Yeah - Capitalism

Keep people apart, at each other, yes, that’s the idea the haves and have nots, nice to see people throwing ice/water buckets over their heads, whilst some can’t even source water, healthy competion that, don’t want no bleeding heart nabby pamby,liberal ,socialist, capitalist, greediest, ideas going on, no food ,no water then move you idle bastards, War in your country then move, but not here, bloody immigrants taking all our jobs, me against you mate survival of the greediest….. I mean fittest.

The basic element, belief in correctly interrupted UNITY……………………

The state of forming a complete and harmonious whole:

A thing forming a complex whole:

The number one:

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

What is the great fear in humanity, as a whole, of unity?

To unite and control unity one world government one religion one being un-separated from control.

Control unity rather than be in unity?

Why are we, so afraid of unity and allow alignment, that frustrates and creates, an existence apart and alien, to that, that we desire, for all humanity, to be in a controlled state, not that, that you are, no rebellion is needed, to unite, yet we allow,
one against another, pretty much without question, in our width of controlled understanding, without any opposition, we align and accept the pre-governed purpose of our lives, through obtaining a formula, for existence through predetermined and nurtured ideas on wealth, intelligence, sexuality, religion, culture all seemingly transmitted, like a virus, to avoid unity at all costs, it costs us all.

Are we unable to formulate a culture of unity without control and fathom the greater mysteries’ of our existence without the benign ingenuity of on oppressive culture?

Can we only enable the mindset of one against another, is there no other way but to allow TPTB, to ignite the lead and only submit, to give control of the destiny of the human race, even though it is apparent that, this system of hierarchy only works for the few, perpetuating division, what fools are we, only to succumb to what we know is a travesty, to pass on and allow, the children of humanity, to further wallow in, what fools are we……
…………Controlled trolled ones!

see if you want, you probably cant .

originally posted by: FyreByrd

Scandanavian countries, Northern European countries, Japan (though it's failing). New Zealand and to a lesser and declining degree Autralia.

Which one of those countries has a Bill of Rights and a Constitution identical to the US?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Show me an actual system where government has taken care of food, shelter, healthcare and has succeeded.

Show me a system that will work for the large and varied population of the US.

Show me a system that can provide all of that and still maintain within the framework of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Scandanavian countries, Northern European countries, Japan (though it's failing). New Zealand and to a lesser and declining degree Autralia.

Except for one problem.

They're all in massive debt.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd

Would that style of economy fit in with the structure around the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?

I don't see any reason why not. The constitution, as an "Age of Enlightenment" document, was intended to support the common welfare.

I quote JJ Rousseau:

The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. ”

— Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality, 1754

a reply to: FyreByrd

I just find that socialism stifles individuality.

The "collective" has no place for the "individual".

originally posted by: xuenchen


Except for one problem.

They're all in massive debt.

Facts please with supporting citations.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I offer a quote of my own. . .

Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.

Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: xuenchen


Except for one problem.

They're all in massive debt.

Facts please with supporting citations.

Just hover over any country and see the magic of debt.

Your World Debt

Now just who is supposed to pay off ?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd

I just find that socialism stifles individuality.

The "collective" has no place for the "individual".

See I don't understand why people would believe this except perhaps by believing certain Science Fiction depictions of collectives.

It's possible to be supported by the whole, have the resources of the whole available without giving up 'individuality'. And many other SciFi stories make this concept real too.

We see the Chinese, of the past, all wearing the same uniform. Is that the idea you have of collectivism? Then the United States is collective too - we all drive the same cars - how many individualized cars do you see on the road? The same bland colors (regardless of price), same body shapes and no personalization whatsoever - collectivism.

We could collectively support the individual by providing basic models of cars with true personalization as part of the package - pick your own color, pick a horn tone, --- but not everybody wants to fit in.

Very poor analogy - but I hope you get my point. Usually we say we are unique while doing whatever we can to be like other people (usually richer people with more expensive stuff). We compare our insides to other's outsides and assume that if 'we have that #' we'll become the people we envy.

Whoa - way of topic.

Which was, BTW everyone, that real wages for working people making under $100/hour have been going down (really since the late 1970s but specifically 2009-2013) and so the 'recovery' is going exclusively to the wealthy.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: FyreByrd

I offer a quote of my own. . .

Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people.

Soft despotism gives people the illusion that they are in control, when in fact they have very little influence over their government. Soft despotism breeds fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the general populace. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that this trend was avoided in America only by the "habits of the heart" of its 19th-century populace.

en.wikipedia.org...

A very nice quote and it's relevance to 'could such a system work here' is?

That the contemporary reading of the constitution is such that 'we the people' have no control? or perhaps ever did? and the document is a fraud from the beginning and a tool of big money from the get go.

Despot - Unitary Executive?

I'm not following the stream of your thought to well (must need sugar or caffaiene).

originally posted by: xuenchen

Just hover over any country and see the magic of debt.

Your World Debt

Now just who is supposed to pay off ?

Thank you - Public Debt to Private Finance. And a respecable source. Kudos.

a reply to: FyreByrd

It's difficult to have a free society, a prosperous society with a "soft tyranny" which I see developing in the west.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

lolz

All through your posts, I kept hearing that Coke commercial. . . I'd like to buy the world a coke, and keep it companeeee. . .

Overall Beez, I think we can find the sweet spot between communism and capitalism that will allow us to respect freedom, personal liberties and keep taxes low, but also work together to ensure that people have food, shelter and are not worried about the lights being shut off because they are a few days late on the bill.

To me, that doesn't seem unreasonable.

a reply to: beezzer

Thanks but due to caffiene and sugar withdrawal, I still don't see how it applies to the specific question you originally asked.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

My friend, I say this with all sincerity, don't you think that in this great wide world, if there was a better system, (a sweet spot) someone would have come up with it?

I know I'm not smart enough to come up with a better solution. All I can do is make my life and those that I care for as good as I can possibly make it.

I'd prefer a Star Trek universe, personally. But I don't want to see a nuclear war prior to it's emergence.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247

My friend, I say this with all sincerity, don't you think that in this great wide world, if there was a better system, (a sweet spot) someone would have come up with it?

I know I'm not smart enough to come up with a better solution. All I can do is make my life and those that I care for as good as I can possibly make it.

I'd prefer a Star Trek universe, personally. But I don't want to see a nuclear war prior to it's emergence.

I think there may have been attempts in the past to create a society within that sweet spot, but their arrogance, greed and lust for power squashed that.

A Star Trek society appeals to me as well and sadly it may take an awakening such as a nuclear war to bring that about. Can we not agree that it seems we come ever closer to such a reality each day? If we keep going on the path we are currently taking, a nuke will be used by us or the "enemy". It's sad to say that, but we must recognize such a possibility.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

Oh heck! I think we'll destroy ourselves long before we find any permanent solutions!

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: beezzer

Thanks but due to caffiene and sugar withdrawal, I still don't see how it applies to the specific question you originally asked.

With tyranny growing within our borders, any talk of economic systems will eventually become moot. Despotism will be our only form of currency.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Morality?

Sure, bring that into economic systems.

I make more than some, less than others.

Is that moral?

It would if you made more because your education and and skills. I don't think I would mind being envious of the lifestyle a brain surgeon or the engineers behind my XBox, get to live. I can understand that. I don't understand why Bankers, hedge fund managers along with a whole army of useless twits that offer nothing to civilization get first dibs at all the cash.

Capitalism MAY have worked if there was moral integrity. The stock market and speculation might be all that is needed to fix it but the way capitalism is running at the moment... it's a hard sell.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: sheepslayer247

Communism falls into the same trap as other ideologies that are intrinsically linked to heterodox economic theory that does not accurately model human behavior. The people who fought for communism in the early part of the 20th century didn't do so because they wanted to live in a society oppressed by a totalitarian state. Their intentions were good and unfortunately they were wrong.

Sorry, I couldn't get past the first paragraph. Had to look up heterodox economic theories which happen to be any theory that isn't neo-classical liberal.

And so are the capitalists.

A very narrow group of people are assuming that everyone else is like them and 'model' the world based on that assumption. It's innaccurate.

This is a case of Main Stream discounting dissenting voices (a trait of authoritarian systems).

It's easy to imagine that the establishment is constantly suppressing maverick dissenters but the archetype is not quite as useful as it would have been in say the late 16th century or even the early-mid 20th. Right now, in the US alone, there are tens of thousands of economists and a greater number of lay persons with a more advanced understanding of economics than the average economist living 100 years ago. There are exponentially more minds working on every problem then ever before and they're able to collaborate in ways unimaginable to most only a few decades ago.

I would consider myself a progressive, a liberal, a humanist. That is, I believe that humanity is the most important thing, that we can apply the knowledge gained through the sciences to improve the human condition and that liberty and equality are fundamental to the human condition. I also take a very pragmatic view of how we should go about these changes and so I have no attachment to any economic system — whatever gets us to where we want to be. In my opinion, reform has significant advantages over revolution and I believe that among other things, modern history and observations of evolutionary processes provide ample evidence of this. I also believe that consensus decision making is the best way to determine what reforms to make.