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 Conspiracies Of Poverty

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
Not so sure about 10,000 years but yeah for a long time.
Do you think that the post "peak oil" situation will force the kind of Amish existence you seem to disdain?


I don't disdain it at all, it's just that there are too many of us. Where would the millions of people who live in cities grow their food for example? it's impractical in the short term.

As for peak oil, yes. We will become more agricultural, but technology will allow as to harness our "human" power in many more ways. Big industries may collapse, but be replaced by independent artisans and tradesmen doing more things by hand. We will have to make less "stuff", and plastics would start to disappear, but they managed up till 1900 without plastic so it's not impossible.

It sounds radical, but it's not. in the 1800's for example US labour unions were actually campaigning AGAINST wages, in principle. It was seen to tie the employee to the company, and reduce their independence. Before heavy industry, most people worked trades, applied skills, and offered services to survive. I read once that in the mid 1800's something 85 percent of working people were technically small business owners. We managed it before oil, and we'll manage afterwards.




Oh. And I too would pay a little more taxes (emphasis on little
) for such a program if I was sure there would be no bureaucratic waste and no shenanigans amongst those managing the program.


Well one way they could at least kick off with something efficient is to invade/nationalize Walmart!

As for corruption, well the usual precautions must be taken.. I don't have an answer to that one, other that a free press and vigilance.


edit : The 10,000 years is about right. early babylonians and sumerians had money, trade, and a banking system, although it was largely in the from of written records. Debts were calculated, recorded and repaid on clay tablets. More like modern electronic banking in a way, but still money. And of course gold had been around before then..



[edit on 9-7-2004 by muppet]

[edit on 9-7-2004 by muppet]




posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I'd be very interested in any sources on the topic of how "normal" people lived their day to day existence prior to the industrial revolution and the discovery of oil as well as how those methods and that knowledge can inform and contribute to the present and near future.

Anyone?



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   
Having grown up poor, and mostly self eductated, id have to agree, kids from higher income families group together and get more attention.

I have an IQ of 138, yet because i came from "white trash" family, I was often ignored except by certain teachers who were fascinated by my hunger for knowldge. But few of my teachers ever encouraged me to move on to college, take college courses, ect. I never had much desire, after seeing the rich kids, to have anything to do with that sort of "world".

So, what other option was there for me? Military service. I remeber we had only two people in our unit from high well to do families, mostly kids who wanted to get out of the house. Most of us were either from middle class families or from the absolute bottom of the barrel. What the hell else is there for us? Continued life in the trailer park/ghetto, or join the military and get to do things.

Of course, id not trade my military experience for a college one. I got to travel the world, something most college people never do. I gained valuable insights into life. I learned reality. I gained new perspectives. And not to brag, but I am smarter than 90% of college grads that Ive met. I also have found that alot of people who went to college have no clue of how the real world looks and functions. They are living in the clouds.

However, my high inteligence and curiosity and enterprising mind have gotten me no where in life financially. I have been homeless before. Ive been laid off alot of jobs. Wealth in this country has nothing to do with what you know, just who you know, or how good are you at bull#ting.

I will say this, alot of homeless people Ive known are there by thier own fault. Alot of times, Ive known a few who had great jobs, but blew it away by doing dope. Some people are there because they had no choice. Some have no desire to move up if it means having to depend on the govornment or charity.

Many Americans are too proud and individualistic to take handouts from the govornment, thus, our anti socialist beliefs. I tend to agree. You dont help out the Po' folk by supporting them with socialist systems, you help them out by stopping sending jobs overseas, working to ensure opportunity is always there.

Not everyone wants to go to college. Some people just wanna work a trade. Some people dont even want alot of money. The only people the state should help are those who are sick and cannot fend for themselves, provided they have no sympathetic family members.

I would never want the type of socialism i saw in Europe. But we do have a problem in this society of how we view the poor. We are often viewed as stupid. Our insights, thoughts, and perspectives are almost automatically discounted. Poor people are stupid. They are crazy. they believe anything. Blah blah blah. Youre obviously dumb if you dont have a college education. Ect. How many times I have told people when seeing something on the news, that some professor didnt know what he was talking about, but people believe him because hes got a diploma, money, and im just poor white trash, ect.

Our perceptions need to change. Period.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Interesting points Skadi,

The one that really caught my eye was that Americans are too proud to take handouts. Most of our solutions or ideas have been based off of European Socialism, but I wonder if it would work in America because of cultural ideals. Could Americas deal with a Democratic Socialist government like those in Europe?

I am starting to wonder because of all the whining that Americans do about tiny tax increases and taxes on things that will probably never affect the vast majority of them like the estate tax. Is free-market Capitolism so instilled in American minds that even a concept like universal health care would become problematic because of the new taxes needed, even though it would eliminate the co-pays, HMO fees and other payments that need to be made under private health care?

And as our friend the Evil Elf pointed out, there are people who don't want to accept charity, I think this has something to do with a great ammout of pride that some people exhibit, or their need to produce for themselves.

We do need programs and government regulations that keep jobs in America, there are so many towns that show the scars of what outsourcing can do, Flint, Detroit, Erie, Buffalo, Allentown, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Toledo, the coal fields towns of West Virgina and Pennsylvania, the iron range towns in Michigan and Wisconsin, and countless other manufacturing centers around the country, hell even Sillicon Valley is turning into a ghost town because of jobs going overseas. No American should have to train their own replacement, it's one of the most degrading and inhumane things that the corporate bigshots have forced our brothers and sisters to do since the 1800s. Shame on them and the billions of dollars they have gotten though moving the jobs of our countrymen overseas.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral

[edit on 7/10/2004 by The Astral City]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Excellent points Skadi, and having been there and back, I couldnt agree more with your suggestions.

Although there is a large group of folks that dont mind social handouts at all, and are satisfied with what it brings them.....

social dependency.





*edit-forgot to finish thought*

[edit on 10-7-2004 by smirkley]



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Pisky and I have always felt that food should be free.

It's insane for people to have absolutely nothing in the house to eat 3 days before payday and yet one block, two blocks away is a cornucopia of plenty with people gorging themselves.

Try to have a good attitude about life when you're really hungry. It's not easy. It tends to me one hate people. Since people basically suck anyway, going hungry with all this food about only adds to the hatred.

A radical thought about the lottery:

Bring on the flames, but I'm not alone in thinking this so don't assume I am.

I think there should be income checks to play the lottery. I don't think the rich should be allowed to play. And why not you ask ?

Well, maybe it's because it's the poor that pump most of the money into the lotteries in the first place, hoping beyond hope that they will be the one it happens to and their days of starvation and deprivation and basically misery will finally come to an end.

I've seen it happen, time and time again. IT's almost always someone rich who wins these gigantic lotteries. Greedy bastards who already have more money then they can spend go out and buy a gazillion tickets at once. Now you tell me who has the best chance at winning ? The poor Joe who can only afford 5 dollars a week or the Rich asshole who owns 9 Chuck E. Cheese restaurants and spends 100 dollars a week on tickets. (True story, guys..this actually happened in the state I live about 10 years ago...and people were PISSED)

The standard line is that everybody has the same chance at winning. But thinking people with even the slightest ability to add 2 + 2 will easily figure out that those with the most tickets have the best chances. And that would be the rich and the reason the rich keep winning.

THIS is why we should either outlaw it, or do income checks to insure that only those who deserve it, win it. IMHO.



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I don't really care about the lottery as a vehicle for ending poverty because it isn't one. All it does is increase inequality. Let's say most of the lottery's customers are poor. So you're taking money from poor people and making one poor person rich. It really doesn't have a big effect anyway, regardless of whether the person who won the lottery was guaranteed to be a poor person.


But thinking people with even the slightest ability to add 2 + 2 will easily figure out that those with the most tickets have the best chances. And that would be the rich and the reason the rich keep winning.

If rich people are buying half of the tickets then I'd agree. But I doubt that. At least some of the people who are wealthy got that way by understanding economics, and those people would understand that buying more than one ticket per draw (and maybe the cutoff frequency is even less) has a negative expectation. Of the people who buy hundreds of tickets a week, you're going to hear about the one who won, but not about the rest of those idiots who keep trying in vain.

Further, the idea that because one person buys a hundred tickets, which is more than what the average person buys, he's likely to win the lottery -- that's simply not true. If a hundred thousand poor people buy one ticket each and some rich monkey buys two hundred, the chances are that a poor person will win (if any one does). Assuming that someone did win, the chance that it would be a poor person would be 99.8%. And if there were a lot of rich people buying lottery tickets relatively (which I doubt), then they are providing a significant portion of the jackpot, so it's not surprising that under those circumstances they would win often.

Now, you could split the lottery up into a poor person's lottery and a rich person's lottery. But the thing is, the statistical expectation for a poor person and a rich person would be exactly the same. Think about it -- for any given frequency that rich people were winning originally, there was a proportional amount of the jackpot contributed by rich people. If we split the lotteries up then in the poor person's lottery every time there was a winner the winner would be poor, so that original frequency of a rich person winning would be counteracted, but the jackpot would also be reduced proportionately. And there would also be a rich person's lottery, so rich people would still win money.

But really, who cares? It's the lottery. It has an insignificant effect on poverty (except for the profits of the lottery which can be used against poverty -- but that can happen regardless of who is allowed to play).



posted on Jul, 10 2004 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Good idea, Kay Em. Like that rich bastard in West Virginia who won the lotto. The rich should not be allowed to play.

And youre right, it is pretty damn hard to keep a smiling face and good attitude when you havent eaten # for a few days. Even worse when the cops tell you to beat it, you can sleep here, go find a shelter, blah blah blah.

Americans oppose universal heathcare for amny reasons. For one, its charity, for 2, they fear the quality of healthcare will go down.

This is a society of rugged strong individualism, not socialism. It always has been.

For example, my stepdads mother threw us out of her trailer so she could collect the money, even though the guy buying it offered her half the 200k is was going to buy the property for to let us stay for 6 more months, and the other half when we left.

Even family means nothing.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf


Even family means nothing.



It really doesn't. Not anymore. Not becuase family has suddenly become soulless, but because they are SO obsessed with money to the exclusion of all else it isn't even funny.

My mother, who lost her HOUSE playing video poker, who to this day has trouble paying the #ing RENT because of video poker (and she's in recovery by the way) STILL can think of nothing but money. She has evil creditors calling her and harassing her at every turn. They don't give a rats ass that there is nothing to eat. They claim the "Lottery" benefits those who go without.

Ummmm.....pay attention here, Heir, please.

My mother used to care about feelings and people, but the lottery, the thing that is supposed to do so good for so many people (who do without) has changed all that. Her first thoughts in the morning are "How am I going to afford this or that thing....etc etc "

Heir: It is obvious you come from money so it might do you good to drop the cluelessness just a tad. Millions are addicted to the lottery. Millions of POOR people who are INSANE for something better, and not even that much. They are desperate just to have #ing FOOD in the cupboards.

Either you work for the man, or you are just plain rich and completely ignorant of the fact that there are poor people on this planet.

To be honest ? I hate reading posts such as yours because it's like sheep blindly believing what the ads would have them believe, or it's the rich masquerading as a "home girl/guy" without a clue in the world. Can we spell S-L-U-M-M-I-N-G ?



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by KayEm
She has evil creditors calling her and harassing her at every turn. They don't give a rats ass that there is nothing to eat.

What do you suggest be done about those creditors? Should we tell them to go away empty-handed? Do you really think that the effects of that action would only be suffered by the creditors themselves? Or should the government pay off the debt? What should be done?


They claim the "Lottery" benefits those who go without.

Who are 'they'? I wouldn't insult the intelligence of the poor -- try an expression similar to "same chance as winning the lottery" or "I'll do that after I win the lottery" and its meaning would be readily understood.


Heir: It is obvious you come from money so it might do you good to drop the cluelessness just a tad.

Is it? You apparently know more than me about what I come from.



Millions are addicted to the lottery. Millions of POOR people who are INSANE for something better, and not even that much. They are desperate just to have FOOD in the cupboards.

When was there a system when some people didn't have to struggle just to survive? I perceive that people who are very disillusioned about how things are today are a bit naive about how bad things were in the past.

People today are addicted to lots of useless things, many of which I've listed in a previous post. Some of those are debatable, as are some things I didn't list. What should we do? Outlaw them all?


Either you work for the man, or you are just plain rich and completely ignorant of the fact that there are poor people on this planet.

Really? That's interesting. I guess I'll just slink off now that some virtuous poor person has called me rich and ignorant without knowing me. Do you not have arguments for your perspective that don't rely on making unsubstantiated allegations about the opponent?


To be honest ?...

If you want to debate, then debate. But there's apparently an ignore link near my name if you prefer.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa
Someone owns the land on which the fruit was grown. It is arguable that the workers themselves, or someone else, rightfully owns the land, but that's a separate issue. Given that a particular person, the owner, legally owns the land (and this owner could be the workers themselves if they own the land...), he has claim to the value that the fruit represent.


You're misunderstanding what I'm saying HeirToBokassa. I'm not questioning the 'Ownership' of the land between the holder of the deed and the workers or any other party. What I'm saying is that all forms of 'Ownership' are an Illusion of the Mind. It is a concept that was created by Humans as part of the Mental Construct of Society and the Rules by which it functions.

The 'Value' of Money is another 'Concept' which works in the same way. Like you said yourself, "Economists don't argue that it isn't an "ILLUSION." That is all I'm saying as well, only I'm going beyond just the Illusionary concepts of money itself. This is why I'm confused by some of your comments about what I've posted. My only guess is that you aren't understanding what I've written, either because of how I wrote it or because of how you read it, which one I'm not sure.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying that billions of dollars of property doesn't exist in this world except in numerical/paper/coin form, you're wrong. If you're saying the people who own that stuff are not the rightful owners, that's a different issue.


Well, as far as them being the 'Rightful Owners', that issue is covered above. Where I was going with this was showing the difference between 'Ownership', which is only a concept or idea that is believed to be real, and 'Possession', which is actually a real situation that is possible without the need of any mental concepts to define it as such. So to show what I mean by someone not being able to 'Possess' Billions of Dollars of 'Property or Products or whatever' without the concept of 'Ownership' I'll use the following simple example.

Let's say this person has spent a Billion dollars on 'His Home', 'A Yacht' and 'A Plane'. Now, it is only because of the 'Belief' in the Concept of 'Ownership' that all 3 of those things are 'Believed' to be his 'Possessions'. In reality though, he can only 'Possess' one at a time, which depends upon which one he's actually using at any given moment. But as long as everyone 'Believes' in the 'Ownership' concept and that 'Ownership = Possession', he can therefor 'Possess' all three at once.

Obviously this is self evident to most people. The reason I bring it up though is to illustrate that it is because of these 'Mental Constructs' that a single person has the ability 'Claim Authority or Ownership Rights' to Real Things, that in Reality are far beyond the capability of any person to do. So it is because of everyone's 'Belief in the Game' that allows for someone, using Money(Paper/Coin/etc.) or even just the Electronic Numerical Equivalent, to buy up an entire City, Country or World and exercise Authority over it and those who are within the borders thereof.

Now, if that 'Owner' turns out to Rule with the methods of a Greedy Ruthless Tyrant, you can see why belief in his Illusionary Authority is quite destructive and pointless to all those who continue to 'Believe that the Illusion is True or Real'.


If the poor become less poor, in general it would be through the creation of value, which raises everyone's standard of living. The "Beliefs" revolving around the "ILLUSION" of money affect everyone, rich and poor.


I totally agree that the 'Beliefs' of the 'Illusion' do effect everyone, rich and poor. In fact 'The System' itself that we use even requires some form of 'Rich & Poor' scale, based on 'Capital', for it to function correctly using the parameters by which it's been built. If everyone was Equal in Wealth, then the Hierarchy would be gone, which in turn would collapse a Society based on acquisition of Capital, since everyone already had enough, removing the need for them to continue to Work for more. However, that would shorty become a problem in itself because without people working everything and everyone would soon be in serious trouble, obviously.

It is because of this that a 'Capitalistic Society', like it or not, requires at all times some Hierarchy of Monetary Wealth to function. That is what I would call 'The Conspiracy of Poverty', although it's not so much a Conspiracy as it is just one of the Basic Principles of the Foundation of Capitalism. People work solely for the acquisition of Money (or Capital). Therefor a Society based on Capitalism must keep a certain percent of it's populous in a state of living conditions where they are forced to work simply to survive. The larger that percent, the more work will be done. Now this is of course a very strict example of Capitalistic Theory, since it completely rules out that anyone would work without Capitalistic Gain being the main motivational force. As you slide that Theoretical line away from Capitalism it typically is in the direction of Communism, at least in the Economic sense, which at that point all kinds of problems pop up as we all know.


Side Note: When you start every other word with a capital letter, do you think it makes your claims any more legitimate?


No. Since you don't seem to understand most of what I've written, I doubt you're the best judge of what my 'Claims' are in the first place. Some of which are the same 'Claims' you also put forth as legitimate as well, so I don't know why you have a problem with them. However, since the Technical Style of how I write is such a concern, rather than it's message I suppose an answer must be given.

When I use a Capital Letter mid sentence or Quotes or some other unusual writing style it is simply to put more emphasis on certain words so they will hopefully get my intended idea across better. It is similar to using bold, italic or underline which is typically used for the same reasons, only I find it faster and easier to just use a Capital or Quotations rather than using the other methods which require putting in the additional coding.

The Lottery
Real quick I thought I'd comment on the Lottery thing. Personally I don't have any problem with it. Although, I don't have anything against Gambling either even though many people ruin their lives because of it. I think that one of the Properties of Freedom is the ability to choose for ones own self. People gamble cause they choose to gamble. It's no secret that the odds are always for the House, that's why it's called gambling. My only problem with the lottery or any kind of 'Winnings' is that they are Taxed to such extreme amounts it really seems like robbery to me. But, since I rarely gamble anyway, it doesn't effect me since I have no 'Winnings' to be taxed anyway.

Also, I don't think that the Rich should be prohibited from any Gambling or Lottery. They should have the right to spend their money on it just like anyone else. If they are able to somehow beat the odds of the system for a guaranteed win and profit, then the problem isn't that they are rich, but the fact that the game was set up incorrectly for not accounting for that possibility.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
What I'm saying is that all forms of 'Ownership' are an Illusion of the Mind. It is a concept that was created by Humans as part of the Mental Construct of Society and the Rules by which it functions.

What is real and what is illusion? The concept of society itself could be said to be illusion because it exists in people's minds. Ownership is real in that it describes how people behave. Animals have the concept of ownership too -- they pee on trees to mark territory and such. Before society, with all of its rules, ownership still existed among humans. Sometimes it was through mutual understanding, and sometimes it was established through force.


Where I was going with this was showing the difference between 'Ownership', which is only a concept or idea that is believed to be real, and 'Possession', which is actually a real situation that is possible without the need of any mental concepts to define it as such.

Just to be clear, ownership and possession mean the same thing, but I will pretend that they don't for the sake of this argument (and I'm not belittling you, as it's just as convenient as making up some new word).


Let's say this person has spent a Billion dollars on 'His Home', 'A Yacht' and 'A Plane'. Now, it is only because of the 'Belief' in the Concept of 'Ownership' that all 3 of those things are 'Believed' to be his 'Possessions'. In reality though, he can only 'Possess' one at a time, which depends upon which one he's actually using at any given moment. But as long as everyone 'Believes' in the 'Ownership' concept and that 'Ownership = Possession', he can therefor 'Possess' all three at once.

So, according to you, the person owns the three properites through the law, but you suggest that he only possesses one because he can only be physically present on one. But that clause (physical presence) is completely arbitrary. I could sneak on board his yacht, slit his throat, and dispose of his body. Then what would he possess? If someone builds a house, then travels to fetch water, and comes back, can some squatter take possession of his home? Is that the definition of possession that is good for society?


Obviously this is self evident to most people.

Nope.



So it is because of everyone's 'Belief in the Game' that allows for someone, using Money(Paper/Coin/etc.) or even just the Electronic Numerical Equivalent, to buy up an entire City, Country or World and exercise Authority over it and those who are within the borders thereof.

  • It is because of everyone's 'belief in the game' that people can move around outside their homes with some sense of security.
  • You can't buy something if someone else isn't willing to sell it.
  • If you are challenging the current distribution of ownership (your "City, Country, or World" comment), I am not debating that with you. But my understanding of ownership is that it rightfully should exclude people as objects.


Now, if that 'Owner' turns out to Rule with the methods of a Greedy Ruthless Tyrant...

I don't think ownership of any property gives anyone the right to usurp anyone else's fundamental rights. In Bolivia a company tried to privatize the water and thus own the rights to rainwater. That's retarded and I don't support it. But have I said anything to suggest that I do?


since everyone already had enough, removing the need for them to continue to Work for more.

  • Arguably, no one ever has enough. I'd like to think that we can evolve to a stage where that isn't true, but we aren't there yet.
  • People consume what they have, so in order to not run out, they'd still have to work.
  • People are not cattle. They have aspirations and dreams, and they will always move forward (not to say that doing so won't get them or all of humanity annihilated)


It is because of this that a 'Capitalistic Society', like it or not, requires at all times some Hierarchy of Monetary Wealth to function.

Capitalism doesn't require hierarchy. Most practical, day-to-day understanding of capitalism (e.g. unemployment vs. inflation) do, but that is because of how people themselves behave. It is most of humanity that has an affinity to hierarchy. Many of those who claim to be against hierarchy would just as soon put themselves at the top, as is proven from history. That's not to say that we can't evolve to a higher plane, but we're not there yet.


People work solely for the acquisition of Money (or Capital).

No, they don't. There are volunteers. There are people who choose to do what they love rather than what pays best. There are people who do things just to do them.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa
Just to be clear, ownership and possession mean the same thing, but I will pretend that they don't for the sake of this argument (and I'm not belittling you, as it's just as convenient as making up some new word).


Actually, they are not the same. They are similar, but actually mean two totally different things.

Possession
Law. Actual holding or occupancy with or without rightful ownership.

Ownership
Legal right to the possession of a thing.

So as you can see, by definition, Possession deals with Actuality(Reality) while Ownership deals with Legality(Conceptual).

A real world example is imagine that a Bear is currently eating your legally owned picnic basket as you return after a walk through the woods. Now, while you may have 'Ownership' of the basket and contents, the Bear actually has 'Possession' of it and therefor until he relinquishes his 'Possession' of it, Ownership is arbitrary.


So, according to you, the person owns the three properties through the law, but you suggest that he only possesses one because he can only be physically present on one. But that clause (physical presence) is completely arbitrary. I could sneak on board his yacht, slit his throat, and dispose of his body. Then what would he possess? If someone builds a house, then travels to fetch water, and comes back, can some squatter take possession of his home? Is that the definition of possession that is good for society?


I'm not suggesting anything, nor is this according to me. It's just an undeniable fact, that's all. I'm not talking about 'the good of society' necessarily either. I'm talking about Plain Reality.

Physical Presence as you put it, is not Arbitrary. Just the opposite it is Reality and a basic Law of Nature. We have tried to make it arbitrary however by setting up our own system of Unnatural Laws that are in fact, when you get right down to it, completely opposite. Hence 'The Illusion' or it, or in other terms, 'The Ultimate Lie/Deception'. We've live in a world where, at least some if not most or all Laws are completely opposite of Natural Laws and what is real. Because of this, I would theorize that at least in part, that is why the Human Race seems so unbalanced and out of sink with everything else. Natural Laws are self regulating and balanced in design, otherwise the universe and life would simply not work. So if we develop society with Laws opposed to Natural Laws, we will always be working toward failure and/or destruction.


Obviously this is self evident to most people.
Nope.


OK, well to some people it is. Most people I also think it is self evident as well although intentionally ignored for various reasons. In doing so they only deny themselves what is real for what is illusion. This is also reinforced by those who want to keep others believing in the illusion as it affords them control over those peoples lives. This is usually done by convincing them that living the lie is the only way to live & that by doing so they will live better lives.


  • It is because of everyone's 'belief in the game' that people can move around outside their homes with some sense of security.
  • You can't buy something if someone else isn't willing to sell it.
  • If you are challenging the current distribution of ownership (your "City, Country, or World" comment), I am not debating that with you. But my understanding of ownership is that it rightfully should exclude people as objects.


It's funny you should mention 'People as objects' because that is exactly what The Game has done. People are Property of their State or Government. We are all just Property of the System which is kinda funny since We are Real Individual Things who also claim to be Free and have Free Will, while the System is something created by people and is only a Concept which is based purely on Belief. (Those who are Religious and enjoy comparing the world to scripture, especially Revelations, might find what I'm saying similar to all the stories about 'BEASTS' & 'SATAN'S GREAT LIE OF DECEIVING MAN' and so forth. I myself do not put so much 'Faith' in those prophesies since I would rather exercise the Power of my Free Will in deciding my future, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.)


I don't think ownership of any property gives anyone the right to usurp anyone else's fundamental rights. In Bolivia a company tried to privatize the water and thus own the rights to rainwater. That's retarded and I don't support it. But have I said anything to suggest that I do?


I agree that 'Ownership' doesn't give someone the 'Right' to usurp anyone's 'Rights' either. However it happens all the time as we both know. I'm not suggesting that you support such things either, as far as you know. What I'm suggesting is that each and every one of us are at least guilty of 'going along for the ride' in those situations sometimes willingly and sometimes without knowing at all. There are even those who are actually guilty of Knowingly Creating as well as Supporting such things though too, which is why it is so important for all people who get worked over by such things to make sure that they aren't fooled or unknowingly supporting them as well.


People work solely for the acquisition of Money (or Capital).
No, they don't. There are volunteers. There are people who choose to do what they love rather than what pays best. There are people who do things just to do them.



OK, yes you're right. But very very very few of them and that was the point I was making. I'm not saying everyone is caught up in 'Capitalism' to the point of massive greed and all that, I was generalizing a bit to keep it simple. Sorry!


However, as you well know, it is because of Capitalistic Society though, that simply being a Volunteer, Artist, or whatever will not get you by (usually) without that service being marketed in some way. Which there is nothing inherently wrong with that exactly, although Extreme Capitalism (which is what we have today in America for sure) gets to a level where corruption rules all. Just look at Organized Religion, again in general. It is certainly debatable whether or not it's foundations continue to be geared toward the benefit of People or the Benefit of The Church. Likewise, has it remained grounded in Wealth that comes from God's Word or Salvation by Christ, or the Wealth of Societies False God and Purchased Salvation, Money??



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
Actually, they are not the same. They are similar, but actually mean two totally different things.

No. Look either up in a thesaurus and you'll find the other. They mean the same thing. If you preface either with the word rightful, then you'd get a different meaning.


It's just an undeniable fact, that's all.

Consider it denied.


Physical Presence as you put it, is not Arbitrary.

Physical presence is arbitrary. A guest on someone else's property does not own or possess (you pick the word) the property. And physical presence could be replaced with physical dominance, etc.


We've live in a world where, at least some if not most or all Laws are completely opposite of Natural Laws and what is real.

Yes. Because Natural Laws say I can eat you.


Natural Laws are self regulating and balanced in design, otherwise the universe and life would simply not work.

In Natural Law there is no common good, at best there is tribalism and otherwise everyone for him/her/itself. And that's not capitalism, that's murder.


It's funny you should mention 'People as objects' because that is exactly what The Game has done. People are Property of their State or Government...

It isn't clear what 'The Game' is. Are you referring to free-market theory? People aren't the property of the state in free-market theory. Are you referring to the current situation? The current scenario is not the result of free-market theory, but rather an amalgation of different peoples' ideologies. You can't take the worst aspects of that amalgamation and blame it on what you dislike the most without an argument to back you up.


I'm not suggesting that you support such things either, as far as you know. What I'm suggesting is that each and every one of us are at least guilty of 'going along for the ride' in those situations sometimes willingly and sometimes without knowing at all.

With some of the things you're saying, I don't follow where they fit in the discussion. You seem to be seizing on any truism or cliche, that no-one has contradicted, and somehow implying that it supports your claims or is relevant without explanation. I'm not guilty of going along for any ride because I am not in control of the system. I can only advise people against making idiotic statements and decisions. They can still do it if they choose.


But very very very few of them and that was the point I was making.

That's their fault, not the market's.


However, as you well know, it is because of Capitalistic Society though, that simply being a Volunteer, Artist, or whatever will not get you by (usually) without that service being marketed in some way.

This doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by getting by? Do you mean being paid??? That's where the market comes in! You seem to be saying "yes, people can do things without being paid, but it's difficult because for some reason no-one pays them to." The answer to that is in the statement itself. I'm guessing you meant something else but you'll have to be clearer.



[edit on 11-7-2004 by HeirToBokassa]



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Regarding ownership vs. possession, it is true that in common usage it can sometimes be said that a person possesses something without owning it. But that does not imply that ownership is debatable and possession is apparent. Neither ownership or possession can be ascribed without assumptions.

Example: I can steal something and it's in my possession but I don't own it. However, if I was renting a car and someone asked me what my most valuable possession was (for collateral for some kind of shady loan, let's say), it would be dishonest of me to list the car, although i supposedly possess it. And, practically speaking, possession means nothing. If I'm with someone who I could easily overpower, and I ask him to hold something, who possesses it? Now extend that to the infinitely more random and uncertain real world.

[edit on 11-7-2004 by HeirToBokassa]



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa
No. Look either up in a thesaurus and you'll find the other. They mean the same thing. If you preface either with the word rightful, then you'd get a different meaning.


Yeah, that's because it's a THESAURUS. Which finds words of similar meaning. That however does not make them Exactly the same at all times. I will agree that they can, SOMETIMES, be used as the same, but it is also used with different meanings too.

Possession - Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law
The act, fact, or condition of having control of something
The act or state of possessing, or holding as one's own.
Note: Possession may be either actual or constructive; actual, when a party has the immediate occupancy; constructive, when he has only the right to such occupancy.


It's just an undeniable fact, that's all.
Consider it denied.


Well, like I said before. Some people intentionally ignore reality or refuse it for various reasons. In doing so they only deny themselves what is real for what is illusion. It's your choice to deny it as well and I'm sure you have your reasons for it. I no longer care at this point.


Physical presence is arbitrary. A guest on someone else's property does not own or possess (you pick the word) the property. And physical presence could be replaced with physical dominance, etc.


I'm not saying he (the guest) does own it. Since 'Ownership' is an Illusion of the Mind. Therefor it is not someone else's property, nor is it yours or anyone else's either in Actuality. Since you either cannot or will not understand what I'm saying, I'll use the words of someone else instead. Perhaps then it will make sense to you. I'm of the opinion now that you simply refuse anything I'm saying solely because you have something against me, but maybe you will agree if someone else explains it.

Much of what human beings take very naturally for "truth" they create for themselves. These truths are true, and yet culturally bound and ultimately arbitrary. Take the truth "Today is Monday." This statement can be actually true or false. But "Monday" is a concept our culture created, that has no correspondent in nature, outside of our own, spontaneously created, arbitrary belief systems. The Existentialist will call this type of arbitrary, culturally bound concept "not the way things really are", and will try to experience life free of all such concepts. Our culture is filled with such concepts as "Monday", "July", and even functions with the concept "ownership" which is just the same. Ownership is neither a process, activity, or object. If a man who owns his house said to you, when you asked him what he would do today, "I think Ill go and spend a few hours owning my house," this would sound a little strange. If I own a spoon that is in my kitchen, the spoon itself is no different than if nobody owned it. But it is viewed differently by human beings if I own it. Ownership has become the cornerstone of our economy, but it is a culturally bound, socially constructed convention, which some cultures in history have functioned without any concept of. Ownership does not exist in nature; human beings create it with pure mental activity, and the meaning they impose on the world around them. It has become an integral part of our world, and how we view reality. Just glancing at newspaper articles, its astonishing how many of the "facts of the world" they report have no correspondent in nature, but are facts only about the socially constructed world we have created for ourselves, whose only correspondents are the psychological life of the individuals in our society. We have created our world partly through means of such concepts as these, and this is what we take as "reality". It is no wonder, then, that some of us are capable of breaking from such "reality" and seeing the world differently, when caught in a delusion.
For more:
www.angelhaunt.net...


We've live in a world where, at least some if not most or all Laws are completely opposite of Natural Laws and what is real.
Yes. Because Natural Laws say I can eat you.


Yes, actually you can. But you're still missing the point. Interestingly enough the phrase, 'Eat Me', does apply quite well at this point too, IMO.



Natural Laws are self regulating and balanced in design, otherwise the universe and life would simply not work.
In Natural Law there is no common good, at best there is tribalism and otherwise everyone for him/her/itself. And that's not capitalism, that's murder.


So are you saying the Capitalism is free of murder?

Or that Society as we know it now, is not basically the same as 'Tribalism', only with bigger tribes and more complex structure?

Also, Capitalism itself is probably the closest form of Modern Society Types which would be attributed to the 'every person for themselves' rule.


It isn't clear what 'The Game' is. Are you referring to free-market theory? People aren't the property of the state in free-market theory. Are you referring to the current situation? The current scenario is not the result of free-market theory, but rather an amalgation of different peoples' ideologies. You can't take the worst aspects of that amalgamation and blame it on what you dislike the most without an argument to back you up.


No, I'm not talking about any free-market theory. 'The Game', in the way I'm using it, is referring to the 'Collective Construct of Concepts' which everyone is Living Everyday without ever bothering to question or examine it.

It brings to mind Shakespeare when he said: "All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players." Simply substitute 'Game' for 'Stage'.

As for the rest of your comments and questions, I'm sorry, but I simply refuse to answer them.

If in fact you legitimately are just not understanding what I'm saying, which is the reason for all the confusion, I hope maybe someone else can explain it in words you do understand if you're still interested. Others here have understood it fine, whether or not they care to explain it in their own words is up to them however. For whatever reason I guess I just cannot put it down in a way that will make sense to you and I'm giving up and moving on now, cause I don't know any other way to say it.

However, if you are just being a stubborn ass for some other reason and choosing to refuse everything I say and twist it all around and so on for no other reason than to be a pain, then all I can say is 'The Hell with ya'. If this isn't the case, don't take it personally. I'm not saying this IS what's happening, but it's happened plenty around here before by many members for all kinds of reasons that only they knew. Personally, I can only tolerate it for so long before I just ignore it and move on to other topics. Hopefully this isn't the case though.

In any case, no hard feelings or anything, I'll see ya around.



posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
The act, fact, or condition of having control of something
The act or state of possessing, or holding as one's own.
Note: Possession may be either actual or constructive; actual, when a party has the immediate occupancy; constructive, when he has only the right to such occupancy.

See! Merriam-Webster had to preface it with actual to get a different meaning. You lose



Some people intentionally ignore reality or refuse it for various reasons.

Lovely rhetoric, but can you back it up? Is it somehow apparent from my arguments that I am intentionally blinding myself to reality? Why, because I dare to dispute your raggedy claims?


I'm not saying he (the guest) does own it. ... I'm of the opinion now that you simply refuse anything I'm saying

See, you admit that the guest doesn't own/possess it (you didn't use the word possess, but if you feel that the guest does possess it please say so). But the guest is physically present!! So physical presence does not denote possession or ownership!!
Why don't you address that instead of making unsubstantiated claims about my intentions?


Much of what human beings take very naturally for "truth"...

Again, you choose to hold up a truism/cliche in the debate as if it matters. Ownership is (to some extent) a contrived concept. But so are human rights, honour, spirituality, ... So what?


Yes, actually you can. But you're still missing the point.

Am I? You were implying that deviation from Natural Law causes society's problems. I answered that by Natural Law your life is forfeit. You responded that I'm still missing the point, without explaining how. Again, rhetoric instead of substance.


So are you saying the Capitalism is free of murder?

Free-market capitalism is.


Or that Society as we know it now, is not basically the same as 'Tribalism', only with bigger tribes and more complex structure?

No, I am not addressing society as we know it in its entirety. You seem to be employing a strawman tactic where you imply that I am defending all social structures that currently exist. And actually, we are quite far from tribalism today relative to the past. People who despair about current events sometimes fail to see that. But I do not oppose rational, constructive change to society (as opposed to destructive, irresponsible change).


Also, Capitalism itself is probably the closest form of Modern Society Types which would be attributed to the 'every person for themselves' rule.

With reference to free-market capitalism, not like Natural Law, where that concept extends to murder.


No, I'm not talking about any free-market theory.

Then go back and read what you've ignored: "People aren't the property of the state in free-market theory. "


As for the rest of your comments and questions, I'm sorry, but I simply refuse to answer them.

Not surprising.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join