As we can see by USA, the people do not rule. The country is ruled by the rich. Most notably the banking monarchs that own the Federal Reserve and the CIA which they use to expand the war maching making money in GunsOilDrugs. Bigger military and more war mean more money for them. It also means more drugs and oil for them.

I would mind so much if the country was actually ruled by democracy and a proper justics system. Unfortunately it is ruled by the rich and their injustice system of nonstop corruption.

i would remind you... that the banks... are now international.

its not the usa's problem... its your too... its everyones.

-MT

Apparently it works for the ruling classes of the West but it doesn't work in Palestine or Lebanon where "democratic elections' brought results Washington & Jerusalem didn't approve of. It doesn't seem to work in Iraq or Afghanistan either. It can only function if a solid and longtime ruling class holds both or all major political parties in their pockets.

As we can see by USA, the people do not rule. The country is ruled by the rich. Most notably the banking monarchs that own the Federal Reserve and the CIA which they use to expand the war maching making money in GunsOilDrugs. Bigger military and more war mean more money for them. It also means more drugs and oil for them.

I would mind so much if the country was actually ruled by democracy and a proper justics system. Unfortunately it is ruled by the rich and their injustice system of nonstop corruption.
do u live in the us?
if so do u have an equal opportunity to succeed in life compare to your sorroundings?dont u have a fair chance of becoming rich?

Deleted

dont u have a fair chance of becoming rich?

The rich are the parasites of society.

If no-one wanted to be rich, but only have the things they need, would everything fall apart?

The rich are the parasites of society.
:confused: u r joking right?
If no-one wanted to be rich, but only have the things they need, would everything fall apart?
every body needs different things.

If no-one wanted to be rich, but only have the things they need, would everything fall apart?

It's difficult to predict what would fall apart exactly, but would it really be a shame to see the current system fall apart?

Would a world where people 'have' things that they only need, and not think they need, be really worse than this one?

That is indeed the question of questions.

every body needs different things.
Well somebody needing a heart transplant needs something different to someone needing a meal. But who NEEDs a 40 bedroom mansion?

:confused: u r joking right?



Obviously not.

The rich do nothing for society. They do not sweep the street. They do not produce anything. They hord society's resources for themselves.

You could compare them to this:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030322/a3279_128.jpg

tapeworms.

the tapeworms that once held a purpose, but now suck the life out of the masses in order to further their bloated personal agendas, serving no larger purpose other than satisfying themselves by sucking more and more.

Obviously not.

The rich do nothing for society. They do not sweep the street. They do not produce anything. They hord society's resources for themselves.

You could compare them to this:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030322/a3279_128.jpg

tapeworms.
people dont become rich just like that u know.they earned it.my guess is you are a socialist?most of what you are saying is prejudices.

Well somebody needing a heart transplant needs something different to someone needing a meal. But who NEEDs a 40 bedroom mansion?
that whats make some people happy.why is that any different from somebody else needs and desires?

Deleted

that whats make some people happy.why is that any different from somebody else needs and desires?
I would argue that you don't need a 40 bedroom mansion to be happy.

people dont become rich just like that u know.they earned it.my guess is you are a socialist?most of what you are saying is prejudices.


Show me the data on that 'belief'.

people dont become rich just like that u know.they earned it.

How did Paris Hilton earn her fortune?

disclaimer:

I'm not talking about middle-class well-off people here. I am talking about the rich.


Such as dear Paris.

the tapeworms that once held a purpose, but now suck the life out of the masses in order to further their bloated personal agendas, serving no larger purpose other than satisfying themselves by sucking more and more.

Thanks for putting the correct words into my mouth (and not a tapeworm).

How did Paris Hilton earn her fortune?
how did her father earn hes fortune?

how did her father earn hes fortune?
We're not talking about her father. We're talking about Paris.

We're not talking about her father. We're talking about Paris.
what fortune does she have expect of that of her father's?
thats is a part of life.her father can decide whats best for her-its hes money.

people dont become rich just like that u know.they earned it.

This is not about her father. Its about what you said above^^

Well, Conrad Hilton isn't Paris father actually.

This is not about her father. Its about what you said above^^
like i said-rich people dont get rich just like that.they earn it.paris has the luck to be the daughter of a rich man.thats life.does that bother you?you can get rich too and give that money to your children.

Well, Conrad Hilton isn't Paris father actually.
i never said he was.

like i said-rich people dont get rich just like that.they earn it.paris has the luck to be the daughter of a rich man.thats life.does that bother you?you can get rich too and give that money to your children.


Does that diminish in any way that she is a parasite of society?

i never said he was.

No, it just shows that she is already the second generation of parasite, or usually we use the euphenism 'dynasty'.

[QUOTE=predator_190]paris has the luck to be the daughter of a rich man.QUOTE]

So you agree. She didnt earn her fortune.

No, it just shows that she is already the second generation of parasite, or usually we use the euphenism 'dynasty'.
have it your way.i doubt u ever met most rich people but u will hate them because they are rich.

[QUOTE=predator_190]paris has the luck to be the daughter of a rich man.QUOTE]

So you agree. She didnt earn her fortune.
and your point is?she is a parasite because she is lucky?
did u watched her sex video?do u show interest in her?who told u she does not contribute to society because she is rich?

What about addressing the points?

I guess you agree then with the statement that rich people are parasites of society.

did u watched her sex video?do u show interest in her?who told u she does not contribute to society because she is rich?
Her sex video is a contribution to society?

Her sex video is a contribution to society?
a lot of people enjoyed it-its entertainment,like movie stars-or actually porn stars.

What about addressing the points?

I guess you agree then with the statement that rich people are parasites of society.
i do not agree.human beings are not parasites.

a lot of people enjoyed it-its entertainment,like movie stars-or actually porn stars.

And how much of her money did she make from the video?

And how much of her money did she make from the video?
i dont know.but you bring up a good point-she earned money from that video didnt she?

As long as someone makes money they contribute to society?

What a radical statement.

You think criminals contribute to society?

As long as someone makes money they contribute to society?

What a radical statement.

You think criminals contribute to society?
that is not what i said.i said she earned that money.

that is not what i said.i said she earned that money.
She earned her entire fortune from that video?

that is not what i said.i said she earned that money.

Criminals don't earn money? Some of them seem to be doing quite ok.

She earned her entire fortune from that video?
no she didnt.but from the video she did didnt she?so she entertaine people and earn money for it.is that wrong?
what about people like henri ford?who invented something that helped mankind.
are they parasite as well?

Criminals don't earn money? Some of them seem to be doing quite ok.
i fail to see your point.criminals are criminials.they belong behind bars.

Anyone who sells something contributes to society. That contribution may not necessarily be good, but presumably the buyer thought it was.

Anyone who sells something contributes to society. That contribution may not necessarily be good, but presumably the buyer thought it was.

Such as crack dealers?

Anyone who sells something contributes to society. That contribution may not necessarily be good, but presumably the buyer thought it was.
have u read Ayn Rand by any chance?

Such as crack dealers?
Yep. They contribute illegal drugs. Big demand for those, you know.
have u read Ayn Rand by any chance?
No. Why? BTW, was this thread 'does democracy work', or 'does capitalism work'? :p

Yep. They contribute illegal drugs. Big demand for those, you know.

No. Why? BTW, was this thread 'does democracy work', or 'does capitalism work'? :p
i was just intrested because your arguments sounds like someone who read her books.im not a capitalist btw.

I'm not saying the way things happen are ideal; I'm just saying that most rich people are rich because, someway or another, people decided to send money their way.

But the fact that we have laws at all (as opposed to anarchy) would demonstrate that one can't rely entirely of everyone's spur-of-the-moment decisions, wouldn't it?

I'm not saying the way things happen are ideal; I'm just saying that most rich people are rich because, someway or another, people decided to send money their way.

Does this statement however contradict the statement that rich people are the parasites of society?

I'm not saying the way things happen are ideal; I'm just saying that most rich people are rich because, someway or another, people decided to send money their way.
they are not ideal-but that will change in the end.
But the fact that we have laws at all (as opposed to anarchy) would demonstrate that one can't rely entirely of everyone's spur-of-the-moment decisions, wouldn't it?

criminals are not the issue of this discussion.

Does this statement however contradict the statement that rich people are the parasites of society?
Not as such, but many people find it convenient to allow them. I don't think all rich people are parasites though.
criminals are not the issue of this discussion.
But if intervention is required for social matters, what about economic matters...?

BTW, was this thread 'does democracy work', or 'does capitalism work'? :p
The idea was put forward that everyone has the equal opportunity in the US to become rich. Is that what democracy is?

i would remind you... that the banks... are now international.
No need to be reminded. Unlike you, everbody knows this is obvious.

do u live in the us?
if so do u have an equal opportunity to succeed in life compare to your sorroundings?dont u have a fair chance of becoming rich?
Not if you are in the USA.
I don't mind stratification as long as the political and economic institute is such that it is kept at a minimum.
Nobody has a fair chance because it is againts great odds that you can concquer these giants without being killed for threatening their control over the economy. I would like to see how this can be achieved.

no she didnt.but from the video she did didnt she?so she entertaine people and earn money for it.is that wrong?
what about people like henri ford?who invented something that helped mankind.
are they parasite as well?


youremindmeofthefactthatoldbooksusedtobewrittenwit hnospacesnoranypunctuation

people dont become rich just like that u know.they earned it.my guess is you are a socialist?most of what you are saying is prejudices.
You cannot earn riches.
Wealth goes not to those who do the actual work, but to those who know how to take advantage of the cracks and loopholes.

a lot of people enjoyed it-its entertainment,like movie stars-or actually porn stars.
Plowing the fields is contribution to society.
Constructing buildings we live in is contribtion to society.
Cleaning the garbage dumps is contribution to society.
What Paris Hilton does is parasitic. Rich people do nothing more than take from society. Not contribute to society. Rich people take what they can get to get richer. They take from the poor. What good is a demoocracy when the rich control everything. Even if the majority refuses, the rich use force to get them to comply.

Plowing the fields is contribution to society.
Constructing buildings we live in is contribtion to society.
Cleaning the garbage dumps is contribution to society.
What Paris Hilton does is parasitic. Rich people do nothing more than take from society. Not contribute to society. Rich people take what they can get to get richer. They take from the poor. What good is a demoocracy when the rich control everything. Even if the majority refuses, the rich use force to get them to comply.

Paris Hilton entertains people. Men love to gaze at her, women love feeling intellectually superior in comparison. People look to her for fashion ideas and tech trends. Do I think it is stupid for these people to make her rich for their entertainment? Yuppers. Am I so arrogant and elitist that I think my personal convictions should serve as the litmus test for the rest of humanity? Nope... I leave that dishonor to you.

Either way, you do not seem to believe that there is anything wrong with stratification.
The people that do the most labor should be those that get paid the most. Either way, it's all the same slave mentality.
It is therefore, easy to take advantage of such slaves because they do not mind doing all the work while the rich do nothing, and take all the money.

Needless to say, what can one do about it when the economy is controlled by ther rich using their police force to silence even protestors. Jesus forbid they go on strike because if they do not go back to laboring, they will be sent to prison. Slavery is not as bad as it used to be, but it still exists in form. Especially when the slaves do not question their masters. They do not question how certain people can go about doing nothing productive, and continue getting richer.

As we can see by USA, the people do not rule. The country is ruled by the rich. Most notably the banking monarchs that own the Federal Reserve and the CIA which they use to expand the war maching making money in GunsOilDrugs. Bigger military and more war mean more money for them. It also means more drugs and oil for them.

I would mind so much if the country was actually ruled by democracy and a proper justics system. Unfortunately it is ruled by the rich and their injustice system of nonstop corruption.

Democracy seems to quickly narrow toward a class of parasitic, wealthy, materialist elite who would rather destroy civilization than cede power. It is a terrible idea to allow just anyone who comes along to rule us. Leaders, like doctors, lawyers and professors need to have trusted qualifications in order to serve in their role. Democracy does not allow for this.

Well somebody needing a heart transplant needs something different to someone needing a meal. But who NEEDs a 40 bedroom mansion?
The real question would be this: What would you have done to stop someone from having a 40 bedroom mansion? Would you make it illegal and have the law enforced at gunpoint? Where would the cutoff point be?

It is ruled from here, Basel, Switzerland:

http://www.bis.org/

Extraordinarily powerful because it is a law unto itself, because people at large never take any notice of it, so it never has to win an election to survive, and because those who it directly governs willingly comply, the sort of power that an American President would die for.
Which exactly central banks and international orgs use Bis?
How can you qualitfy toopen an account?

Democracy works well for majorities..who are not usually interested in anything other than mediocrity.

Democracies are mediocracies.

Deleted

Democracy works well for majorities..who are not usually interested in anything other than mediocrity.

Democracies are mediocracies.
And that is their greatest strength. They may do stupid things day in and day out.... but rarely catastrophically stupid. The smaller the group of rulers, be it in the form of a Roman-type republic or a tyranny, the more you are required to trust that they are all virtueous, brilliant minds eternally working in the favor of the people as a whole. That would be fine if there existed a way to actually sift through the population to find such people and to make sure they do not fall to power's corruptive nature.

America is not a democracy, nor does democracy imply a capitalist system of government.

True. But a functioning democracy at least suggests the lack of a true command-style economy. Socialism is one thing... the government owning all or most of the points of industry and trade is another.

And America is a democratic republic. We aren't a true athenian style democracy because such things have been proven not to function for systems larger than moderately sized citystates. But neither are we a true republic where senators appoint senators and the public has zero control. Note that whenever anyone besides an ancient history buff talks about democracy, they are probably talking about something similar to the American style.

American style democracy isn't that democratic. What is it, 100,000 citizens/congressman these days? Something like that. We don't elect our president directly. Winning elections is more about campaign contributions and promising the contributors their money wasn't wasted. The feds have pretty much taken all control away from the states through the interstate commerce clause and school/road funding.

I'd say America is far closer to a republic, especially when you examine the level of corruption and infidelity politicians have for their constituents.

I don't exactly agree with a couple points there but, through the virtue of all too many years of experience on this forum, I know not to push. We are at a point that is just threatening to spill over into a pointless and heated arguement which will only end when an admin breaks in waving a large stick. I am wise enough to bow out.

The real question would be this: What would you have done to stop someone from having a 40 bedroom mansion? Would you make it illegal and have the law enforced at gunpoint? Where would the cutoff point be?
I wouldnt stop someone having a 40 bedroom mansion. They can have it if they think it makes it happy. I am saying you don't need one to be happy.

youremindmeofthefactthatoldbooksusedtobewrittenwit hnospacesnoranypunctuation
i cant read this.im sorry.

Plowing the fields is contribution to society.
Constructing buildings we live in is contribtion to society.
Cleaning the garbage dumps is contribution to society.
What Paris Hilton does is parasitic. Rich people do nothing more than take from society. Not contribute to society. Rich people take what they can get to get richer. They take from the poor. What good is a demoocracy when the rich control everything. Even if the majority refuses, the rich use force to get them to comply.

i do not agree.poeple arent suppose to be contributing to society- a human being is a purpose by hes on right.he has the right to do what he wants-as long as he doesnt brake the law off course.

rich poeple dont take nothing-they earn it.if i invent something and make a pile of money because of that ,then i am a parasite?

there are many problems with the world.the fact that you can use money and power to control the goverment is one of them.

rich poeple dont take nothing-they earn it.if i invent something and make a pile of money because of that ,then i am a parasite?


What if Tim Paterson invented DOS and Bill Gates took it and became the richest man on earth? Who is the parasite here?

a human being is a purpose by hes on right..

What does this mean. And it really is difficult to read your posts predator_190.

What if Tim Paterson invented DOS and Bill Gates got rich? Who is the parasite here?
he salled it to bill gates didnt he?that was hes decision.

What does this mean. And it really is difficult to read your posts predator_190.
it means that a person can choose hes purpose by himself.
he is not obligated to fill other people purposes.

he salled it to bill gates didnt he?that was hes decision.

Does that detract anything from the observation that Bill Gates displayed parasitic behaviour?

it means that a person can choose hes purpose by himself.
he is not obligated to fill other people purposes.

So a person can choose to be a parasite. Well thats certainly true.

Does that detract anything from the observation that Bill Gates displayed parasitic behaviour?
what parasitic behaviour?
why didnt anyone beat him to it?he saw the potential of dos.he made money for it.

Is making money the same as contributing to society? I think we have been here before.

So a person can choose to be a parasite. Well thats certainly true.
thats depend on your definition of parasite-that person doesnt owe nothing to society.it isnt hes purpose in life-nor any other person.

Is making money the same as contributing to society? I think we have been here before.
why do you have to contribute something to society?

why do you have to contribute something to society?

You don't. You can just be a parasite. Like the rich. :D

You don't. You can just be a parasite. Like the rich. :D
if you dont how that make u a parasite?

if you dont how that make u a parasite?
What? :confused:

What? :confused:
if you dont have to contribute to society ,how come being rich makes you a parasite?

If you take, but don't contribute, what are you?

like this?

the tapeworms that once held a purpose, but now suck the life out of the masses in order to further their bloated personal agendas, serving no larger purpose other than satisfying themselves by sucking more and more.

If you take, but don't contribute, what are you?
take what?from who?poeple are choosing to pay to that rich man.hes money doesnt grow in the air.

like this?
funny-hitler said that on the jews.

funny-hitler said that on the jews.

Reference please.

Reference please.
"Races without homelands", Hitler proclaimed, were "parasitic races", and the richer the members of a "parasitic race" were, the more "virulent" the parasitism was thought to be. A "master race" could therefore, according to the Nazi doctrine, easily strengthen itself by eliminating "parasitic races" from its homeland. This was the given rationalization for the Nazis' later oppression and elimination of Jews, Gypsies, Czechs, Poles, the mentally and physically handicapped, homosexuals and others not belonging to these groups or categories that were part of the Holocaust. Hitler and his living space doctrine found immense popularity among the largely condensed German population of over sixty million. The Wehrmacht, Waffen-SS and other German soldiers as well as civilian paramilitary groups in occupied territories were responsible for the deaths of an estimated eleven million men, women, and children in concentration camps, prisoner-of-war camps, labor camps, and death camps such as Auschwitz and Treblinka.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis#Nazi_theory

The rich are a race wihtout a homeland?

The rich are a race wihtout a homeland?
the rich are parasites?

Yes.

Yes.
then you agree with most of what hitler said :)

Are all the rich Jewish? Are all Jewish people rich?

Where does hitler say the rich are parasites?

Are all the rich Jewish? Are all Jewish people rich?

Indeed, what about gypsies? are they rich? Or the mentally retarded?

Are all the rich Jewish? Are all Jewish people rich?
it didnt matter to hitler-the more they were rich the more parisitic they would be.you even dont consider only the jews or the state less as paracites,but all rich men.

What?

What?
hitler didnt care if all the jews were rich.you generalise all rich men as parasite something not even hitler did.

hitler didnt care if all the jews were rich.you generalise all rich men as parasite something not even hitler did.

So we don't agree with Hitler then.

So we don't agree with Hitler then.
you agree with some of the things he said.he saw rich jews as parasites you see all rich men as parasites.whats worse?

Do you think I'm going to go around mass murdering rich people?

Do you think I'm going to go around mass murdering rich people?
hitler based hes views on other people before him,who didnt go around mass murdering jews,like henry ford.

This argument is getting ridiculous.

Hitler ordered the deaths of millions, some of whom were rich (But most of whom were not).

I think people don't need to be rich.

Therfore Me = Hitler?

This argument is getting ridiculous.

Hitler ordered the deaths of millions, some of whom were rich.

I think people don't need to be rich.

Therfore Me = Hitler?
no i havent said that.im saying your views arent that different if you see a group of people as parasite just because of a trade that is common to them-in this case rich.if you will meet a rich man you never even heard of he will be a parasite according to your opinion,even without direct proof of that.

We actually made the logical argument that rich people are the parasites of society based upon the notion that they do not contribute to it.

We presented examples. We explained the theory.

We actually made the logical argument that rich people are the parasites of society based upon the notion that they do not contribute to it.

We presented examples. We explained the theory.
and you havent provided any logical argument why someone have to contribute to society.
your actually saying-rich->not contributing to society->parasite.
it wont matter to you if people chose to pay him for what he produce or the fact he has the right to do what he wants with hes money .he doesnt suck any one,hes money didnt came just like that .

you look at rich people as a group-not individuals.

and you havent provided any logical argument why someone have to contribute to society.
your actually saying-rich->not contributing to society->parasite.
it wont matter to you if people chose to pay him for what he produce or the fact he has the right to do what he wants with hes money .he doesnt suck any one,hes money didnt came just like that .

you look at rich people as a group-not individuals.

Yes, I did. Anyone who does not contribute in meaningful way is not doing anything for society. That is fine if they do not hord society's resources for themselves. But once you are excessive in your negative contribution (sucking away resources from contributing members) you become a parasite.

Not contributing to societ is a definition of parasitism. Look it up.

you havent provided any logical argument why someone have to contribute to society.
This isn't about whether people should contribute to society, its whether they do or don't.

Yes, I did. Anyone who does not contribute in meaningful way is not doing anything for society. That is fine if they do not hord society's resources for themselves. But once you are excessive in your negative contribution (sucking away resources from contributing members) you become a parasite.

Not contributing to societ is a definition of parasitism. Look it up.
this is a philosophical argument,and i doubt we will convince one another.

This isn't about whether people should contribute to society, its whether they do or don't.
if they dont have to contribute-they are not parasites.

this is a philosophical argument,and i doubt we will convince one another.

It's a logical argument.

It's a logical argument.
i really dont wanna go there.we live this at that-you will have the last word.

Not until I post again. Which i just did.

Anyone who does not contribute in meaningful way is not doing anything for society. That is fine if they do not hord society's resources for themselves. But once you are excessive in your negative contribution (sucking away resources from contributing members) you become a parasite.

I think that's very, very true. But then as long as those parasites aren't large in number, then the society can still function quite well. Many forms of life exist quite comfortably with a few parasites hanging onto them.

Thus the problem of "parasites" in a democracy, or any other form of government, is not a major issue in the workings of that government. But I daresay, the existence of a few parasites in a democracy is probably less damaging than in any other form of government.

Baron Max

What's your definition of contribution to society?

Spurious, I get the feeling that your socialist ideals come from your belief that all work is equal, or that the work that you feel should be most valued is valued least.

Hmm...

It is quite obvious that some work is appreciated more than other work in modern society, and that displeases me obviously as an amateur socialist who seeks equality.

But do my personal feelings in any way diminish the logical argument that there is such a thing as the parasitic nature of the rich?

But do my personal feelings in any way diminish the logical argument that there is such a thing as the parasitic nature of the rich?

The parasitic nature of the rich is not as great as you make it out to be, at least in Western capitalist societies. First, most of the rich became so due to working. Their wealth is a product of their labor, regardless of what value you place on their labor.

Second, their wealth contributes to society. They pay more in taxes. Many contribute to charities. Their wealth drives financial investment. They support people who provide luxury goods.

First, most of the rich became so due to working. .

That is one belief I do not share.
They pay more in taxes.

The richer you are the less tax you pay.

Like elements in the environment, all people within a society have an appropriate place. Depleted uranium does not fit appropriately when spread haphazardly across the countryside because it then acts as a destructive pollutant when local organisms interact with the substance (absorption, inhalation or ingestion). Likewise, a farmer or servant is not also the most fit artisan, warrior or king, although sentimental populism (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/populism/), in a state of revolt against caste (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/caste/), will argue otherwise.


A philosopher will look at the ideas in a society and arrange them in a virtual pyramid, with the broadest at the base being daily methods and their effects, and the highest being the founding principles of that society. The pattern resembles a pyramid because while there are many things at its base, there are just a handful if not a single one at the top. In this process philosophy goes beyond other sciences. Sociology, psychology, science, and most of all, politics, stop somewhere in the middle. They are effective so long as they do not need to rise above their position. When they attempt to become more than what they are, we witness the hilarity of people attempting to regulate cause through effect.

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/prozak/pyramid/


Some elements, like unstable isotopes, can arise given the correct conditions. These elements (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/people/) are always destructive in our society-environment and like radioactive particles, constantly afflict a breakdown of the integrity of surrounding structure.


What is the problem with Indo-European society? Oh, don't bore me with your socially-acceptable excuses. The problem is too many lower quality people and, out of deference to them, we've given up on evolution.

http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/undermen/

the rich pay more tax in america? they pay 35% of their income. anyone with common sense colud see that if you were truly to tax the rich, you would put a tax rate in the high 90%s on any earnings over the average workers wage.

the ease, luxury, and abundance of the highest states of civilization, are as productive to selfishness as the difficulties, privations, and sterilities of the lowest.
-colton

Can anyone give me a remotely good reason to click one of Nanonetics links when it has a name like that?

hitler based hes views on other people before him,who didnt go around mass murdering jews,like henry ford.
First of all, the situation isn't the same, since people who become rich through capitalism usually choose and work towards that goal. By contrast, people don't usually choose their religion/ethnicity.

Second, aren't we allowed to criticise people and their choices? If I say 'politicians are parasites', and then somebody else goes on a murdering spree and shoots politicians, is that my fault? I didn't mean they should be killed, I just meant they should get a useful job!

Can anyone give me a remotely good reason to click one of Nanonetics links when it has a name like that?

there is only one other poster that posted links to "ass.com" and that is android.
coincidence or puppet. hmmm . . .

It is quite obvious that some work is appreciated more than other work in modern society, and that displeases me obviously as an amateur socialist who seeks equality.

You seek it? And if so, does that mean that you give away all of the money your make above and beyond your basic needs? Or are you like so many others in the world ..."Do as I say, not as I do."?

But do my personal feelings in any way diminish the logical argument that there is such a thing as the parasitic nature of the rich?

Personal feelings? In a logical, rational discussion/argument? I thought that was somehow contradictory?

And by the way, do you not see a parasitic nature in the poor people of society? ...in the middle classes?

Baron Max

The richer you are the less tax you pay.

:eek:

Wha?

spurious, do you believe that people should be born with equal opportunity, or do you think all people should be equal at the end of their lives, no matter what they have done with it?

Because it sounds like you believe in the latter, which is pure evil.

And almost everything you say on this issue is complete bunk. Including the gem above. You should crack a few history books and check out the never-ending stream of countries that instituted market reforms and saw their standards of living shoot up immediately. You would also find that socialist systems result in starvation, creulty, corruption, and even greater class differences than capitalism. You are on the wrong side of history, and your ignorance verges on pure evil.

I also can't stand the nationalistic hubris you exude regarding Denmark. You love your country above all else, we get that. Those history books would also enlighten you regarding the dangers of such unthinking nationalism.

People that belive the things that you do have killed more people, directly, than both world wars. Not sure how you rationalize that, unless of course, you really are oblivious to the history of the last 300 years.

You seek it? And if so, does that mean that you give away all of the money your make above and beyond your basic needs? Or are you like so many others in the world ..."Do as I say, not as I do."?
that is not socialism, sockpuppet.


And by the way, do you not see a parasitic nature in the poor people of society? ...in the middle classes?

the very nature of capitalist society causes this. challenge me on this, i dare you.

the united states of america is not a democracy.

:eek:
do you believe that people should be born with equal opportunity, or do you think all people should be equal at the end of their lives, no matter what they have done with it?

all people should have an equal standard of living. that does not make us all faceless drones. a persons success should be measured by their accomplishments, not their wealth.

Because it sounds like you believe in the latter, which is pure evil.

it is pure evil to ensure the wellbeing of your fellow man throughout his life, rather than throwing him to the curb at the end of his childhood?

I also can't stand the nationalistic hubris you exude regarding Denmark. You love your country above all else, we get that. Those history books would also enlighten you regarding the dangers of such unthinking nationalism.

oh yes, how he raves on and on about denmark. :rolleyes: it would seem to me that you are so caught up in your own beliefs that you refuse to give his posts more than a glance, probably also the reason you believe capitalism is a utopian system.

People that belive the things that you do have killed more people, directly, than both world wars. Not sure how you rationalize that, unless of course, you really are oblivious to the history of the last 300 years.

elitistic leaders kill people. it is not limited to socialist leaders. and how many of these so called socialist countries actually had a socialist system? most of the time it is merely a guise of the ruling class to continue opression of the masses. in a true socialist society, elitism would not exist, and neither would the genocidal dictators we both despise.

Again, if you want to give all people an equal standard of living, you are going to have to use force to literally rip it away from those who have it. I am not talking about just the richest few percent, rather everything down to the middle class. Are you willing to do that at gunpoint?

the rich pay more tax in america? they pay 35% of their income. anyone with common sense colud see that if you were truly to tax the rich, you would put a tax rate in the high 90%s on any earnings over the average workers wage.

And anyone with any common sense would tell you the earth is flat, we're the center of the universe and acceleration of falling objects depends on weight.

All of which evidence has demonstrated the contrary.

90% tax rates is a very high incentive for the rich to evade income tax. 90% tax rate also depresses the economy, slows production, and results in lost jobs, lost revenue and lost support for social programs.

Take an econ class sometime.

all people should have an equal standard of living. that does not make us all faceless drones. a persons success should be measured by their accomplishments, not their wealth.

How else to measure accomplishment than by wealth? If you are well accomplished, you become wealthy.

the very nature of capitalist society causes this. challenge me on this, i dare you.

How is socialism any less parasitic? The unemployment rate in France and Germany is high because of minimum wage, benefits, the amount of risk involved in highering new workers, and the fact that people get paid for sitting on their ass, doing nothing, by other people who are doing something. I hear unemployment comp is very nice in Europe. Nice enough to live off of other people working without ever having to do anything yourself.

And why is this a discussion of economies?
I thought this was a discussion of political systems.

The two are so deeply intertwined that any discussion of one will inevitably circle back to the other. They are both simply different aspects of the same organism.

How else to measure accomplishment than by wealth? If you are well accomplished, you become wealthy.

were david lange or rod donald wealthy? no, yet they were extremely good leaders, and were widely respected for their success. wealth is a measure of how sucessful you have been in business. success in life is doing things that you enjoy, and making it possible for others to do the same.

And anyone with any common sense would tell you the earth is flat, we're the center of the universe and acceleration of falling objects depends on weight.

All of which evidence has demonstrated the contrary.

90% tax rates is a very high incentive for the rich to evade income tax. 90% tax rate also depresses the economy, slows production, and results in lost jobs, lost revenue and lost support for social programs.

Take an econ class sometime.

Economy class by Edward Wolff (professor of economics at New York University) to Roman.

MM: To what extent is inequality addressed through tax policy?
Wolff: One reason we have such high levels of inequality, compared to other advanced industrial countries, is because of our tax and, I would add, our social expenditure system. We have much lower taxes than almost every Western European country. And we have a less progressive tax system than almost every Western European country. As a result, the rich in this country manage to retain a much higher share of their income than they do in other countries, and this enables them to accumulate a much higher amount of wealth than the rich in other countries.

Certainly our tax system has helped to stimulate the rise of inequality in this country.

We have a much lower level of income support for poor families than do Western European countries or Canada. Social policy in Europe, Canada and Japan does a lot more to reduce economic disparities created by the marketplace than we do in this country. We have much higher poverty rates than do other advanced industrialized countries.

http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

Apart from the absolute level of wealth of people at the bottom of the spectrum, why should inequality itself be a matter of concern?

I think there are two rationales. The first is basically a moral or ethical position. A lot of people think it is morally bad for there to be wide gaps, wide disparities in well being in a society.

If that is not convincing to a person, the second reason is that inequality is actually harmful to the well-being of a society. There is now a lot of evidence, based on cross-national comparisons of inequality and economic growth, that more unequal societies actually have lower rates of economic growth. The divisiveness that comes out of large disparities in income and wealth, is actually reflected in poorer economic performance of a country.

I'd like to see the data on that.

And anyone with any common sense would tell you the earth is flat, we're the center of the universe and acceleration of falling objects depends on weight.

All of which evidence has demonstrated the contrary.

90% tax rates is a very high incentive for the rich to evade income tax. 90% tax rate also depresses the economy, slows production, and results in lost jobs, lost revenue and lost support for social programs.

Take an econ class sometime.

Amen. It isn't like the 90% tax bracket hasn't been tried before.

Socialists just seem to hate the rich, and want a system in which everyone is impoverished and starving at the same rate.

America is not a democracy. It is a plutocracy. It is important to take pluralist action against the United States of America imperial evil of earth. Our evil plutocracy is rooted in the representative system of aristocracy. The fact that the people elect public officials to represent them gives them an attitude that they are the best and most able. Therefore, they consider themselves our leaders.

Public officials and the government is in no way anybody's leader, but everybody's servants. All elected servants are not even officials. Their purpose is serve the people because they choose to take up the responsibility to do so. Not because they are our leaders. Their powers should be limited. Power to the people!

1. The rich are completely inept and incompetent.
2. The rich are completely worthless. They do not contribute to society in any way shape or form. They hold no purpose.
3. The rich are parasitical leeches. Not only do they perform zero contributing effort to society whatsoever, they impose an immense cumbersome burden on society. Getting rid of the rich is like getting an elephant off of your back.
4. Somebody in this thread kept mentioning earning money. I find it nonsensical that people actually believe money can be earned. It sounds like slave mentality to me. You either get money or you don't. Money cannot be earned. Unless you are still a child getting allowance from you parents, a real independent adult does not "earn" money. they might make money doing a specific tasks. But by no means would it be practical for anybody beyond kindergarten pampers to view money as something that is to be earned. 5. No individual has the obligation to contribute to society. It is the obligation and responsibility of the institution to take care of and support the individual. Civilization requires X amount of resources (Land Natural Materials, Human time effort = LMH) in order to effectively support all individuals equally in protection of the environment. Unemployment is but an illusion created to oppress slaves. There is no such thing as unemployment as if it is a bad thing. There is only required employment and there is fulfilled employment. In order for civilization to be supported H amount of jobs are needed to be filled as part of LMH. In an effective civilization of growing technology, it takes less and less of the population to fulfill H amount of jobs. As long as H is fulfilled, the remainder of society is free to pursue whatever they desire including better technology and other contributing efforts. Nobody should fulfill H amount of jobs because they are obligated to contribute to society (no free individual should ever have this obligation). Those that partake in employment do so because of incentive. They do so because they choose to do so. Most likely due to proper compensation. Proper incentive and compensation is a good reason for people to fulfill H jobs that are necessary to keep the civilization functioning smooth. Not because they have some sort of imposed duty or obligation.

Yes, I did. Anyone who does not contribute in meaningful way is not doing anything for society. That is fine if they do not hord society's resources for themselves. But once you are excessive in your negative contribution (sucking away resources from contributing members) you become a parasite.

Your basic assumptions are unproven opinions. They are questions of value, not of fact. For instance, where is it objectively "good" to contribute to society? Couldn't the highest moral law be for each person to contribute to themselves? Of for people to join up with one other person, and those two people take care of themselves? Or for the goal to be a contribution to immediate family?

You don't even pause to consider what you mean by "society". Is this the entire world? Does this mean that local contributions are not as worthy as global contributions? Would we then re-define "parasite" to mean someone who contributes less? Where would the line be drawn, and by whom?

It seems like you have the same fantasy of most utopian radicals. You have a vision of every person having your exact values. Your opinions are the best, and if everyone just shared them, then all the world would be glorious. It doesn't leave much room for diversity and growth. You say that a person who desires a 40-bedroom mansion is objectively wrong. How can this be? How can a walk in the woods, or a day gardening be objectively superior to a day of shopping or gossip? It contradicts Hume's is/ought law. You can't bridge the gap between value and fact, it just doesn't work.

By being unaware of this, you pretend that your views are superior to that of others, when these views are questions of value, not fact. The 40-bedroom mansion DOES make some people happy. Just as happy as posting on the internet, or broadband hook-up makes you. Acting like everyone should learn to be just like you in wants and needs is more than a little frightening.

Freedom above all else. Even if that means we live in a society that worships Paris Hilton. We should be able to celebrate that society, even if some of us pity the decisions made by the majority.

So you agree. She didnt earn her fortune.

Nevertheless she earns WAY more than you:

- she is/was a model
- has her reality series, now in its 3rd year
- has her own music CD
- she has her own parfume and jewelry
- she makes commercials
- she is a bestselling author.


All those contribute to her bankaccount. One could argue that by paying more taxes she contributes to society more than you.

Her sex video?

She wasn't paid for it and that was a gift to humankind. :)

By the way, I don't like her, but let's get the facts straight before bashing someone. She made 6.5 mill ON HER OWN in 2005...

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/53/U3HH.html

Your basic assumptions are unproven opinions. They are questions of value, not of fact. For instance, where is it objectively "good" to contribute to society? Couldn't the highest moral law be for each person to contribute to themselves? Of for people to join up with one other person, and those two people take care of themselves? Or for the goal to be a contribution to immediate family?

You don't even pause to consider what you mean by "society". Is this the entire world? Does this mean that local contributions are not as worthy as global contributions? Would we then re-define "parasite" to mean someone who contributes less? Where would the line be drawn, and by whom?

It seems like you have the same fantasy of most utopian radicals. You have a vision of every person having your exact values. Your opinions are the best, and if everyone just shared them, then all the world would be glorious. It doesn't leave much room for diversity and growth. You say that a person who desires a 40-bedroom mansion is objectively wrong. How can this be? How can a walk in the woods, or a day gardening be objectively superior to a day of shopping or gossip? It contradicts Hume's is/ought law. You can't bridge the gap between value and fact, it just doesn't work.

By being unaware of this, you pretend that your views are superior to that of others, when these views are questions of value, not fact. The 40-bedroom mansion DOES make some people happy. Just as happy as posting on the internet, or broadband hook-up makes you. Acting like everyone should learn to be just like you in wants and needs is more than a little frightening.

Freedom above all else. Even if that means we live in a society that worships Paris Hilton. We should be able to celebrate that society, even if some of us pity the decisions made by the majority.

Your basic assumptions are unproven opinions.

- she is a bestselling author.

She can write?

Anyway. How much tax did she pay?

" the rich do nothing for society"

wow, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The rich drive the system. Even people like Paris Hilton who you claim are worthless contribute to the system. She is a media icon--the publicity she creates attarcts sponsorhip from other comapnies. The clothing and perfume and other comapnaies that sport her name gain in popularity due to her name, those companies get richer, they expand, they make more jobs, they can afford to pay their workers more.....Its called trickle down economics and it works. When mcdonalds puts Paris Hiltion in a commercial, they make more revenue, which eventually trickles down to the people.

Now whether Paris hasd to work hard for her money is another issue, you could say it is unfair that she was born attractive and already famous. But that doesnt change the fact that everyone, even the poor people, benefit from paris Hilton.

To say the rich do nothing for society is unbelieveably misguided.

Ya and the huge taxes Paris Hilton pays are paying for your welfare check every month

the rich contribute nothing to society??? rather it is teh poor who contribute nothing. The lazy poor people who sit on their asses and have no reason to get a job because of government welfare. Its about time people took some responsibility for their situation and stop relying on the government.

The problem with democracy is the lack of information. All the information the public receives about candidates comes directly from the media and political manipulation campaigns.

The problem with this is that just about the entire public does not know how to think for themselves. I find very few with the capacity for even a decent level of independent thought.

I support Tyranny over Democracy, as anyone in their right mind should.

people dont become rich just like that u know.they earned it.my guess is you are a socialist?most of what you are saying is prejudices.Well, the comments were prejudiced, however I know some kids of self-made multi multi millionaires and really they are kind of like parasites. And, contrary to popular belief. parasites do not appear all that happy.
A couple observations:
- The son actually start shuddering and sobbing when his father refused to buy him the new BMW Alpina Roadster. He was 26 and it was truly pathetic.
- The father pays for his sons ex-girl friend to live in a million dollar flat in the city + a masters degree in Law + spending money because he is embarrassed that his son dumped her and wasted the most productive years of her life (The father is traditional Chinese).
- The daughter routinely leaves me with the check when we go for dinner!?! We don't go to dinner anymore...


Anyway, while the father busted his arse to make the fotune, the kids have absolutely no clue as to what it means to have to work or what it feels like to have the normal monetary worries your everyday 9-5 workers feel. They also don’t know what it’s like to accomplish - they never had to.
Spoiled fruit really.
Being born that rich is sometimes more curse than boon.

I think there are a couple sayings that sum it up:
- 1
The first generation makes it the second generation spends it and third generation breaks it.
- 2
something along the lines of the first generation to become rich are ruined because of their bitterness…

anyone got any others???


anyway, you get the drift,
Michael;

Oh as to the topic:

Does Democracy Work? Well take a look: Letterman's Important Message for George Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmX23l0ouo8)

Haaahahahahaaa.....

I truly hope that you'll soon see that yes it works :)

Michael

Maybe we should try a swig of "Democracy LITE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzAsy_jav0c&NR)" instead?

:)
Michael

1 ruler= unified and powerful nation. Democracy= unified and powerful government.

1 ruler= unified and powerful nation.

Ya' mean like, say, Cuba? Or the old Iraqi nation under Sadman? Or perhaps Libya? Hmm, wait a minute ...those aren't unified and powerful nations???? What's goin on? Perhaps you're statment is wrong, huh????

Democracy= unified and powerful government.

But in a democracy, where do the leaders come from? Aren't they voted into office? So if they're voted INTO office, they can be voted OUT of office. How does that make it such a unified and powerful government?? Perhaps you can explain.

Baron Max

The problem with democracy is the lack of information. All the information the public receives about candidates comes directly from the media and political manipulation campaigns.

The problem with this is that just about the entire public does not know how to think for themselves. I find very few with the capacity for even a decent level of independent thought.
I agree with your second paragraph but am confused about the meaning of your first one. Democracy often produces a flood of information, but it is typically of a low grade and based on money motivations since democracy is married to capitalism. As a consequence, the messages produced in democracy have little to do with truth or social benefit, but instead serve the many parties producing the messages.

How would providing the public with information be beneficial when they cannot think for themselves? One would do better to remove the voting rights of such people and impose a poll tax/test so that only the small minority who can prove the ability to think are able to have their ideas counted.

This topic is fun fun fun!

What if Tim Paterson invented DOS and Bill Gates took it and became the richest man on earth? Who is the parasite here?

That is not a parasite that is a predator. If Bill Gates was a parasite Tim Paterson would have made all the money and Bill would some VP or hold some odd patent that would force Paterson to send him money from time to time.

So if the 'rich' are a Parasite- then why dont we stop using everything that has made someone 'rich' that why we are not feeding the 'parasites'. So please, log of the internet (Cisco routers made someone rich- heaven forbid you used Google today...), Quit Netscape or Explorer (they made someone rich), and turn off that computer (Your Apple, Dell, Compaq, IBM, whatever made someone rich). For now on we will use the US Mail system. It is owned by EVERYONE! (well at least Americans). NO ONE GETS RICH IF YOU USE IT! In fact it LOSES money year after year. Better yet, it will take a couple of days (not counting hollidays) for all of us to send a message to each other. Oh wait, we cant send one message for everyone to read...so I guess we will just mail letters to all members of this board. Ohhh wait...at $.32 a letter...per member...per topic...this is going to get expensive!! And its going to take days if not weeks for my message to reach all members! Buts thats ok as long as someone isnt getting rich??

So if Billy Boy increased my effiency (probably spelled wrong but I could all ways spell check it...thanks Billy) by saving me time and money allowing me to be more productive in other areas- by all means let him be rich.

All that Hilton money is in Banks- banks use that money so they can loan out more money so you can buy a house- so Yes Paris contributes to society. By her own choice? Well im sure she gets interest...

This whole 'parasite' label is incorrect. If anything they could be considered Predators. How was Henry Ford a Parasite? I guess that whole mass production thing never benefited anyone...

On a sidenote- Paris lets you stay in a nice heated room when you are out of town instead of freezing your ass off in your car.

if so do u have an equal opportunity to succeed in life compare to your sorroundings?dont u have a fair chance of becoming rich?

Man, you should change your identifier, because you are no master of wisdom...
Both things you mentioned can be done in a dictatorship or a kingdom. Democracy means that the people are represented in power and they actually rule through their representatives. That is not true in the US...

Without reading through the whole thread, I am going to argue that actually, democracy is not the natural society form of humankind.
I tend to think of humans as animals on a higher technical level. Thus whatever works in the animal kingdom should work for humans.

First, what's wrong with democracy? Well, true democracy doesn't exist. Since there are too many group of people with different interests, statisfying all of them is an impossible task. Thus minorities always will be oppressed. it is just the level of oppression/lack of right that is different.

Second, democracy is unnatural. It helps the weak to survive by equalizing strong and weak. Also through history only a small prtion of humans live under democracy. That might means that it is not the most effective form, since nature tends to lean towards effectiveness.

Third, it is not a given that if the people can freely choose they will make the right choice. People would vote for wars or other stupid things. Thus having a dictator/king can simplify and make the system cheaper.

Very few spieces of animals leave in a democratic society and it usually happens when there is plenty of food/living space around. Once those are limited, democracy goes out of the window...

Does democracy work? After the political changes in East Europe, there are the plurality of political parties. In one country there were 4 changes in the last 4 elections. So it seems democracy is at work, but it also means that people get quickly fed up with the party on power and replace it at the next election. Eventually people are getting tired of politicans because it seems that no matter who is on power they missuse it. So it could might as well be a dictator.

Short Answer: NOOOOOO!

Long answer: liberal democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy) works.

Are there any dictatorships that have achieved the strong economies and quality of life evidenced in many liberal democracies?

Yes. Lots of oilrich small Arab states. The United States too....

As we can see by USA, the people do not rule. The country is ruled by the rich.

No, the people do rule. They're just easily bought.

Hence the rich rule.

Democracy is a total failure and a destructive one. Death to democracy!