People say stop complaining, and do something for yourself. I'm open for any suggestion.


The earth is currently being run by might makes right. Human rights are not relevant.

Is there any escape?
The whole planet seems to be under the control of these parasites.
THE ENEMY: The rich, IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve, CIA, etc.

The entire planet is a prison cell. No matter where you go on the planet, this above axis of evil terror has their hands in your pockets. They get you one way or the other.

Is there any hope for freedom?
Or are we all trapped like rats in the prison of earth controlled by these might makes right parasites?
How can we escape their clutches? Or how can one escape their clutches?
What can we do to live a wealthy healthy life while at the same time keeping away from this axis of evil terror?


TOPIC
Let's just say we are not interested in fighting it. What can we do to avoid it or live with it to the best of our ability? How can we help ourselves?

lixluke:
What can we do to avoid it or live with it to the best of our ability? How can we help ourselves?

I don't think that you can 'avoid' capitalism. Not when the control of the elite is near absolute.

You can exist within capitalism by staying under the radar of the elite. Live a mundane life, play by the rules. Don't become a threat to the theocracies, dictatorships and autocracies, and you might not be targeted for victimization... we hope.

So remain in prison for life.

I don't think human rights and capitalism are mutually exclusive. THe CIA is the government, which is us (US citizens). Get active in politics, vote, get informed, ect...

The best thing is being an American citizen. We have full advantage. Capitalism is not about human rights. It is about might makes right. The rich taking from the poor. American business interests run the planet, and use the riegn of terror to make slaves out of the poor countries.

These countries are nothing but huge garbage dump factories producing everything that big businesses can sell to Americans. In return for these products, Americans serve these big businesses in the form of labor. All the profits go directly to the rich banks and the war of oppression over these country sized garbage dump factories.

Capitalism = The destruction of the individual and human rights.
Your life is over as you know it.
Sure we can get active. We can fight to make change, and protect human rights against these terrorists and their reign of capitalism.

There must be a way to have a free land full of people with a good lifestyle. Free from the hands of these terrorists.

Capitalism is regulated by the government. It existed even when there were trade barriers that prevented the exploitation of foriegn workers. The problem is undue corporate influence on elected officials. This is not an insolvable problem.

The problem is undue corporate influence on elected officials.

"Undue influence"? And just who is supposed to make that determination, Spider? I know you want to do it yourself, but what if others disagree? How do you resolve that disagreement?

Baron Max

That's what democracy is for.

That's what democracy is for.

Then it must be working. So what's the big complaint?

Baron Max

THE ENEMY: The rich, IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve, CIA, etc.


I can see you aren't very smart. your IQ is obviously low if you think the enemy are entire groups of people. There are good and bad rich people. There are good and bad people who work for the IMF, World Bank and Federal Reserve. There are good and bad people working for the CIA.

Until you realize this, you are stupid and should shut up.

The entire planet is a prison cell. No matter where you go on the planet, this above axis of evil terror has their hands in your pockets. They get you one way or the other.

Who is they? It's not like there are millions of people, I bet it's only thousands. Also do you have to use such over the top language? You sound like Alex Jones.


Is there any hope for freedom?

Get rich or Die Trying, 50 cent's phrase.

Or are we all trapped like rats in the prison of earth controlled by these might makes right parasites?

What if they think you are the parasite?

How can we escape their clutches? Or how can one escape their clutches?
What can we do to live a wealthy healthy life while at the same time keeping away from this axis of evil terror?

You are asking insane questions in an attempt to get insane answers? The world was always run like this, ALWAYS. The only time it wasnt was when the world was tribal, and tribes didnt have wars because they had unlimited natural resources. Why would Africans or Native Americans need to have wars when they had unlimited food and water, and lived off the land, Africa had gold and diamonds, unlimited food, unlimited water, people could do that. You go to the more harsh climates and people took up the sword much faster because they wanted to survive. Vikings and Nomads were masters at fighting to survive, and over time they formed huge tribes, when Rome fell, these Vikings and Nomads took over, because without Civilization, might makes right. Civilization exists to keep that from happening.

TOPIC
Let's just say we are not interested in fighting it. What can we do to avoid it or live with it to the best of our ability? How can we help ourselves?

Well, you can first stop being afraid of might. You can secondly, learn to be independent enough to survive without other peoples might.

The best thing is being an American citizen. We have full advantage. Capitalism is not about human rights. It is about might makes right. The rich taking from the poor. American business interests run the planet, and use the riegn of terror to make slaves out of the poor countries.

These countries are nothing but huge garbage dump factories producing everything that big businesses can sell to Americans. In return for these products, Americans serve these big businesses in the form of labor. All the profits go directly to the rich banks and the war of oppression over these country sized garbage dump factories.

Capitalism = The destruction of the individual and human rights.
Your life is over as you know it.
Sure we can get active. We can fight to make change, and protect human rights against these terrorists and their reign of capitalism.

There must be a way to have a free land full of people with a good lifestyle. Free from the hands of these terrorists.


Capitalism is not bad by default. You can make the case that our current form is inefficient, but you are not going to get far by attacking capitalism, so give up already.

What isn't working? Our government is corrupted by corporate money. Democracy will work in the end if concerned citizens participate in ending this trend. It isn't working yet, but I'm not willing to give up yet.

The earth is currently being run by might makes right

is there a problem with that? what is wrong with might? My suggestion to you, get some might!

Unfortunately, capitalism is bad by default. We have already proved this in another thread. The planet itself proves this.
Capitalism is nothing more than the means of production in private hands. The dependence on private hands. The illusion that this will result in competition and lower prices which we all know is a total farce. Capitalism is garbo.

Capitalism and democracy obviously do not work. Nobody is talking about changing it. Getting rid of it maybe, but most of all having a decent life in spite of it.

Under crappytalist terrorist prison, how can one pursue at least a decent life?

I can see you aren't very smart. your IQ is obviously low
No. Your IQ is low. You have proven it with every post I have seen from you. You know nothing. EVERY statement you have yet made is an illogical fallacy. I have yet to see you make a hint of an intellectual comment.

Our government is corrupted by corporate money.

If you have evidence of that corruption, you should call the FBI. They're constantly investigating any and all such "tips" about government corruption. Yet they seem to uncover very little ...except in the minds of some of our most paranoid citizens!

Democracy will work in the end if concerned citizens participate in ending this trend.

I don't disagree. However, don't forget that it might turn out the our "concerned citizens" just might have very different ideas than you have! What then, Spider? Would you support them? If I got together a group of "concerned citizens" and we forced governmental changes, would you like that? Would you support the "Baron Max Concerned Citizens" group? Why not, Spider???? :)

Baron Max

is there a problem with that? what is wrong with might? My suggestion to you, get some might!
The argument is not whether it is wrong or right. It is no doubt wrong. The fact is that the planet has been taken over by might makes right instead of human rights.
The point is living under this umbrella of total terrorism from these might make right nutbags that have turned earth into a prison cell.
Everybody is a slave to these parasites. Nobody can escape slavery if they believe they are under the false impression that they are free. The first step in escaping is being aware that you are in capticity.

The earth is currently being run by might makes right. Human rights are not relevant.


Capitalism = The destruction of the individual and human rights.
Your life is over as you know it.
Sure we can get active. We can fight to make change, and protect human rights against these terrorists and their reign of capitalism.

There must be a way to have a free land full of people with a good lifestyle. Free from the hands of these terrorists.

You are unbelieveable. Capitalism is economic freedom, plain and simple. There can be no real political freedom without economic freedom. If you're dependent on the government for your livelyhood, you really are not in control.

Under capitalism you are free to make your own way. Do you think communism offers more freedom? Do you know any history?

PS Any system of government, when you really get down to it, amounts to might makes right. A government can be defined as the entity that has a monopoly on the use of physical force to resolve disputes within a given geographic area. In other words, might makes right.

The problem is corporations. Corporations are not an intrinsic part of the capitalist economic model, and in fact perturb it so grossly that it is in constant danger of failure--either by collapsing or by being "reformed" by socialists.

The essence of capitalism is the distribution of the surplus created by the industry of civilization as widely as possible, so that decisions about its control--saving, spending, investing, choosing the right time and place to do any of those things--are made individually by the people who produced it rather than centrally controlled by a slowly responding and bureacracy-encumbered ruling class.

The corporation destroys the very essence of the model. It leaves certain benefits of the surplus in the hands of the workers--notably material wealth and a modest ability to indirectly vote the stock in your pension fund--but the real power of the capital is concentrated by the Multiplier Effect in the hands of the corporate leaders. These people make up a new social class filling the role of the aristocracy in pre-industrial times. And like the aristocracy, they were created by the government in order to ensure that capital continues to be concentrated instead of dispersed. The corporation is not a natural phenomenon of capitalism, it is a fiction brought to life by government legislation. In fact, corporations are called "artificial persons" in many legal documents.

So the problem is not with capitalism. The problem is that governments have not given capitalism a chance to actually work.

You are unbelieveable. Capitalism is economic freedom, plain and simple. There can be no real political freedom without economic freedom. If you're dependent on the government for your livelyhood, you really are not in control.
What are you talking about? How is it different from being dependent on private businesses? A world without capitalism and corporations is a world of freedom. Freedom to do what you want. Freedom to go where you want. Freedom to choose what you want to do with your life.
Not dependence on busineses.

Capitalism was created by the plutocracy for the plutocracy. It is the total opposite of freedom.

How is dependence on private businesses different from dependence on anything?

A human being should be completely self-sufficient. Back to the stone age with all of us!

Or better yet: Screw dependence on food. Let us die!

No. Your IQ is low. You have proven it with every post I have seen from you. You know nothing. EVERY statement you have yet made is an illogical fallacy. I have yet to see you make a hint of an intellectual comment.

Pay attention fool, and read carefully. Capitalism beat communism, it's over, it's done. Capitalism works, it definately works, but our current form is incomplete and inefficient. Capitalism exists to organize the masses, it MUST exist, and you know it must exist, because without it, we'd have x2 as many criminals as we have now, as all those guys and gals who work at corporations generating tax dollars and revenue, would still be doing the same sorta stuff without capitalism with the only difference being that you'd have no laws, no rules, and no contracts, it would truly be even worse under complete anarchy than under capitalism.

Capitalism is an organizing tool, if you want to see an example, here is a website, learn more about economics, in fact do some studying before you and others make posts which say capitalism is wrong when you don't even know why it exists.

http://www.schumachersociety.org/
http://www.ecobooks.com/books/smbeaut.htm
http://www.schumachersociety.org/share_microcredit.html
Read it and maybe you'll learn something. The planet is organized for maximum efficiency of human energy. This is why capitalism exists. It has been tested against communism, and while communism is more fair, and perhaps better designed, it did not pass the efficiency test, or the human nature test, as capitalism is designed for humans as they currently exist, while communism is designed for the ideal man or woman. Capitalism won because it did not require unity, or cooperation, it simply requires you to want stuff, and be willing to go through the process of working to get it. If capitalism did not exist, people would steal what they want, so capitalism gives people a way to get what they want while also giving other people what they want.

Capitalism is here to stay. Humans are not ready for communism, maybe you are, but the rest of the human family is not, so whatever system we develop must be developed for the majority of the human family, based on common nature, not our best, or worst nature, but only the nature which is most common. Later on you can branch out to make capitalism more efficient for those of our best or worst nature. The ideal is for everyone to benefit society and the world, and for everyone to do more good than harm. People are working to achieve this as we speak, and your crazy talk about how capitalism is BAD, your anarchist talk, in my opinion, is not helpful to people who know we need capitalism and want to make it more efficient.

I highly suggest that you read the links I gave you, and learn about economics, learn that economics and efficiency can be used to improve the environment, or to destroy it, and that you have a choice because it's just a tool. Learn what money REALLY is, and understand that money will exist even if it's not paper, and even if you don't call it capitalism. Money is how we organize human energy, the energy of your labor is to be represented by money, and this organization is essential to any civilization and to any society, otherwise it will quickly become a prison. Freedom exists in a free market. If you want to live under communism, move to North Korea.

How is dependence on private businesses different from dependence on anything?

A human being should be completely self-sufficient. Back to the stone age with all of us!

Or better yet: Screw dependence on food. Let us die!

That's just it. It's impossible for humans to be self sufficient. It's 100% absolutely and infinately impossible. All humans and all living things are interdependent. There are no independent lifeforms because all lifeforms are connected and are actually one. You are one with the animals. You are one with the plants. The foodchain proves that all living things are connected. You get your energy from the sun just as all other mammals, and parasites get their energy from you, and you get your energy from eating life, and this is the natural process of energy transfer. All energy comes from sunlight, starting with plants.

Money represents energy and time, it's time and energy, the paper has no meaning, it's what that paper represents!

Barter would exist if paper money did not. Gold would be used if paper money became too inefficient or worthless.

Paper money is only used while it's useful, and while people believe in it, it's very much like religion, it's real because we agree to make it real. Assume that it's part of human nature and will always be real, and by assuming this, and by understanding what money really is, it should be easier for you to figure out how to make money. It's simple, in order to get rich, you have to figure out how to save people time and energy, because if your product saves time and energy, they'll spend their money because they are getting a "deal".

[QUOTE=TimeTraveler;The planet is organized for maximum efficiency of human energy. This is why capitalism exists.[/QUOTE]
What a moron.
The planet is organized for mass destruction. That is the effect of capitalism.
Capitalism is the direct opposite of maximum efficiency.
Capitalism = Maximum inefficiency.
Capitalism = Maximum brain deficiancy.

Buy a vowel from a Nobel Laureate economist your tuition dollars obviously can't afford:

Dynamic Capitalism: Entrepreneurship is lucrative--and just. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009068)

I find it funny that how to 'fix' capitalism is by implementing a system with supreme control of indiviudals. Let's solve the problem of might making right... with more might!

Well, Roman, if you want to fix anything, you've got to get work done. And physics tells us work over time equals power.

I think what CS is trying to say is that w/t is somehow morally wrong. That is definitely funny.

Supreme control of individuals is what capitalism is about. That is how the plutocracy works to make capitalism function. Those that are useful are sent to economic processing zones for slave labor. Anybody that is not is sent to the dumpsters to live a life on the outskirts of civilization and economic processing zones.

4 classes of human social stratification:
Plutocracy
Slave Handlers
Slaves
Garbage

This is the world as we know it today.
Thank you crappytalism.

What a moron.
The planet is organized for mass destruction. That is the effect of capitalism.
Capitalism is the direct opposite of maximum efficiency.
Capitalism = Maximum inefficiency.
Capitalism = Maximum brain deficiancy.

Take a class on economics, learn how the world is organized. Even roaches and ants have an economy, they have an organizing system, capitalism just happens to be the best way to organize humans.

If it's not perfect, ADD TO IT, don't destroy the only organizing software that we have as a species, you anarchy loving communist!

What people need to understand is, without capitalism or communism or some ism, we'd be in a constant physical war of all against all. Without capitalism we'd be in the stone age, it's what allowed us to build civilization, it's old. Now we can change the way it's organized into an older more decentralized tribal capitalism, but the system must exist.

I would say that you are stuck within a society of capitalistic values and your only escape is to capture the carrot on the end of the stick. Or you can find work that you enjoy, working with people whom you like, and taking pleasure in those things that you value. Your money will depreciate faster than you can earn it, but there's always that dream of retirement prior to death.

I honestly believe that if you want the money and have a passion for it, it will be yours.

I would say that you are stuck within a society of capitalistic values and your only escape is to capture the carrot on the end of the stick. Or you can find work that you enjoy, working with people whom you like, and taking pleasure in those things that you value. Your money will depreciate faster than you can earn it, but there's always that dream of retirement prior to death.

I honestly believe that if you want the money and have a passion for it, it will be yours.


It's actually not even that bad. I mean, here is the problem, people who don't know how to make money, and who don't know that the world is filled with good and bad people, they like to blame systems like capitalism for the efficiency. This is like blaming communism or anything else. Capitalism CAN be efficient, and maybe if this guy went to school and got a degree or Phd in economics, he could focus on making it more efficient, but instead he wants to attack capitalism itself and I think thats stupid.

If you think the world is not efficient, make it more efficient, but don't blame free trade or capitalism, both which are neccessary for any kind of efficiency. I mean, I understand why some people like communism, it looks great on paper, it would be a great system if we actually had people like this, but right now most people arent altruistic enough and can't cooperate, so capitalism is the only system that humanity is ready for.

I suggest, that this person, focus on making the system we have more efficient instead of focusing on removing the only thing which holds society in place. The only thing keeping the people with all the guns from robbing you for a living, is because they can make money and get what they want in capitalism. If there were no capitalism, you have to explain how people will get what they want?

An efficient world is a world where everyone can get what they want, with minimal effort. Figure out how to make the world like this from within the capitalist system.

Yes, lixluke I agree with Time Traveler it really seems liek you have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to know nothing about economics, and you make no argument. Rather, you viciously attack capitalism using different words but you do not back it up in any way or present any kind of logical argument. You just assume blatantly wrong ideas such as
Capitalism = Maximum inefficiency.
Capitalism = Maximum brain deficiancy.

I dont understand how a rational human being can actually think that. If you are arguing capitalism as in what the US has, you at least have a little bit of a point because the US does not have perfect capitalism becasue it is impossible. But you can not argue that Pure/Perfect Competition results in maximum inefficiency that is just absurd. Learn one fucking thing about economics and you will find that the defenition of pure competition is a system where everyone maximizes their benefits.

Seriously, I have no idea how a person can actually think the way you think.

I think the basic point of socialism was about having those things that you NEED. Capitalism in America does that and much more, but it has also become a concept of mass consumption. It creates many cool things and promotes many advances, but it also creates a demand where there was none. And wealth does buy independence for many.

I suppose it is a measure of our quality of life: does a fifty dollar pair of jeans really make us feel better than those that cost ten dollars?

Until we find something better and grow beyond the present, capitalism is probably the best game in town. Communism just has not worked. We have seen the examples.

Take a class on economics, learn how the world is organized. Even roaches and ants have an economy, they have an organizing system, capitalism just happens to be the best way to organize humans.

If it's not perfect, ADD TO IT, don't destroy the only organizing software that we have as a species, you anarchy loving communist!

What people need to understand is, without capitalism or communism or some ism, we'd be in a constant physical war of all against all. Without capitalism we'd be in the stone age, it's what allowed us to build civilization, it's old. Now we can change the way it's organized into an older more decentralized tribal capitalism, but the system must exist.
I suggest you go take a class in logic because EVERYTHING this post is not only false, but COMPLETELY violates any logical reasoning.

Learn one fucking thing about economics and you will find that the defenition of pure competition is a system where everyone maximizes their benefits.
Because you have no basis in logic.
Capitalism is the most inefficient system there is. Capitalism = destruction and chaos. It is pure inefficiency at its best.

Maybe capitalism is not pure inefficiency but there is the trend that you pay more for less in a pure capitalist system without consumer protectionist laws in place.

In europe many originally state owned companies such as public transport system have been sold to the highest bidder. The first thing that occurs is an increase in price and a reduction of services. The company has to make profit after all. The trend has been to sell to the highest bidder. The one that has to make most profit.

A similar phenomenon you see in the European housing market. Traditionally in many european countries there are non-profit organizations that rent out appartments. Their rents are much lower than those of commerical enterprises. Actually within the European Union they are trying to pass a law that forbids non-profit renting agencies because they apparently have an unfair advantage: lower rents. A prime example of lunacy and the increased corruption of the political system by capitalistic influences.

The main problem of commercial enterprises is of course that the main aim is to make profit. All other considerations are secondary. Sometimes that results in advantages for the average person, but often not.

The non-profit organization will always have an advantage in the renting market for instance. The same overhead. No need to siphon off money towards stock holders. No need to demand fixed renting contracts. No need for high salary management. No need to hire the best leeches available.

I suggest you go take a class in logic because EVERYTHING this post is not only false, but COMPLETELY violates any logical reasoning.

No capitalism means it will be logical for me to just take whatever I want from you, because that would be the only way to get what I want.

Capitalism allows me to get what I want, while also allowing you to get what you want, in a way which benefits us both.

Wrong. Capitalism is the means of production in private hands.

Capitalism does not allow crap other than the destruction of earth and the enslavement of the individual so that the rich can get their wants which are unlimited. It is a primitive bag of stupidity disguised as a legitimate economic system. Technically, capitalism is total garbo.

Well, Roman, if you want to fix anything, you've got to get work done. And physics tells us work over time equals power.

I think what CS is trying to say is that w/t is somehow morally wrong. That is definitely funny.

I find it exeedingly hilarious.

What country has pure capitalism in effect?
Not the usa, that is for sure.

Please let me know if you have heard of one.

None?

If we look at the economic freedom index of 2006 we see that Hong Kong ends up at the first place.

Hong Kong 1 [1.28]
Singapore 2 [1.56]
Ireland 3 [1.58]
Luxembourg 4 [1.60]
United Kingdom 5 [1.74]
Iceland 5 [1.74]
Estonia 7 [1.75]
Denmark 8 [1.78]
Australia 9 [1.84]
United States 9 [1.84]
New Zealand 9 [1.84]
Finland 12 [1.85]


Interstingly the US is not the leader in this respect. Nor second. It shares 9th place with the social welfare state of Denmark, and others. Finland, one of the most socialist countries in the world, that is a society known for its extensive social welfare, high taxes, social structure, national healthcare, free education, has pretty much the same economic freedom as the USA.

Apparently socialist principles do not interfere with economic freedom on quite the same level as our rightwing friends like us to believe.

In fact socialism and economic freedom are not enemies.

Now let us in fact examine the US and Finland a bit closer to see how high the tax for the rich people in Finland really is. Let us first examine the obviously low taxes in the USA:

According to Deloitte, the United States' top federal income tax rate is 35 percent. The top corporate tax rate is also 35 percent.

Surely the tax in Finland for the top tier must be at least 50%. Let’s see:

According to Deloitte, Finland's top income tax rate is 33.5 percent, down from the 35.5 percent reported in the 2005 Index. Effective January 2005, the top corporate tax rate was cut to 26 percent, down from the 29 percent reported in the 2005 Index.

Oh my! A socialist country has lower top income tax rate than rightwing America? Only 1.5% of course, however the corporate tax rate in finland is a staggering 9% lower!

What a surprise. Not only is the beer cheaper in Finland, also the top income taxes are lower.


source:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

I'm sure in finland they must see the actual dollars from the tax rate come in to maintain such extensive social programs - in america rich people do NOT pay 35%, unless they are idiots - there are too many write-offs available, and if you think you will actually have to give up your cash, buy a bigger house, the interest is tax-deductible. Corporations have ways of avoiding tax payments also, obviously.
If the usa actually got that 35%, we would have enough money to attack north korea too.

It's even worse than that. If a rich person gets a speeding ticket he will have to pay the fine based on a percentage of his yearly income.

For rich people this can become an expensive joke. Well, relatively it isn't of course.

The other question is of course if these social institutions are really that expensive compared the the US. How much money is wasted on corruption and bureaucracy?

Edit:
You would think the Fins spend a large amount of their GDP on healthcare? Think again:

Health care expenses (in Finland) as a proportion of GDP are clearly lower than the EU average. Health care costs per capita are also among the lowest within the EU. The low level of costs can be interpreted in two different ways. According to a positive view, the Finnish health care system is more effective than average, since comprehensive and high-quality services can be provided with a small input. This interpretation can be motivated by the fact that of all EU citizens, Finns are the most satisfied with their health care services.
According to a more critical view, it can be questioned whether sufficient funds have been allocated to health care in Finland in recent years. This view is supported by survey results showing that among all municipal services, most additional resources are wanted in health care.
Well, there is always room for allocation of a


1991 figures:

Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP) (1)

United States 13.4%
Canada 10.0
Finland 9.1

And here are the 2003 figures. Still the US is spending most and Finland is not even close to the top:

http://www.oecdobserver.org/images//1830.photo.jpg

Is there a connection between health spending and life expectancy? Not necessarily. As the latest edition of the OECD in Figures 2005 points out, the Japanese have the highest life expectancy in the OECD area, but their health spending, at nearly 8% of GDP, is far from being the highest. The US on the other hand has the highest health spending at some 15%, yet it clocks in at just 22nd when it comes to life expectancy–Americans can nevertheless expect to live past 77. The lowest spender is Korea (5.6% of GDP), with a life expectancy also of 77 years.

Life expectancy in Finland 2005 was 78.35 years.

None?

If we look at the economic freedom index of 2006 we see that Hong Kong ends up at the first place.

Hong Kong 1 [1.28]
Singapore 2 [1.56]
Ireland 3 [1.58]
Luxembourg 4 [1.60]
United Kingdom 5 [1.74]
Iceland 5 [1.74]
Estonia 7 [1.75]
Denmark 8 [1.78]
Australia 9 [1.84]
United States 9 [1.84]
New Zealand 9 [1.84]
Finland 12 [1.85]


Interstingly the US is not the leader in this respect. Nor second. It shares 9th place with the social welfare state of Denmark, and others. Finland, one of the most socialist countries in the world, that is a society known for its extensive social welfare, high taxes, social structure, national healthcare, free education, has pretty much the same economic freedom as the USA.

Apparently socialist principles do not interfere with economic freedom on quite the same level as our rightwing friends like us to believe.

In fact socialism and economic freedom are not enemies.

Now let us in fact examine the US and Finland a bit closer to see how high the tax for the rich people in Finland really is. Let us first examine the obviously low taxes in the USA:



Surely the tax in Finland for the top tier must be at least 50%. Let’s see:



Oh my! A socialist country has lower top income tax rate than rightwing America? Only 1.5% of course, however the corporate tax rate in finland is a staggering 9% lower!

What a surprise. Not only is the beer cheaper in Finland, also the top income taxes are lower.


source:
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm

Bush's policies haven't been pro-market. They've been pro-business. His trade policies have been extremely protectionist. Ironically, Clinton was far more conservative, economically, than Bush will ever be.

How do I interpret conservative?

How do I interpret conservative?
Conservative as in what everyone else but America calls a market liberal.

How do I interpret conservative?

My bad.
Economically conservative, in the States, means lower taxes, fewer regulations, fewer barriers to trade (both at home and abroad), and I think that's about it.

Conservative as in what everyone else but America calls a market liberal.

So that's why some of the economic news made no sense! :)

My bad.
Economically conservative, in the States, means lower taxes, fewer regulations, fewer barriers to trade (both at home and abroad), and I think that's about it.


Isn't that libertarian?

Isn't that libertarian?

Libertarians are "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." They don't care where you put your ding-dong, but they don't like taxes. Republicans are more discerning in what they don't like; fags, atheists, women, negroes, poor people, the free market.

Libertarians are really for less gov't, which means fewer laws, fewer rules, fewer regulations, less taxes, and more freedoms.

Republicans don't like the free market?

Republicans don't like the free market?

Appearantly not. It hurts businesses that fund their campaigns.

Well, I don't know about the other sciforumers, but I would like to thank Roman for finally clearing up who is who in american politics. He managed to explain it in a manner even I understand.

Well, I don't know about the other sciforumers, but I would like to thank Roman for finally clearing up who is who in american politics. He managed to explain it in a manner even I understand.Yes he did. I have been telling the same thing for years* but I am too "long winding" and not as able to state it concisely, as he did.
------------------------------
*Here is GWB's idea about the "free market" in alcohol:
Alcohol has 54cent/ gallon importation tariff, corn has the highest of all farm subsidy and Alcohol produced from it gets additional 51cent/gallon subsidy. This resulting in higher taxes for Joe American and greater cost from him to drive his car by about a factor of two, compared to driving on alcohol imported from tropical lands. The oil import payment money funds terrorists etc. Also the price of all foods will be increased for Joe American as food crop land is converted to "fuel farms." - All very "anti-Joe American" policy. But is the US policy, because a few already multi-billionaires generously finance the election campaigns, punish any newspapers TV etc that mention these facts by sending their ad dollars to ones that do not inform the public, etc. (Must keep Joe American ignorant, even if it cost millions in campaign dollars to do so. BTW the Republican's have a little more than 100 million dollars from mainly these "special interest" sources for the elections in a few weeks.)

pardon my lack of knowledge on this subject, but I am a grad student seeking answers to questions for my class. Can anyone help with the following: Would capitalism exist without money?

I also have another question that I am stumped on. This is more of an investment question: How is the purchase of a corporate financial asset really an investment in something that is illiquid?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Are you guys all outside today?

Also, what capitalist institutions depend directly on money to fulfill their purpose? I know instituions such as banks, federal reserves, basically anything that would be considered legal tender.

Capitalism is garbology. It belongs in the trash. Real city/social designer scientists do not even acknowledge all of these primitive systems.

Money or no money is irrelevant.
Greedy World Banks<--------(millions per day)--------Poverty countries<--------(taxes)--------Impoverished workers.

Capitalism is totally flawed just like communism.
They claim it works ideally, but it doesn't work in practice. As you can see the results.
The fact is, it's all garbology.

I believe that TimeTravelet hit what I want to say right on the head. I believe that capitalism is effective at giving us what we deserve. Its a good system that gets us thinking, producing, and advancing our civilization. However, I don't like the reason why billions of people do what they do: MONEY, "MIGHT", INFLUENCE, BRAGGING RIGHTS, MATERIALISM. I believe everyone has a purpose bigger than themselves and that is to help the human race. We musn't compete with eachother, but compete with ourselves. And I can't stress that enough. I find that when I compete against someone else I lose, and I'm depressed. I feel that way because I'm concentrating on that person not myself, not my efforts. Some of you already have the picture of a lion chasing a deer in the African Sahara. Well are we animals? We are, but we are a different kind, with much more advanced abilities. We must work with ourselves. Our currency must be our contributions to the human race, but they must obviously be moral. What's moral you might ask? I'm not going to talk about religion because I don't believe in it! I'm talking about logic. If you create the internet you know it will create communication and transfer of knowledge. When you create a gun you know it will create death. Death isn't good it isn't a happy experience. You don't need GOD to know that. As for GOD, he is your subconcious as many of you I'm sure already found out. Why do we pray for instance? We are talking to our subconcious: "God bless my children, god bless my test today". We are mentally preparing objectives. Thats a whole other topic of discussion. Point is I don't like what is being portrayed on TV of how money solves everything. We must find what we are good at, evaluate it, root out the detrimental aspects of it, and pursue it to the highest degree possible, only then will our world be a successful place. Its sad how parents push their children to become doctors or scientists. And the children listen and don't succeed, and if they do but don't enjoy it, are miserable, and commit evil acts to channel their anger, I've seen it happen. We must open our childrens eyes through the internet and let them find what they like. But parents watch T.V. too so its a vicious cycle. That's my opinion. I wish for it to happen in my lifetime. Just imagine what peoples minds will envision if its filled with science and useful information instead of useless crap like who is Justin Timberlake dating today? or Who is the richest person on the planet?

This I say from my experience. It may seem rosy, but I believe it can happen!:mad:

However, I don't like the reason why billions of people do what they do: MONEY, "MIGHT", INFLUENCE, BRAGGING RIGHTS, MATERIALISM. I believe everyone has a purpose bigger than themselves and that is to help the human race. We musn't compete with eachother, but compete with ourselves. And I can't stress that enough. I find that when I compete against someone else I lose, and I'm depressed. I feel that way because I'm concentrating on that person not myself, not my efforts. Some of you already have the picture of a lion chasing a deer in the African Sahara. Well are we animals? We are, but we are a different kind, with much more advanced abilities. We must work with ourselves. Our currency must be our contributions to the human race, but they must obviously be moral. What's moral you might ask? I'm not going to talk about religion because I don't believe in it! I'm talking about logic. If you create the internet you know it will create communication and transfer of knowledge. When you create a gun you know it will create death. Death isn't good it isn't a happy experience.
Great post. You have barely touched up on something I understand very well. There is much more to this. Unfortunately, capitalism, communism, and most primitive social systems we consider so effective are actually our enemies. None of these systems work. None of them account for real human social development.

Thank you. And you are right, I don't know enough about government or w.e. these systems are called. I'm only 18. :D But I think we should be responsible enough to create a system! Any ideas?

Yes. Lots in fact. It is the science of community development.
We have to understand human development to understand community develpment.
We ask questions such as what is prosperity and how can we determine what is prosperous?
We also have to question and study ethical rights.
Is it right for one person to have more than another based on divine birthright?
To you and I this may seem like a no-brainer, but many years ago, this was the norm.

Now, things that City Design scientists have come to grips with is that the a great majority of things that we understand to be the norm are completely dysfunctional and unethical. This however is not a no-brainer for most because people are still attatched to primitive paradigms of 2006.

Real city design scientists think in terms of practicality. The existence of ethics, and the relationship between ethics an practicality.

The importance of objectivity. City design scientists do our best not to allow current standards and view points to influence our understanding. We know through history, that the majority view tends to be discovered false. Over the years this global trait has gotten less and less. Or has it? Perhaps we have not progressed that global masses have not progressed that much in terms of understanding reality.

Esotericism tends to mean exclusive knowledge. Either way, there is an enormous amount of understanding that we have about the global community that would probably not occur to a typical individual in a million years. (figuratively). It turns out that much if the standards are very wrong, and ultimately belong in the waste basket of historical failures. As we learn and study more and more through objectivity, we begin to develop better abilities and aptitudes at community city design. The symbiosis between the individual, the community, and nature (animals/environment). The circle of life.

Theories about survival of the fittest need not go beyond self preservation. Survival. Yet the typical individual might apply these ideas beyond survivaland into everyday life as if they know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, his is a huge mistake in thought process. This is just one of many examples of how we supposedly educated people foolishly take things at face value without the consideration of insight.

Is anyone online now?

I also have another question that I am stumped on. This is more of an investment question: How is the purchase of a corporate financial asset really an investment in something that is illiquid?
How would it not be?
Relative to the owner, it can be liquidated anytime.


Also, what capitalist institutions depend directly on money to fulfill their purpose? I know instituions such as banks, federal reserves, basically anything that would be considered legal tender.
None of them essentially depend on money itself.
Money depends on them.
Money has no real value.
Gold is usually a measure of value.

The highest measure of value is influence. More specifically guns. Guns control the planet. Those with the most guns have the most riches. There is nothing our military and CIA does that is not in the best interest of the plutocracy.

The state of the American economy is soleley relative to the plutocracy's profitability. The only question when determining social functionality:
Is this profitable to the plutocracy?

Is providing American's with benefit X profitable to the Plutocracy?
Is denying American's of benefit X profitable to the Plutocracy?

I'll replace the term "money" with "resources".
Denying benefit X would naturally be more profitable because resources may go directly to the rich instead of the poor.

Providing benefit X would only be profitable if denying it would cause catastrophy that is not profitable.


The economy has nothing to do with freedom. This illusion of an economy, what we refer to as capitalism, is only about one thing.
Profitability of the plutocracy.

lixluke

Are you a Situationist? a la Guy Debord?

Do I look like a bloody situationalist? a la Gay and Bored?

Do I look like a bloody situationalist? a la Gay and Bored?

I just came across some of his work. He was an anti-capitalistic who believed that wealth should be shared by all people and no one should be forced to work. It seemed to echo some of the stuff I read in your posts.

CAPITALISM IMPOVERISHES. Profit and competition drive to monopoly and monopoly impoverishes individual members of the bourgeoisie, in open conflict with one another. It eliminates previous means of production though holdovers from these may continue within capitalism so long as they remain marginal (small business, artisans, individual farmers). It impoverishes the proletariat, which, having created the wealth and the conditions for the emergence of higher relations of production, is totally expropriated.

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/certain.html

I just came across some of his work. He was an anti-capitalistic who believed that wealth should be shared by all people and no one should be forced to work. It seemed to echo some of the stuff I read in your posts.



http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/certain.html

Problem is, that sorta Utopia vision just is not realistic, it's impossible, with these people, with this current population, it's impossible.

Sure some people could actually survive under any system, I mean, it does not make a difference to some if we are capitalist, communist, socialist, or whatever as long as people survive and humanity survives.

I think, whatever we do, we will have a lot more work to do in the future than we have now. We have 6 billion people, but we give all the work to 1-2 billion of them, and we work people for 8 hours a day, sometimes 10, for 5 days a week, theres no real reason for all this work anymore because we have plenty of people.

What do we need to work on? We need to actually work on protecting stuff, like the environment, the planet itself, etc. We need to work on going into space, and on building the space industry. We need to work on technology.

But you see, we are so busy building weapons and fighting ourselves that we arent progressing as quickly as a species as we could, and this is simple, as a species we just arent ready to progress. Some people might be ready, but most arent. Might makes right because humans want to control other humans instead of protect other humans. It's easy to control something, it does not require any love at all, it's simple, you control what it eats and drinks, and where it can travel, and you have control over it, very much like how people control pets, and eventually you domesticate it. Thats control, and thats what humans focus on most. There are good reasons why, like fear and insecurity, but eventually, we will have to decide the fate of our species, because if we fight ourselves forever theres nothing to stop us from fighting ourselves out of existance.

I guess it seems obvious, but other species have gone extinct because they hunted each other out of existance, or because we hunted them out of existance. It's just as easy for us to hunt ourselves out of existance.

Some of you people seem as if you don't understand that we have
become life-threatning species. We destroy life while thinking about
capitalism as a best solution we have to settle with!?

I addmit. I can't propose a better system accept small, self-efficient economies. But soon,my pro-capitalism friends, the world will be in such a mess, you wan't even know what hit us. I am a biologist, and numbers are saying the same for decades, and now science community if becoming louder and louder. The mass exploatation must stop.

I don't need Ipod, plasmaTV, Big Brother etc. ... You may think
capitalism, which is obviously reaching it's climax, will work, but
the trees that give you oxigen are being cut, in last 40 years population of tuna fish has troped to 10%, water that
brought life is becoming more acidic and sea food circle is changing.
So, nature doesn't give a damn about capitalism. It will regenerate for milions of years, again, like it did after extinction of dinosaurs, or when big asteroid at the end of Perm almost stoped life. Famine, epidemics, tidal waves, lack of food, bioweapons are crucial words
today..not wars, democracy, peace or freedom - those are just universal.
every sane man knows that there will always be war, unjustice etc....

Those of you who think of capitalism as best solution...
Humans have made the biggest step in social evolution when they
started to cultivate the soil as an adaptation to specific ecosysthem
(leaving the nomadic-alwyas moving way of life). First cultures emerged. By working the soil
we managed to get goods in return. THAT IS REAL EFFICIENCY.
Who saved Europe in days of plague ???! People who brought potato.
And who is responsible for the speciation of modern potato?
South american native people, their culture and way of life.
Potatos or corn didn't just grow to this size because God wanted to
redecorate his garden of Eden. We have to get back to that point.
Think about it. Diversity makes you stronger, more adaptive and
imune...not money in your pocket (supposing you are not self-centered).

TT uses typcial Slave Meme arguments such as Utopia in order to perpetuate the slave driven nightmare distopia we live in.

No war, not poverty, no violent crimes, no oppression, feedom of speech, and freedom activity. These are all the rights of humans on earth whether you like it or not. Freedom to go where you want to go and do what you want to do without hinderance by others. Social freedom is the lack of freedom to intefere witht he rights of humans.

Did you ever notice how slaves are programmed to hate utopia, and consider that realism? It's called cynicism. Realism is the belief that reality is independent of perception. Using "utopia" in a negative connotation is a loaded statement of the Slave Meme mentality. It's impossible. I'm a realist. Boo hoo. It's all programmed slave meme concepts with no basis in realism, and by far not reaslit or realistic.

I'm a little confused, doesn't it make sense that wars are really useless, if everyone worked together for a common goal then we'd get alot more done then when beating eachother up over materials?! What would make that not true?

Yes they are useless unless you are the master of slaves. Therefore, you convince the slaves that wars are inevitbale. Practical, necessary, and useful even. Then they defend the inevitability and necessity of war with all of their might. The same goes for poverty, crime, etc. They are brainwashed into perpetuating these things instead of eliminating them.

Yes they are useless unless you are the master of slaves. Therefore, you convince the slaves that wars are inevitbale. Practical, necessary, and useful even. Then they defend the inevitability and necessity of war with all of their might. The same goes for poverty, crime, etc. They are brainwashed into perpetuating these things instead of eliminating them.

"The War to End All Wars" seems too popular a concept for any of the above to be reasonable. Sometimes I wonder if George Orwell taught you world history. Or rather his writing -- I wouldn't want to belittle the man himself like that.

I'm a little confused, doesn't it make sense that wars are really useless, if everyone worked together for a common goal...

And how do you expect to get billions of people to agree on ANY common goal? I mean, damn, have you ever tried to get people to agree on, say, waht to order on a pizza??? It's almost impossible!

You're livin' in a dreamworld that has no connection to reality.

Baron Max

Yes they are useless unless you are the master of slaves. Therefore, you convince the slaves that wars are inevitbale. Practical, necessary, and useful even. Then they defend the inevitability and necessity of war with all of their might. The same goes for poverty, crime, etc. They are brainwashed into perpetuating these things instead of eliminating them.

It is the oscillation of war and peace-periods that is constant.
The face of war may change, but not the concept. It's universal.
The war will allways be in various forms and in future,even more hidious ones.
Mental warfare, or, it will always be present in forms of games...You can't ban it.
Some preacefull nations were able to develop because they won The War,
or they managed to defend themselves.There is no creating without destroying something.
But greed driven economy is the main reason we have so many conflicts today,
not the nature of war itself.

The basis for war is competition, Stephen. Your "greed driven economy" is only another facet of that aspect of man. Humans are mammals. We compete.

It is amusing to think of these whiny little products of modern civilisation being placed in an environment where the very system they rail against no longer exists to provide them with a relatively comfortable and secure life from which they could freely do so.

The basis for war is competition, Stephen. Your "greed driven economy" is only another facet of that aspect of man. Humans are mammals. We compete.

It is amusing to think of these whiny little products of modern civilisation being placed in an environment where the very system they rail against no longer exists to provide them with a relatively comfortable and secure life from which they could freely do so.


I agree, we compete. But competition as a form of interspecies relation
is about competing for essential resources. When we croos the line of
"ok, that's enough", which is common in nature, the size of population after
"golden age" begins to drop exponentially. We are near that point.
So greed is making us more unhuman, it's is our human-derivated facet.
I really doubt that we will be dominant species ever again.

Greed is unhuman, it's unlogical and will become evolutionary relict if we
manage to warn future civilisation of it's "potential". But some nations
are warning us all the time. Mayan people, N. American red people..
They have oral heredity that goes way back to the last ice-age, and
even further.

So yes, we compete. But we were not parasites.
By greed, we became parasites. So the humas that
Fight humas, but respect their place in nature, are
of one kind. And of other, are those who accumulate,
exploit, and sell things + dictate their values. Those
have no natural enemy, and are so are specialized that they
droped out of natural compentiton circle and are doomed to extinction.
Every parasite has copmetition in host's body, but if the infection is
too strong, the whole system will collapse.

I don't want to be parasitic humanoid. Maybe we are
witnessing division into new species.

The war will allways be
This is a slave meme.
It is illogical. It cannot be proven. It is a meme that war is inevtiable one way or another. There will always be ware. Of course, this is fallse. This is a meme with no basis in logical reality. It is a meme created by social brainwashing. Convince the slaves that wars are inevitbale. Practical, necessary, and useful even. Then they defend the inevitability and necessity of war with all of their might. The same goes for poverty, crime, etc. They are brainwashed into perpetuating these things instead of eliminating them.

YOU ARE DOING NOTHING BUT DEFENDING THE INVEITABILITY OF WAR, AND THEREFORE, DEFENDING THE NECESSITY OF WAR. WAR IS A DISFUNCTION. NOT AN INEVITABILITY. DEFINITELY NOT A NECESSITY.

Disfunctions are anything that hinder growth and development. Such as war. The belief that war fosters growth and development is warped senile slave meme cultural brainwashing.

warped senile slave meme cultural brainwashing
I imagine you slobbering when you say this out loud. Nonetheless, you are right. One day there will be no war, no hunger, no conflict, no suffering. One day we will all be dead, and there will be no humans left to commit atrocities.

If society had no problems, there would be no war, violence, and poverty. It just so happens that it is everywhere. Now we see how truly screwed up crappytalism really is.

If society had no problems, there would be no war, violence, and poverty. It just so happens that it is everywhere. Now we see how truly screwed up crappytalism really is.

Hmm, but wasn't there war and violence long, long before capitalism was instated?

And just remember; If the fox hadn't stopped to take a shit, he'd have caught the rabbit! Statements with "IF" in them are usually just about as valuable as that ...worth nothing.

Baron Max

If society had no problems, there would be no war, violence, and poverty. It just so happens that it is everywhere. Now we see how truly screwed up crappytalism really is.
No society, no problems. There's your answer. Kill everyone.

Remember, a free human is free to fuck things up for everyone else on a mere whim.

Hmm, but wasn't there war and violence long, long before capitalism was instated?
Yes there was. Relevance?


And just remember; If the fox hadn't stopped to take a shit, he'd have caught the rabbit! Statements with "IF" in them are usually just about as valuable as that ...worth nothing.
WTF does this mean? Are you retarded?

No society, no problems. There's your answer. Kill everyone.

Remember, a free human is free to fuck things up for everyone else on a mere whim.
Nobody is talking about killing everybody. Only if humans were to the earth like a virus is to a creature would that make any sense.

Whereas a mammal adapts to surrounding environment symbiotically, humans destroy it. An animal plays a symbiotic role in its ecosystem. The most simple example of this is breathing. The release of CO2 needed for plant life, and the release of O2 needed for human life. A virus enters an area, harnesses its resources, and multiplying. All resulting in the destruction of the area, and the expansive spread of the virus throughout the area. The virus kills everything in site until there is nothing left. Ultimately, the area is destroyed, and the virus dies with it.

Nobody is talking about killing everybody.
Wrong. I am talking about killing everybody.

Only if humans were to the earth like a virus is to a creature would that make any sense.
Who mentioned the environment? We're talking about society here.

Whereas a mammal adapts to surrounding environment symbiotically, humans destroy it. An animal plays a symbiotic role in its ecosystem. The most simple example of this is breathing. The release of CO2 needed for plant life, and the release of O2 needed for human life. A virus enters an area, harnesses its resources, and multiplying. All resulting in the destruction of the area, and the expansive spread of the virus throughout the area. The virus kills everything in site until there is nothing left. Ultimately, the area is destroyed, and the virus dies with it.
Other than humans, animals of the same species do not kill each other, either. Also, animals do not fear strife or hunger, for they never starve or struggle. Animals only live in peace and harmony. Humans are a scourge and should be eliminated.

Other than humans, animals of the same species do not kill each other, either. Also, animals do not fear strife or hunger, for they never starve or struggle. Animals only live in peace and harmony. Humans are a scourge and should be eliminated.
Ya right!

Ya right!
So then do you blame on the starvation of animals their dysfunctional economic model?

No they don't have an economic model. WTF planet are you on? If it isn't one thing, it's bumkindergarteners running about claiming that animals have economic models. How truly pathetic indeed your bumkindergarten understanding of economics. If you ever get to 1st grade, perhaps you will realize that economics is for humans. Not for Simba, Big Bird, or Barney.

No they don't have an economic model. WTF planet are you on? If it isn't one thing, it's bumkindergarteners running about claiming that animals have economic models. How truly pathetic indeed your bumkindergarten understanding of economics. If you ever get to 1st grade, perhaps you will realize that economics is for humans. Not for Simba, Big Bird, or Barney.
Hey Adam Smith, economics is for anything that consumes resources, and that includes computer programs, baseball teams, and animal populations. In fact it would be very helpful, perhaps even applicable to human societies, if you actually had a way of managing resources such that, for example, male animals ceased their violent and competitive impulses during mating season. We also have pituitary glands (though you may not) so perhaps your miracle cure for testosterone-saturated economic policies will save the world from unpleasantness.

This is a slave meme.
It is illogical. It cannot be proven. It is a meme that war is inevtiable one way or another. There will always be ware. Of course, this is fallse. This is a meme with no basis in logical reality. It is a meme created by social brainwashing. Convince the slaves that wars are inevitbale. Practical, necessary, and useful even. Then they defend the inevitability and necessity of war with all of their might. The same goes for poverty, crime, etc. They are brainwashed into perpetuating these things instead of eliminating them.

YOU ARE DOING NOTHING BUT DEFENDING THE INVEITABILITY OF WAR, AND THEREFORE, DEFENDING THE NECESSITY OF WAR. WAR IS A DISFUNCTION. NOT AN INEVITABILITY. DEFINITELY NOT A NECESSITY.

Disfunctions are anything that hinder growth and development. Such as war. The belief that war fosters growth and development is warped senile slave meme cultural brainwashing.

You should really check Heraclitus and almost every known creation myth,
and then be able to find out that "states" of order and chaos have always oscillated.
I am not reffering to necessity of war. The principle of war-peace is what I think
you don't understand. Peace is a necessity, but if you think about it,
all we can do, is to make those peace-periods to last longer. Sooner, or
later, if you respect one's right of choice, or just "live peacefully", there will be people/creatures/Earth's cataclisms that will induce wars. Total social control you are reffering to is static model and is illogical. We are all paralelling in social evolution, but not in the same directions.

Wrong. I
Other than humans, animals of the same species do not kill each other, either. Also, animals do not fear strife or hunger, for they never starve or struggle. Animals only live in peace and harmony. Humans are a scourge and should be eliminated.

Animals live in peace and harmony..
Animals do compete, invasive species do eliminate others,
bugs do dominate global fauna, mammals were food for
dinosaurs before the "big crash"...

Peace and harmony is a human-made concept, but it is
reffering to state of balance in ecosystem. On various
levels of interrelations in nature; destruction, elimination,
domination, balance and inbalance are just always happening...
Not just symbiosis, mutualism, endosymbiosis, coexistence.
Face it. You are deliberately seeing just one side of the medal.

We are out of that balance. But soon, it will affect us.
Population will dramatically drop, and we will be back on the
tracks. Like any other group of animals. Are you familliar with
evolutionist term "narrow throath"? It has happend to "us" before.
If there are too many of us and still increasing, than i suppose
you know what is inevitable.

FOLKS, IT IS ALL NATURAL. The problem is most of us can't face it.
We are corrupted with greed.

FOLKS, IT IS ALL NATURAL. The problem is most of us can't face it.

Well, isn't us not facing it also natural? Besides, what do you mean "We can't face it"? Don't we face it every-fuckin'-day of our lives?

We are corrupted with greed.

Isn't our greed natural?

Perhaps you fail to see that everything is natural? ...even all of our "faults"? We often like to think that our dirty, polluted, crime-ridden cities are unnatural, but that's just not so ...cities, skyscrapers and crime are perfectly natural occurances in human evolution.

Stephen, you typed a lot to say very damned little ...and even some that was erroneous!

Baron Max

You should really check Heraclitus and almost every known creation myth,
and then be able to find out that "states" of order and chaos have always oscillated.
Wrong. States of order and chaos have nothing to do with war and peace.
Such states are about creation, decay, destruction. You are taking one idea, and applying it to something COMPLETELY different. War is not inevitable. War is not necessary. Anybody that wants it can simply rationalize an explanation for its inevitability. A rationalization is a lie to yourself. Anybody slave on this planet that has been programmed to want war can rationalize thousands upon thousands of rationalized forms of reasoning about why war is inevitable. Rationalization is not logic. It's brain damage.

All humans are capable of living with individual clear minds without any major emotional disfunction. This does not stop the process of decay. All societies are capable of functioning peacefully and prosperously without any major disfunction. This does not stop the process of decay.
There are many things beyond the control of humanity. Disfunctions such as war and poverty are not one of them. You irrationally propose they are out of our control. Slave mentality meme. Pathetic.

So many slaves come up with rationalizations about why war is inevitable. This is a result of preprogrammed fear of peace. This fear of peace is part of zombie programming to control humans. False beliefs are limiting beliefs. They limit people like shackles. The only way to eliminate fears of peace is to assess our false limiting beliefs, and transmute them into beliefs that will not limit us like shackles. Humans are gifted with unlimited degree of personal potential that remains dormant do to shackles that keel them from being free. Take all the false slave memes that limit the mind, and transmute them into beliefs of control over yourself.

False Belief 1:
I believe that war is inevitable as an aspect of the cycle of chaos and order.

Transmutation:
I believe that the end of war is inevitable as and aspect of melioristic laws of the universe.

Let's learn our lesson from physical slavery. For thousands of years, physical slavery, the ownership and trade of human beings, was a normal standard. Any talk about the elimination of slavery fell under the same category of impossibility. It will never happen. <-Recognize the slave meme “It will never happen”. Well it eventually did happen. Not as part of the cycle of order and chaos, but as part of inevitable human progressive evolution. War and poverty will abide by the same law no matter what. Physical slavery is not only no longer the standard. It is virtually unheard of and culturally despised. Slavery went from culturally accepted to culturally despised. War and poverty might be more complicated. Allowing poverty upon people and committing acts of war upon other countries is a deplorable act of leadership.

Anytime somebody says “It will NEVER happen” or “There will ALWAYS be” in reference to social disfunctions and solving them, they are speaking from the slave meme of programmed rationalization.

Wrong. States of order and chaos have nothing to do with war and peace.
Such states are about creation, decay, destruction. You are taking one idea, and applying it to something COMPLETELY different. War is not inevitable. War is not necessary. Anybody that wants it can simply rationalize an explanation for its inevitability. A rationalization is a lie to yourself. Anybody slave on this planet that has been programmed to want war can rationalize thousands upon thousands of rationalized forms of reasoning about why war is inevitable. Rationalization is not logic. It's brain damage.

All humans are capable of living with individual clear minds without any major emotional disfunction. This does not stop the process of decay. All societies are capable of functioning peacefully and prosperously without any major disfunction. This does not stop the process of decay.
There are many things beyond the control of humanity. Disfunctions such as war and poverty are not one of them. You irrationally propose they are out of our control. Slave mentality meme. Pathetic.

So many slaves come up with rationalizations about why war is inevitable. This is a result of preprogrammed fear of peace. This fear of peace is part of zombie programming to control humans. False beliefs are limiting beliefs. They limit people like shackles. The only way to eliminate fears of peace is to assess our false limiting beliefs, and transmute them into beliefs that will not limit us like shackles. Humans are gifted with unlimited degree of personal potential that remains dormant do to shackles that keel them from being free. Take all the false slave memes that limit the mind, and transmute them into beliefs of control over yourself.

False Belief 1:
I believe that war is inevitable as an aspect of the cycle of chaos and order.

Transmutation:
I believe that the end of war is inevitable as and aspect of melioristic laws of the universe.

Let's learn our lesson from physical slavery. For thousands of years, physical slavery, the ownership and trade of human beings, was a normal standard. Any talk about the elimination of slavery fell under the same category of impossibility. It will never happen. <-Recognize the slave meme “It will never happen”. Well it eventually did happen. Not as part of the cycle of order and chaos, but as part of inevitable human progressive evolution. War and poverty will abide by the same law no matter what. Physical slavery is not only no longer the standard. It is virtually unheard of and culturally despised. Slavery went from culturally accepted to culturally despised. War and poverty might be more complicated. Allowing poverty upon people and committing acts of war upon other countries is a deplorable act of leadership.

Anytime somebody says “It will NEVER happen” or “There will ALWAYS be” in reference to social disfunctions and solving them, they are speaking from the slave meme of programmed rationalization.

I must admitt I don't understand your theory.
War brings chaos, things get out of balance. Peace
maintains equilibrium.
Tell me what war means to you?
Most of peacefull nations remained peacefull way because of isolation.

Are you saying that one day, all human white blood cells
will ceace to defend the body because we managed to kill
all existing microbs through evolution?! Isn't that analogy apropriate?
We are not a homogeneus society. I don't know about your background,
but my country has been (Europe/Balcan border) trough history
always(sorry, for long time) "on fire". WAR IS CHAOS. I'm slave of your society
(probably), and THEY and thier geopolitics kill my people. Not f** wrong worldview.
Don't insult our intelligence. My nation is a very peacefull nation.
Look for REASONS for war and peace, why do you hypothesize so much?
I am very healthy and that is good for me, it's not necessary to be ill, so I can always be healthy?!?
You model is static. Enemy is within us. People go to wars because of
deseases, better living conditions, goods, sense of pride, mistakes in communication,
betrayal..
We are far more complex.

No I am saying that theories of chaos and order are irrelevant to situationals such as war.

Moreso that the only thing that can be proven as fact are anything based on empirial scientific experiment. You cannot say that war is or is not inevitable becuase you cannot prove it through experimental testing.

Your ideas abut war being chaos are not logical. They are one of thousands of rationalizations for the purpose of convincing yourself that war is inevitable. It is a result of brainwashing. Nobody is discussing your reasons about how war is inevitable. It is possible to give thousands of reasons why war is inevitable. It is a circular argument that goes nowhere. Brainwashed people use circular reasoning over logic in order to think. They think in contradictions. They cannot tell the difference because their brain comes up with rationalizations to fill in illogical gaps.

Your argument along with thousands of others make no difference from the facts at hand. War is not inevitable, but there are thousands of ways to rationalize that it is inevitable.

The question is not whether chaos has anything to do with war. The question is why are you rationalizing excuses to make war inevitable. If it's not that excuse, it's another. You know nothing about order, chaos, decay, and entropy of systems.

War is not inevitable, but there are thousands of ways to rationalize that it is inevitable.

Humans have been in conflict with other humans since the beginning of human existence .....how do you think you can stop that? ...with just a few words and a typed up theory?

You have a lot to learn about humans ....a helluva lot!!

Baron Max

Animals live in peace and harmony..
Animals do compete, invasive species do eliminate others,
bugs do dominate global fauna, mammals were food for
dinosaurs before the "big crash"...

Peace and harmony is a human-made concept, but it is
reffering to state of balance in ecosystem. On various
levels of interrelations in nature; destruction, elimination,
domination, balance and inbalance are just always happening...
Not just symbiosis, mutualism, endosymbiosis, coexistence.
Face it. You are deliberately seeing just one side of the medal.
Actually, I am being sarcastic; and I am highly amused that neither you nor Licks Luke considered it, rightly, so absurd as to question my seriousness.

Humans have been in conflict with other humans since the beginning of human existence .....how do you think you can stop that? ...with just a few words and a typed up theory?

You have a lot to learn about humans ....a helluva lot!!

Baron Max
You don't know crap about humans.
You have not even made any relevant point.

No I am saying that theories of chaos and order are irrelevant to situationals such as war.

Moreso that the only thing that can be proven as fact are anything based on empirial scientific experiment. You cannot say that war is or is not inevitable becuase you cannot prove it through experimental testing.

Your ideas abut war being chaos are not logical. They are one of thousands of rationalizations for the purpose of convincing yourself that war is inevitable. It is a result of brainwashing. Nobody is discussing your reasons about how war is inevitable. It is possible to give thousands of reasons why war is inevitable. It is a circular argument that goes nowhere. Brainwashed people use circular reasoning over logic in order to think. They think in contradictions. They cannot tell the difference because their brain comes up with rationalizations to fill in illogical gaps.

Your argument along with thousands of others make no difference from the facts at hand. War is not inevitable, but there are thousands of ways to rationalize that it is inevitable.

The question is not whether chaos has anything to do with war. The question is why are you rationalizing excuses to make war inevitable. If it's not that excuse, it's another. You know nothing about order, chaos, decay, and entropy of systems.

I am NOT defending inevitabilty of war. The idea of prolonging
peace-periods is of my greatest consideration. I am not trying to PROVE something with logic. Reasoning has made us really advanced but,
unfortunately, extremly emotionaly numb and unaware of our energies.
I agree with you that we are slaves of one system in which people who play the main roles simply don't care, you know...THEY DON'T CARE.
We just need to USE the energy that constantly streams trough
our planet-solar system-universe,instead of drilling the plates,making
nuclear plants, destroying water ecosystems with power plants etc...

I don't know much about chaos...That state is a very lame or no argument
for proving that one DOESN'T UNDERSTAND the big picture.

Typical western academic arrogant mindset.

You really know something if you can explain it to the plain folks, you know, not form a bubble
around yourself and breed arrogance.

Go to the 3rd World countries and try to explain to ignorant peasant your slave-brainwashing theory.
Try to make them think about it trough your perspective. I have 1000 of reasons to explain
your mindset but I rather go out and seek a peasant and help him with his garden and try to
chat with him about "that power plant across the road" and his deforming potatoes.

This has nothing to do with western or eastern mindesets as the facts remain the same regardless of anybody's mindset. Cycles of chaos and order have nothing to do with temporalities. You are confusing specifics and universals. War/peace is not a universal. War cannot abide by the cycle. The only reason you are mentioning the cycle is that humans are preprogrammed to believe that war is inevitable. Therefore, they rationalize up any excuse UNWILLINGLY to defend it. Why choose to make excuses to defend the inevitability of war
(a limited slave mindeset) over coming up with reasons on how we can achieve exerlasting peace (mindset paradigm of taking responsibility).

1. If I wanted to sit here and convince myself that war is inevitable, I can create thousands of excuses of why war is inevitable.

2. If I wanted to get up, and pursue everlasting peace, I can throw the question of war inevitability out of the window, and pursue the inevitability of everlasting peace without question. Is war inevitable? It's not that I or anybody has an answer to that question. It is that I refuse to acknowledge a question that cannot be answered, and take action towards to total end of war as we know it.

Which mindset should an intelligent individual choose?
#1
#2

2#, ofcourse

Ok, let's not about argue abut inevitabiliy of war anymore.
The last thing I want to happen to us is another war.
The idea of prolonging is peace-periods is positive and dynamic.
It is a question of seeking balance, compromises, the idea
you can propose to any enemy which enabels you to start
right away with forming bodies, costums, federations that would
stop the slaugher. You have to start with 2,3 people,
than the idea starts to spread in concentric circles.

But,for example,USA has "modified" the Geneva convention in a way
that is just absurd.
If you think that you are gods and rulers of the planet,than nothing can stop you from destroying life and building weapons of mass destruction.
The problem is,again, dehumanization and greed.

"pursue the inevitability of everlasting peace without question"
is not a dialog-based idea. it's not about finding common
need for peace and stability that stops the anger and slaughter
in a given situation.

It's not necessarily war. It's a question of human on human violence. From the first act of human on human violence up until the present day format of war and violent crime. Human on human violence is not a format of balance, but can be seen as a glitch. The elimination of glitches represesnts the progress of civilization. As we grow, our capacity to eliminate glitches grows. This is an exponential acceleration of progress.


Humans have 2 choices. Apologism and Meliorism. Apologism is the belief that there is nothing we can do about anything. Meliroism is the belief that human intention can and natrually will guide humanity's progress.


One of today's dillemas is of progressing onward into a civilization that considers human on human violence a thing of the past. Just as slavery which although we know exists in many form, it is none the less becoming more and more a thing of the past. These are intelligent questions that require very intelligent answers.

Human evolution is a progressive movement. Not an aspect of the cycle of order and chaos. Decay is an aspect of the chaos/order cycle.

As civilization evolves, there will eventually come a time when human on human violence is not just something that we have no comprehension of, but something we unintentionally prevent from manifesting as a result of our evolved psychological conditioning.

What I am basically saying is that the issue is not as much about war whereas it is ultimately about human on human violence.
1. Should we consider human on human violence a problem (glitch)? I would.

2. Or should we consider it an inevitable aspect of our nature or an inevitable aspect of reality? The ongoing meme would abide by the second. As long as we abide by the second paradigm, there is no reason to solve it.

As long as we abide by the first paradigm, we can look into solving it. What are the factos involved in human on human violence? What specific actions can we take to intentionally put a stop to any act of human on human violence from ever happening again? What can I do to control my own behavior?

What specific actions can we take to intentionally put a stop to any act of human on human violence from ever happening again? What can I do to control my own behavior?

Controlling ones own behavior is not enough, everyone's behavior must be controlled. I.e., if someone feels it necessary to assault you, you can meekly do nothing and let him kick the shit out of you ....but that does nothing to stop HIS violent behavior.

Thus, if you wish to control violence in the world, you must control EVERYONE'S violence. And to do so is pretty tough ...without making everyone feel, think and act exactly like everyone else. Is that what you want? Robots?

Baron Max

No it is not. That is what the law is for. That is what human rights are for. There are crime and punishment techniques for preventing human on human violence. Current crime and punishment techniques incorporate human on human violence such as police brutality and death penality.

There are ways to respectfully apprehend criminals. All humans whether criminal or not have the right to be treated respectfully by police who are paid by taxpayer money. This means that while on duty, police have to abide by an code of conduct that prevents them from having personal feelings against those they arrest. They must be objective at all times, and respectful at all times.

Unfortunately, our police system has no such code of conduct. The result is a culture of standard human on human violence. The death penality is also human on human violence.

As long as the authorities do not have their acts together to uphold the elimintation of human on human violence within the borders of their jursdiction, human on human violence will continue. As long as authorities use human on human violence to enforce the elimination of human on human violence, it will never be eliminated. It is simply chasing your own tail.

But you are right, not allowing human on human violence among a community of humans is something that must be enforced within the law no matter how peaceful a community is. Freedom is not being free to hurt others. Freedom is the lack of freedom to violate the rights of others along with the equal lack of freedom to violate your rights. One of which is the right to be free of human on human violence. As well as the right to live without the threat of human on human violence within ones's State which is established with the specific responsibility of protecting these rights.

No it is not. That is what the law is for. That is what human rights are for. There are crime and punishment techniques for preventing human on human violence.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the law and the courts DO NOT prevent violence, they only punish the violent ones AFTER the violence.

But you are right, not allowing human on human violence among a community of humans is something that must be enforced within the law...

But the law only works AFTER the violence occurs, not before! So your idea doesn't change anything.

Freedom is not being free to hurt others.

No, you're wrong. One can't control every person's actions BEFORE the fact. If they do, then you're essentially taking away that person's freedom to act as he see fit ..even if that means violence against another.

Freedom is the lack of freedom to violate the rights of others along with the equal lack of freedom to violate your rights.

Then you're controlling the FUTURE acts of individuals ..how can you do that? How can we monitor everyone's thoughts of violence towards others, then apprehend them BEFORE they can act?

I think you need to think long and hard about what you're suggesting. It's something that, as I see it, simply won't work, can't work, in a free society. It may not be nice to contemplate, but without the freedom to harm someone else, one does not have freedom! It's an odd concept, but you should think about it before you respond to quickly.

Baron Max

No. Laws against violence are to prevent violence. Human on human violence is against the law. Freedom is protection from violence. Freedom is not being free to commit violent acts upon others. Freedom is the lack of freedom to commit violent acts against others.

The question of whether or not we should prevent violence is one thing. If the answer is no, than there is no point in preventing violence. If the answer is yes, then the next question is how to prevent violence.
Do humans have natural the right to commit violent acts against other humans? Do you have natural the right to murder somebody? Do you have the natural right to walk around chopping peopl's limbs off? Do others have the natural right to do the same to you?

Laws against violence are to prevent violence.

Then how are so many murderers getting away with it?

Human on human violence is against the law.

It don't stop the violence now, and there are tons of laws against it already.

Freedom is protection from violence.

So ...we'll all have armed security guards with us at all times for our protection against violence????

Freedom is the lack of freedom to commit violent acts against others.

So freedom is actually taking away some of our freedoms which exist even now in the present day? Interesting concept, huh?

Baron Max

Do humans have natural the right to commit violent acts against other humans? Do you have natural the right to murder somebody?

The "right"???? I don't know what you mean by that, especially in this context. But, yes, we DO have the freedom to do it ...how you can't see that is totally beyond me.

Even by preventing a person from committing a future violent act is a loss of that person's freedoms as granted by the Constitution of the United States of America. How can you propose that loss of freedom??

Baron Max

There's no such thing as a natural right. Rights are man-made. No humans, no ethics.

"What are the factos involved in human on human violence? What specific actions can we take to intentionally put a stop to any act of human on human violence from ever happening again? What can I do to control my own behavior?"

This reminds me of great thinkers, like Aristotel, or Plato. But their theories
were also evolving. Aristotel had some an interesting ideas about human
cardiovascular system, but they were proved wrong.
I would like to help you..to integrate my point of view so we could clear
out the missleading concepts. It is a process in which the thinker
has to find people who will "belive" in his idea, philosophy,
at least 2 people, that an idea could evolve.

"There's no such thing as a natural right. Rights are man-made. No humans, no ethics."

Humas have their place in nature. They are a part of it.
If you kill human you destroy life/ "the big plan" , you
are damaging the whole system.

Humas have their place in nature. They are a part of it. If you kill human you destroy life/ "the big plan" , you are damaging the whole system.

Humans have done more to destroy the planet than all of the other animals combined. And yet you imply that they're "the big plan". Does that mean that "the big plan" is to destroy the planet totally?

"Damage the whole system"? Humans damage the whole system ...no other animal specie has done more damage than humans ..yet you don't want any of them killed?

Hmm?

Baron Max

Then how are so many murderers getting away with it?
You're an idiot. I already explained this in my last post moron.

So ...we'll all have armed security guards with us at all times for our protection against violence????
You are too stupid to learn how to read. Stop asking moronic question that have already been addressed. This question has already been answered. Retard.

Humas have their place in nature. They are a part of it.
If you kill human you destroy life/ "the big plan" , you
are damaging the whole system.

I agree, the destruction of human life affects the ecosystem. I never said that humans do not exist in nature, though. I said that rights do not exist in nature without humans.

I agree, the destruction of human life affects the ecosystem. I never said that humans do not exist in nature, though. I said that rights do not exist in nature without humans.

Well, of course they don't exist without us in nature.
We can all agree that "human rights" are human convention.

It is kind of thinking we need to root out. It is based on
abstract-static/noun-based/subject-object conceptional
thinking which is good just for economy, science and basically - calculating.

But we are not only reasonable, we can understand far more
complex things without reasoning them out. If we use verbs and
nouns that direct us toward seeking our connection with the
Earth, concepts of Marriage, Heaven, Hell, King, Premier, they all
fall apart, mostly because they have no connection whatsoever
with natural occurences.

Does that mean that "the big plan" is to destroy the planet totally?

"Damage the whole system"? Humans damage the whole system ...no other animal specie has done more damage than humans ..yet you don't want any of them killed?

Hmm?
Humans have done more to destroy the planet than all of the other animals combined.
Baron Max

Some have, Baron Max, but not everyone. If all humans were real parasites,
we would all just multiply, with no questions asked. But we are not.
The ruling class wants us to feel like there is enough of goods for
multiplying for millions of years, and here jumps lixluke with his brainwashed
slave-memes....
The truth is we have 20-30 years till things get really "heavy".

You may think that we are the worst thing that has ever happened to Earth,
but soon we will find out that we are irrelevant for it's survival and
continuation of life.

The entire population labors so that the rich can sit and do nothing. While you may work hard all day just to barely afford a decent place to live, the rich might make $500,000 per week without lifting a finger.

Take celebrities for instance. Anybody that thinks that celebrities do any work does not belong in this discussion. What celebrities do is not work. It is called, fun. Celebrities get paid tens of thousands of dollars per week to have fun. Celebrities do no work whatsoever.

Person A does lots of hard labor to get paid nothing.
Person B has lots of fun, and gets paid more in a week than Person A can make in years.

Crappytalism at its best.

The entire population labors so that the rich can sit and do nothing.

Well, perhaps they shouldn't do that then. Is anyone forcing them to work?

Baron Max

Well, perhaps they shouldn't do that then. Is anyone forcing them to work?

Baron Max
Yes. The rich do whatever it takes to force people to work. By the gun if they have to.
It's different from traditional slavery in which people are legally owned bought sold.

It is a different form of slavery in which the rich control everybody with their manipulation of the law. They own the law. The law does not protect poor people. The vice president can shoot somebody in broad daylight, and continue to run free. If a poor person did that to a rich person, the poor person gets fried. This is not equality.

This is might makes right crappytalism.

Yes. The rich do whatever it takes to force people to work. By the gun if they have to.

Then it's against the law and they should be prosecuted for it. We do have laws, ya' know?

Ya' know, capitalism has been used by humans since the first humans stood upright on the African plains. Being against capitalism is sorta' like being against humans dealing with other humans!

Baron Max

Ya' know, capitalism has been used by humans since the first humans stood upright on the African plains. Being against capitalism is sorta' like being against humans dealing with other humans!
Being against capitalism is not being against human. I guess you don't know what a human is considering you continue to bring up irrelevant nonsense that has nothing to do with being human. Nobody cares if capitalism has always been used. I don't give a crap if it has always been used since the beginning of time. It is inneffective. Something that is inneffective is slated for demolition.



Then it's against the law and they should be prosecuted for it. We do have laws, ya' know?
YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ.

It is a different form of slavery in which the rich control everybody with their manipulation of the law. They own the law. The law does not protect poor people. The vice president can shoot somebody in broad daylight, and continue to run free. If a poor person did that to a rich person, the poor person gets fried. This is not equality.

REFRAIN FROM RESPONDING IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ. EVERYTIME YOU RESPOND, IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED AND ADDRESSED AS IF IT WERE NEVER STATED.

Then it's against the law and they should be prosecuted for it. We do have laws, ya' know?

Ya' know, capitalism has been used by humans since the first humans stood upright on the African plains. Being against capitalism is sorta' like being against humans dealing with other humans!

Baron Max


TOTALLY WRONG. ANY SYSTEM THAT IS BASED PRIMARILY ON
ACCUMULATION AND CONSUMTION IS DOOMED TO DEATH.
IF IT CAN'T CLEAN IT'S OWN WASTE AND REPRODUCE...kgh!...dead.
AND WE ALL KNOW THAT EARTH IS ROUND.

CAPITALISM WAS NOT THE FIRST FORM OF INTERHUMAN RELATIONS.
TRY TO LEARN PRE-MODERN HISTORY.
MODERN HUMAN IS GOING INTO A DEAD END STREET. LEARN FROM OTHER CULTURES.
YOU MUST REALIZE THAT WE DESCEND FROM BRANCH OF
EUROPEAN - ROMAN - MIDDLE EAST CIVILIZATIONS.
THERE WERE PARALLELY COEXISTING CULTURES IN NORTH AND
SOUTH - MIDDLE AMERICA, AUSTRALIA AND SOME OF THEM
WERE EXTREMLY DEVELOPED AND RICH, BIOLOGICALLY AND CULTURALLY.
THEIR KNOWLEDGE HAS HELPED WHITE MAN IN SO MANY WAYS YOU
CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE.
AND YOU STILL CELEBRATE THE DAY WHEN COLUMBO "DISCOVERED" AMERICAS AND DON'T HAVE THE DAY FOR RED PEOPLE, AS FOR
RESPECTFULLY, DEVELOPED PEACEFULL NATIONS THAT YOU FORCED
INTO RESERVATIONS. I MEAN, WTF? AND YOU DON'T SEE THE
FLAW IN LOGIC HERE?!? WHERE IS THE RESPECT OF HUMANS
HERE AND BENEFIT OF YOUR "FIRST DEVELOPED RELATIONS BETWEEN HUMANS ON AFRICAN PLAINS" ?


EARTH WONT ADAPT TO US, WE JUST HAVE TO GET BACK
ON THE TRACKS....

TOTALLY WRONG. ANY SYSTEM THAT IS BASED PRIMARILY ON ACCUMULATION AND CONSUMTION IS DOOMED TO DEATH.

Well, capitalism has been around for a helluva long time in the history of humans. Just when does this "doom" fall upon us?

Baron Max

Man, you're totally ignoring everything I wrote before.

resources like oil, fish, clean water are LIMITED,
or constant in Earth's homestasis.
=state of balance, regular periodical changes between max. and min.
of any condition, any thing, creature, water on Earth.

I'm totally open to anybody that has a solution on overcoming oppression. If not changing the world, than at least in life. Where can one go to escape? Find some form of land somewhere that will not require you to pay debt to the banking system over the course of your entire life?

What if you had a