The Blame Game

[simplicity]

First of all there is no government that is, "my government." I am not responsible for anything that is forced on me against my will. When a thug takes my wallet at gunpoint, or a government takes over infrasctricture (leaving no choice of any other) I am not supporting the thug with my money and I am not supporting the government by using what is available (which the government does not produce any of but simply takes control of or confiscates from those who do produce those things, then takes credit for it).

If you support a political party, vote, are involved in politics in any way, or support any political candidates you are supporting the government. If you receive any aid, subsidies, or help of any kind from the government or use any so-called government services (like public education, unemployment, etc.), you are supporting the government. I don't do any of those things, and within what is practically possible, I evade all association with any government agency at any level, federal, state, or municipal and whatever relationship I have with any government agency or government employee is involuntary.

I don't, "fight," the government. I'm not an anarchist. Most people love government and would be terrified of living without one. I'm like H.L. Mencken who said, "I believe in only one thing, liberty, but I do not believe in it enough to want to force on anyone." I simply choose to live my own life as free as I possibly can because I could not bear living like those who subordinate their own life to some political, social, or ideological collective agenncy. But their governments will always end by making things worse for them, even killing them, but it's their choice. Unfortunately they are complicit in their own sufferihg.

I consider myself a philosophical anarchist so I hear what you are saying but I believe you are somewhat naive. You are [to a great extent] what you are because of where you were born and raised. And whereby it is noble of you to desist from taking public handouts, you must understand that you have been given a great deal...by your parents, by your teachers, by the very fact that you have been able to eat food that is [more or less] free from who knows what and a somewhat clean water supply, plus all of the other bennies of being raised in a wealthy country.

Having said the above, I do admire those able to maintain a sense of intellectual and moral independence from modern systems that slice and dice its participants into beings barely capable of having a free thought [yet a free life].

I do not believe that people like government at all, but they cannot resist the idea of getting 'something for nothing,' the most effective carrot/stick ploy ever devised, be it from organised religion, governments, and especially corporations who have taken this ruse to levels never seen before [although George Carlin certainly makes the case that religion is the all-time champ when it comes to such things].

Life is not easy for anybody. Perhaps you shouldn't be so hard on the folks who are just trying to do their best [considering what they are up against].

[Scott Mayers]

Capitalism in its purist form is what people are against: the belief that there should not be a LIMIT to wealth gain while simultaneously that the poor should be exploited by their desperations.

This excess was made possible by a corporate structure legislated into being by corrupt politicians. Return corporations to their original intent and much this excess will disappear.

The origin of 'corporations' were formal Charters by a government specifically aimed to serve large infrastructure related investments that benefitted the society. The present laws have far exceeded this and now ONLY serves to PROTECT the wealthy who learned to exploit what used to be a just cause.

I doubt that you'd think that we need to restrict corporations to public infrastructure interests.

Note that the advantage of the invisible hand is only as good as we have means to assure that no monopolies exist. But the first thing that the capitalist would do is to defund any possible means for policing of them exclusively and USE the public policing as their OWN means to rule.

A functional check/balance system is critical in making any system accountable. Again, political and regulatory corruption is the problem here.

Did you mean LACK of regulatory bodies empowers the corruption? Corruption by FEW sole regulators that a right-wing government might allow at all PROMOTES the corruption where these exist. It is easier to abuse others if you have solitary control of only one or few people to moderate the rest and hard to 'conspire' when you have the actual necessary numbers of them needed.

FACT: unless you could actually PROVE that all people can be equally successful under capitalism, it is irrelevant that SOME succeed well.

This is silly and hopelessly Utopian. Equality of outcome [for all kinds of reasons] is a pipe-dream.

And it is a false flag to presume that anyone arguing for fairness would call it, "equality of outcome". The argument is about equality of INCOME, given inherent benefits grant the wealthier a form of PRE_INCOME. The argument is referenced as 'equity' because this is the modern word for "shares" or "stock". Capital of this EARTH in INITIAL powers one is born into without their choice is not 'outcome'. The rhetoric you guys use about 'outcomes' is intentionally deceptive to malign the actual viewpoint of those supporting social services within governments.

Evolution does NOT 'favor' PROGRESS, it favors mere SURVIVAL, and where it is reasonable to note that capitalism is akin to Natural Evolution (economically), it too only favors the majority to suffer in order for the deluded profiteering minorities to think that EVERYONE 'wins'. SUCCESS for all is NOT NATURAL! The only way to go against this nature is to advance it using intellectual means to distribute the values of this 'free' Earth to all of us. It is NOT 'free' when you have some dicks DICTATING their superior religious right to own it all up.

We are a part of the natural world...nothing special.

Why are you trivially 'agreeing'? This is significant. IF you think we should respect nature's appointment of ENVIRONMENTAL inheritance (like what wealth represents), 'ownership' is itself LESS natural to uphold without the artificial construct of making laws that favor beneficial inheritance while DISTRIBUTING THE DEBT of non-benefitial inheritance to the whole exclusively.

I am not against being wealthy. I am against the FACT that GREED is the more NATURAL condition that assures ANYONE will 'addictively' be more abusive in conserving it. Most people, just like most animals SUFFER in Nature. Why should we NOT use our intellectual capacity to try to combat this tendency? That is, we can steer evolution to be less greedy. It is still 'natural' for us to do this even though it goes against the 'invisible hand' of nature apart from us to progress beyond our normal proclivities.

Human intelligence has a ways to go but we are what we are. And, it could be a lot worse, so instead of complaining so much, try to enjoy yourself and find the good that's out there.

That's easy to say IF you are already having the time of your life! Why should people be 'happy' while being degraded in accepting their unequal worth (equity)? Why should the unhappy SERVE those already 'happy' with glee? I know this is the con of those with power: make it SEEM like others CAN succeed 'equally' on the mere magic of 'positive thinking' or imposed religious education that acts to brainwash the suckers to keep serving.