My objective is to allow people to be free to have access to food, education, health care, freedom from persecution, shelter at high standards without obligation. Where did I ever mention forcing anybody?

What would you suggest?
Have no laws and let everbody do whatever they want?

I believe your reading comprehension skills leave a bit to be desired. My point was NOT at all about forcing.

What is the precise point is that even if you provided everything they need, there will always be a large number of people who simply won't use what you gave them - even if you tried to force them. Get it now?

And your ideas of the definitions are absurd right in the surface of them.

Realism is about "real" and "reality" - that's why the term includes the word "real." Idealism is simply about wishing - the way you want it to be and not about how it actually is.

I've seen some very naive things expressed on this site but I believe you take the ultimate prize. You talk about people getting all these wonderful things yet you know (apparently) absolutely nothing about human behavior and motivation.

Seriously, go spend a week in a ghetto and THEN come back and tell us what you think about people. Until you do, you're dreaming the dreams of an idiot.

More sharp objective minds in service of a kind hearts would make the world a better place.

There is no such thing as a "free lunch" but, anti-Idealism is not an indicator of the presence or lack of presence of a sharp, objective, or experienced mind.

More sharp objective minds in service of a kind hearts would make the world a better place.

But would the "less sharp objective minds" go along with it? All of the idealistic fantasy worlds that one can dream up means little or nothing unless the vast majority agree to it ...unless they're forced, of course!

A better place? Better for whom? And who makes that determination for all of the people?


There is no such thing as a "free lunch" but, anti-Idealism is not an indicator of the presence or lack of presence of a sharp, objective, or experienced mind.

Ahh, but that one sharp, objective and/or experienced mind must, somehow, convince all of the others of the same ideals ...and THAT is not a simple task ...even for a sharp, objective mind!

Baron Max

True. Everybody, no matter how stupid, gets to decide for themself who has sharp objective minds.

True. Everybody, no matter how stupid, gets to decide for themself who has sharp objective minds.

Yeah, it can be a real bitch, huh? See why all the idealistic fantasies just fall apart when confronted with human reality?

How 'bout if we test all the people and not let the stupid ones have any say or any vote in how they're to live and work? Then the smart ones could run things in accordance with smart methods and benefolent objectivity?

Baron Max

there will always be a large number of people who simply won't use what you gave them - even if you tried to force them. Get it now?
That's fine. That is why there is choice.
Otherwise, it is not really choice.



Realism is about "real" and "reality"
Realism is not about reality nor does it have any basis in reality. That is why anybody that knows what is real would refer to it as fakism.

Meanwhile, idealism which is more realistic should be refered to as realism.
Realitism is the belief that the ideal is real. If it is not ideal, it is not real. It is only a reflection of what is real.



Seriously, go spend a week in a ghetto
Seriously? That's a good joke. There are various ghettos in Miami. The two worst of the worst ghettos in Miami are Overtown and Liberty City.

I used to live in OT. I now live in Liberty City.
Either way, it's a personal attack, and irrelevant.
Where Cool Skill resides does not affect any material presented.

All the "go do your research" and "you know nothing about the subject" are ad hom attacks that are used because you do not have a proper argument. You have no clue what research I have done or anything about who you are talking to. Either way , who I am has zero affect on the veracity of what what I say.
As long as you continue to focus/discuss the individual instead of the material being preseted, you get nowhere.
Typical realist stupidity.

Realism is not about reality nor does it have any basis in reality. That is why anybody that knows what is real would refer to it as fakism.



I was using "anti-idealism" where you are using "realism" because realism already has the meaning of being about the real. Ant-idealsists seem to take pride in believing they are realists, but they are not real realists. Nor are idealists the realists.

What are you talking about? The idealists are the realist. They are the ones who usually make choices based on actual reality. Instead of a false sense of reality based on fear and manipulation.