The Great Reset

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: In Summary

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:21 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:43 am
As long as I CORRECT your INCORRECT writings
One cannot correct an incorrect.

The assumption that there is an incorrect that is correct is absurd.
Unless you ASSUMED this, then there is NO one else I KNOW of that did.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:21 am Concepts known are beliefs, and that which is known knows nothing.


.
I STILL CORRECTED what you INCORRECTLY WROTE.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: In Summary

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:30 am
I STILL CORRECTED what you INCORRECTLY WROTE.


One cannot correct an incorrect.

The assumption that there is an incorrect that is correct is absurd.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: In Summary

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:29 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:30 am
I STILL CORRECTED what you INCORRECTLY WROTE.


One cannot correct an incorrect.
BUT, it has ALREADY BEEN DONE.

Even ONCE MORE.

As just PROVED True, ONCE AGAIN.
Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:29 am The assumption that there is an incorrect that is correct is absurd.
If you are ASSUMING this, then you are the ONLY one.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: In Summary

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:38 am
If you are ASSUMING this, then you are the ONLY one.
ONLY one ...is an absurd belief.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: In Summary

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:43 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:38 am
If you are ASSUMING this, then you are the ONLY one.
ONLY one ...is an absurd belief.
Well I CERTAINLY CAN NOT have that BELIEF. So, does that mean 'you' have that BELIEF?

And, how could 'ONLY one' be an 'absurd belief' to the nondual One?
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: In Summary

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:50 am And, how could 'ONLY one' be an 'absurd belief' to the nondual One?


HOW..is the ONE question to all our answers.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: In Summary

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:55 am
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:50 am And, how could 'ONLY one' be an 'absurd belief' to the nondual One?


HOW..is the ONE question to all our answers.
I KNOW.

HOW is the formula to finding the answers to ALL of the once, and so-called, "mysteries in Life".

With Honesty, Openness, and a serious Want to change, for the better, ALL answers are REVEALED, almost immediately.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: In Summary

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:09 pm
I KNOW.
Then no need for clarification.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: In Summary

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:13 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:09 pm
I KNOW.
Then no need for clarification.
But I was NOT seeking CLARIFICATION, from you, this time.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: In Summary

Post by Dontaskme »

Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:21 pm
But I was NOT seeking CLARIFICATION, from you, this time.
Knowing does not seek clarification from any other source. Knowing is one without a second.
Age
Posts: 20204
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: In Summary

Post by Age »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:36 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 12:21 pm
But I was NOT seeking CLARIFICATION, from you, this time.
Knowing does not seek clarification from any other source. Knowing is one without a second.
If you say the concept knowing knows and does not seek clarification, then so be it.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: The Great Reset

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:24 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:40 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:53 pm I'm able, but I'm not going to do all your research for you.
Does it actually say "they want universal Socialism" or did you have to do a bunch of reading between the lines to get that one?
Read what they say.

They want an end to private ownership, redistribution, and no private property...you literally get to "own nothing," (Their words.) and "rent" (their words again) from the government. This, they call "stakeholder capitalism." Except that it's got no element of capitalism in it, except what the elites themselves get to practice. They also get to keep their property, of course. Everyone else becomes totally government dependent. And this, they call "social justice" and "equity."

Of course, poverty, dependency are misery are very "equalizing."

And if the Davos jerks were interested in "redistributing" their own wealth, they'd already have done it, and be living at a normal level themselves. But they have not. Instead, they're jet-setting to Davos, and "making plans for Nigel."

But don't take my word for it: go read it for yourself.
I agree that the wealthy elite are not likely to let go of their private ownership of what they own. If they did, then it would be socialism. However, since it is the wealthy elite controlling the state, it's generally called "state capitalism," not "socialism". Capitalism means ownership of the means of production, distribution, etc, by private persons. When those private individuals play the role of leaders of the state, then they run the state for themselves by themselves. It's not unlike monarchy really, except ownership in capitalism is determined by how well a person is at playing the game of accumulating wealth/power in a market. The ideal of socialism is for major industries and services to be run by the people for the people. How that is achieved is a different aspect of things altogether. Socialism doesn't just mean government ownership of industry. It means the citizens, population, or whatever you want to call everyone runs public resources as opposed to the few.

Basically, what we would need to do to make the "great reset" socialism would be to strip wealth and power from the "Davos jerks" themselves--make them no more than commoners like everyone else. That's not going to happen if they can help it. They'll paint pretty pictures of how everyone is going to benefit from state capitalism (they'll even call it socialism), however, in the end, it's just capitalism of a different flavor=ownership of the means of production by a few private individuals.

So let's say IC wants to oppose this "socialism". "We want capitalism," says IC. What you are in effect saying, IC is that you want concentrated ownership of major industries and resources. That's what capitalism is.

"Sure thing," say the Davos jerks. "We'll just continue to accumulate our wealth and power because IC wants us to." You're playing their no-win game, IC. Either way, you give the wealthy few the ability to retain their power over society. You need to be in favor of equality and democracy and against making major industries and resources private property in order to defeat the Davos jerks (as you call them). But you're not, so you're not going to win.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Great Reset

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 1:30 am So let's say IC wants to oppose this "socialism". "We want capitalism," says IC. What you are in effect saying, IC is that you want concentrated ownership of major industries and resources.
Why would we "say" something IC hasn't said? That would be ridiculous.

What IC says is that Socialism is monstrous, but so is laissez-faire capitalism. It's a tight-rope act in staying off those two extremes. One of the few legitimate government functions is preventing monopolies. So they will be needed for that. However, if you value freedom, and if you have to fall off the tight rope one side or the other, make sure it's not the Socialism side.

One doesn't win by advocating a particular political system, but by hedging against the natural evil that's in men. And centralizing power, whether through monopolies or though government appropriation of "means of production" is the road to disaster every time.

Small government. Not no government, but small government, is the way to go.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: The Great Reset

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:03 am
Gary Childress wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 1:30 am So let's say IC wants to oppose this "socialism". "We want capitalism," says IC. What you are in effect saying, IC is that you want concentrated ownership of major industries and resources.
Why would we "say" something IC hasn't said? That would be ridiculous.

What IC says is that Socialism is monstrous, but so is laissez-faire capitalism. It's a tight-rope act in staying off those two extremes. One of the few legitimate government functions is preventing monopolies. So they will be needed for that. However, if you value freedom, and if you have to fall off the tight rope one side or the other, make sure it's not the Socialism side.

One doesn't win by advocating a particular political system, but by hedging against the natural evil that's in men. And centralizing power, whether through monopolies or though government appropriation of "means of production" is the road to disaster every time.

Small government. Not no government, but small government, is the way to go.
Socialism is little more than a state of affairs whereby society is democratic and all its members are equal, not just "big government". If you're against socialism, then you are against democracy and equality, not necessarily "big government". If you're for capitalism, then you're for private ownership over economic entities big or small. So what you are saying is that you would rather fall on the side of private ownership of economic entities and not democracy and equality.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Great Reset

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:18 am Socialism is little more than a state of affairs whereby society is democratic and all its members are equal, not just "big government".
Would that that were true. But of course, it's not. Socialism requires government to own the means of production, and thus also to take direct, regulatory control of all aspects of civic and personal life. So it automatically means bloated and increasingly bloated bureaucracy. And because it's opposed to anything that makes people "unequal," it's opposed to personal responsibility, personal achievement and quality. And, of course, economically, it's a disaster: because it requires copious amounts of money, but produces no capital.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "democracy," because equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcome, is the democratic option. If you opt for equality of outcome, it means the use of force and compulsion are required. To create equality of outcome, one has to prevent success, achievement, distinction, hierarchy and so on, and drive everything down to the lowest common denominator.
So what you are saying is that you would rather fall on the side of private ownership of economic entities and not democracy and equality.
False dichotomy, Gary.

Democracy and equality of opportunity are not related to Socialism. Big-government totalitarianism, and equality of outcome are. So yes, I would most certainly rather lean to the side of small government, equality of opportunity, non-racism, private property, free speech, and so on. Those are all very good things...things that going too far toward laissez-faire capitalism can ruin, of course; but things which Socialism is guaranteed not even to permit.
Post Reply