Collective Corruption

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Collective Corruption

Post by promethean75 »

I would never say such a tautologically stupid thing as 'it is what is is' unless I wuz quoting that imbecile Donald Trump.

I humbly ax that you strike that misquote from the record immediately, sir.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Collective Corruption

Post by Walker »

Obama White House Doctor Calls For Immediate Biden Resignation: ‘Not Cognitively Capable Of Leading’
https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-wh ... of-leading

Commentary:
Duh. That was evident during the campaign to elect him.
So, get on with it.

Oh wait. His replacement …

Who was so asleep to vote for this third term of Obama?
Being disconnected from politics is understandable.
Folks would like enjoy life and not be bothered with watching over the politicians.

That isn't appropriate to world conditions, because the ripple effects leading to now are being revealed.

Biden was the Obama point man with US/Ukraine relations.

The guy's a wrecking ball.
promethean75
Posts: 4932
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Collective Corruption

Post by promethean75 »

So colonel saunders, you think that a capitalist is just a farmer with a few extra seeds?

You really just said that?
Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Collective Corruption

Post by Scott Mayers »

simplicity wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:10 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:58 am A "government" is the system or group of people governing an organized community, generally a state." This means that even if we had your ideal by contrast, all we would have is a PRIVATE government run by your ideal of superiority: those with capital.
What do you believe it is now? You give a group of people USD20T to spend and it's not going to end well. You must severely limit what they have and specify where it can be spent.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:58 amYou are imposing the same belief in Social Darwinism as for Economic Darwinism that capitalism operates by. That is, if you remove the 'social' aspects of government BY THE PEOPLE, then you have a system OWNED AND OPERATED by the wealthy who think the system of "government" that should exist should only AMPLIFY the power of the wealthy by making it ONLY a body to serve as the King's Court. You would then tax the people ONLY to pay for a police force that gets used specifically against THEM in favor of the wealthy.
How much socialism would you like? Isn't paying over 50% of your income [in taxes] enough? Perhaps 80% would make you happier?
80% of $0.00 wealth is $0; but 80% of even the working poor is bad, of course. But 80% of a billion still leaves that person with 20% of a Billion, ...20 Million!!

All governments are at least 'socialist'. The 'socialists' in Western systems are purely democratic and so would demand a sliding scale to make those with more pay more. So the poor would not pay 80%. Or are you crying for the poor greedy person who is so burdened to be UNLIMITED in their capacity to profit without limits?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:58 am"Ownership" is NOT REAL outside of government creation. If you presume that letting the wealthy have freedom of will at the expense of the poor, you are oddly having FAITH in people who are wealthy with an arrogant insulting assumption that YOU EARNED IT and that all the poor have 'earned' their poverty. This is religious thinking and suggests racist undertones because you ignore that the distribution of ethics is shared across ALL people. That is, if you think the mobs are dumb, stupid, and selfish for demanding 'socialist' ideals then you must believe your particular minority views as an 'owner' are somehow less susceptible of being flawed?
Perhaps you should consider thinking for yourself instead putting out the same worn narrative about the rich v. the poor and racism. Isn't that kind of lazy to believe that societal complexity can always be boiled down to these two things. It's not the way the world works.
The alternative to this would be to define people's worth based upon some GENETIC differences. This very rationale is why we see Western socialist parties fostering a form of counter capitalism and NOT 'socialism' per se. That is, the 'socialism' that us Westerners are used to are only 'social' in negating the same arrogant cultural puritanicalism of those who use NEPOTISM to favor ONLY their own.

All our political parties are run BY the wealthy today, regardless of what they claim to hold. But because of this, our own left-leaning ideals ARE from the wealthy too: they are just working from the perspective of TRADING the default racist ideals by contemporary pluralist domination of only a few races to ALL races. Thus, the 'race' part here is about how the ideals of the wealthy to favor ones own WILL ALWAYS CONCENTRATE inherent power to those most dominantly represented.

So my preference for the socialist forms is ONLY because the racists exist regardless and so the socialist form of capitalism here at least DISTRIBUTES the power. I also do not favor the socialist for the simple fact that most people are merely emotional meat that could care less about being rational except for themselves.

So, if you were for whatever reason locked up in a tough prison, for instance, given the fact that the inmate population would still tend to force you into racist gangs without your choice, BUT you could either chose the solitary power of some ONE racially dominating group versus a 'democratic' collection of MANY races, which would you prefer if you did not believe in ANY racial identity? The POWERFUL people in this example prison represents the 'wealth'. The 'capitalist' CONSERVATIVE camp would be mostly made up of the contemporary SINGLE-RACE dominating gang, where the PROGRESSIVE camp wanting change would be the MULI-RACIAL dominating set of gangs, representing the 'democratic majority' in total numbers.

The analogy is to point out that GIVEN no political ideology is valid, presuming them ALL bad, which 'evil' would you opt for?
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:58 amThe government DOES create wealth. For the Right, they favor all those military and policing contracts. Infrastructure is also a universal 'welfare' benefit that 'profits' ALL people but MOST ESPECIALLY, the wealthy. The laws that LIMIT corporations (privately owned artificial 'persons') profit the society as a whole where regulation exists.
You don't understand what wealth creation is. Government can only confiscate other people's wealth and re-distribute.
But INITIAL WEALTH is merely taken or stolen, where prior people existed there. Ownership is NOT a 'right' by nature. Such 'right' is only a MIGHT because wealth represents....

ENERGY!!

And given we have arrogantly made a religion out of providing a right to FAVOR who we want to benefit, (including whether you may make a better deal to one you love than to a stranger or potential enemy in your 'negotiating' of wages or in fair trades), I think it is perfectly appropriate for the vast majority disempowered to stand up for VARIETY rather than one's own SPECIFIC cult. Isn't this very flaw why the Russians are at war with Ukraine?

Wealth 'creation' is based upon prior or inherent wealth, stability, health, and one's mere luck. A mere one percent of the world's population controls the whole world. Since nepotism is the tendency to pass favorable inheritance to one's own, our present unlimited capitalism is severely defined by race and locks out others' capacity to even form fair governments regardless of label.

So the maximum benefit of exploitation should either be snuffed out OR it is best for all of us to favor the exploitation that redistributes that power throughly. Communism or other supposed 'evil' socialist ideals are ONLY abused by those who CAPITALIZE (take any opportunity to profit at another's expense without being caught). Our world is in a giant prison full of selfish fucks who embrace exploitation. For their 'sins', they CREATE (to pun your use of 'wealth creation') religions to justify why they SHOULD be 'saved' at others expenses for their crimes.
Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:58 amThe reality is that the world WILL trend towards a NECESSARY form of Socialism or we WILL destroy ourselves. Given merely the fact that the wealthy are more violent against any system that affects their own profit versus the starving poor, we will likely annihilate ourselves before that. That is, the tempertantrums of the wealthy minorities are the threat.
Again, how much socialism would you like? You [and those like you] will never rest until everybody is miserable [just like all socialists].
The misery is not for the poor majority who GAIN if wealth is distrubuted fairly....only for those minority hogs of wealth who LOSE what they had prior. If capitalism is to be accepted, a social system is needed to distribute the power because animals are merely inherently selfish and are more addicted to wealth than any drug addict.

NOTE that we DO get propaganda that supercedes any intelligence from those socialist countries. If the miserly poor were so fucking unwise to have formed such intended 'communist' systems, why are they getting the rap for being so much MORE clever in their intelligence than we, yet fall so gullibly to rogue intolerant dicators 'capitalizing' upon them better than McDonald's can sell their fries?

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:58 am"Profit" (or "Worth" in accounting) is itself an odd privilege given it means all one has a 'right' to take more than they give. There is NO 'free' pass to the energy exchanges that goes on in nature regardless of where they occur. As such, the ONLY way that one can BE wealthy NECESSARILY requires taking something for FREE from the environment. The way western governments operate by default always has favored this unfair bias.
Where is it written that life is fair? Study nature and learn about how things really work.
[/quote]
Written faith is for the religious. Nature favors no one. But why do the capitalists in contrast favor such religious faith in practice being imposed upon the masses? If life IS 'unfair' than you should have nothing to complain about if the mob rules! They are just 'capitalizing' on using their democratic power in numbers as currency!
Post Reply