• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
    Results 26 to 50 of 107
    Like Tree50Likes

    Thread: Doesn't it seem like the American people work for the banks?

    1. #26
      DEATH TO FANATICS! StonedApe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Gender
      Location
      toledo,OH
      Posts
      2,269
      Likes
      417
      DJ Entries
      61
      Technology makes us/provides us with the potential to be more productive, less ignorant, and more connected with other people. However many people do just use it for facebook and directions.

      But in general I agree Xei, while I love that book and I feel there's definitely some reality to it, I feel like it's for different reasons than technology. Mainly nationalism and bad schools, as well as consumerism and banks/inflation. I think Fahrenheit 451 is a little closer to what our situation is, but I haven't read either of those in a while.

      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      It doesn't make me mad. Even though I understand it. I really find it quite funny most of the time.
      Really? You find this kind of injustice on a mass scale funny? You find people being manipulated funny?

      I try not to get angry about it anymore. It has to happen. Some kind of expression of the violent/aggressive nature of our culture has to be made. So that people can see it and understand it. People are asleep, they need something shocking to jar them out of it. My hopes are that this will eventually lead to some kind of lasting change, though it seems hundreds of years off still to me, I doubt I'll see it.
      It doesn't matter. Being poor means nothing, because money is worth nothing.

      I would like to take part in all this stuff (basically technology/science/art aspects) but our money system makes it all seem not very worthwhile.
      Being poor means you can't eat. Being poor means you can't move, travel, live where and how you like. In a capitalistic system money is the way we trade. It's a sensible system. What do you suggest instead, bartering, communal ownership of all things? Neither of those systems work and I don't know of any other alternatives.

      While the current system doesn't work it's not because of money, it's because money has no basis so the federal reserve can create more and more inflation. Other problems stem from our culture which really just doesn't give a fuck about people most of the time, it's all about yourself, and even then it's not about your true self but about your inflated ego which is created entirely by conditioning from this violent culture.

      It isn't the money system that makes things worthless but our culture. Our culture of superficiality. Our culture full of people so concerned with the bottom line that they can't really see things as they are. People doing things just to win, to have, to gain, and with no care for the act itself. This makes people unconscious to their own lives, completely disconnected from reality which allows for the rich, those with power to take advantage of them. The solution is to become aware of this system and to spread the word, but not to get angry or spiteful and want to kill these people, just to expose them. To show the truth of what is. But I think it's most important to completely remove yourself from this system in every way that you can and to live as vigorously as you can, live and enjoy your life.
      Xaqaria likes this.
      157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.

      Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious

    2. #27
      Banned
      Join Date
      Apr 2011
      Posts
      1,373
      Likes
      1888
      DJ Entries
      1
      Re-reading this thread really makes me slightly worried about how much the US is in debt.. And to whom.

    3. #28
      DEATH TO FANATICS! StonedApe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Gender
      Location
      toledo,OH
      Posts
      2,269
      Likes
      417
      DJ Entries
      61
      Only slightly?
      157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.

      Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious

    4. #29
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      To be honest, although it's one of my favourite books, I don't think the current times are that similar to 1984. Technology seems to have liberated us, not enslaved us.
      Yeah I wasn't so much talking about technology. Although it is obviously used as a spy tool as well, mostly planes, CCTV etc. And the fact that most people seem to think that CCTV is actually a good thing scares me.
      And he says in the book various things which just shocked me as to how accurate he was.
      Such as people trading freedom for security. Large differences between rich and poor.
      That stuff about "Always been at war with X country". While not to that extreme, a similar thing happened with Saddam.
      There's also 5 companies (maybe soon to be three) that control almost all of the world's media. So there's no way we're getting all the news, or even the most relevant or noteworthy things.

      There's many examples but I can't remember the exact words.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Really? You find this kind of injustice on a mass scale funny? You find people being manipulated funny?
      Yes, I do. Because it is literally them enslaving themselves. They are allowing this to happen.
      Don't get me wrong, I think it's fucked up. But at some point you should just chuckle to yourself about it.
      All that has to happen for their reign of terror and "power" to end, is that everybody decides to not take part in their designated system lol

      Instead they are deciding to take part in it to survive, even though it's unnecessary. Thereby perpetuating the illusion.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Being poor means you can't eat. Being poor means you can't move, travel, live where and how you like.
      You can almost certainly eat. Plants don't have a monetary value. Animals don't have a monetary value. Do you have two legs? You can travel.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      In a capitalistic system money is the way we trade. It's a sensible system. What do you suggest instead, bartering, communal ownership of all things? Neither of those systems work and I don't know of any other alternatives.
      I've suggested the Venus project a few times. Or at least something similar to it.
      In my opinion it's either that or two other things.
      Those two other options are:

      - Any system you want. Some people will decide not to take part in it, some will. Just like what happens now.
      - A system where we limit the population (good in any system really) and we all live off our own designated plot of land.

      [QUOTE=stonedape;1678348]While the current system doesn't work it's not because of money, it's because money has no basis so the federal reserve can create more and more inflation. Other problems stem from our culture which really just doesn't give a fuck about people most of the time, it's all about yourself, and even then it's not about your true self but about your inflated ego which is created entirely by conditioning from this violent culture.[QUOTE=stonedape;1678348]
      It's both. Money sort of perpetuates this more than other forms of trade or systems that don't have trade as the core principle.

    5. #30
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      In a capitalistic system money is the way we trade. It's a sensible system. What do you suggest instead, bartering, communal ownership of all things? Neither of those systems work and I don't know of any other alternatives.
      Bartering works for small populations such as tribes. The side-effect is that they'll never be able to advance and will be trapped in relative poverty. Communal ownership has its own host of problems, so I agree that it won't work.
      Last edited by BLUELINE976; 06-17-2011 at 06:25 AM.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    6. #31
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      930
      DJ Entries
      9
      What is sad is that we have been living under this system (in the USA) since 1913 and are only now beginning to wake up to it's realities. What is good is that we are now starting to wake up to it's realities. The only possible outcome of such an awakening is revolution.

      For those arguing the money issue; Using a medium of exchange (currency) is not the problem; the interest is the problem. We are fully able to have an effective currency that does not incur interest.
      Last edited by Xaqaria; 06-19-2011 at 12:26 PM.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    7. #32
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      What is sad is that we have been living under this system (in the USA) since 1913 and are only now beginning to wake up to it's realities. What is good is that we are now starting to wake up to it's realities. The only possible outcome of such an awakening is revolution.

      For those arguing the money issue; Using a medium of exchange (currency) is not the problem; the interest is the problem. We are fully able to have an effective currency that does not incur interest.
      Hmmmm. I wouldn't say that. In a monetary system, someone is always trying to get more.

      Although I suppose if there were no banks for instance, just computer systems set up by the government that did all the transactions automatically, removing the need for any banks (seriously, why do we even need them now?).

      All this inflation stuff is ridiculous too. I admit I don't fully understand it all, but I know enough to know that it is all an illusion.

      Could you explain a little more why you think money would be okay if there were no interest?

    8. #33
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3084
      Artificial inflation is like magic for governments. Why raise taxes when you could just print more fiat, literally sucking the value out of saver's accounts and into the hands of the politicians.
      BLUELINE976 likes this.

    9. #34
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      930
      DJ Entries
      9
      In the U.S. before 1913 the United States had its own currency issued by congress that did not incur interest. Basically the reason why inflation exists is because the bank requires that the government pay back all the money that is "borrowed" from them (actually it is created at the time of borrowing) plus interest. The money to pay the interest does not exist until the government borrows more money to pay it, which also accrues interest. The only way to pay off the interest is to borrow more money which creates more interest.

      If however, we used a currency that was based on real money (something of value) and it was not borrowed from a private bank then there would be no interest, and the amount of money in circulation would be a reflection of real assets held by the country. Inflation or deflation would only be tied to the value of those assets and not attached to an ever increasing scale of interest payment on money to pay for interest.

      A currency in itself is just a medium of exchange. A money backed currency is literally no different from bartering, except that it is faster and easier to establish a consensus of value. Say that you live in a culture that values wheat to the extent that the value of wheat is well established and relatively stable. You can trade wheat for other goods and you would be bartering. You can also store wheat and give people "wheat certificates" in exchange for goods and then they could exchange those certificates for your stored wheat whenever they had a need for it, or they could give the certificate to someone else in exchange for some other product and the other person would be able to redeem it for wheat. In this example, the wheat would be the money (object of value) and the certificate would be the currency. The value of the certificate would only change if the relative value of the wheat changed. Gold is usually used because its value is relatively stable, and new gold is mined at a fairly regular rate which increases the money supply in a predictable stable fashion.
      Last edited by Xaqaria; 06-19-2011 at 11:37 PM.
      juroara likes this.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    10. #35
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      In the U.S. before 1913 the United States had its own currency issued by congress that did not incur interest. Basically the reason why inflation exists is because the bank requires that the government pay back all the money that is "borrowed" from them (actually it is created at the time of borrowing) plus interest. The money to pay the interest does not exist until the government borrows more money to pay it, which also accrues interest. The only way to pay off the interest is to borrow more money which creates more interest.

      If however, we used a currency that was based on real money (something of value) and it was not borrowed from a private bank then there would be no interest, and the amount of money in circulation would be a reflection of real assets held by the country. Inflation or deflation would only be tied to the value of those assets and not attached to an ever increasing scale of interest payment on money to pay for interest.

      A currency in itself is just a medium of exchange. A money backed currency is literally no different from bartering, except that it is faster and easier to establish a consensus of value. Say that you live in a culture that values wheat to the extent that the value of wheat is well established and relatively stable. You can trade wheat for other goods and you would be bartering. You can also store wheat and give people "wheat certificates" in exchange for goods and then they could exchange those certificates for your stored wheat whenever they had a need for it, or they could give the certificate to someone else in exchange for some other product and the other person would be able to redeem it for wheat. In this example, the wheat would be the money (object of value) and the certificate would be the currency. The value of the certificate would only change if the relative value of the wheat changed. Gold is usually used because its value is relatively stable, and new gold is mined at a fairly regular rate which increases the money supply in a predictable stable fashion.
      And what's to stop people from stockpiling gold to increase the value of money.
      They already do this, but with your idea it would not only increase the gold value but also the money value.

      Doesn't seem very good.

    11. #36
      DEATH TO FANATICS! StonedApe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Gender
      Location
      toledo,OH
      Posts
      2,269
      Likes
      417
      DJ Entries
      61
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      Yes, I do. Because it is literally them enslaving themselves. They are allowing this to happen.
      Don't get me wrong, I think it's fucked up. But at some point you should just chuckle to yourself about it.
      All that has to happen for their reign of terror and "power" to end, is that everybody decides to not take part in their designated system lol

      Instead they are deciding to take part in it to survive, even though it's unnecessary. Thereby perpetuating the illusion.
      Yeah well since that probably isn't going to happen any time soon I don't really see how it's funny. Society is killing itself, this is something serious, I don't see the humor in it. People(millions of them) die over this shit. It isn't funny. Is heroin addiction funny?

      People aren't allowing this to happen, they have no clue that it's even going on. Now I agree that it's partially their fault, they have a responsibility to learn about the world around them but still.
      You can almost certainly eat. Plants don't have a monetary value. Animals don't have a monetary value. Do you have two legs? You can travel.
      Fine, you can, but you can't do it as easily, you have to work extremely hard to do it. You could remove yourself from society and become a hermit. But this is basically giving up on society and people. Do you really think it's preferable to be a bum or live out in the woods by yourself?

      I don't think you can really make a good argument for it being good to be poor.
      I've suggested the Venus project a few times. Or at least something similar to it.
      In my opinion it's either that or two other things.
      Those two other options are:

      - Any system you want. Some people will decide not to take part in it, some will. Just like what happens now.
      - A system where we limit the population (good in any system really) and we all live off our own designated plot of land.
      How are these two options different from capitalism? Who designates who get's what plot of land? Who decides how we limit the population? That sounds much worse than what we have now to me.

      The venus project just flat out can't work because there will always be scarcity. It's a good idea in terms of food and energy, but we will always need some system for trading goods(and we're still along way away from doing this with food or energy, and with food at least we are moving in the wrong direction). Not everything can be reproduced. What of art, or a finely crafted guitar. People aren't just going to give them away and it takes a master to make them, but many many people want them. Scarcity.
      It's both. Money sort of perpetuates this more than other forms of trade or systems that don't have trade as the core principle.
      Money doesn't do anything other than allow people more options. I don't see how this is bad. What system of living could possibly function in modern society that didn't involve trade? And how do you trade easily without money. It's people who perpetuate greed, who take advantage of the poor. It's not money. Money is just a unit of trade and you are never going to end trade, it's a fundamental part of humanity. Even in tribal settings there is trade. You have a pipe and want a blanket, I have a blanket and want a pipe. So we trade. There's nothing wrong or malevolent about this at all, it's very positive in fact.
      157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.

      Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious

    12. #37
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Yeah well since that probably isn't going to happen any time soon I don't really see how it's funny. Society is killing itself, this is something serious, I don't see the humor in it. People(millions of them) die over this shit. It isn't funny. Is heroin addiction funny?
      It's simply because there is just this extremely microscopically thin veil of control over everyone. At any second they could ruin this entire system.
      Instead, even when they learn about how it works (usually when they get fucked over by it) they still persist in the illusion. You mentioned "bums".

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Fine, you can, but you can't do it as easily, you have to work extremely hard to do it. You could remove yourself from society and become a hermit. But this is basically giving up on society and people. Do you really think it's preferable to be a bum or live out in the woods by yourself?
      I really think both are equal at this point. Society was supposed to be better. But....
      I don't see much difference between having to work hard for your food, or having to work hard to get money to buy food.
      One stresses your body, the other stresses your mind. In most cases anyway, unless you're one of the lucky ones who really enjoys some particular job and has the prerequisites to acquire that job.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      I don't think you can really make a good argument for it being good to be poor.
      But the thing is, you aren't poor. Someone is poor if they can't get a good paying job and continue to live in this society. Feeding off others.
      If one decides to leave and go live in the forest, they are no longer poor. They have as much as anyone else. They have the entire world as theirs.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      How are these two options different from capitalism? Who designates who get's what plot of land? Who decides how we limit the population? That sounds much worse than what we have now to me.
      In Borneo, this is how it is done for land. No one fights over it. You go to this guy and say "Can I have that area of land there?" The guy says yes or no depending on circumstances and whether someone else owns it already. If they do, you just choose another spot.
      Science would decide how limit the population. I think the current number is 2 kids for every couple, if we want to maintain our population level.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Not everything can be reproduced. What of art, or a finely crafted guitar. People aren't just going to give them away and it takes a master to make them, but many many people want them. Scarcity.
      Yes. That is the only problem with it that I have come across so far. I've been thinking about it on and off for a while.
      When you think about it, only one person gets the piece of art now. And it's usually just some rich bastard who wants to make money. So it's no different.
      I suppose the artist would just choose who he wants to give it to. Or maybe trade for another piece of craft. And if it is a much sought after piece of art, it can go in a gallery.

    13. #38
      Member Laughing Man's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Gender
      Posts
      836
      Likes
      70
      Quote Originally Posted by Jeff777 View Post
      "These International Bankers and Rockefeller Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of public office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government." - Theodore Roosevelt

      Quoting Theodore Roosevelt who was in the pocket of J.P. Morgan isn't instilling confidence in me.
      'What is war?...In a short sentence it may be summed up to be the combination and concentration of all the horrors, atrocities, crimes, and sufferings of which human nature on this globe is capable' - John Bright

    14. #39
      Member Laughing Man's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Gender
      Posts
      836
      Likes
      70
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      For those arguing the money issue; Using a medium of exchange (currency) is not the problem; the interest is the problem. We are fully able to have an effective currency that does not incur interest.
      Interest is just the result of the supply and demand of money. As long as you have money you will have people to supply it and demand it therefore causing natural interest rates.
      'What is war?...In a short sentence it may be summed up to be the combination and concentration of all the horrors, atrocities, crimes, and sufferings of which human nature on this globe is capable' - John Bright

    15. #40
      DEATH TO FANATICS! StonedApe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Gender
      Location
      toledo,OH
      Posts
      2,269
      Likes
      417
      DJ Entries
      61
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      It's simply because there is just this extremely microscopically thin veil of control over everyone. At any second they could ruin this entire system.
      Instead, even when they learn about how it works (usually when they get fucked over by it) they still persist in the illusion. You mentioned "bums".
      We live in a deterministic universe, we are not at a point where we could change the system because most people are still unaware of it and many people want a system. They want safety(which is sort of an unrealistic desire, at least in the way that they want it) and the people who run the government promise this. These people(who run the gov) are basically owned by banks and large corporations.
      I really think both are equal at this point. Society was supposed to be better. But....
      I don't see much difference between having to work hard for your food, or having to work hard to get money to buy food.
      One stresses your body, the other stresses your mind. In most cases anyway, unless you're one of the lucky ones who really enjoys some particular job and has the prerequisites to acquire that job.
      How are they equal, they are completely different? Maybe to you, subjectively, you think you could enjoy living either way equally, but they are by no means equal.

      It's completely different if you have to forage and hunt vs buying something. It's so much easier to work for a few hours then go to the grocery store. I worked for about 4 hours doing landscaping and bought enough food to last me the whole weekend.

      Both ways of living require the use of mind and body. If you are stressing over it it's because you're doing it wrong or you picked some excessively hard work like being a doctor. Work is easy and can be enjoyable. I teach guitar lessons and do odd jobs, and I generally enjoy whatever I'm doing. I can't say I've ever really gotten mentally stressed from work even when I had an office job(actually that was the easiest job in the entire world and I wish I could get it back, ten dollars an hour to basically do jack shit).

      Having a good job has nothing to do with luck. Find something you enjoy and find a way to make money doing it. For me it's teaching and playing music. Now I haven't found a way to be self sufficent doing this yet but I'm working on it, and I think I'll be able to in about a year or two. All it takes are planning and a little hard work.
      But the thing is, you aren't poor. Someone is poor if they can't get a good paying job and continue to live in this society. Feeding off others.
      If one decides to leave and go live in the forest, they are no longer poor. They have as much as anyone else. They have the entire world as theirs.
      I kind of see what you're saying, but it's not completely true. Someone with money and knowledge, like Bear Grills, can go live in the woods much more comfortably than I could if I was to just go live in the woods. And they don't have the entire world as theirs. If they try to take my guitar, Imma have to bust a cap. They also have no more access to the natural world, to the woods(I know everything is technically part of the natural world, but you know what I'm trying to say) than I do, so what have they really gained? All they done is found a way to live without paying rent or bills, and they've sacrificed certain comforts and resources for this. You really don't have to go live in the woods to drop of the grid, there are much more practical ways of doing it where you don't have to sacrifice things like the internet, which I find to be an extremely useful resource, one worth the costs.
      In Borneo, this is how it is done for land. No one fights over it. You go to this guy and say "Can I have that area of land there?" The guy says yes or no depending on circumstances and whether someone else owns it already. If they do, you just choose another spot.
      Science would decide how limit the population. I think the current number is 2 kids for every couple, if we want to maintain our population level.
      Well the land part makes sense. If no one is using land it should be available for others to make use of, but that has nothing to do with capitalism, and since people want things other than land and food we still need to trade.

      But about population control, what happens if if someone has more than 2 kids? And what about people who sleep around and have all sorts of babies momma's? How do you know who has how many kids? And science can't decide how we do it, it can just set a number. People have to do the actual controlling, and if they aren't controlling themselves I'm generally against it because it's impractical and ineffective.
      Yes. That is the only problem with it that I have come across so far. I've been thinking about it on and off for a while.
      When you think about it, only one person gets the piece of art now. And it's usually just some rich bastard who wants to make money. So it's no different.
      I suppose the artist would just choose who he wants to give it to. Or maybe trade for another piece of craft. And if it is a much sought after piece of art, it can go in a gallery.
      What about the guitar example? Luthiers don't just give shit away. It takes a long time and a lot of work, high quality wood and materials. There are plenty of other things like this too. Nice cars, nice houses.

      This is a pretty major problem, it concerns just about anything of real value, or maybe high value, it's a vague concept I'm not quite sure how to convey. But people want things, special things, nice things, and you can't just make an infinite amount of them so there will always be scarcity. Therefore the venus project can't really take care of things other than food, energy and water. It could also provide housing and education for the poor, which would be great, but it could never replace capitalism or end trade. People will always trade so there will always be a demand for currency of some kind.
      157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.

      Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious

    16. #41
      Legend Jeff777's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2007
      LD Count
      Over 9,000
      Gender
      Posts
      8,055
      Likes
      1519
      Quote Originally Posted by Laughing Man View Post
      Quoting Theodore Roosevelt who was in the pocket of J.P. Morgan isn't instilling confidence in me.
      Please supply proof. Wild-eyed conspiracy theories won't suffice.
      Things are not as they seem

    17. #42
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      How are they equal, they are completely different? Maybe to you, subjectively, you think you could enjoy living either way equally, but they are by no means equal.

      It's completely different if you have to forage and hunt vs buying something. It's so much easier to work for a few hours then go to the grocery store. I worked for about 4 hours doing landscaping and bought enough food to last me the whole weekend.

      Both ways of living require the use of mind and body. If you are stressing over it it's because you're doing it wrong or you picked some excessively hard work like being a doctor. Work is easy and can be enjoyable. I teach guitar lessons and do odd jobs, and I generally enjoy whatever I'm doing. I can't say I've ever really gotten mentally stressed from work even when I had an office job(actually that was the easiest job in the entire world and I wish I could get it back, ten dollars an hour to basically do jack shit).
      I mean the are similar because both have their downsides. I was just giving one example.
      Many many people get stressed at their jobs. So much so that it is all they seem to talk about.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Having a good job has nothing to do with luck. Find something you enjoy and find a way to make money doing it. For me it's teaching and playing music. Now I haven't found a way to be self sufficent doing this yet but I'm working on it, and I think I'll be able to in about a year or two. All it takes are planning and a little hard work.
      For many people it is luck. Luck that they happen to like a certain thing. This is what I meant. Not luck in finding a job.
      For example, there is not a lot I find appealing in the way of jobs in this culture. At least not something I'd like to do for a prolonged period of time. Some people are lucky coz they're just like "I want to be a teacher" or something and they are happy doing it.
      Personally I have always done one thing constantly for a few years, I get bored and move on. I'm pretty sure quite a few people are like this.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      I kind of see what you're saying, but it's not completely true. Someone with money and knowledge, like Bear Grills, can go live in the woods much more comfortably than I could if I was to just go live in the woods. And they don't have the entire world as theirs. If they try to take my guitar, Imma have to bust a cap. They also have no more access to the natural world, to the woods(I know everything is technically part of the natural world, but you know what I'm trying to say) than I do, so what have they really gained? All they done is found a way to live without paying rent or bills, and they've sacrificed certain comforts and resources for this. You really don't have to go live in the woods to drop of the grid, there are much more practical ways of doing it where you don't have to sacrifice things like the internet, which I find to be an extremely useful resource, one worth the costs.
      It's not completely true, no. Some people decide to call something theirs. So you probably shouldn't take it. But I mean they don't have to buy land, all the land that isn't owned is theirs to live on. They don't have to buy food, all the seeds and fruits and animals that live are theirs to eat (as long as someone isn't growing it on the land they claim to own). I don't want to get too philosophical about people not actually owning anything.
      They have gained not being part of a fucked up system. Not having to work jobs they don't like.
      For you there are ways to drop off the grid while staying in society to reap it's comforts. For some, there aren't any ways which will make them happy.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Well the land part makes sense. If no one is using land it should be available for others to make use of, but that has nothing to do with capitalism, and since people want things other than land and food we still need to trade.
      Cool.


      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      But about population control, what happens if if someone has more than 2 kids? And what about people who sleep around and have all sorts of babies momma's? How do you know who has how many kids? And science can't decide how we do it, it can just set a number. People have to do the actual controlling, and if they aren't controlling themselves I'm generally against it because it's impractical and ineffective.
      Well, the best way would be education. It's already a fact that educated people have less kids. Whether that's due to being educated about the current state of civilisation or due to having jobs, I'm not sure. But education about the fact that having too many kids will lead to overpopulation and eventually Soylent Green type scenario if it goes far enough, will deter people from having too many kids. I know this sounds like a scare tactic or something. But it should most importantly just be education and presentation of facts and predictions. Letting people make their own decisions.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      What about the guitar example? Luthiers don't just give shit away. It takes a long time and a lot of work, high quality wood and materials. There are plenty of other things like this too. Nice cars, nice houses.
      You're right, they don't. Because they need to make money!
      If they really enjoy doing it, they will do it anyway. Whom they give it away to is up to them. As I said, some people already get these nice things over other people simply because they have more money. No system can cater for everyone. But that's part of what makes these things so highly prized. Not everyone can have them.

    18. #43
      DEATH TO FANATICS! StonedApe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Gender
      Location
      toledo,OH
      Posts
      2,269
      Likes
      417
      DJ Entries
      61
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      I mean the are similar because both have their downsides. I was just giving one example.
      Many many people get stressed at their jobs. So much so that it is all they seem to talk about.
      People get stressed at their jobs because they don't know how to deal with the situation. In some cases people have shitty jobs, they get hassled or yelled at, but even then, if you are getting stressed it's your own fault.

      For many people it is luck. Luck that they happen to like a certain thing. This is what I meant. Not luck in finding a job.
      For example, there is not a lot I find appealing in the way of jobs in this culture. At least not something I'd like to do for a prolonged period of time. Some people are lucky coz they're just like "I want to be a teacher" or something and they are happy doing it.
      Personally I have always done one thing constantly for a few years, I get bored and move on. I'm pretty sure quite a few people are like this.
      If you're getting bored, you're just not doing it right. There's plenty of things that aren't boring. You just have to open your eyes and your mind. Become a researcher, be an artist, a musician, write books, start a restaurant, start a head shop, learn to fly planes, I mean there's thousands of things you can do, and most of them aren't boring.

      People are like this, but they are like this because they aren't passionate about what they're doing, they're detached, thinking about things they'd rather be doing. Find something you can pour yourself into and you won't get bored.

      Everyone likes things, just be creative and find a way to make money with something.

      It's not completely true, no. Some people decide to call something theirs. So you probably shouldn't take it. But I mean they don't have to buy land, all the land that isn't owned is theirs to live on. They don't have to buy food, all the seeds and fruits and animals that live are theirs to eat (as long as someone isn't growing it on the land they claim to own). I don't want to get too philosophical about people not actually owning anything.
      They have gained not being part of a fucked up system. Not having to work jobs they don't like.
      For you there are ways to drop off the grid while staying in society to reap it's comforts. For some, there aren't any ways which will make them happy.
      Bah, that's just laziness and closed mindedness. If you get creative there are plenty of ways to make money. Make stuff, do stuff, sell stuff, whatever. And really, it doesn't have to be something that's as great as playing music. If you can't find something that interests you in society you really aren't trying very hard. Do you know any people who have chosen to leave society and forage and hunt for food? There's a reason people don't and it's because it's much easier not to and you can't pursue any hobbies or interests in the wild.

      Well, the best way would be education. It's already a fact that educated people have less kids. Whether that's due to being educated about the current state of civilisation or due to having jobs, I'm not sure. But education about the fact that having too many kids will lead to overpopulation and eventually Soylent Green type scenario if it goes far enough, will deter people from having too many kids. I know this sounds like a scare tactic or something. But it should most importantly just be education and presentation of facts and predictions. Letting people make their own decisions.
      Yeah, but that's not really population control, that's just educating people about the consequences of their actions. Population control is like infanticide, stuff like that.

      You're right, they don't. Because they need to make money!
      If they really enjoy doing it, they will do it anyway. Whom they give it away to is up to them. As I said, some people already get these nice things over other people simply because they have more money. No system can cater for everyone. But that's part of what makes these things so highly prized. Not everyone can have them.
      If they were just doing it for fun they wouldn't make as high quality of instruments. Competition is good in some areas.

      People aren't just gonna make nice houses because they like making them. That's a ridiculous amount of labor to just be nice to someone and give it away. And if someone wants something, there should be a way for them to get that thing.

      A relevant video I Laughing man posted in another thread.
      Last edited by StonedApe; 06-21-2011 at 09:15 AM.
      157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.

      Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious

    19. #44
      Expert LDer Affirmation!
      Join Date
      Oct 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      1,556
      Likes
      1010
      Hunter-gatherers had to labor every single day to kill an animal or gather plants to eat, and saving up for the winter to survive, like most animals in the wild still do. Does that count as slavery? Is having to work to live really such an atrocity? Seems like unavoidable common sense to me. Sure, in this thread there's a lot of hyping up and sensationalizing how horrible Americans have it in this apocalyptic bank run world, yet Americans live like kings compared to most of the rest of the world- even poor Americans. First world whining?
      DILDs: A Lot

    20. #45
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      People get stressed at their jobs because they don't know how to deal with the situation. In some cases people have shitty jobs, they get hassled or yelled at, but even then, if you are getting stressed it's your own fault.
      So it's people's fault for not being born with the reasoning to realise that their job is not that bad and is not everything there is and there's no reason to get stressed about it? If you ignore the fact that they need it to live.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      If you're getting bored, you're just not doing it right. There's plenty of things that aren't boring. You just have to open your eyes and your mind. Become a researcher, be an artist, a musician, write books, start a restaurant, start a head shop, learn to fly planes, I mean there's thousands of things you can do, and most of them aren't boring.

      People are like this, but they are like this because they aren't passionate about what they're doing, they're detached, thinking about things they'd rather be doing. Find something you can pour yourself into and you won't get bored.
      One of the most amazing things I will never get bored of is looking at nature. Walking around in the bush/forest/beach whatever. I actually feel completely ecstatic and in awe.
      The natural thing to do would be to go live somewhere like that. Even if that is just on a farm or something.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Bah, that's just laziness and closed mindedness. If you get creative there are plenty of ways to make money. Make stuff, do stuff, sell stuff, whatever. And really, it doesn't have to be something that's as great as playing music. If you can't find something that interests you in society you really aren't trying very hard. Do you know any people who have chosen to leave society and forage and hunt for food? There's a reason people don't and it's because it's much easier not to and you can't pursue any hobbies or interests in the wild.
      If your interests are the wild then going in to the wild is pursuing your interests in itself lol

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Yeah, but that's not really population control, that's just educating people about the consequences of their actions. Population control is like infanticide, stuff like that.
      Um. Maybe that's your preconceived notion of it. Teaching people about the consequences of having too many children is just a way to control the population size.
      A smarter way than just deciding to tell people not to and killing any extra people.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      If they were just doing it for fun they wouldn't make as high quality of instruments. Competition is good in some areas.
      Classic business fallacy. I was just reading a study the other day which proves this wrong. And it's been known for quite a while. If anything, it makes them produce lower quality products because they want to get through them as quick as possible to make more money. Which is what you get generally with mass production.
      This is exactly what causes people to have a narrow point of view and to become stressed out of their mind because all they see is this one thing and they think that it is everything. When it's not.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      People aren't just gonna make nice houses because they like making them. That's a ridiculous amount of labor to just be nice to someone and give it away. And if someone wants something, there should be a way for them to get that thing.
      Again. Same fallacy. So everyone just build houses for the money?
      There's lots of people who build houses for themselves, or for other people who can't afford it. They do it because they enjoy it.
      If you won't do something without monetary return, well then you don't really like it that much.
      The labor isn't that bad when you actually enjoy watching your ideas become reality.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      A relevant video I Laughing man posted in another thread.
      Irrelevant video is irrelevant.
      He's talking about if everyone became hunter-gatherers and had to make all their own stuff.
      I never suggested that. I said if someone doesn't like what society has to offer, but they do like the idea of living in the forest or something, they should do it.
      And anyway, this population would not survive a transition to hunter gatherers en masse.
      So it's even more irrelevant because it couldn't happen.

      If, however, we just wiped out trade. We would be fine. People can still specialise. Because people would still enjoy farming and people would still enjoy building power stations etc. etc.

      Quote Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer View Post
      Hunter-gatherers had to labor every single day to kill an animal or gather plants to eat, and saving up for the winter to survive, like most animals in the wild still do. Does that count as slavery? Is having to work to live really such an atrocity? Seems like unavoidable common sense to me. Sure, in this thread there's a lot of hyping up and sensationalizing how horrible Americans have it in this apocalyptic bank run world, yet Americans live like kings compared to most of the rest of the world- even poor Americans. First world whining?
      And look at what's happening to the rest of the world to allow the American's (every developed country, not just Americans). The Amazon rainforest is a perfect example.
      The only reason other countries are so fucking "poor" is BECAUSE of our system. Hunter-gatherer's were not poor. Unless they lived in a bad region, but they would have died out.

      But as I said. I don't see much difference (on a personal level) between working all year to have enough money to buy food or going out and hunting/finding/growing your own food. Elders never had to keep working until they were 60+ to survive. The fittest people went out and hunted.
      But anyway, take your pick, it's either mental or physical anguish. Unless you figure everything out and overcome your automatic reactions to things.
      Both have their downsides basically.
      If you count being bound by the laws of physics/nature slavery, you will never be free. Technically that is correct, but you might go crazy if you think about it too much.
      Last edited by tommo; 06-21-2011 at 12:18 PM.

    21. #46
      DEATH TO FANATICS! StonedApe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Gender
      Location
      toledo,OH
      Posts
      2,269
      Likes
      417
      DJ Entries
      61
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      So it's people's fault for not being born with the reasoning to realise that their job is not that bad and is not everything there is and there's no reason to get stressed about it? If you ignore the fact that they need it to live.
      I don't care who's fault things are, but if you are in a situation you don't like it's your responsibility to change it.

      Most people get stressed out at their job because they take life far too seriously, or more specifically because they take their inner dialogue about life too seriously. If you really merge with what you are doing you won't get stressed about it. Even if you don't like your job you can merge with it. I hate cutting the grass, I think it's extremely stupid for a number of reasons. But when I have to do it, I do it with my whole being, and I don't get stressed anymore.

      As you've pointed out, they don't need it, they can find other means of living, I'm just suggesting that you're advice is far too drastic and no one would really even do that. There are certainly other means of making a living and if you don't take advantage of that you have no one to blame but yourself.
      One of the most amazing things I will never get bored of is looking at nature. Walking around in the bush/forest/beach whatever. I actually feel completely ecstatic and in awe.
      The natural thing to do would be to go live somewhere like that. Even if that is just on a farm or something.
      So get a job as a park ranger, or a naturalist. Or be a farmer. I've considered doing those things myself but I like music more.
      If your interests are the wild then going in to the wild is pursuing your interests in itself lol
      True, but you have to admit that you have to give up on cultural interests to live in the wild. Technically I could bring my guitar, but I'd have no one to play with. Most people like something about our society and culture even if they have major problems with them.
      Um. Maybe that's your preconceived notion of it. Teaching people about the consequences of having too many children is just a way to control the population size.
      A smarter way than just deciding to tell people not to and killing any extra people.
      But it's not control, it's not governance, it's just education. It's not controlling. But this is just semantics, it doesn't really matter.
      Classic business fallacy. I was just reading a study the other day which proves this wrong. And it's been known for quite a while. If anything, it makes them produce lower quality products because they want to get through them as quick as possible to make more money. Which is what you get generally with mass production.
      This is exactly what causes people to have a narrow point of view and to become stressed out of their mind because all they see is this one thing and they think that it is everything. When it's not.
      That's not what luthiers do though. I guess some of them do, but I wouldn't really call them luthiers. Luthiers spend a lot of time and effort trying to make the best product that they can. They already do this, that's why they charge $5000 for a guitar(and those are the cheap ones).

      This is only wrong in terms of things being mass produced, I'm talking about high quality instruments and other things which aren't mass produced. Things which are crafted.
      Again. Same fallacy. So everyone just build houses for the money?
      There's lots of people who build houses for themselves, or for other people who can't afford it. They do it because they enjoy it.
      If you won't do something without monetary return, well then you don't really like it that much.
      The labor isn't that bad when you actually enjoy watching your ideas become reality.
      So you really think people will just build houses because it's fun? Because it ain't. Who's gonna work at landfills or clean porta-johns or scrape dead animals off the road. There are some jobs that just suck that have to be done.
      Irrelevant video is irrelevant.
      He's talking about if everyone became hunter-gatherers and had to make all their own stuff.
      I never suggested that. I said if someone doesn't like what society has to offer, but they do like the idea of living in the forest or something, they should do it.
      And anyway, this population would not survive a transition to hunter gatherers en masse.
      So it's even more irrelevant because it couldn't happen.
      It's relevent because it explains how we cannot specialize without trade. People are never going to just make things and give them away to complete strangers. That's a completely absurd notion.
      If, however, we just wiped out trade. We would be fine. People can still specialise. Because people would still enjoy farming and people would still enjoy building power stations etc. etc.
      But then you're assuming that there's gonna be someone who wants to just build a power station when we need power. Or someone who likes cleaning shitters when they get too full.
      And look at what's happening to the rest of the world to allow the American's (every developed country, not just Americans). The Amazon rainforest is a perfect example.
      The only reason other countries are so fucking "poor" is BECAUSE of our system. Hunter-gatherer's were not poor. Unless they lived in a bad region, but they would have died out.
      By our standards they are. They don't have a computer, they don't have expensive houses. They don't have the means to drive 2000 miles across the country just for fun if they wanted to. We do, we live in luxury compared to them.

      It's quite true that americans do all kinds of fucked up shit for money, but they do this because they are greedy, not because we use currency. People have been using currency for a long time before there was america. It's very possible to have currency and not have people acting this way. One big step is having a currency that has a basis, is not fiat.
      But as I said. I don't see much difference (on a personal level) between working all year to have enough money to buy food or going out and hunting/finding/growing your own food. Elders never had to keep working until they were 60+ to survive. The fittest people went out and hunted.
      But anyway, take your pick, it's either mental or physical anguish. Unless you figure everything out and overcome your automatic reactions to things.
      Both have their downsides basically.
      If you count being bound by the laws of physics/nature slavery, you will never be free. Technically that is correct, but you might go crazy if you think about it too much.
      There's a really big difference, just in the amount of effort you have to put int. Go live as a hunter gatherer for a week and you'll see what I mean. It's much more difficult than living in society, that's why people don't do it.

      And if you don't like thinking, get a job doing physical labor, construction or something. It's less work than being a hunter gatherer, and you still get to sleep in a bed.
      157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.

      Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious

    22. #47
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      As you've pointed out, they don't need it, they can find other means of living, I'm just suggesting that you're advice is far too drastic and no one would really even do that. There are certainly other means of making a living and if you don't take advantage of that you have no one to blame but yourself.
      Not everyone can do something they like. As you said down there VVVV, someone has to clean the shitter. Even though nobody actually does that anymore, but that's besides the point.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      So get a job as a park ranger, or a naturalist. Or be a farmer. I've considered doing those things myself but I like music more.
      I've considered it. And I might. I'm not here to discuss what I want to do though.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      True, but you have to admit that you have to give up on cultural interests to live in the wild. Technically I could bring my guitar, but I'd have no one to play with. Most people like something about our society and culture even if they have major problems with them.
      Me too. I wouldn't like leaving piano behind. And that's one of a small number of reasons I would decide to stay here. There's good things and bad things, as I said.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      That's not what luthiers do though. I guess some of them do, but I wouldn't really call them luthiers. Luthiers spend a lot of time and effort trying to make the best product that they can. They already do this, that's why they charge $5000 for a guitar(and those are the cheap ones).
      Yes but by your rationale they wouldn't do it if they didn't get paid (and they didn't need money because it wasn't used). Or they would do a worse job or something.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      This is only wrong in terms of things being mass produced, I'm talking about high quality instruments and other things which aren't mass produced. Things which are crafted.
      Yes and I'm saying that you only get a worse product when things are mass produced and made for maximum monetary gain.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      So you really think people will just build houses because it's fun? Because it ain't.
      To you, it ain't. Many people would love building houses. Same way people love building cars or planes or whatever else. Even though it's hard work. And since the people doing it enjoy it (since there's no monetary incentive) you would get a better product in the end.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Who's gonna work at landfills or clean porta-johns or scrape dead animals off the road. There are some jobs that just suck that have to be done.
      Unnecessary jobs. Robots can do it. The only reason we don't have them doing these sorts of things now is because people need jobs. Because they need money.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      It's relevent because it explains how we cannot specialize without trade. People are never going to just make things and give them away to complete strangers. That's a completely absurd notion.
      Why? I would be completely fine with making a sculpture or something and someone comes along and says "oh man that's fantastic, can I have it?" It would make me happy and I would give it to them.
      I don't know why you think it's absurd. If you really like something, you will just enjoy doing it. Enjoy the act of doing whatever it is.
      As I said, in that video, he explains how we cannot specialise without trade IN A SYSTEM WHERE WE NEED TO HUNT AND GATHER. Not in a system where people will farm and automated hydroponic systems would grow crops etc. Then you have time. The only reason he says it won't work is because he's thinking of cavemen days when you had to spend all your time getting food.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      But then you're assuming that there's gonna be someone who wants to just build a power station when we need power.
      Why wouldn't there be? Not everyone does it for the money!

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      By our standards they are. They don't have a computer, they don't have expensive houses. They don't have the means to drive 2000 miles across the country just for fun if they wanted to. We do, we live in luxury compared to them.
      In your opinion. Maybe they liked being farmers and just living a laid back life.
      Or hunter-gatherers. It is a simple life but no doubt some enjoy it.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      It's quite true that americans do all kinds of fucked up shit for money, but they do this because they are greedy, not because we use currency. People have been using currency for a long time before there was america. It's very possible to have currency and not have people acting this way. One big step is having a currency that has a basis, is not fiat.
      I already addressed this too. What is to stop people withholding gold or diamonds or whatever you want to base money's value on to drive up the worth of it?

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      There's a really big difference, just in the amount of effort you have to put int. Go live as a hunter gatherer for a week and you'll see what I mean. It's much more difficult than living in society, that's why people don't do it.
      Many people do it. Just ask Dannon for example.
      Plus, hunter-gatherer doesn't mean not living in a society. There are societies which live like that now.

      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      And if you don't like thinking, get a job doing physical labor, construction or something. It's less work than being a hunter gatherer, and you still get to sleep in a bed.
      Unnecessary as hominem.

    23. #48
      Expert LDer Affirmation!
      Join Date
      Oct 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      1,556
      Likes
      1010
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      If you count being bound by the laws of physics/nature slavery, you will never be free. Technically that is correct, but you might go crazy if you think about it too much.
      I meant what I said as a way of saying "if the laws of physics and nature are NOT slavery (which they aren't to me), then neither is capitalism, because they're similar, yet living in our society is easier than hunting and gathering". As stonedape said, there's a reason why we don't live that way anymore. It's freedom in one way, but no situation is perfect.
      DILDs: A Lot

    24. #49
      DEATH TO FANATICS! StonedApe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Gender
      Location
      toledo,OH
      Posts
      2,269
      Likes
      417
      DJ Entries
      61
      Quote Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer View Post
      I meant what I said as a way of saying "if the laws of physics and nature are NOT slavery (which they aren't to me), then neither is capitalism, because they're similar, yet living in our society is easier than hunting and gathering". As stonedape said, there's a reason why we don't live that way anymore. It's freedom in one way, but no situation is perfect.
      And it also could still be a much better situation without us not being capitalistic. There are so many practical ways we know how to improve society. I don't think anyone has yet come up with even a theoretical alternative that is possible at the moment. We still have scarcity, even for things that we could do venus project style like food, water, and energy.
      157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.

      Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious

    25. #50
      DEATH TO FANATICS! StonedApe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Gender
      Location
      toledo,OH
      Posts
      2,269
      Likes
      417
      DJ Entries
      61
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      Not everyone can do something they like. As you said down there VVVV, someone has to clean the shitter. Even though nobody actually does that anymore, but that's besides the point.
      very true, and not everyone has to do something they like in order to be happy with their life. Some people are alright with doing things they don't like in order to do other things they do.
      Yes but by your rationale they wouldn't do it if they didn't get paid (and they didn't need money because it wasn't used). Or they would do a worse job or something.
      Not at all. They just wouldn't make as many, nor would some try as hard to make a better product than their competitor.

      I should have pointed this out before, but the idea that competition can make for better products is clearly not a fallacy(there are plenty of examples of competition improving products). The idea that it always does is. Sometimes it's better to have no competition, sometimes it isn't. It depends on the context.
      Yes and I'm saying that you only get a worse product when things are mass produced and made for maximum monetary gain.
      Which isn't always the case, nor is this because of capitalism or trade. This is because of greed and ignorance.
      To you, it ain't. Many people would love building houses. Same way people love building cars or planes or whatever else. Even though it's hard work. And since the people doing it enjoy it (since there's no monetary incentive) you would get a better product in the end.
      I really don't think this is the case with everything. Some people enjoy building houses, but not enough people to build houses for everyone. Same with cars. And when people do it out of enjoyment they tend to take their time.

      Unnecessary jobs. Robots can do it. The only reason we don't have them doing these sorts of things now is because people need jobs. Because they need money.

      Why? I would be completely fine with making a sculpture or something and someone comes along and says "oh man that's fantastic, can I have it?" It would make me happy and I would give it to them.
      I don't know why you think it's absurd. If you really like something, you will just enjoy doing it. Enjoy the act of doing whatever it is.
      As I said, in that video, he explains how we cannot specialise without trade IN A SYSTEM WHERE WE NEED TO HUNT AND GATHER. Not in a system where people will farm and automated hydroponic systems would grow crops etc. Then you have time. The only reason he says it won't work is because he's thinking of cavemen days when you had to spend all your time getting food.
      I'll address this later, I'm about to leave for a meditation retreat.

      Why wouldn't there be? Not everyone does it for the money!
      Because not that many people will want to do specific things like that. I don't have any statistics but very few people build power plants and skyscrapers for fun. It's hard work.

      People do things like this because individuals needs these things. IIndividuals in turn give these people something for what they do. Everybody is happy as long as it's a fair trade. The problem isn't money but people being ripped off.
      In your opinion. Maybe they liked being farmers and just living a laid back life.
      Or hunter-gatherers. It is a simple life but no doubt some enjoy it.
      Well I suppose, I guess you're right, people who don't have things have just as much as people who do have things.

      They can certainly enjoy it, but that doesn't make them wealthy.

      Very few people can live like that, that;s why they don't.
      I already addressed this too. What is to stop people withholding gold or diamonds or whatever you want to base money's value on to drive up the worth of it?
      One possibility is opposing currencies. Someone does this with gold so people start using silver. Another way would be through government regulation. I'll write up a better answer in about a week, I have to go now.
      Many people do it. Just ask Dannon for example.
      Plus, hunter-gatherer doesn't mean not living in a society. There are societies which live like that now.
      Pretty sure dannon said he works odd jobs and lives on couches. Not exactly the same thing. And yeah people can do that, but it's a much harder life.
      157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.

      Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious

    Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 53
      Last Post: 07-07-2010, 10:51 PM
    2. Cheney says he doesn't care what the American people think
      By skysaw in forum Extended Discussion
      Replies: 27
      Last Post: 03-22-2008, 11:18 PM
    3. Nose R.C. doesn't work for me.
      By TalkingHead in forum Attaining Lucidity
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: 08-08-2007, 10:05 PM
    4. Replies: 143
      Last Post: 08-08-2007, 05:52 AM
    5. What do I do when spinning doesn't work?
      By speedbasssux in forum Dream Control
      Replies: 12
      Last Post: 07-12-2006, 07:12 AM

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •