It could well be followed up with a third line item: “And socialists tend to elect politicians who think, ‘Nobody should have that much…except for me and my cronies who support my campaign,’ but never mention that last part to their duped masses of adoring voters.”
which capitalist politicians and their voters never do. not being pro-socialst lyers here, just saying that the whole system of democracy is deeply fucked, with kobbyists, corporate money and interests and personal greed. WE, the people of the world, ALL of us, need something better!!
capitalist politicians never do anything because they either don’t exist in the current system or they are completely out voted or otherwise fraudulently covered up like Ron Paul
and btw, both sides argue that “real communism” or “real capitalism” never existed, and are VERY misrepresented by the countries that officially had/have it.
All we need is a return to a non-democratic republican constitution as per the US Constitution with better protection against fraud and initiation of force. The philosophy of liberty was nailed by the likes of Mises, Locke, Paine.
Point taken about real capitalism/communism never having been tried. Fortunately we don’t need the global demonstration to more easily identify what is right.
The philosophy is very simple. Philosophically we all want true capitalism. Common mis-perception thinks of real capitalism as ‘communism’ because it gives warm and fuzzy’s as indoctrinated by the elitist owned media, where as the media has made the perception of ‘capitalism’ as being anti-humanitarian (far from the truth, but mass hysteria rules)
But the essential difference is that of ‘individual rights’ or the principle of ‘self ownership’ as so eloquently illustrated in this short video
The Philosophy of Liberty by ISIL
where capitalism/communism or social-capitalism or laissez-faire communism recognizes the right of the individual to their own person and property, then it’s really the exact same thing.
I personally think the idea of “ownership”, besides (self-ownership) deserves second thoughts as well. Stewardship makes a lot more sense to me, in a lot of situations. People think, for example, that they can do anything to the land, they “own”.
Besides the fact, that most ownerships go back to various forms of genocide, ownership completely ignores the land, nature, and life as “entities” with their own right to exist.
A lot of people just measure things in “worth to them, in dollars” and come out the other side, fucking everything up and think they have the right to that.
This is a violent, disrespectful behavior in my opinion. And only because one has enough force to do something, doesnt make it right. We have better ways of doing things on this planet and as people are learning, we will leave this medieval shit behind.
Without recognizing the sovereign rights of an individual person, we’ll never escape the medieval shit that allows control by force.
Is this an argument for or against my point of view? not sure how to react , hahaha
Sovereign rights means ownership of personal and personal property. We see different on this one at least it seems. I’m going to find an example to explain ownership…
If you really want to get into the nitty gritty details as per my perspective, here’s the transcript of another FB conversation I had on this stuff
Discussion on the nature of Government, Social Justice and Morality http://www.flowerofbeing.com/facebook-discussion-nature-government-justice-morality/
And here’s a shorter overview of the ideas of social justice
Moral social responsibility, peace and justice? – … http://www.flowerofbeing.com/moral-social-responsibility…/
In the long conversation we ended up discussing a moral view of ‘prioritarianism’ which says ‘morality depends on what’s good for the greatest number, with extra weight given to each individual’. Kind of mixing marxism/communism/socialism with some emphasis on the individual too.
The problem with it, is that it still depends on an authority and larger group telling a smaller group of non-authority what to do. Because individual sovereign rights of person and property are denied.
So the scenario as per the conversation was that a group of twisted witches could torture an individual despite the individuals protest simply because the group of witches thought it was best for all involved.
The problem with lumping all ‘entitites’ together as having ‘rights’ and saying that lack of preserving is equivalent of violence will only allow a larger group of ‘resource managers’ to dictate morality and acceptability of action. Again marginalizing the individual. And this leads to dictatorship and control.
In my view it’s the tragic new meme that has come out of the ‘resource based economy’ movement, which I think was another elitist concoction to maintain control through the green ‘global warming / carbon tax’ regulations.
yeah, its tricky, I am not claiming otherwise.. the whole anarchism-approach, of having no government, but individual contracts also always got rid of all problems involving governments, but lead to new questions..
I cant claim to have any kind of definitive answers, but I believe if we abolished a couple of economic ideas like taking interest on interest, needing higher profits continually, creating money through debt and focused on the fulfillment of already decided human rights, including modern knowledge of integration-into-nature, a TON of these problems would go away by themselves..
Agreed many problems would go away with change of approach. However the fundamental issue of individual rights is the essence of justice.
Let’s find some simple concrete examples:
If I move to a new country side area and build a farm, and the land wasn’t being used for anything else and no one else had claim on it, then with sovereign rights as an individual, I am morally permitted to build the farm.
If my cow’s wonder over to someone else’s farm and messes up their crops, then I should pay for the clean up job.
But just because a group of local residents collectively do not want me to build my farm, does not mean they have any right to prevent me from building my farm.
Technology will solve all human problems, either directly, or indirectly by obsoleting our old problems. Such as noise pollution from neighbourhood parties. Speakers that create barriers to cancel out sound will mean the party can go on, but the neighbours can sleep in peace.
I’d mainly agree with you, just I would take out the word “right”.. To me, life is a gift to us, as well as the world that we live in. The gift to live in this world, doesnt include the right to destroy it, in my mind. So while I see no problem with someone building a farm anywhere, I’d find it very important as well, that they stay open, and thankful, and constructive, to share and help and treat the land and world “well”.. and yes, this will probably lead to questions and what is “right” and what “treating well” means.
Thats why I think it’s important to be open and thankful, as this will help the probably needed conversations..
and when it comes to technology, I am obviously a great fan of it myself. at the same time, today a lot of people are REALLY unaware what food is, what home is, what life is, and they destroy it all with a high level of ignorance.
Science, real science, doesnt ignore the world, but tries to understand it. and, for example, if we still push fossile fuels, SUVs, nuclear power plants, GMOs and plastic bags as “progress” and “technology”, I feel its more out of a ton of not-knowing and being mis-informed, than I view it as being honestly progressing, trying to learn.
And for the people who like Darwin (whose statements get misused a lot in my opinion), he spoke of the survival of those who adapt, not the ones with the biggest digital fiat bankaccount.
Perhaps there ultimately needs to be 2 levels of conversation.
- Fist is more a technical philosophical definition that creates the underlying foundation for justice. And that I believe would include specific ideas such as ‘natural law’, ‘individual rights’, ‘initiation of force’, and fraud.
- Second is the level of social collaboration, gratitude, good will, etc.
Perhaps confusion and debates happens when the conversations intended at one level get too far involved or tangled with the details of the other level.
Agreed about the mis-use of technology. My favourite author said the problem of society is not a technological one, but a psychological one.
However I think the advancement of technology will solve all human problems, providing we survive as a free species long enough. And it may not be long now. Kurzweil predicts the singularity in some 20 years.
By then, we’ll either be hopelessly enslaved by the Vatican Jesuits, or we’ll have the world we all want to see.
But I really believe that while the language and definitions may be difficult, and ‘capitalism’ is seen as a dirty word, if that level 1 conversation of individual rights is not strongly upheld, then chances are we’ll lose to the next batch of technology and resource controlling dictators.
End the fraud of the FED. Expose the fiat money laundering and secret agency controlling Vatican. Buy Silver
Its interesting what you said, and I will have to think about it. I highly agree that the problems we face are mostly psychological and attitudinal ones!
We progressed far faster in our ability to manipulate and change our environment compared to our ability to be constructive, centered, responsible, happy individuals. The dangers of this imbalance are multiplying with more technology (=the skill to change the nature of the world).. For a long long time it was kinda okay that we knew how to change/fuck up nature, because we weren’t so “good” at it yet. Now, with GMOs, nanotechnology, nuclear weapons, bio and chem weapons, industrial waste streams, our skill-level in wisdom, compassion and true happiness are become more and more important!
not sure if its true, but on a radio show somebody once talked about that scientist were not sure, when exploding the first nuclear weapons, if a chain-reaction would evaporate earth’s atmosphere completely. allegedly they calculated the risk being 50/50, and decided to just give it a try.
whether this story is true or not, it points to more and more responsibility that each of us carries, with growing power and possibilities. GMOs for example have never been long-term tested in anything even resembling nature. If we “improve” and eventually drastically change a life support system, thats hundreds of millions of years old, we (so far) might not destroy all life in the universe, but very well ourselves or the planet we live on, once and for all.
the cold war was a fucking frightening time for example, and in a good lot of senses, it hasnt passed yet.
so yeah, more tech CAN be good, no doubt. it has also proven to be extremely dangerous and in my mind there is no doubt that we should cultivate our hearts, minds and cultures toward a more peaceful and happy and constructive way of life, because the tech thats out there is already REALLY dangerous.
Property rights actually protects the environment and human safety, as accidental, negligent or purposeful damage to another’s property would be protected by the legal system. So if you drop a cow or a bomb on my farm, you’d owe me to fix up the mess.
Same with mega-corporations dumping toxic waste into nature. They would be required to pay the bill for the complete cleanup that effects individual property and person (health).
Destruction caused by corporations is only possible without individual rights with the current system of force and fraud, supported by government lobby groups and protectionist laws.
Monsanto wouldn’t be able to exist in a free-market economy. In a free-market economy there would be no possible incentive or large government to protect the likes of Monsanto.
All of the money spent on war would go to funding genuine humanitarian aid.
Poverty would be eradicated in years, if not months.
And aging and death would be cured within decades, if not years.
For the spiritual transformation required (the psychology of individual responsibility and liberty to exist) we need your attitude about caring for the planet, combined with the absolute moral principle of individual rights, which means no force and no fraud.
Force and Fraud are the modus operandi (the means of operation) of all global enterprise corporations such as Monsanto. They are not free-enterprise capitalist companies. They are in fact resource-economy companies, that work to control all of the planet’s resources, including water.
I can imagine much of this to be true, and am very much in favour of liberty.
The main problems seem to be the mentioned “force and fraud” !!
And the big banks and mega-corporations are near the heart of the problem.
Who Controls The Global Economy? http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/who-controls-the-global-economy-do-not-underestimate-the-power-of-the-big-banks
They are capitalist (accrue capital / assets), but they do not follow free-market capitalist philosophy (fair and honest contract between individuals), which is another important difference to understand the system.
This is why crypto-currency such as BitCoin and precious metals such as Silver are the achilles heels of the old corrupt elitist control system. And why ending the FED and replacing fiat money with resource-backed money is crucial for liberty.
Ability to print money by the big banks (fraud),
and create lobbyist protectionist laws for corporations like Monsanto (fraud)
and enforce them via government regulation (force)
and steal money as taxes from the people (force and fraud)
and control it all via Vatican secret agencies (fraud)
and fund militias like Nato and the UN (force)
…will only end when people uphold individual property rights (just like the Brazilians homes were confiscated for the FIFA World Cup)
Force and Fraud must be stopped.