It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Myth That Success Is Unearned

page: 9
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: angeldoll

Speaking of hunters and gatherers, ok there's another way we can be free, by being allowed to grow food, collect water, hunt and feed ourselves. Too bad that's being regulated into an impossibility. Thus slaves.


There are places you can do that. More places than not, actually.

I choose not to be bitter and convince myself that we are all slaves. It sounds like the only way you will feel free is to get off the grid.




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: angeldoll

So slavery isn't slavery then? A slave is bought, given shelter and fed, in exchange for doing the work demanded of him. So even though the man has no choice. It's just work, right? It's all a matter of perspective? The slave should be happy with his work?



It gets even worse depending on which side of the equation you sit
Slaves were paid a living wage, in that, they were clothed, fed, and housed and had their health needs looked after.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: jacobe001

Well depending on the slave owner, but mostly true.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: jacobe001

Well depending on the slave owner, but mostly true.


Agreed

There are stories of the abusive slave owners, but they are exaggerated for media sensationalism.
It does you no good if the means of your work is physically harmed where they cannot work...
That would be like a CEO taking a sledgehammer to one of the auto assembly robots...

They were still slaves without freedom however, but even then, they were treated better than some of the cut throat business owners today.

They want all the production capabilities out of you to make money but none of the costs that go into it. They want other people to pay for it



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Aazadan

Well with that why charge money for any product.



Because demand creates value. Supply however, doesn't. Not with the production capabilities we have today.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: angeldoll

Speaking of hunters and gatherers, ok there's another way we can be free, by being allowed to grow food, collect water, hunt and feed ourselves. Too bad that's being regulated into an impossibility. Thus slaves.


Actually you can right now if you want to and have the knowledge. Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and others have people doing just that and I'm sure there are other places.

You must not have looked very hard?

That requires the hardest work you can imagine. If you are not fit and experienced in living that way, of course you starve or freeze to death.

Money is just a stand in for barter. How much are you willing to pay someone for what you want and are incapable of creating yourself is where the price comes from. If nobody is willing to pay, it's not created for sale.

The longest trip I've taken surviving off the land was a little over one month. I had to go through a full year of training first and still was not prepared. In the end the reason it went as well as it did was community. As a group surviving it was far more doable than alone. I manage to get a porcupine to eat, you make a fire starting kit and in exchange for you starting the fire I share my meat. Wait a minute, that's the same thing as trading labor for money and using money to trade for meat! Oops!

If you get what you want and do no work for it, but are provided with food, water and shelter, is it a slave who does the work for you? Someone has to do the work?

Don't fool yourself into thinking you do not have it very easy right now. Most people dropped off in a remote location with plenty of food and water in the environment would die surrounded by everything they need. Unlike a city now where you can do nothing, eat hot meals from charities, get free shelter and free clothing and have the freedom to complain to the people who did all the work for you, that it is slavery to expect you to do your share.

What if everyone refused to do the work and still wanted free food and shelter? Where exactly would it come from? How would it be provided for millions of people like you? By people enslaved by providing for people who won't earn their own?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Oh I'm fully aware I'd die in that scenario. I have no training or experience there.

I'm talking freedom, however. Becoming capable of fending for oneself and having a way to do so is another way to become free.

Sometimes it's easier being a slave than being free.

The life of a dog is much easier than the life of a wolf. The wolf, however, unlike the dog, is free.

Free does not always mean better. Do not confuse my meaning.
edit on 9/24/2016 by Puppylove because: grammar and spelling



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

OK, I get what you were saying a bit better.

This is what prompted my post.


The only way we will ever be free is when food and water become a given right. Once food, water and basic shelter are met, then earnings for work can start. One should not be forced to work or die. That's slavery. We should be trying to move beyond that.


The former Soviet Union should have taught the world what happens when a person is provided for without the actual need to do their share. Worthless products nobody wants and a drunk, lazy population with no desire to do better. People standing a line all day to get some toilet paper instead of being productive.

Why is it anyone's responsibility to provide for any person who will not do their share? You said "One should not be forced to work or die"? To me that reads give me, give me, give me, but never ask me to do my part? I'm a bit confused how working to support ones self is slavery. Humans have done it since the beginning, animals work to survive also.

As imperfect as it is, this system makes it's very easy to survive or even excel if a person wants too.

Where I cross wires with the so called "system" is we could do a better job of caring for our elderly and infirm who are incapable of meeting their own needs. I'm not all that sympathetic to those who just want their "given right" of being kept by others labor and given their basic needs while they complain.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
A measure of ones worth is not determined by how much money and stuff they have.

Rather, how we behave towards others.

In the old days, Japanese lived in villages where all were taken care of regardless of ability.
Everyone contributed to the management of the village in some way and in return, the poorer members were fed and housed.
The village was the Inside. As long as one was a member of the village, an Insider, all needs would be met.
If a person did something criminal, that person was cast out of the village- and would become an Outsider. The Outsider no longer had the advantages associated with having all needs met and became completely self sustaining- probably to their detriment.
For that reason, people did not want to become Outsiders as it became both a survival and a social issue.
children as young as 6 routinely ride the subway unaccompanied.
doors are still kept unlocked,vending machines sell everything from books to drinks, operate 24 hours a day, are well-lit, always clean, electronic, and consistently in working order,
Never tampered with or covered in graffiti, they are located on every street corner.
The laws when caught are harsh and swift.
A society of honor with morals and structure…



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555



The former Soviet Union should have taught the world what happens when a person is provided for without the actual need to do their share. Worthless products nobody wants and a drunk, lazy population with no desire to do better. People standing a line all day to get some toilet paper instead of being productive.




How come the major corporations under the Soviet Union could get away with putting out cheap low quality worthless products?
It was because there was no competition to put them out of business since the government was their number one customer

Sound Familiar?

It Should because that is what we have in this country where the major corporations deal with politicians to kill their competition via writing rules and regulations or creating trade pacts with Communist Countries

The biggest proponents in this country against capitalism is Big Business



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 01:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Here's the thing. You still reward work. You just start without starvation. I don't buy into the feed and shelter people and they just lie down and get fat idea. That's only true if there's no incentive to work.

Which is why you still pay people to work. See when people work to eat they are being punished/forced to work. Once you take that away and work starts of as a net gain rather than trying to get above water, you're rewarding people to work.

Will some be lazy good for nothings? Sure, but we get that anyway.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: 8675309jenny




Are you actually serious? Do you even hear yourself? Living in the nanny-state UK has so brainwashed you with the leftist agenda that you actually believe someONE or some entity has a RIGHT to control how successful a person can be

you are aware we havent had a left wing government since the 70's, blair renamed labour 'new labour' and shifted the party to center right.
many true socialists then voted liberal democrat as they became the most left leaning party, hence their rise.
corbyn is trying to shift the party back to a left wing standing but, too many blairites unwilling to shift are killing the party.



LOL holy sh!t you're actually serious aren't you??? HOw far left is far enough for you to call someone a leftist? Vladimir Lenin? Karl Marx?


The UK 'mainstream right' is roughly equivalent to an American average liberal.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: angeldoll

So slavery isn't slavery then? A slave is bought, given shelter and fed, in exchange for doing the work demanded of him. So even though the man has no choice. It's just work, right? It's all a matter of perspective? The slave should be happy with his work?

We all need food and water to live. When simple food and water is all you get for your labor you are a slave, unless the only one you are feeding is yourself.

At no point in the above analogy was there any implication the person was being paid or given anything else but the basic essentials he needed to live, and while doing that, he was providing for someone else who's only action was to teach him to fish then use that to hold him as a slave for life by making his very livelihood dependent on feeding him a fish before he could have his own.

That's slavery.

The only way we will ever be free is when food and water become a given right. Once food, water and basic shelter are met, then earnings for work can start. One should not be forced to work or die. That's slavery. We should be trying to move beyond that.




You can take some supplies, a nice big backpack and hike off into the mountains and no one's going to stop you.

You know who coudn't do that?? Black American slaves.

And there are slaves all around the middle-east and parts of Asia today who do not have the freedom to walk off into the mountains and determine their own destiny.

I FIND IT SERIOUSLY DISRESPECTFUL TO CURRENT SLAVES AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY THAT YOU EQUATE THEIR SUFFERING WITH YOU OWN SELF PITY !



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: madenusa

Thank you, for that inside Japan village look, the same was true of Vietnam before the uS invaded , the village was the highest authority, there was no capital city, every hamlet handled its own affairs, unless trading or exchanging goods and services or sons and daughters for marriage.

This made them vulnerable to occupation however, as there was no need for higher unity beforehand. They still won out against the military might of a superpower in the end, too.

Both Japan and Vietnam are ideal culture life styles; interdependent, but independent network of village hamlets.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Thats not what member was saying...

are you a slaver over someone, by any chance?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Thats not what member was saying...

are you a slaver over someone, by any chance?


What?

Can you read?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Blaine91555

Here's the thing. You still reward work. You just start without starvation. I don't buy into the feed and shelter people and they just lie down and get fat idea. That's only true if there's no incentive to work.

Which is why you still pay people to work. See when people work to eat they are being punished/forced to work. Once you take that away and work starts of as a net gain rather than trying to get above water, you're rewarding people to work.

Will some be lazy good for nothings? Sure, but we get that anyway.


Here's the thing though: almost everything in recorded human history says otherwise. Every philosophy from Marx to the Bible pretty much admits that he who does not work shall not eat more or less admitting that when people are given the opportunity to be freed of the obligation to produce for themselves, they tend to sit back and subsist on what is provided.

And if you want an object lesson, check out the commonwealth they tried to establish in Jamestown initially. Rather than take the approach that all had to work, every colonist had a common share what the colony held. And they all nearly starved to death because too many chose to subsist rather than produce.

So long as you have to rely on human beings to produce what everyone needs and you are offering to "free" everyone from the obligation of having to do so, then many will simply choose not to. People just don't like working that much.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: 8675309jenny

Thats not what member was saying...

are you a slaver over someone, by any chance?


What?

Can you read?

I read you clear. You thought member was 'disrespecting slaves' when they laid it out perfectly...



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The idea that people who don't work don't eat is really only common in western thinking. Others have taken the idea that using the threat of starvation to compel labor from people ultimately leads to slavery and debt.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: ketsuko

The idea that people who don't work don't eat is really only common in western thinking. Others have taken the idea that using the threat of starvation to compel labor from people ultimately leads to slavery and debt.


OK, then when everyone is promised to have their basic needs taken care irregardless of whether or not they work or what they do if they choose to ... what kind of society results?

Understand, the we have not lived in a survival footing for a very, very long time. How many will think it their responsibility to work at the jobs that make society go like food production or housing construction? Why would they?

Those are hard work.
edit on 25-9-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join