Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by TruthSeeker, Jul 9, 2007.
So you feel OK being one of the slaves.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
There's no need to treat people like slaves. If wealth was more spread out to everyone, there would be no slaves. And, of course, no brainwashing too...
I would like to see power, resources and knowledge to be better distributed, so that the gap between the "rich" and the "poor" would nearly disappear and everyone would have a healthy and happy life.
- universal education
- universal opportunity
- universal power
- universal distribution of resources
I would also like to see less power to corporations, sustainable capitalism, prohibition of lobbyism (or at least equal opportunity for all to influence the government), universal environmentalism...
In order for people to not be treated like slaves, they must first stop acting like them. What you say is true, all of us can indeed become our own master. What is required is to boldly follow your own path despite the consequences.
Most people however are happy to slave away to another's cause, particularly if they can keep all their little toys the master has provided them(nice house, RV, LCD 42", PS3, etc). This of course varies according to how useful they are to the master. People really have no idea what freedom is anymore. Just because 50%, 60% or whatever the number is, are as free as they want to be, doesn't mean the rest of us need to follow suit. Even among us, that do not feel "free enough", we tow the line a little longer hoping to hit the lottery or figure out a way to become a master(the ways are few and usually involve greed). Even then to buy into capitalism...to be a capitalist you must accept there is ALWAYS a bigger fish and ALWAYS a pecking order.
Truely free individuals are quite rare. You can tell them quite easily, they possess no fear. They test the limits of the human experience until they are in jail or are dead. The ones that survive for a time almost always serve as a shining example of a full life.
Define 'slave' here. Even if everyone were equal we'd still be a slave to keeping the society running.
Why do you care about what other people do with their life?
Basically equal everything. Something that obviously doesn't work, because there will always be a lot of people that want more. Besides, who is going to govern this system? The 'people'?
Equal distribution of power is impossible since there always has to be someone to enforce the laws enforcing this equal distribution.
The corporations control supply and own large amounts of material wealth, both of which are the sources of their power. What do you intend to do about it?
Define this? How would everyone behave? Would there be a reward for taking risks (entrepreneurship)
How do you intend to see this done? This is impossible.
One whom has a master.
One whom works for another's goals.
One whom would rather do "something else" for 8 hours(or more) a day.
I don't think i'm out to lunch with the theme of the thread....next?
I know of no one on Earth who doesn't have to obey someone else. Do you?
Directly or indirectly? Anyone who works for someone else, or some company, is working for that other person's goals. I know of few people on Earth who don't work for someone else indirectly.
I know of few, if any, people who wouldn't rather do something else at one time or another during their "work" day ...even those who work for themselves or even who are independently wealthy.
Perhaps not, but your idealism is so far out of reality that it's really not worth discussing.
I never said it wasn't rare to be truely free(it is very rare, one might say unique -Alexander, master of everything, M Gandhi master by example, master of the self), nor did I say I wasn't a slave. I am a slave every bit as much as your average joe. Difference is, I admit it.
"Directly or indirectly? Anyone who works for someone else, or some company, is working for that other person's goals. I know of few people on Earth who don't work for someone else indirectly." - that got me thinking for a second. Working for someone indirectly, benefitting someone else... is it slavery if it's symbiosis? Would I have to make sure noone else benefits by my actions?
Slavery is filling up someone else's pocket...in the context of this thread. Down the road, the workers are left with no power(the reward for their work - worthless, their individual rights trampled on by powerful($$$) lobbies in government). The capitalist/master can justify his actions by saying they volunteered freely to work for me...in which case he is right and as I originally said a few posts ago, the burden of this "problem" rests solely on the slave. They perhaps even deserve it for being chicken shit. At various points the slave says ok enough and a "Revolution" occurs...for better or worse conditions. More often than not, they simply trade in for a new set of masters. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Now then, symbiosis would mean a mutual benefit to the "host" - humanity? This is debateable, I conclude the current system is fairly useless, as far as I can see the end goal is to consume the planet and have lots of numbers punch up on a computer screen at the bank when you visit. Scratch that, that is the slave end goal, the Master just wants to own that bank.
Ops missed this:
No! Not at all. What is required is a bit of a "new" paradigm. It's actually not new, but rarely applied outside a church or small community. You do someone a favor - they do you one, you trade apple for oranges, whatever. Yeah I know "money" is supposed to show what something is worth, frankly money is COMPROMISED. Basically you do what you want or perhaps even what you are good at(chances are they be the same). You would be surprised how much your skills or even brute force work is actually worth, without all the B.S overhead of a banking system, rediculous tax system and paying the government for your protection.
For a general "idea" of how that works, try to study Canadian history(or american minus the black slaves) in the 1800s. Yes there was Banks, but they were very minorly powerful.
Yes it would require a huge change and one that would not come willingly for governments, banks, "insurance" companies and other leeches of your labour, skill and abilities. It is certainly a bloodbath of french revolution proportions. The only way to avoid that, would be a spiritual/nonviolent and deeply philosophical movement at the perfect time(the coming energy/monetary crisis).
What do you mean? Can you give an example? How is this measured according to you?
It's been tried before. Socialism doesn't work because people are inherently selfish.
I mean say your labour is worth 12 paper-bank notes an hour. With 12 paper-bank notes you can say buy one good meal.
In a system of low "overhead", one hour of your labour could easily be worth 2 good meals...or more.
An example is hard to find, I heard about an African Country that has resorted to using animal tusks(not really the best environmentally) as "trade value" items to produce a very successful local economy. This is as a result of necessity like anything else. I am well aware people will not change until the current system no longer works.
Ok I found an excellent Article outlining what I am talking about - explaining it better than me.
No they are not. They inherently protect their survival. That is all.
Which is, of course, the purest, most ideal form of selfishness. But it's selfishness nonetheless.
Your definition of selfishness is flawed. Selfishness implies wants- not needs. Big difference.
No, it doesn't. Where and how did you get that from what I wrote????
Separate names with a comma.