USA was 3 hrs away from Economic, Political Collapse... last Sept.

POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 11:44
VIEWED: 42658
PAGE 14 of 16

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 15, 2009 1:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Double post that I blame on the US health car system

US health car system ?

You must have been educated at public schools, IF AT ALL! Man, your spelling is atrocious.

Oh, that means it's VERY BAD.

Sorry. public education. I forgot.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

KWICKO

Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And folks believe that if Earth were just 1 mile closer to the sun, we'd all burn, and 1 mile further away, we'd all freeze.

Cites, please? (Since Geezer won't ever ask his favorite lap-dog to back up dubious claims)

Who are these people? Where are they?

I know YOU might believe that, but I seriously doubt there's anyone else that stupid. After all, the Earth meanders around in its orbit by some 3.5 million miles, so one mile more of less isn't going to be the difference.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

KWICKO

Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Double post that I blame on the US health car system

US health car system ?

You must have been educated at public schools, IF AT ALL! Man, your spelling is atrocious.

Oh, that means it's VERY BAD.

Sorry. public education. I forgot.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Dear Kettle,

You're black!

Signed,

The Pot

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

AURAPTOR

Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
And folks believe that if Earth were just 1 mile closer to the sun, we'd all burn, and 1 mile further away, we'd all freeze.

Cites, please? (Since Geezer won't ever ask his favorite lap-dog to back up dubious claims)

Who are these people? Where are they?

I know YOU might believe that, but I seriously doubt there's anyone else that stupid. After all, the Earth meanders around in its orbit by some 3.5 million miles, so one mile more of less isn't going to be the difference.

Mike

It's called being absurd to show absurdity, genius. Gleaned from and exaggerating ( though not by too much ) the sort of discussions I've had w/ young Earth Creationist, my comment was clearly tongue in cheek. Be it one inch, foot, mile or 1000 miles, the notion that the Earth is in the " perfect " orbit which allows life , and the slightest deviation , either way, is PROOF that God® made everything.

Among my favorites ? Hearing a radio preacher talk about people finding " some ol' dog bones" and constructing gigantic lizards called Dinosaurs ! These views aren't held by just a few, random churches, found only in the back woods which might have been used for the movie , Deliverance. It's worse than you know. And when I use their ignorance as a punch line, please, don't get all bent out of shape. Again.

And my post on Chrisisall's typo ? Kinda making my point there, dummy. It was SARCASM. Might be you've heard of it ?

Don't be so petty and jump all over someone else's typos as an excuse to avoid dealing w/ the issue.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

SIGNYM

Sunday, February 15, 2009 4:33 PM

Quote:
Of course, the libertarian premise is that these concentrations of wealth and power happen because of government policy, and not in spite of it. Obviously, that's a chicken and egg thing and difficult to prove conclusively.

I'm going to have a full day today, so I can just post this but may not be able to get back on until tomorrow:

Looking at the broad sweep of human civilization, once you get past "the tribe" it seems that power inevitably concentrates, along many nexuses:

The concentration of moral authority is religion.
The concentration of money is (now) called capitalism
The concentration of communication is "the media".
The concentration of guns is government.
The concentration of exploration is science.
The concentration of amusement is entertainment.

I can't think of a SINGLE society beyond "the tribe" where this hasn't happened. People willingly give up their voices, their hearts, their brains, their force, their goods, and their imaginations to others. It happens SO universally that I'm going to make an argument that I almost never make: There is something in human nature which allows it to happen. Not in everyone of course, but in enough. The feedback which KEEPS this from happening seems trivial and typically erupts only in revolution; and the forces which push it forward (the greater efficiency of the hive versus the individual) ensure in a Darwinian sense that internally united, complex societies will out-compete individualistic ones. (I believe Frem sees this quite clearly. His view, I think, is that ecological forces eventually cause the larger societies to collapse which also re-sets the human genome back towards individualism. But, I could be wrong!)

I think that YOU assume that people prefer individualism, so if we were to somehow rid ourselves of yoke of government, freedom would flourish and all would be well. Personally, I think that you're one of those 10% individualists and that you're projecting your reactions on to everyone else. But based on how I read human history ...if we were to somehow get rid of government -and all the other PTB- we would collectively rebuild them as fast as possible!

That is why I think if you desire a society which ALLOWS individual power you have to BUILD IT. For example, require that businesses be managed by the people who work in them. Require that "media" be divided into small accessible interactive units. Restrict the size of ANY function to the smallest that it needs to be to handle the problem. Teach REAL philosophy as part of the curriculum: How to ask questions. How to think. How to perceive. Individual responsibility, individual decision-making, individual risk-taking doesn't come naturally to a species which is cooperative to a fault.

Either that, or you and the other individualists like you buy a big chunk of land and live independently.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, February 15, 2009 9:03 PM

Quote:
if we were to somehow get rid of government -and all the other PTB- we would collectively rebuild them as fast as possible!

Stephen Kings novel "The Stand" actually bases around this, I dunno how much was stripped out for the 'normal' version, but I have the uncut big daddy hardback, and it's a monster.
http://www.amazon.com/Stand-Complete-Uncut-Stephen-King/dp/0385199570/
ref=ed_oe_h/177-3780776-6163601

Not only does it raise the issue but "after the end" it deals with the profound disgust of some of the characters towards that very occurance and their own desire to exit stage left because of it.

I'd say not so much build it, as find it - you put this idea on hard ground and start putting it into action for real, it'll draw those like-minded and cussed enough to wanna do it pretty quick...

Till some government squashes it as a threat to them, that is.
(See Also: Anarchist Catalonia)
S'why I make large point that *at this time* you couldn't do it without having to practically drown every foot of ground in blood first, something most anarchists ain't willing to do.

point: I ain't one of em, to me someone willing to kill other people for no better reason than that "the state" told them to has willingly surrendered their humanity and personhood, and as such, is naught more than a mere object, as unworthy of attachment or attention as a piece of litter you remove from your lawn and toss in the trash.

That being said, one of the reasons I don't think we're ready isn't just the violence that will come of it, but because that very attachment and cooperative instinct has been perverted to a master/slave (or parent/child if you're feeling gracious about it, which I ain't.) relationship in our society and is deliberately stunted there rather than being allowed to mature and develop in complexity.

Ergo, currently folks WITH the more complex forms of attachment and/or that potential are comparitively rare, I'd say 5% or under cause 10% is way too generous.

And of that 5%, sadly that's also a good chunk of where some really BAD people come from, cause it also includes those with NO attachments; i.e. - sociopaths, albeit ones who've been unable to warp the "rules" of our society to their benefit by being born to wealth or power.

And that's where the problem of building one starts...

...cause even most Anarchists are too damn nice.

I understand the instinct, have seen it all my life, but from a distance - whatever it is in people that makes them like other people, want to be around them, NEED their approval and bonds of community...

Whatever it is, I was either born without it for the most part, or burned it out before I recognized it's value - it's there but so muted it's like music you can't hear, and have to wall off everything else to even try to listen to.

Most folk like that wind up sociopathic in some fashion or another because they lack empathy, which thankfully I don't lack for, if I happen to actually care is another matter however.
And I retain that level of bonding at full value (or more) with animals, just not humans.

Of course, the only way to get an increase in folks who have the more complex and mature bonding values that Anarchists have, is to raise and educate them in Anarchist communities - but the only way to create Anarchist communities is to have them in the first place, thus creating a reversed chicken-egg problem bordering on catch-22.

Which I subvert at every opportunity by getting to folks before the public education system and our so-called society fully instills their "values" and allows them to calcify, simply by giving them another perspective while ripping the mask off the facade - it works better with the young because they've not yet fully trained themselves not to see the horrors, and the war between instinct and what is socially required for acceptance is as I keep sayin, a big cause of aberrent behavior in youth.

Because taking that path will, at least in these times, make them and their values forever unwelcome in this

SERGEANTX

Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
That happens quite often, though not on my say-so.

I assure you that I have never once told a Chinese herbalist to shut down on anyone's say so.

Heh... cute. My point was that thinking of health care as a "system" leads us to legislating against alternative approaches and limits potential innovation.

Quote:
An economy is a system in the same way a rail network is a system, but people can still take different trains to different places. They can still get on and off at different platforms. They can still take those journeys for different reasons. But they're all trying to get somewhere.

I think the railroad analogy is a poor one in this case. Railroads do represent a designed system with deliberate purpose, but they don't reflect all the ways people might move around. The railroad network is a better analogy for something like the stock market, which is a system. To represent the entire economy in this analogy we'd need to consider all the various ways people move from place to place - which clearly isn't a "system", it's just a related class of activities.

Quote:
So that's the purpose of the economy. And that's the purpose of regulation of an economy. Ensuring the proper and unrestricted flow of money through the economic system.

I certainly disagree with this. Putting aside questions of what the "proper" flow of money is, I don't think laws regulating the economy should focus on the "flow" of money. That's what I was discussing with Signym. Laws should protect people, not money, nor the "flow" of money. In my opinion, thinking of economy of a system, with a presumed "purpose", leads to this kind of legislative approach, and to the problems we're currently dealing with.

Quote:
So you wouldn't have a problem with economies being structured so that some people can't get what they want out of it then? I was trying to point out the difference between implied and overt purpose. If you think an economy is there for anyone to get what ever they want out of it, that is an implied purpose.

I'm not sure I know what you're getting at by "structuring" an economy. I'm not even sure I see how it could be done. But then I'm clearly looking at it as a different sort of thing than you are. That's why I'm fixated on this issue of "system", because I really do think it's at the core of the different views. If one sees the economy as a designed, purposeful system, it implies and an entirely different legislative approach than the view of an economy as an aggregate of related activities.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SERGEANTX

Monday, February 16, 2009 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I can't think of a SINGLE society beyond "the tribe" where this hasn't happened. People willingly give up their voices, their hearts, their brains, their force, their goods, and their imaginations to others. It happens SO universally that I'm going to make an argument that I almost never make: There is something in human nature which allows it to happen. Not in everyone of course, but in enough. The feedback which KEEPS this from happening seems trivial and typically erupts only in revolution; and the forces which push it forward (the greater efficiency of the hive versus the individual) ensure in a Darwinian sense that internally united, complex societies will out-compete individualistic ones. (I believe Frem sees this quite clearly. His view, I think, is that ecological forces eventually cause the larger societies to collapse which also re-sets the human genome back towards individualism. But, I could be wrong!)

Sure, makes sense to me. Actually, the last bit is related to the book I referenced. He acknowledges the immediate competitive edge of the "hive", even points out how it's dominated all other culture styles in recent history, but sees it as a doomed approach in the long term.

Quote:
...But based on how I read human history ...if we were to somehow get rid of government -and all the other PTB- we would collectively rebuild them as fast as possible!

I don't disagree with this either, which is why, apart for the occasional thought experiment, I don't entertain anarchy as serious option for our current culture. But I want to limit the damage done by "followers" and keep them from running roughshod over the rest of us. I simply see much less to fear from the greed of capitalists than from the fickle aspirations of democratically driven governments.

I'm kinda busy this weekend to, so I'll have to cut this short, but I have serious reservations about your notion of "mandated" freedom. Or rather the idea that a strong authority is required for, or even amenable to, personal freedom. Good discussion though.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Monday, February 16, 2009 12:12 AM

Frem

I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what makes people the way they are.

When you consider Wulf and AnthonyT - two people with similar experiences and divergent results - it's seems to me that inborn differences can direct our responses. We are not born blank slates.

As I read the people on the board, I can see that many are echoing childhood issues ad infinitum. Which is sad to me - to live on for decades and never get anywhere different than your mindset at 3, or 7, or 12. And I'm not sure you can make up for lost opportunities, there may be periods of development that close, never to be reopened.

But, nevertheless I think it's possible (for those with reasonably intact neurology, as most of us are here) to change yourself by changing the balance of your responses and reactions from trauma-based ones to positive ones.

My thinking goes like this:

It's always possible to stunt someone achieving their potential as a person. But it's impossible to instill something that isn't there.

If you go back to your best self, you can see what that best self is you were born to be. Did you put a towel on your shoulders and pretend for all your worth you were Superman ? Did you talk to your toy, and with complete abandon put your thoughts and feelings into words ? Were you content when others were happy ?

That is your best self, the one you were born to be. That self doesn't go away. You can still tap into it, slowly and awkwardly at first, but soon with greater ability.

If you make the effort to reawaken that child and parent it in the way it should have been parented, that self can become the new you. And by that I mean rediscover those qualities and then find a way to act on them as an adult.

You see, what we tell ourselves is important. And we need to stop rehearsing pain and loss, and start rehearsing a way to move forward.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CITIZEN

Monday, February 16, 2009 12:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Heh... cute. My point was that thinking of health care as a "system" leads us to legislating against alternative approaches and limits potential innovation.

Places with public health care systems have healthier populations, rather disproving that assertion.

Quote:
I think the railroad analogy is a poor one in this case. Railroads do represent a designed system with deliberate purpose, but they don't reflect all the ways people might move around. The railroad network is a better analogy for something like the stock market, which is a system. To represent the entire economy in this analogy we'd need to consider all the various ways people move from place to place - which clearly isn't a "system", it's just a related class of activities.

Doesn't change anything, you have speed limits in the US.

Quote:
I certainly disagree with this. Putting aside questions of what the "proper" flow of money is, I don't think laws regulating the economy should focus on the "flow" of money.

Disagree if you want, but an economy is the flow of money, nothing more nothing less. That is its implied purpose, to move money around, the same as rivers implied purpose is the movement of water. Economies are measured in currency amounts, because that's all they are, money moving around. No more no less.

As for the proper movement of money, nothing Machiavellian there for you I'm afraid. I'm referring to money being allowed to move, and preventing people from damming the flow, which is bad for everyone, no more no less.

Quote:
That's what I was discussing with Signym. Laws should protect people, not money, nor the "flow" of money. In my opinion, thinking of economy of a system, with a presumed "purpose", leads to this kind of legislative approach, and to the problems we're currently dealing with.

Well all an economy is, is money moving around. Therefore any legislation of an economy is protection of money.

If money is moving well, you have a good economy. If money isn't moving well, you have a bad economy. If money isn't moving at all, you have no economy. So yeah, an economies implied purpose is moving money around.

I'd add that it isn't regulation that caused the problems we're currently in, it's deregulation. Over the course of the New Deal legislation there were no major economic collapses, no major stock market crashes. Since Reagan came up with the idea of deregulating everything, there's been three. It's pretty obvious what the cause is, if you're willing to actually look.

Quote:
I'm not sure I know what you're getting at by "structuring" an economy. I'm not even sure I see how it could be done.

Really, because you're the one who was talking about regulation "curbing" people earlier on.

Quote:
But then I'm clearly looking at it as a different sort of thing than you are. That's why I'm fixated on this issue of "system", because I really do think it's at the core of the different views. If one sees the economy as a designed, purposeful system, it implies and an entirely different legislative approach than the view of an economy as an aggregate of related activities.

I think you're hung up on it, because you want my case to be something its not. You're trying to paint me as advocating a communist style centralised economy, and you being the champion for laissez faire capitalism, but unfortunately I'm not advocating any such extremist thinking.

You hear me say "system" and "purpose" and you hear communist style centralised directed purpose. That's simply not how I'm using the words, and I've already said that. System is a perfect term for Economies, and system doesn't necessarily denote a centrally planned, or consciously organised entity. Further reading on the systemic nature of any given economy can be found on wikipedia as a first instance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_system
Laissez-faire capitalism can be found under "Hands-off" Private-oriented Systems.

When I say purpose,

PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE