Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
I wouldn't fight the rising standards as an elite if I were one. You assume too much right in your first statement there. Also, there's more to the
world besides poor middle and elite. And the fact that I don't know testifies to the fact that you don't either. You cannot plot out who will do what.
That's an error on your behalf. For instance, saying all people have to do is accept this or do that. That's a dictatorship of the mind, believe it or
not. And there is a rule. Everybody never accepts the same thing. How does your system make people accept?
What are They "accepting?" (Except a higher standard of living?) The three Laws? As I said, the Laws are the foundation of virtually ALL society.
Virtually all of Us accept those Laws already. Organic farming? Most would eat organic in a heartbeat if They had the choice. The ability to
participate in problem solving directly? It's not mandatory. So They don't have to "accept" it... Um.... What else? All people don't have to
accept anything - They can go about Their business as usual if They so choose. It's not about HAVING to do ANYTHING. It's about the OPPORTUNITY to
do so vastly much more with One's life IF ONE WANTS TO.
As it stands now, virtually ALL of Us have little or, mostly, NO opportunity beyond struggling to ensure food is on the table (and the struggle does
NOT equate to food on the table - just increases the likelihood).
No, you're system, like I said, merely makes people their own money. A person who learns would be worth more than someone who just teaches and
eats. Worth is undeniable among humans. All humanity is worth the same, but all humans grow or lessen in worth from that standard. How does you system
Huh? Worth more HOW? Sure, people who improve things, better the world greatly, will have more respect/prestige/fame/glory/etc. (the new, social
"currency"), but there is no requirement. If One chose to be a couch potato so what? But most couch potatoes these days are that way because TV is
all They can afford for entertainment. They can't go out to world because They can't afford to, so They sit and let it be brought to Them.
You say it's not your standard. How? Words are worthless. Facts need to prove your claims.
Because it's NOT a "standard." It is a structure within which virtually all standards will fit. If You believe all food should be kosher - You may
eat and produce ko0sher foods. But if that is not Your standard, You may deviate as You wish. The only standards that WON'T fit are those which
allow breaking of the three Laws. And virtually all "laws" are based in these three Laws. Except where money/power/energy has prompted the passage
of bad "laws."
Suppose a leader breaks the laws and nobody cares because they're still happy and have what they want? What then?
Well, since the three Laws are so important, I can't see People not caring...but if no One cares, where's the problem?
Suppose the rule of democracy happens and everybody just hates one group of people and few stand in the way? What prevents your ideal society
from hating one group of the other.
Nothing preventing hatred of another group - and as long as the Laws are not broken, there is no problem. Once the Laws are broken, society will
frown. And do something. What depends greatly on who and how and what and when the Laws are broken (by).
For instance, abortion. I refuse to accept a society that allows it for no other reason than because the mother feels like it.
And I prefer a society that ensures every child that results from a pregnancy is wanted. There is a great deal of data that shows that unwanted
children are the largest part of who breaks the three Laws. Also, I use the benchmark provided through the Talmud of what the Christian God said was
when the soul enters the body (and also so stated in many other traditions, as well): the soul enters the body at first breath.
[shrug] Yes, We will still have bones of contention. But they will not be bones We don't already have. And meanwhile, We can live richly as We
address these issues - as opposed to most of Us living in poverty.
Others refuse to accept a society that would only allow it if the mother's life is in danger. This is a social cleavage. What does your system
do to prevent war in that cleavage?
Well... War breaks the three Laws... But if people want to break the Laws, I guess society will dissolve. (I doubt that it will... Most people
prefer peace and prosperity and will work hard to maintain that.)
Then no One will follow.
Ulysses S. Grant
Just to name a few.
Did any of These You mention lack the stranglehold of scarcity? Did They get followers strictly on ideological agreement? Or did They pay some,
promise to others, force yet more? The fact that You can find leaders that had power (money, energy) over others to begin with that did poor things
does NOT equate to the same expectations when ALL One has is One's ideas and Others much accept those ideas as good ones before change is affected.
If people don't like what Hume suggests...They ignore Hume.
No, they don't all ignore him. Once again your spout your words like you are the mind of the people. A true dictator are you. Yes, believe everyone
will do what you say they will do. Can't have dissent eh?
Sure They do. Hume has no other power over Others but in what Hume can offer through communication. If One has opportunity, One is very difficult to
control. If One has no opportunity, One can be manipulated. "Bought out," propagandized, controlled. Without that, each One must convince Others to
follow - and that is how the leaders will emerge. They will offer the best plans, They will organize and People will follow.
In a sense it is a democratic system, but a true democracy that does not ""vote itself money" because there is no need for
The Federal Reserve
Tiberius Gracchus's social reforms.
Just to name a few.
What have these scarcity paradigm controllers to do with abundance? The Fed will vanish. And the others are past scarcity paradigm controllers.
What's Your point?
Average??? LOL! The average Human is going to bed hungry. Plenty means EVERYONE may have what They want. You think that is the way it is
now? The average Human does not need to worry about whether there is food on the table?
This statement does not change the fact. The average, no matter how high or how low, is still the average. People don't like being average.
Only if They are aware They are "average..." And it depends on what it is we're talking about. And the average - planet-wise - is that People are in
poverty. People don't like living in poverty - but that has to do with comfort and opportunity, not because They are "average."
[sigh] If they are "jealous," They can go get more, too. You are very unclear on the concept.
There's an old saying. The needle that broke the camel's back. You're not very clear on the concept apparently.
Huh? What has that to do with having plenty for all to have what They want? And I do believe it is the STRAW that breaks the camel's back. You're
not clear how it is irrelevant.
No, I say what I say because I have studied.
Book ideals fail in the real world.
LOLOL! I have studied books, and People, events, news, psychology, and made copious observations.
Considering that I expect no One to "become" anything except better fed, better clothed and better sheltered, it becomes evident that
You're talking out Your tail end here. I expect people to do what gives them bliss - but beyond that, there are no expectations except in general.
(People will solve problems the BEST way, not the cheapest/most profitable.)
It's an example of having plenty in scarcity. I am unconcerned with the presently rich. My concern lies with billions who will go to bed
Unconcerned. huh. And do tell. What happens when others become unconcerned about you? Some ideal world.
Yes, I have no need to offer a rich life of opportunity and plenty to Those who already have those things. Ergo, I am not concerned with Them.
And in abundance, I don't need anyOne's concern... If You're asking about the present setup - no One is really concerned about Me as it is. So
rather than living on what $58 a month can offer, I could have what I want, go where I want, believe as I wish, do what I want - within the three
Man You love to twist words, don't You. (Leads Me to suspect You have an agenda here...)
Not the rich Ones. The Ones who needed hands on the farm? Yeah. They had lots of kids. And still, that was a scarcity
*assumption that not having a lot means they have a problem.
Huh? I pointed out that the People having children in the time frame you mentioned (the 1920's as I recall) were the poor people, the farmers who
needed hands on the farm, mostly. NOT the rich. And now you bring this irrelevant comment in (while stripping mine of its context). Are You certain
You have no agenda?
Except... There was poverty and as long as We are trapped in scarcity, there always WILL BE poverty. My aim is to end poverty. And the
population was not all rich and able to do anything but work and have sex...
*assumption that most people would want to so anything but. I don't. My family doesn't. In fact, most people I know would call "work and sex" and
ideal life. Once again, you apply your standards to the whole of humanity. Fail.
I'm not following this at all. If They want "work and sex," more power to Them in abundance. Nothing to STOP Them - as long as They stay within the
three Laws... My point is that as long as there is maintained a scarcity of energy, power over Others can be exerted, control can be maintained, and
many, many live and die dreaming of a better life. I want to change that. I want each Human life to have the opportunity to make a difference, to
live comfortably, to be comfortable.
No standards I apply - only a structure within which many standards fit.
[sigh] You clearly don't grasp what having opportunity does to people's sex life. Sure, some minor cultures may persist in having many
children. But overall, with new found freedom, birth rates will drop.
What kind of people do You see being produced? People with enough food? People with opportunity? People with choices?
People with apathy because of their greed.
How does that greed manifest? Why would They be apathetic? Why would They not be thrilled to have the opportunity to do the things They have merely
been able to dream about? Please answer these three questions.
Meh. Have a nice life.
And there we have it. This phrase in ans of itself proves the failure of your system. Meh, have a nice life. It sums up why your ideal can never
Hahahahaha! Wishing someOne well is now a flaw in My structure (which You keep erroneously calling a "system"). Trying to bow out of a fruitless
communication is somehow evidence that what I propose will not work. Sure. Ok. Believe that if You wish.
And why really, there's no hope for your claims. Meh, have a nice life is the mentality of the apathetic, and the stubborn.
Or the response when it becomes clear that the One I am trying to communicate with likely has an agenda to the point of stripping context, telling Me
what I am saying, claiming that wishing another well is an example of how My ideas will not work, and, in giving up on the likelihood of honest
communication, I want to end the discourse, as it is pointless and a waste of time. It is not that I am apathetic towards You. I am merely done with
The wrongfully righteous, and the elite. You, in those words, have sealed your fate. You are no different than those you preach against.
Hahahahaha! Yeah. You're right. Have a nice life.
edit on 6/11/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags