The " occupy " movement is nothing more than a generation who thinks they should have wealth handed to them, as apposed to actually working for it. While the Obama media is playing this for all they can milk it for, the truth is that the numbers of actual participants is FAR less than the true Americans who see them for the parasites they long to be. A Deadbeat like Shelton will whore himself out to any gaggle of morons to get attention. I say that as a former CWA, IBEW member. Thank God, Former
@hope0hurts Well then don't forget to call out sick from work so that your employer can take part in the protest and not buy your labor for that day. Don't turn your lights, tv or anything electric in your home on because then you'll be buying the electricity. Don't eat. Don't drink. Don't turn on a faucet or flush a toilet. Don't use your phone.
Nothing in life is free, so if you're going to take a principled stand against everything you're "forced" to buy, then don't do it half-assed.
@eluminated I don't think I'm forced to buy anything. I consume very little to begin with. But to have a massive group of people refuse to buy on a day that's dedicated to specifically purchasing things (i.e. Black Friday), makes a grand statement.
I'm aware that everything costs, and I'm not in any way asserting that it doesn't. I live in a fairly minimal way, but for those that want to take part, abstaining from shopping that day would be a great intro =] Be Peace
@hope0hurts OK, but then what exactly is the message and who's supposed to learn from it? The corporations are supposed to learn that they depend upon our consuming for their existence? I bet they already know that, and it's really a mutual dependance because your employment (the purchase of your labor) depends upon their exisience which depends upon the profits generated thru the consumption of the goods and services they provide. It's the cycle of life. (cont)
@eluminated that's quite the assumption to make about my employment. I understand, and from what I've read, agree with your ideology. But this isn't about me. It's about getting as many people to come together to make small steps towards that greater good.
@hope0hurts (cont) If you really want to send a message, and REALLY see who your enemy is, try organizing the same movement aginst the state. Let's have a "Pay No Taxes Day" where every individual keeps exactly what they earn and does with it as they see fit... See how that works out.
I don't like Walmart and so I don't shop there, I don't give them my money. Walmart cannot have me put in jail for not giving them my money. So where then is the "statement" of freedom most necessary?
@eluminated When expectations are curbed or goals of profit aren't reached, because half the shoppers didn't show up when they were expected to come. it's more vital that it goes on regularly, I agree. But what is the starting point? I think this is a great way for those who have been unaware/uninvolved to introduce themselves to the movement =] Be Peace
@hope0hurts But I think you already realize a flaw in that strategy when you admit that it must go on regularly in order to really have an impact. Whatever essential goods or services you don't purchase today will be purchased twice tomorrow, and so you're just gonna make up the difference then anyway. Keeping the boycott of the system as a prolonged strategy though will only eliminate the demand for labor and other captital, so EVERYONE will begin to suffer after a short period of time (cont)
@eluminated in order for it to be an ongoing impact. But a day of shock is still effective in seeing that folks are serious. Ever seen "day without a mexican"
Again - it's an introduction to the idea
and no - people want necessarily buy twice the next day. That's the point of black friday. The sales are extreme for one day. They expect massive amounts of shoppers.
@hope0hurts (cont) We already see this in some ways right now. Consumers at every level simply aren't making purchases (whether they be purchasers of goods or labor), it's essentially an involuntary boycott, and so the economy is stagnating.
A better strategy for YOUR purposes would be to discern who are the honest businesses and make a concerted, educated effort to support THOSE businesses, thereby allowing the market to operate while rewarding the good guys and punishing the bad guys.
@eluminated I already do those things, love. This is one event in conjunction with many other things. That's why it's an introduction. Most of those marked as "attending" on facebook already are active with the supporting the good/honest business. This event is a catchall in an attempt to funnel people to understanding - as I keep trying to explain. Something easy, that seems "radical" for one day, will make a small impact but an important statement. Some will fall off. Others won't =]
Every Revolution begins small,but the Majority of the People are waking up to what the greedy,crooked & evil Politicians,wealthy & Modern day Corporate Slave traders are doing.
That's a pretty nice watch you got there, Chrissy-poo. Looks like capitalism and "corporate greed" is workin out just fine for YOU! Hey that rhymes! lol
And how many people in the crowd voluntarily choose verizon as their service provider? and then get mad when verizon accumulates profits? Should verizon "redistribute" the money BACK to the people who gave it to them voluntarily? You want a refund for the servies you're otherwise perfectly happy with? You want to eat your cake and have it too.
@eluminated Verizon is all the shareholders and employees, not just the "5 people" he was referring to. In fact paying those 5 people huge salaries is an expense, not a profit.
@baigandine Well, if paying those 5 people that much money is such an expense that it becomes unbearable then it will bankrupt the company, and they do so at their own peril. How then is it anyone else's business what Verizon chooses to pay those 5 people? .. If we say they aren't compensating their workers sufficiently because they pay those 5 so much money, then that still is only a matter of contention between Verizon and Verizon's voluntary employees. It's not your or my business.
@eluminated It's other people's business because that money they're getting paid is money that could be put to better use in the hands of the workers employed by them, and the people at large. Capitalist concentrates wealth into the hands of the very few at the expense of the rest.
@epsilon8998 Well then don't give them your money. Give your money to their competitors who you believe put that money to better use. If you believe that NONE of the businesses in that industry put their profits to what you consider to be "good" use then DON'T participate. It's very simple. No one forces you or anyone else to patronize Verizon... I don't like Walmart, so guess what - I don't shop there! If enough people feel like I do then Wlamart either has to change or go out of business.
@eluminated Their competitors are no better. They're all just as guilty and they're all at fault. Just giving your money to someone else solves nothing because that business is subject to the same law of capitalism that I named earlier. What is needed is a radical change to economic relations--something that OWS is beginning to provide.
@epsilon8998 You're on the net right now, so obviously you're voluntarily giving your $ to Verizon or one of it's competitors in return for the service they provide. Why? Boycott all of them if you don't like the system they are a part of. You can't voluntarily give them your $ and then claim you should have the authority to determine how they use that $ after they've already provided you with the service you've payed for! What gives you that right? You want to have your cake and eat it too.
@eluminated You do realize that this is how a boycott starts, right? A bunch of people really angry about a company? The problem is you can't just boycott companies that provide what most people would consider an essential service - the internet. THESE COMPANIES HAVE A MONOPOLY. Sure they share it with a few other companies to make it look legit, but you have no choice. Especially when people can't even afford to start a small business to compete anymore. Keep it in perspective.
@enlightenedone676 Even if we go with your premise of multi-headed monopolies we still have to ask WHY it is so difficult to start a new company to compete with the big boys. That certainly isn't because of free market principles; it's because the gov't uses the power of taxation and regulation to protect the position of their friends. So yeah, let's keep it in perspective and go after the REAL source of the problem/mechanism of corruption which is government manipulation of the marketplace.
@eluminated By saying that you are assuming that corruption could not happen in a 'free market'. As long as we have a system where your value is determined by how much money you have (which is what capitalism is), corruption will always occur. That's why you have regulation. But regulation can only occur if people are actually paying attention to the system. The government isn't manipulating the markets, but rather the markets are manipulating the government. They're called lobbyists.
@enlightenedone676 I never said corruption *couldn't* happen, all human systems are vulnerable to corruption. The corruption of monopolistic control you mentioned is a result of regulatory favoritism that prevents competition. Such corruption couldn't be bought by lobbyists if the power to over regulate and manipulate markets didn't exist. Stop allowing the gov't such power and there'll be nothing for the lobbyists to buy. They would be forced to compete openly in the free market. (cont)
@enlightenedone676 (cont) That's why lobbyists aren't knocking on YOUR door and sending YOU gifts, because you're powerless to give them any special legislative or regulatory favors. So it's not a matter of somehow eliminating corruption from human nature, it's a matter of eliminating the influence such corruption has over our lives. And that influence is a result of intrusive government.
And "money" isn't the only form of capital. Labor (among other things) is capital as well (cont..)
@enlightenedone676 (cont) And just as some have an abundance of capital in the form of money, so to do some have an abundance of capital in the form of labor. If we establish a system where the "needs of society" are used to justify forcibly redistributing capital how long will it be before it isn't just capital-as-money that gets forcibly "redistributed"? What if your labor becomes something society determines they have the authority to demand and direct as "they" see fit, for the greater good?
@eluminated Startup costs are a major obstacles for potential "entrepreneurs" who want to make their own isp provider. Depending on your area, it can cost as much as $10 million in capital costs. Very little of that is due to any "taxation and regulation". All of that capital is necessary to compete against already established isp competitors. Market competition prevents its own obstacles to new businesses and favors the creation of monopolies and oligopolies.
@eluminated I didn't "voluntarily" give my money to anyone because there is no voluntary selection about it. I am free to choose which person I can give my money to but I am at the same time not free because i HAVE to give my money to someone. Only if the things I need were free would I then be free to act as I so choose. You have no freedom if you are compelled to acquire the things you need to live from someone else. That can only be a relationship of dependence, and servitude.
@epsilon8998 So if these things are free then who should supply them? Do you work for free? How do you get what you want or need without also allowing THEM to get what they want or need in return? If you want something from someone else then you have to trade with them. What YOU are calling for is a system of slavery to provide for YOU! Everyone that is a link in the chain that provides the goods and services you want or need should forgo their own needs and just provide for your benefit?
@eluminated Given that it is the state's duty to provide for the general wellbeing of everyone, the state is the one that should provide it: particularly a state system comprised of worker controlled corporations and cooperatives. Everyone gets what they need because the necessary resources, goods, and capital are plentiful enough that everyone CAN be provided without any detriment to anyone in particular. This is not slavery as slavery is a bond of debt, not duty.
@epsilon8998 Who said it's the state's duty to provide? Who decides what the state provides? In your previous comment you complained that you have no choices, but where are your choices when the state provides everything for you? Who decides what you provide TO THE STATE in return for their provisions? And who decides what your duty is? Is that not a bond of debt to "the state"? You have absolutely no choice coming or going in the system you call for. You're calling for a system of forced labor.
@eluminated It's the implicit purpose behind the state. See the preamble to the constitution "We the people..." The people will decide what the state provides based on generalized needs, such as housing, food, water, medical care, education, etc. You will have more choices in life if you have a secure livelihood. Capitalism expects you to waste your time and energy trying to scratch out a living or die trying, a socialist state would eliminate this uneccessary need. Duty is an obligation of...
@epsilon8998 ... mutual commitment. It is a debt to society insofar as you are expected to commit a portion of your time and efforts to return some of your labor back to society as it has provided for you. It is not slavery as slavery is, first of all an INFINITE debt, while duty is a finite debt since it is one of mutual obligation (so long as you receive returns from the state, so shall you give back your return); and, secondly, slavery is a one way bond: slave owners owe nothing to their...
@epsilon8998 ... slaves (it is not a mutual bond), while the slaves owe everything to their owners (hence the infinite debt); and, thirdly, slavery is a debt to an individual, while duty is a commitment to society as a whole. Thus no particular individual can force you to work against your will. Regardless, the amount of work that will be required by every individual will be miniscule--approaching as little as one hour a day or week per person (depending on the work).
@epsilon8998 You're willfully misinterpreting the term "general welfare" and completely ignoring the 5th and 9th Amendments. Furthermore, how do you pretend to create MORE choices under a system of state-run monopoly, and where do your "generalized needs" stop? If no individual can force you to work then from where does the majority claim such authority? Did the Wright Bros benefit FROM society, or did society benefit FROM the Wright Bros? If alive today the Wright Bros would owe YOU something?
@eluminated You're wrongfully assuming that there is one correct interpretation of the "general welfare". I suggest that the general welfare should be interpreted to include physical needs such as food, housing, personal safety, etc. Explain how you think the 5th (the right to a jury trial) or 9th (that the people have other rights such as the right to good housing, food, etc. as stated above) Amendments is relevant at all. Monopolies are only relevant in capitalism, not socialism.
@epsilon8998 You are alive, you own your life, you own your thoughts, you own your body, you operate your body to perform labor in order to manifest your thoughts into real objects, you own those objects and you determine their use. That is the right of property ownership, and it is the fundamental defining feature of what it means to be a free human being. At what point does your "society" step in and claim ownership or authority over the life and property of the individual?
@eluminated The fact that you are alive at all is not soley due to your own actions. It is becase of society that you can acquire the things that you need to live. You own your life insofar as society can provide the things you need to live and protect said life. If there were no state (no society) to protect us from disease, disaster, invaders, or what have you, and your livelihood was interupted by such a disaster, nobody would care about your right to self ownership if you couldn't protect it
@epsilon8998 No, society doesn't protect anything! All society can do is agree not to TAKE from the individual. Each and every individual agrees not to take from the other, and so because of this agreement they all somehow are obligated to give that property to eachother? The best a "society" does is simply give every individual the freedom to live there life as they see fit, and this incurrs a "duty" to then live as "society" sees fit? From that freedom the individuals ACHIEVE and...
@eluminated Individuals take from society as much as societies take from individuals. How can an individual live freely without the means to do so? Means which are provided by society. How did you get your car that you use to drive to work? Did you design and build it yourself? Or the television you use to inform yourself about the world around you? Did you build that too? Where did you get the clothes you're wearing? Did you knit those yourself? No. Those were provided by society
@epsilon8998 society benefits from the innovations of individuals, so then those individuals are indebted to society for the privilage of improving everyone's life?.. Absurd.
And no, read the ENTIRE 5th Amendment, slick. And the 9th means your rights END where mine begin, as in my right to property isn't determined by what you feel your needs are.
@eluminated Individuals first need a society to provide for them before they can give anything back. Cavemen could hardly invent anything short of tieing rocks to sticks to make primitive spears and bashing stones together to make fire. It took thousands of years of social development before individuals could be empowered with the abilities they need to make "innovations"--abilities which are social inventions, since no one individual can be responsible for such things as fire or spears...
@epsilon8998 … Indeed, who is responsible for making fire? Or the wheel? Is it just one individual or many? Who is responsible for the internet? These things were not made by lone individuals but by many people and developed over time across generations to become what they are now. And no, explain what you think the "ENTIRE" 5th Amendment means. I don't need to do your work for you. And who gave you that interpretation of the 9th Amendment? Ron Paul? Lol. The Framers clearly meant differently.
@epsilon8998 Individuals voluntarily come together and agree to cooperate and trade skills because it is mutually beneficial for them to do so. Every individual participating in "society" does so of their own free will because it is in ALL of their own best interests to do so. They trade in specialized goods and services and they all profit, and, so long as this vast cooperation of trade is mutually beneficial for all, every individual will freely participate. So where does your "duty" come in?
@eluminated People cannot voluntarily agree to trade when they are compelled to do so by the need to survive. Even so, this is historically incorrect. Economies do not begin as two individuals exchanging one item for another; economies begin within the context of the state and temple religions. The first human societies were egalitarian: everyone was provided for equally and everyone did equal work. Any trading that did occur was done in a ritual context. When societies became agricultural ...
@epsilon8998 ... and settled into permanent villages. States and temples arose, centered around a leading chief and a priest, sometimes being the same person. These leading figures organized work structures that created communal projects, building cities, conducting sacrifices, and waging wars. Do do these things, they collected taxes and tributes: at first they took in direct products such as grain and raw metals. But over time, to facilitate easier collection of taxes, they created coinage ...
@epsilon8998 ... and money economies were created. They were not creations of individuals or many individuals but were creations of states and temples. Additionally often this money was collected as a tribute or payment to the temple system, and was considered as a gift for the gods, or a contribution for the priest who served their god. That is why ancient coinage traditionally bears both the images of a god on one side and a king on another, or their symbols--because money was created for them
@epsilon8998 This is entertaining cocktail party banter, but attributing the money economy to power hungry kings and priests is akin to believing that the feds did a controlled demo on the twin towers - lots of fun, but a harder to believe scenario. As societies grew, people begin to specialize. The more specialized they become, the harder it becomes to barter. The evil standardized coinage gave us specialists increased choices on how we interacted with the economy.
@adminwrh You don't need to believe it, but that's probably how it happened. Virtually every primitive tribe ever studied follows the same model: they have gift economies with little trade except between tribes and during rituals. Why don't we find images of friendly traders doing barter and trade on coins? Why do we always find images of gods and kings on them instead? The evidence is clear: money was made by states and temples. Trade was clearly a community function to serve community needs.
@epsilon8998 Again, the more obvious explanation is the less exciting one: Imagery on money comes from what's coolest to a society - it's grandeur. Gods and Kings . This is not to say that Kings and Priests didn't do bad things to get more than their fair share of those coins, but I believe that in the everyday, real world, money was a valuable part of developing a society that didn't have to devote a greater part of it's time scrapping with nature to be safe and comfortable.
@adminwrh And yet the more "obvious", or common sense, answer is not the correct one just by the virtue of it being "obvious". It was obvious to people in the 13th century that there was a Chain of Being that God had ordained to put people in their rightful place in society, and yet that turned out to be wrong, did it not? Often times the LEAST obvious answer is the one that turns out to be right in the end. And how is it that what's "coolest" is what's put on society? Does our society think ...
@epsilon8998 … that Abraham Lincoln and pyramids with eyes are "cool"? If your theory was correct then our dollar bills and coins, instead of having presidents and mythical symbols on them, would have Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber. No, the symbols on money clearly derive from state and religious institutions. Indeed, the only way society turned into a "developing" one was because of the collective projects directed by the heads of the state, the chiefs and priests.
@epsilon8998 "...is not the correct one just by the virtue of being obvious" - It would be an upgrade to deem that a logical fallacy. You dig the hole even deeper with the caste comparison. Here's another more obvious conclusion: You don't believe any of what you're typing - you're playing devils advocoate and you're running out of material.
@adminwrh Huh? Sorry but I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure you even know what you're talking about either. Yes I would say that's a fallacy--a fallacy that YOU used: the appeal to common sense. And yes, I do believe what I'm typing. What I don't believe is that you're still coming back for more pwnage.
@epsilon8998 An individual made fire, made the wheel, made the printing press. Individuals bestow innovations and they TEACH society.You didn't invent the internet but you learned how to use it because it's in your own best interests. Does the inventor(s) of the net owe you a debt of gratitude for how you've used their innovation to improve your own life? Society is the recipient and the medium of individual innovation. "They" simply pass it on until another individual innovates further.
@epsilon8998 And at what point was this "commitment" agreed upon? Who defined the terms of the commitment? When does your duty to society begin? At birth? Do you owe a commitment to society for the privilage of being alive? And who decided on this "one hour a week " deal? Since when did providing for the needs of an entire society become such a short task? And who decides what work everyone does? How do you figure out where everyone's skills lie? And what of those who refuse to participate?
@eluminated Such a commitment begins as soon as it is socially decided that every individual will be provided for regardless of the work they perform for themselves, individually. As soon as society agrees to provide for all individuals, then work will cease to be only an individual enterprise and will begin to be viewed by individuals as the social activity that it really is. Indeed, as you said before, all individuals act as a chain. Capitalist individualism denies the full realization of this
@epsilon8998 Your "regardless of the work they perform" philosophy is the reason Socialism will always stagnate and die. You don't see a difference in value from one service to another. The value of the services provided by a janitor are equal to those provided by a brain surgeon? The rewards for the effort and skill involved are the same?The incentives to persue one field over the other are indistinguishable? Who will innovate and excel when all are forced to run the race at the same pace?
@eluminated Because of the extremely advanced levels of technology, very little human labor is required to actually produce what is necessary to keep everyone alive. Individuals need not work 40 or more hours a week, but drastically less. As soon as work becomes a social commitment and not an individual struggle to stay alive, people can begin to seek out their own activities freely without having to worry about the next paycheck and how they're going to get food to eat next week.
@epsilon8998 You presume to know what everyone will need to stay alive. Do all individuals need the same things or do some need more than others? To claim that all have a "duty" to provide for the essential needs of each other, while not all CAN PROVIDE equally nor do all NEED equally is to sentence those with the ability to provide to an existence of subjegation under those who can do nothing but need. Those with the ability to achieve are punished for the sin of ability.
@epsilon8998 Again, the best thing society (which is merely a collection of individuals) can do for a particular individual is agree to interact peacefully with him. As individuals we come together freely and protect eachother from harm and theft by simply not harming one another, not stealing and not allowing anyone else to steal. That in-and-of-itself IS the benefit of "society". There is no further debt or "duty" incurred from the agreement. To claim the every individual should also pay ...
.. pay a tribute to the mass of individuals called "society" for the privilage of having them NOT harm him, and NOT steal from him is to promote a system founded upon the principles of EXTORTION. Plain and simple. That is like a cannibal demanding that his neighbor should offer his own arm to the cannibal on a silver platter as a means to show gratitude to the cannibal for not demanding his leg! Socialism is really nothing but illegitimate force rationalized by circular reasoning.
@eluminated Personal needs are different from social needs. Everyone needs clean air and water, fresh food, housing, education and medical care. Those are social needs, and should all be freely provided so that people can go on to pursue their own personal needs. Duty is not subjugation if one has a personal connection with the work and if they can experience the results of their work via the thanks they get from those who benefit from it: i.e. society and their peers.
@eluminated Individuals cannot do anything "voluntarily" until their basic needs are met in life. Until that is done, they are compelled to satisfy that first. Only then are they free to pursue their own activities. Individuals only "come together" because they are born into a society already built around them. One is only an individual in the context of society itself. You cannot be an individual without a set of social norms and criteria that define what an individual is...
@epsilon8998 ... Being an individual only has meaning within the context of others as they are organized within a society. Linguistically, even the word "me" or "I" could not have arisen without first having the realization that there are others to differentiate from the self. Work needs to be separated from individual necessity. Necessary labor should be minimized so that people are free to engage in free, unnecessary work, which would be the equivalent of play. This is not to say the work...
@epsilon8998 ... done by a brain surgeon and a janitor are the same: both are necessary, and will still be needed; however, if someone chooses to do such work as part of their free, unnecessary work that they are not obligated to perform (as most work in socialism will be), then they are certainly free to do so. The important point is that they will not be compelled to do the same repetitive work dozens of hours per week to the point that it becomes a dehumanizing chore. Work must be...
@epsilon8998 ... fulfilling and humanizing, and this can only occur if it is free, unnecessary work. Capitalism is doomed to die because it leads to the over accumulation of capital, the overproduction of commodities, and the inevitable reduction of purchasing power in the mass of society. It produces too much junk without anybody to buy it. The rewards will be the sense of achievement and satisfaction that comes from knowing that one is doing good for others, and that one's work has meaning.
@epsilon8998 The best way to provide for peoples' needs is through trading specialized goods and services. The specialization comes PRECISELY from the "dehumanizing" repetition you seek to avoid. THAT is how you become proficient. Innovation comes from competition where the value of different techniques and ideas are measured against each other by the consumer who votes democratically with their own capital, and the accumulation of capital is the incentive that drives competition.....
@epsilon8998 Further more, how does one KNOW they are doing "good work" for others if there is nothing to compare it to?Your society has no choice, there is no alternative, there is no competition, so there is no way to measure value, so there is no way to even know what the word "good" means!
Also, "I" and "Me" do not come as a result of defining yourself as NOT others. It's called self awareness, and even a person born paralysed, blind, deaf and dumb has it.
@eluminated That's just ridiculous. People are not born self aware. And how would you even know that a person who is born blind deaf and dumb is self aware? Could you ask them? No, you couldn't. And also, no, the me and I come as a result of interaction with others and realizing that those others have a mind that is different from yours. It is a learned behavior that must be developed over time. That is why children generally do not have full self awareness until they are about 5 or 6
@epsilon8998 Society is a voluntary cooperation between free individuals who agree to come together for their own mutual benefit, it's not a debt, it's not a "duty". You're centrally planned society lacks the ingrediants necessary for survival.. I'm not having the same arguments again... And a person is self aware so long as they have concious thoughts "I think therefor I am", ever hear of it? That's where "I" "me" and "my" comes from, and that's where MY RIGHTS come from. It was fun. You lose.
@eluminated Nice try, but you're basically just repeating yourself. If I really lost then I would hardly need you to tell me. Socialism hardly needs central planning since it allows everyone to direct their own lives, and do their own planning. Capitalism entails more central planning than you even know. Your rights themselves are a social construction. How are conscious thoughts distinct from self awareness? Tautology. I think you are the one who lost. Have a nice life
@epsilon8998 I wasn't repeating myself, I was summing up the principles and facts that you have no answer for. And you're determining who gives what and how long they'll work and for whom.. but it's NOT a centrally planned society? Do you understand the definition of the term? And I *WILL* have a nice life, because I'm a free market capitalist and I at least understand that I have to work for what I want and need. You have fun waiting around for handouts from productive people.
@eluminated Lol stop whining. I already gave you answers. If you didn't like them then that's your problem. I hope you do have a nice, and you enjoy the collapse of capitalism when it happens. However, even when that does occur, you'll still be in denial, blaming regulation and the government like you fools always do.
@epsilon8998 How are the best methods for providing goods and services developed in the first place? How does one become a proficient farmer? By doing it every so often when your name gets pulled from a hat? And where does the innovation which further improves upon the farming methods come from? From the effortless repitition of standardized techniques centrally designed to satisfy the bear minimum survival needs of "society"?
@epsilon8998 .. THAT is how society survives and progresses.But you've removed capital which spurs competition; competition which drives innovation; innovation which can only come from proficiency; proficiency which is a result of repetition; repetition as a matter of specialization and specialization which can only come from free choice.. Oh, but you'll ALLOW people to study brain surgery in their free time. How noble of you, that should come as a huge relief while their starving to death.
@eluminated Specialization does not have to be dehumanizing. It is only dehumanizing if specialization is taken to the extreme, and that is all an individual does. Endless repetition is mindnumbing to the worker, and people need a wide array of tasks to keep themselves entertained. People only engage in repetitive work because they are required to do so in order to make the wage which they need to live. Proficiency and real innovation comes from playful experimentation, not just repetition...
@epsilon8998 ... One knows that they are doing good and valuable work when they can see that it contributes to a grander, collective plan that transcends themselves as an individual. People enjoy being part of a time that sets goals and makes accomplishments. The satisfaction that comes from being part of a group that is doing something meaningful could be so much greater if it is benefiting all of society instead of just private interests. Real satisfaction, and real success, comes from ...
@epsilon8998 ... the ability to gain imitators and followers based on one's own free efforts. This satisfaction comes from the knowledge that one is doing things that attracts the favorable attention from ones peers and opening up avenues for the production and exchange of ideas. This would make a better atmosphere for innovation than capitalism's constraining conditions. Society will progress by leaps and bounds once the full flow of information is released and people can devote all of their...
@epsilon8998 free time and energies to its production and exchange without having to worry about keeping themselves alive or happy. Choice and alternatives for living will be maximized since people can engage their time and energies into playful activities that creates new things, new ways of living, and new ideas. Competition can still play a roll: competition over how one can better utilize their free time to create new things. But competition over resources to use to live and reproduce at ...
@epsilon8998 ... other peoples' expense will have to be eliminated. People will not have to fight tooth and nail to live anymore, as they will already have everything that they need to survive. They can instead exercise their personal freedom engaging in whatever activities they wish.
@epsilon8998 (cont) Also, you seem to be claiming that you should have a CHOICE under your system where others are compelled to provide for you, at no cost to you. So there should be multiple providers all competing for your non-business? All competing to be the lucky ones who get to provide for you, for free? What do they get out of the deal? The sense of pride that comes with being the ones you chose to enslave?
I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore! So stick you're head out of the window and yell as loud as you can: I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!
to clarify with brokers. Only the top ones make a lot of money. I had a chance to meet one during my internship in Istanbul. The guy was from NYC, and he said it was one of the most stressful jobs he has ever had, and he said he had to quit when he found himself getting angry for no apparent reason.. He also said he worked for a smaller firm so it was tougher for him. But he said the bigger firms have just as much stress and called it a glorified call center job. so include them in the 99%
CWA 1108 Retiree here and Marched at Occupy Wall Street!Rock on Chris
rjh1226 3 months ago
Why are more Union reps doing this?
SolidarityMediaCrew 3 months ago
Jewish conrol US economy like they did befor Hitler kick their butt
Invetation 4 months ago
@Invetation this is bullshit- just look at the Billionaires list of the 1%- a WASP crowd.
SolidarityMediaCrew 3 months ago
The " occupy " movement is nothing more than a generation who thinks they should have wealth handed to them, as apposed to actually working for it. While the Obama media is playing this for all they can milk it for, the truth is that the numbers of actual participants is FAR less than the true Americans who see them for the parasites they long to be. A Deadbeat like Shelton will whore himself out to any gaggle of morons to get attention. I say that as a former CWA, IBEW member. Thank God, Former
americanson099 4 months ago
I haven't heard a speech this good in years
robertrulebirtannia 4 months ago
Tea Party vs OWS:
watch?v=Ybe0w_Gp9e8
nottinmatterz2day 4 months ago
Buy Nothing Day!!!:: facebook[dot]com/event[dot]php?eid=190987167645456
hope0hurts 4 months ago
@hope0hurts Well then don't forget to call out sick from work so that your employer can take part in the protest and not buy your labor for that day. Don't turn your lights, tv or anything electric in your home on because then you'll be buying the electricity. Don't eat. Don't drink. Don't turn on a faucet or flush a toilet. Don't use your phone.
Nothing in life is free, so if you're going to take a principled stand against everything you're "forced" to buy, then don't do it half-assed.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated I don't think I'm forced to buy anything. I consume very little to begin with. But to have a massive group of people refuse to buy on a day that's dedicated to specifically purchasing things (i.e. Black Friday), makes a grand statement.
I'm aware that everything costs, and I'm not in any way asserting that it doesn't. I live in a fairly minimal way, but for those that want to take part, abstaining from shopping that day would be a great intro =] Be Peace
hope0hurts 4 months ago
@hope0hurts OK, but then what exactly is the message and who's supposed to learn from it? The corporations are supposed to learn that they depend upon our consuming for their existence? I bet they already know that, and it's really a mutual dependance because your employment (the purchase of your labor) depends upon their exisience which depends upon the profits generated thru the consumption of the goods and services they provide. It's the cycle of life. (cont)
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated that's quite the assumption to make about my employment. I understand, and from what I've read, agree with your ideology. But this isn't about me. It's about getting as many people to come together to make small steps towards that greater good.
hope0hurts 4 months ago
@hope0hurts (cont) If you really want to send a message, and REALLY see who your enemy is, try organizing the same movement aginst the state. Let's have a "Pay No Taxes Day" where every individual keeps exactly what they earn and does with it as they see fit... See how that works out.
I don't like Walmart and so I don't shop there, I don't give them my money. Walmart cannot have me put in jail for not giving them my money. So where then is the "statement" of freedom most necessary?
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated When expectations are curbed or goals of profit aren't reached, because half the shoppers didn't show up when they were expected to come. it's more vital that it goes on regularly, I agree. But what is the starting point? I think this is a great way for those who have been unaware/uninvolved to introduce themselves to the movement =] Be Peace
hope0hurts 4 months ago
@hope0hurts But I think you already realize a flaw in that strategy when you admit that it must go on regularly in order to really have an impact. Whatever essential goods or services you don't purchase today will be purchased twice tomorrow, and so you're just gonna make up the difference then anyway. Keeping the boycott of the system as a prolonged strategy though will only eliminate the demand for labor and other captital, so EVERYONE will begin to suffer after a short period of time (cont)
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated in order for it to be an ongoing impact. But a day of shock is still effective in seeing that folks are serious. Ever seen "day without a mexican"
Again - it's an introduction to the idea
and no - people want necessarily buy twice the next day. That's the point of black friday. The sales are extreme for one day. They expect massive amounts of shoppers.
hope0hurts 4 months ago
@hope0hurts (cont) We already see this in some ways right now. Consumers at every level simply aren't making purchases (whether they be purchasers of goods or labor), it's essentially an involuntary boycott, and so the economy is stagnating.
A better strategy for YOUR purposes would be to discern who are the honest businesses and make a concerted, educated effort to support THOSE businesses, thereby allowing the market to operate while rewarding the good guys and punishing the bad guys.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated I already do those things, love. This is one event in conjunction with many other things. That's why it's an introduction. Most of those marked as "attending" on facebook already are active with the supporting the good/honest business. This event is a catchall in an attempt to funnel people to understanding - as I keep trying to explain. Something easy, that seems "radical" for one day, will make a small impact but an important statement. Some will fall off. Others won't =]
hope0hurts 4 months ago
I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!
enlightenedone676 4 months ago
Thank you!
Wolfiemouse 4 months ago
Every Revolution begins small,but the Majority of the People are waking up to what the greedy,crooked & evil Politicians,wealthy & Modern day Corporate Slave traders are doing.
CmdrSloanne 4 months ago 7
They are going after financial institutions. Lazy fat bankers and wallstreet economy riggers.
restlesspride666 4 months ago
Keep up the great videos davis! Help Our States Occupy movement get as much coverage as possible!
websiteusername 4 months ago 2
this is super ha bisky keep up the protesting
kazooga1234 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm standing up!!!
wasy35 4 months ago
going after corporate greed and working for a living might be difficult at the same time.
WhackTheWax 4 months ago
I was waiting for the guy that sounds like danny divito to break into song, he plays with the microphone like he is a rockstar
th86stone 4 months ago
That's a pretty nice watch you got there, Chrissy-poo. Looks like capitalism and "corporate greed" is workin out just fine for YOU! Hey that rhymes! lol
And how many people in the crowd voluntarily choose verizon as their service provider? and then get mad when verizon accumulates profits? Should verizon "redistribute" the money BACK to the people who gave it to them voluntarily? You want a refund for the servies you're otherwise perfectly happy with? You want to eat your cake and have it too.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Verizon is all the shareholders and employees, not just the "5 people" he was referring to. In fact paying those 5 people huge salaries is an expense, not a profit.
baigandine 4 months ago
@baigandine Well, if paying those 5 people that much money is such an expense that it becomes unbearable then it will bankrupt the company, and they do so at their own peril. How then is it anyone else's business what Verizon chooses to pay those 5 people? .. If we say they aren't compensating their workers sufficiently because they pay those 5 so much money, then that still is only a matter of contention between Verizon and Verizon's voluntary employees. It's not your or my business.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated It's other people's business because that money they're getting paid is money that could be put to better use in the hands of the workers employed by them, and the people at large. Capitalist concentrates wealth into the hands of the very few at the expense of the rest.
epsilon8998 4 months ago 8
@epsilon8998 Well then don't give them your money. Give your money to their competitors who you believe put that money to better use. If you believe that NONE of the businesses in that industry put their profits to what you consider to be "good" use then DON'T participate. It's very simple. No one forces you or anyone else to patronize Verizon... I don't like Walmart, so guess what - I don't shop there! If enough people feel like I do then Wlamart either has to change or go out of business.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Their competitors are no better. They're all just as guilty and they're all at fault. Just giving your money to someone else solves nothing because that business is subject to the same law of capitalism that I named earlier. What is needed is a radical change to economic relations--something that OWS is beginning to provide.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 You're on the net right now, so obviously you're voluntarily giving your $ to Verizon or one of it's competitors in return for the service they provide. Why? Boycott all of them if you don't like the system they are a part of. You can't voluntarily give them your $ and then claim you should have the authority to determine how they use that $ after they've already provided you with the service you've payed for! What gives you that right? You want to have your cake and eat it too.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated You're crazy lol. Talk about poking at the loopholes in wording.
restlesspride666 4 months ago
@restlesspride666 How so? How am I crazy?
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated You do realize that this is how a boycott starts, right? A bunch of people really angry about a company? The problem is you can't just boycott companies that provide what most people would consider an essential service - the internet. THESE COMPANIES HAVE A MONOPOLY. Sure they share it with a few other companies to make it look legit, but you have no choice. Especially when people can't even afford to start a small business to compete anymore. Keep it in perspective.
enlightenedone676 4 months ago
@enlightenedone676 Even if we go with your premise of multi-headed monopolies we still have to ask WHY it is so difficult to start a new company to compete with the big boys. That certainly isn't because of free market principles; it's because the gov't uses the power of taxation and regulation to protect the position of their friends. So yeah, let's keep it in perspective and go after the REAL source of the problem/mechanism of corruption which is government manipulation of the marketplace.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated By saying that you are assuming that corruption could not happen in a 'free market'. As long as we have a system where your value is determined by how much money you have (which is what capitalism is), corruption will always occur. That's why you have regulation. But regulation can only occur if people are actually paying attention to the system. The government isn't manipulating the markets, but rather the markets are manipulating the government. They're called lobbyists.
enlightenedone676 4 months ago
@enlightenedone676 I never said corruption *couldn't* happen, all human systems are vulnerable to corruption. The corruption of monopolistic control you mentioned is a result of regulatory favoritism that prevents competition. Such corruption couldn't be bought by lobbyists if the power to over regulate and manipulate markets didn't exist. Stop allowing the gov't such power and there'll be nothing for the lobbyists to buy. They would be forced to compete openly in the free market. (cont)
eluminated 4 months ago
@enlightenedone676 (cont) That's why lobbyists aren't knocking on YOUR door and sending YOU gifts, because you're powerless to give them any special legislative or regulatory favors. So it's not a matter of somehow eliminating corruption from human nature, it's a matter of eliminating the influence such corruption has over our lives. And that influence is a result of intrusive government.
And "money" isn't the only form of capital. Labor (among other things) is capital as well (cont..)
eluminated 4 months ago
@enlightenedone676 (cont) And just as some have an abundance of capital in the form of money, so to do some have an abundance of capital in the form of labor. If we establish a system where the "needs of society" are used to justify forcibly redistributing capital how long will it be before it isn't just capital-as-money that gets forcibly "redistributed"? What if your labor becomes something society determines they have the authority to demand and direct as "they" see fit, for the greater good?
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Startup costs are a major obstacles for potential "entrepreneurs" who want to make their own isp provider. Depending on your area, it can cost as much as $10 million in capital costs. Very little of that is due to any "taxation and regulation". All of that capital is necessary to compete against already established isp competitors. Market competition prevents its own obstacles to new businesses and favors the creation of monopolies and oligopolies.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@eluminated I didn't "voluntarily" give my money to anyone because there is no voluntary selection about it. I am free to choose which person I can give my money to but I am at the same time not free because i HAVE to give my money to someone. Only if the things I need were free would I then be free to act as I so choose. You have no freedom if you are compelled to acquire the things you need to live from someone else. That can only be a relationship of dependence, and servitude.
epsilon8998 4 months ago 2
@epsilon8998 So if these things are free then who should supply them? Do you work for free? How do you get what you want or need without also allowing THEM to get what they want or need in return? If you want something from someone else then you have to trade with them. What YOU are calling for is a system of slavery to provide for YOU! Everyone that is a link in the chain that provides the goods and services you want or need should forgo their own needs and just provide for your benefit?
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Given that it is the state's duty to provide for the general wellbeing of everyone, the state is the one that should provide it: particularly a state system comprised of worker controlled corporations and cooperatives. Everyone gets what they need because the necessary resources, goods, and capital are plentiful enough that everyone CAN be provided without any detriment to anyone in particular. This is not slavery as slavery is a bond of debt, not duty.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 Who said it's the state's duty to provide? Who decides what the state provides? In your previous comment you complained that you have no choices, but where are your choices when the state provides everything for you? Who decides what you provide TO THE STATE in return for their provisions? And who decides what your duty is? Is that not a bond of debt to "the state"? You have absolutely no choice coming or going in the system you call for. You're calling for a system of forced labor.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated It's the implicit purpose behind the state. See the preamble to the constitution "We the people..." The people will decide what the state provides based on generalized needs, such as housing, food, water, medical care, education, etc. You will have more choices in life if you have a secure livelihood. Capitalism expects you to waste your time and energy trying to scratch out a living or die trying, a socialist state would eliminate this uneccessary need. Duty is an obligation of...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 ... mutual commitment. It is a debt to society insofar as you are expected to commit a portion of your time and efforts to return some of your labor back to society as it has provided for you. It is not slavery as slavery is, first of all an INFINITE debt, while duty is a finite debt since it is one of mutual obligation (so long as you receive returns from the state, so shall you give back your return); and, secondly, slavery is a one way bond: slave owners owe nothing to their...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 ... slaves (it is not a mutual bond), while the slaves owe everything to their owners (hence the infinite debt); and, thirdly, slavery is a debt to an individual, while duty is a commitment to society as a whole. Thus no particular individual can force you to work against your will. Regardless, the amount of work that will be required by every individual will be miniscule--approaching as little as one hour a day or week per person (depending on the work).
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 You're willfully misinterpreting the term "general welfare" and completely ignoring the 5th and 9th Amendments. Furthermore, how do you pretend to create MORE choices under a system of state-run monopoly, and where do your "generalized needs" stop? If no individual can force you to work then from where does the majority claim such authority? Did the Wright Bros benefit FROM society, or did society benefit FROM the Wright Bros? If alive today the Wright Bros would owe YOU something?
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated You're wrongfully assuming that there is one correct interpretation of the "general welfare". I suggest that the general welfare should be interpreted to include physical needs such as food, housing, personal safety, etc. Explain how you think the 5th (the right to a jury trial) or 9th (that the people have other rights such as the right to good housing, food, etc. as stated above) Amendments is relevant at all. Monopolies are only relevant in capitalism, not socialism.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 You are alive, you own your life, you own your thoughts, you own your body, you operate your body to perform labor in order to manifest your thoughts into real objects, you own those objects and you determine their use. That is the right of property ownership, and it is the fundamental defining feature of what it means to be a free human being. At what point does your "society" step in and claim ownership or authority over the life and property of the individual?
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated The fact that you are alive at all is not soley due to your own actions. It is becase of society that you can acquire the things that you need to live. You own your life insofar as society can provide the things you need to live and protect said life. If there were no state (no society) to protect us from disease, disaster, invaders, or what have you, and your livelihood was interupted by such a disaster, nobody would care about your right to self ownership if you couldn't protect it
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 No, society doesn't protect anything! All society can do is agree not to TAKE from the individual. Each and every individual agrees not to take from the other, and so because of this agreement they all somehow are obligated to give that property to eachother? The best a "society" does is simply give every individual the freedom to live there life as they see fit, and this incurrs a "duty" to then live as "society" sees fit? From that freedom the individuals ACHIEVE and...
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Individuals take from society as much as societies take from individuals. How can an individual live freely without the means to do so? Means which are provided by society. How did you get your car that you use to drive to work? Did you design and build it yourself? Or the television you use to inform yourself about the world around you? Did you build that too? Where did you get the clothes you're wearing? Did you knit those yourself? No. Those were provided by society
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 society benefits from the innovations of individuals, so then those individuals are indebted to society for the privilage of improving everyone's life?.. Absurd.
And no, read the ENTIRE 5th Amendment, slick. And the 9th means your rights END where mine begin, as in my right to property isn't determined by what you feel your needs are.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Individuals first need a society to provide for them before they can give anything back. Cavemen could hardly invent anything short of tieing rocks to sticks to make primitive spears and bashing stones together to make fire. It took thousands of years of social development before individuals could be empowered with the abilities they need to make "innovations"--abilities which are social inventions, since no one individual can be responsible for such things as fire or spears...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 … Indeed, who is responsible for making fire? Or the wheel? Is it just one individual or many? Who is responsible for the internet? These things were not made by lone individuals but by many people and developed over time across generations to become what they are now. And no, explain what you think the "ENTIRE" 5th Amendment means. I don't need to do your work for you. And who gave you that interpretation of the 9th Amendment? Ron Paul? Lol. The Framers clearly meant differently.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 Individuals voluntarily come together and agree to cooperate and trade skills because it is mutually beneficial for them to do so. Every individual participating in "society" does so of their own free will because it is in ALL of their own best interests to do so. They trade in specialized goods and services and they all profit, and, so long as this vast cooperation of trade is mutually beneficial for all, every individual will freely participate. So where does your "duty" come in?
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated People cannot voluntarily agree to trade when they are compelled to do so by the need to survive. Even so, this is historically incorrect. Economies do not begin as two individuals exchanging one item for another; economies begin within the context of the state and temple religions. The first human societies were egalitarian: everyone was provided for equally and everyone did equal work. Any trading that did occur was done in a ritual context. When societies became agricultural ...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 ... and settled into permanent villages. States and temples arose, centered around a leading chief and a priest, sometimes being the same person. These leading figures organized work structures that created communal projects, building cities, conducting sacrifices, and waging wars. Do do these things, they collected taxes and tributes: at first they took in direct products such as grain and raw metals. But over time, to facilitate easier collection of taxes, they created coinage ...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 ... and money economies were created. They were not creations of individuals or many individuals but were creations of states and temples. Additionally often this money was collected as a tribute or payment to the temple system, and was considered as a gift for the gods, or a contribution for the priest who served their god. That is why ancient coinage traditionally bears both the images of a god on one side and a king on another, or their symbols--because money was created for them
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 This is entertaining cocktail party banter, but attributing the money economy to power hungry kings and priests is akin to believing that the feds did a controlled demo on the twin towers - lots of fun, but a harder to believe scenario. As societies grew, people begin to specialize. The more specialized they become, the harder it becomes to barter. The evil standardized coinage gave us specialists increased choices on how we interacted with the economy.
adminwrh 4 months ago
@adminwrh You don't need to believe it, but that's probably how it happened. Virtually every primitive tribe ever studied follows the same model: they have gift economies with little trade except between tribes and during rituals. Why don't we find images of friendly traders doing barter and trade on coins? Why do we always find images of gods and kings on them instead? The evidence is clear: money was made by states and temples. Trade was clearly a community function to serve community needs.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 Again, the more obvious explanation is the less exciting one: Imagery on money comes from what's coolest to a society - it's grandeur. Gods and Kings . This is not to say that Kings and Priests didn't do bad things to get more than their fair share of those coins, but I believe that in the everyday, real world, money was a valuable part of developing a society that didn't have to devote a greater part of it's time scrapping with nature to be safe and comfortable.
adminwrh 4 months ago
@adminwrh And yet the more "obvious", or common sense, answer is not the correct one just by the virtue of it being "obvious". It was obvious to people in the 13th century that there was a Chain of Being that God had ordained to put people in their rightful place in society, and yet that turned out to be wrong, did it not? Often times the LEAST obvious answer is the one that turns out to be right in the end. And how is it that what's "coolest" is what's put on society? Does our society think ...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 … that Abraham Lincoln and pyramids with eyes are "cool"? If your theory was correct then our dollar bills and coins, instead of having presidents and mythical symbols on them, would have Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber. No, the symbols on money clearly derive from state and religious institutions. Indeed, the only way society turned into a "developing" one was because of the collective projects directed by the heads of the state, the chiefs and priests.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 "...is not the correct one just by the virtue of being obvious" - It would be an upgrade to deem that a logical fallacy. You dig the hole even deeper with the caste comparison. Here's another more obvious conclusion: You don't believe any of what you're typing - you're playing devils advocoate and you're running out of material.
adminwrh 4 months ago
@adminwrh Huh? Sorry but I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not sure you even know what you're talking about either. Yes I would say that's a fallacy--a fallacy that YOU used: the appeal to common sense. And yes, I do believe what I'm typing. What I don't believe is that you're still coming back for more pwnage.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 An individual made fire, made the wheel, made the printing press. Individuals bestow innovations and they TEACH society.You didn't invent the internet but you learned how to use it because it's in your own best interests. Does the inventor(s) of the net owe you a debt of gratitude for how you've used their innovation to improve your own life? Society is the recipient and the medium of individual innovation. "They" simply pass it on until another individual innovates further.
eluminated 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 And at what point was this "commitment" agreed upon? Who defined the terms of the commitment? When does your duty to society begin? At birth? Do you owe a commitment to society for the privilage of being alive? And who decided on this "one hour a week " deal? Since when did providing for the needs of an entire society become such a short task? And who decides what work everyone does? How do you figure out where everyone's skills lie? And what of those who refuse to participate?
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Such a commitment begins as soon as it is socially decided that every individual will be provided for regardless of the work they perform for themselves, individually. As soon as society agrees to provide for all individuals, then work will cease to be only an individual enterprise and will begin to be viewed by individuals as the social activity that it really is. Indeed, as you said before, all individuals act as a chain. Capitalist individualism denies the full realization of this
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 Your "regardless of the work they perform" philosophy is the reason Socialism will always stagnate and die. You don't see a difference in value from one service to another. The value of the services provided by a janitor are equal to those provided by a brain surgeon? The rewards for the effort and skill involved are the same?The incentives to persue one field over the other are indistinguishable? Who will innovate and excel when all are forced to run the race at the same pace?
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Because of the extremely advanced levels of technology, very little human labor is required to actually produce what is necessary to keep everyone alive. Individuals need not work 40 or more hours a week, but drastically less. As soon as work becomes a social commitment and not an individual struggle to stay alive, people can begin to seek out their own activities freely without having to worry about the next paycheck and how they're going to get food to eat next week.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 You presume to know what everyone will need to stay alive. Do all individuals need the same things or do some need more than others? To claim that all have a "duty" to provide for the essential needs of each other, while not all CAN PROVIDE equally nor do all NEED equally is to sentence those with the ability to provide to an existence of subjegation under those who can do nothing but need. Those with the ability to achieve are punished for the sin of ability.
eluminated 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 Again, the best thing society (which is merely a collection of individuals) can do for a particular individual is agree to interact peacefully with him. As individuals we come together freely and protect eachother from harm and theft by simply not harming one another, not stealing and not allowing anyone else to steal. That in-and-of-itself IS the benefit of "society". There is no further debt or "duty" incurred from the agreement. To claim the every individual should also pay ...
eluminated 4 months ago
.. pay a tribute to the mass of individuals called "society" for the privilage of having them NOT harm him, and NOT steal from him is to promote a system founded upon the principles of EXTORTION. Plain and simple. That is like a cannibal demanding that his neighbor should offer his own arm to the cannibal on a silver platter as a means to show gratitude to the cannibal for not demanding his leg! Socialism is really nothing but illegitimate force rationalized by circular reasoning.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Personal needs are different from social needs. Everyone needs clean air and water, fresh food, housing, education and medical care. Those are social needs, and should all be freely provided so that people can go on to pursue their own personal needs. Duty is not subjugation if one has a personal connection with the work and if they can experience the results of their work via the thanks they get from those who benefit from it: i.e. society and their peers.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@eluminated Individuals cannot do anything "voluntarily" until their basic needs are met in life. Until that is done, they are compelled to satisfy that first. Only then are they free to pursue their own activities. Individuals only "come together" because they are born into a society already built around them. One is only an individual in the context of society itself. You cannot be an individual without a set of social norms and criteria that define what an individual is...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 ... Being an individual only has meaning within the context of others as they are organized within a society. Linguistically, even the word "me" or "I" could not have arisen without first having the realization that there are others to differentiate from the self. Work needs to be separated from individual necessity. Necessary labor should be minimized so that people are free to engage in free, unnecessary work, which would be the equivalent of play. This is not to say the work...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 ... done by a brain surgeon and a janitor are the same: both are necessary, and will still be needed; however, if someone chooses to do such work as part of their free, unnecessary work that they are not obligated to perform (as most work in socialism will be), then they are certainly free to do so. The important point is that they will not be compelled to do the same repetitive work dozens of hours per week to the point that it becomes a dehumanizing chore. Work must be...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 ... fulfilling and humanizing, and this can only occur if it is free, unnecessary work. Capitalism is doomed to die because it leads to the over accumulation of capital, the overproduction of commodities, and the inevitable reduction of purchasing power in the mass of society. It produces too much junk without anybody to buy it. The rewards will be the sense of achievement and satisfaction that comes from knowing that one is doing good for others, and that one's work has meaning.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 The best way to provide for peoples' needs is through trading specialized goods and services. The specialization comes PRECISELY from the "dehumanizing" repetition you seek to avoid. THAT is how you become proficient. Innovation comes from competition where the value of different techniques and ideas are measured against each other by the consumer who votes democratically with their own capital, and the accumulation of capital is the incentive that drives competition.....
eluminated 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 Further more, how does one KNOW they are doing "good work" for others if there is nothing to compare it to?Your society has no choice, there is no alternative, there is no competition, so there is no way to measure value, so there is no way to even know what the word "good" means!
Also, "I" and "Me" do not come as a result of defining yourself as NOT others. It's called self awareness, and even a person born paralysed, blind, deaf and dumb has it.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated That's just ridiculous. People are not born self aware. And how would you even know that a person who is born blind deaf and dumb is self aware? Could you ask them? No, you couldn't. And also, no, the me and I come as a result of interaction with others and realizing that those others have a mind that is different from yours. It is a learned behavior that must be developed over time. That is why children generally do not have full self awareness until they are about 5 or 6
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 Society is a voluntary cooperation between free individuals who agree to come together for their own mutual benefit, it's not a debt, it's not a "duty". You're centrally planned society lacks the ingrediants necessary for survival.. I'm not having the same arguments again... And a person is self aware so long as they have concious thoughts "I think therefor I am", ever hear of it? That's where "I" "me" and "my" comes from, and that's where MY RIGHTS come from. It was fun. You lose.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Nice try, but you're basically just repeating yourself. If I really lost then I would hardly need you to tell me. Socialism hardly needs central planning since it allows everyone to direct their own lives, and do their own planning. Capitalism entails more central planning than you even know. Your rights themselves are a social construction. How are conscious thoughts distinct from self awareness? Tautology. I think you are the one who lost. Have a nice life
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 I wasn't repeating myself, I was summing up the principles and facts that you have no answer for. And you're determining who gives what and how long they'll work and for whom.. but it's NOT a centrally planned society? Do you understand the definition of the term? And I *WILL* have a nice life, because I'm a free market capitalist and I at least understand that I have to work for what I want and need. You have fun waiting around for handouts from productive people.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Lol stop whining. I already gave you answers. If you didn't like them then that's your problem. I hope you do have a nice, and you enjoy the collapse of capitalism when it happens. However, even when that does occur, you'll still be in denial, blaming regulation and the government like you fools always do.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 How are the best methods for providing goods and services developed in the first place? How does one become a proficient farmer? By doing it every so often when your name gets pulled from a hat? And where does the innovation which further improves upon the farming methods come from? From the effortless repitition of standardized techniques centrally designed to satisfy the bear minimum survival needs of "society"?
eluminated 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 .. THAT is how society survives and progresses.But you've removed capital which spurs competition; competition which drives innovation; innovation which can only come from proficiency; proficiency which is a result of repetition; repetition as a matter of specialization and specialization which can only come from free choice.. Oh, but you'll ALLOW people to study brain surgery in their free time. How noble of you, that should come as a huge relief while their starving to death.
eluminated 4 months ago
@eluminated Specialization does not have to be dehumanizing. It is only dehumanizing if specialization is taken to the extreme, and that is all an individual does. Endless repetition is mindnumbing to the worker, and people need a wide array of tasks to keep themselves entertained. People only engage in repetitive work because they are required to do so in order to make the wage which they need to live. Proficiency and real innovation comes from playful experimentation, not just repetition...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 ... One knows that they are doing good and valuable work when they can see that it contributes to a grander, collective plan that transcends themselves as an individual. People enjoy being part of a time that sets goals and makes accomplishments. The satisfaction that comes from being part of a group that is doing something meaningful could be so much greater if it is benefiting all of society instead of just private interests. Real satisfaction, and real success, comes from ...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 ... the ability to gain imitators and followers based on one's own free efforts. This satisfaction comes from the knowledge that one is doing things that attracts the favorable attention from ones peers and opening up avenues for the production and exchange of ideas. This would make a better atmosphere for innovation than capitalism's constraining conditions. Society will progress by leaps and bounds once the full flow of information is released and people can devote all of their...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 free time and energies to its production and exchange without having to worry about keeping themselves alive or happy. Choice and alternatives for living will be maximized since people can engage their time and energies into playful activities that creates new things, new ways of living, and new ideas. Competition can still play a roll: competition over how one can better utilize their free time to create new things. But competition over resources to use to live and reproduce at ...
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 ... other peoples' expense will have to be eliminated. People will not have to fight tooth and nail to live anymore, as they will already have everything that they need to survive. They can instead exercise their personal freedom engaging in whatever activities they wish.
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 I agree with that description of currency.
rad4life1 4 months ago
@rad4life1 So then you agree that what you need should be provided to you for free?
eluminated 4 months ago
@rad4life1 Awesome! currency needs to be abolished as I see it
epsilon8998 4 months ago
@epsilon8998 (cont) Also, you seem to be claiming that you should have a CHOICE under your system where others are compelled to provide for you, at no cost to you. So there should be multiple providers all competing for your non-business? All competing to be the lucky ones who get to provide for you, for free? What do they get out of the deal? The sense of pride that comes with being the ones you chose to enslave?
eluminated 4 months ago
I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore! So stick you're head out of the window and yell as loud as you can: I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!
daralinn 4 months ago
to clarify with brokers. Only the top ones make a lot of money. I had a chance to meet one during my internship in Istanbul. The guy was from NYC, and he said it was one of the most stressful jobs he has ever had, and he said he had to quit when he found himself getting angry for no apparent reason.. He also said he worked for a smaller firm so it was tougher for him. But he said the bigger firms have just as much stress and called it a glorified call center job. so include them in the 99%
lordblazer 4 months ago
Damn, son!
newsradiohead 4 months ago