Thread: SO can we just throw the senate and congress out on their asses already?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If it would not be done properly on it's own, with profit as the only motivation, that means it's better off as a utility held accountable to an elected office. Greed cannot be trusted as the motivating factor to make sure the population receives a proper education or proper medical care.

I say the same thing about food!

Food, too. We need to regulate a free seed environment and stop relying on oil based additives and monocropping. Food should be handled on the local level though. Then again I think every aspect of government should be as local as is just and possible.

I don't see why you think politicians are more trustworthy than the people you're doing business with.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Food, too. We need to regulate a free seed environment and stop relying on oil based additives and monocropping. Food should be handled on the local level though. Then again I think every aspect of government should be as local as is just and possible.

There's some good points that buying local isn't always the best way. Because some areas just aren't right for certain types of food. So they have to add way to many fertilisers, change the soil and whatever else. And it ends up being just a lot better to buy it from somewhere where that food grows well naturally.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't see why you think politicians are more trustworthy than the people you're doing business with.

Well, technically they should be held accountable if they're not doing things the way they should be. Realistically, well....

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't see why you think politicians are more trustworthy than the people you're doing business with.

My theory on government is a holonic form where we elect neighborhood representatives to represent us the next echelon of government and elect a representative for the next echelon and so on from the town or city to the county or state to the federal level. Our current form of democracy, which is based on getting the biggest mob to vote on the least dirty pre-selected puppet, is not actually any more trustworthy than a private business and is basically the same thing.

Originally Posted by tommo

There's some good points that buying local isn't always the best way. Because some areas just aren't right for certain types of food. So they have to add way to many fertilisers, change the soil and whatever else. And it ends up being just a lot better to buy it from somewhere where that food grows well naturally.

I'm not saying each local government should rely independently on its own food source but that each independent government should have control over its own food source so that food is not based on a scale of supply and demand but that farmers can instead be rewarded for abundance and allies with technology rather than competitors.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I don't see why you think politicians are more trustworthy than the people you're doing business with.

Well, thats why we need some form of democracy

Politicians are elected. We don't like em, we don't vote them next time around. You just can't do that with CEOs. Of course the problem we have now is, the politicians that enter in the public eye are funded by corporations. And I agree, go local as much as possible.

Originally Posted by juroara

Well, thats why we need some form of democracy

Politicians are elected. We don't like em, we don't vote them next time around. You just can't do that with CEOs. Of course the problem we have now is, the politicians that enter in the public eye are funded by corporations. And I agree, go local as much as possible.

Well for publicly-traded companies, technically shareholders elect them (although if THEY own 51% they can elect themselves, but that's how it works. You have to be part of the company to decide how it's run.) But I agree with going local. It's most effective and most accountable. People need to start voting not for politicians who are supported financially, but ones they LEGITIMATELY agree with (ie third parties, usually where people can agree most which is why they arise.)

This thread is sooooo off topic, but I'm cool with that. Seriously though people, this SOPA shit is important. Spread the word that the gov is trying to censor the internet.

Originally Posted by tommo

Most people would not still disagree. Only a very small minority. The only reason I can see for why people try to avoid taxes at any cost right now
is that they either have no education basically, or they have had shit education. Even the most non-introspective person should be able to see that
it's better, if it's laid out for them and clearly explained.

So you're calling me uneducated???(just kidding)

So you don't support using force then? Or is it okay for the majority to use force against the minority?

I still wouldn't pay for those things because I don't think the services they provide(in most cases) are very good. The indoctrination education system around here is a farce. I think it does more harm than good. So do most welfare programs. And while most people would pay for some things if you lump them all together almost nobody wants to pay for all of these "services"; one guy doesn't like social programs, another doesn't like defense programs etc.

It simply isn't better to do things the way they're being done. The way things are being done is centered around power. Power is much more corrupting than greed. If we are to have social programs they need to be done in a radically different manner, the current modes really don't work very well.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If it would not be done properly on it's own, with profit as the only motivation, that means it's better off as a utility held accountable to an elected office. Greed cannot be trusted as the motivating factor to make sure the population receives a proper education or proper medical care.

So why are private schools so much better than public ones then? It's quite drastic. Even the religious schools are far better than the public ones around here.

Look into the Lancaster schools if you're bored. Joseph Lancaster. Private education for the poor that was so good the government ran him out of business because they were afraid that poor people might become too intelligent and then they'd have no one to work in the factories.

Originally Posted by juroara

Well, thats why we need some form of democracy

Politicians are elected. We don't like em, we don't vote them next time around. You just can't do that with CEOs. Of course the problem we have now is, the politicians that enter in the public eye are funded by corporations. And I agree, go local as much as possible.

And just to add to what Preserver said, if people don't like a company they won't but things from it and it will go out of business. What we need is more transparency all around and better consumer education. People need to learn what certain businesses do and should know whether or not the product was made ethically or in an environmentally friendly way. I think we should set up agencies(some like this already exist, but more of them) that certify that a product was made in such a way. We should also educate people about the effects of buying products that aren't made in this way. If we did both of those things things like factory farms and companies that use sweatshops would have a much harder time staying in business.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

This thread is sooooo off topic, but I'm cool with that. Seriously though people, this SOPA shit is important. Spread the word that the gov is trying to censor the internet.

http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/intern...orship-124757/ Here I'll leave this thread right here for you.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

This thread is sooooo off topic, but I'm cool with that. Seriously though people, this SOPA shit is important. Spread the word that the gov is trying to censor the internet.

Agreed, sorry about that.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

So you're calling me uneducated???(just kidding)

So you don't support using force then? Or is it okay for the majority to use force against the minority?

I think, in a perfect world, people would be educated about all this stuff that they would be paying for in taxes. They would then be able to decide whether the government was running it correctly, to it's best ability, and if they were, they would pay those taxes for it.
In the real world, you need to force people. At the same time, as you've said, the government run things we have now, especially education, aren't exactly the best they can be by a long shot.

Yet we're still forced to pay for them lol

Originally Posted by StonedApe

I still wouldn't pay for those things because I don't think the services they provide(in most cases) are very good. The indoctrination education system around here is a farce. I think it does more harm than good. So do most welfare programs. And while most people would pay for some things if you lump them all together almost nobody wants to pay for all of these "services"; one guy doesn't like social programs, another doesn't like defense programs etc.

Education is an absolute joke. I don't know about America, but here every school has to run on a state-decided curriculum anyway, regardless of whether they're private or public. So you could change it by whatever bureaucratic means anyway, but then you're still paying for education lol

Originally Posted by StonedApe

So why are private schools so much better than public ones then? It's quite drastic. Even the religious schools are far better than the public ones around here.

Probably coz the government's shite. As evidenced by what this thread is actually supposed to be about.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Look into the Lancaster schools if you're bored. Joseph Lancaster. Private education for the poor that was so good the government ran him out of business because they were afraid that poor people might become too intelligent and then they'd have no one to work in the factories.

Never heard of this, will look it up.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

And just to add to what Preserver said, if people don't like a company they won't but things from it and it will go out of business. What we need is more transparency all around and better consumer education. People need to learn what certain businesses do and should know whether or not the product was made ethically or in an environmentally friendly way. I think we should set up agencies(some like this already exist, but more of them) that certify that a product was made in such a way. We should also educate people about the effects of buying products that aren't made in this way. If we did both of those things things like factory farms and companies that use sweatshops would have a much harder time staying in business.

See if America has a version for your country of this Ethical Consumer Guide

I did find "ethical shopping" for America but the site looks dodgy, and it says "Coke agrees to stop advertising to children" on it's front page, which I just don't believe.

You can't use our public systems to attack socialism because they're not socialist, they're monopolistic industrial complexes run by money. What I'm saying is that government SHOULD act as an accountable distributor of product that aren't best run by greed. I'm not saying it does.

Originally Posted by tommo

I did find "ethical shopping" for America but the site looks dodgy, and it says "Coke agrees to stop advertising to children" on it's front page, which I just don't believe.

Being an ethical consumer means being educated, even slightly. Difficult to find when most consumers are mindless consumers following fads, trends, and advertising.

Also... you'd think that a TRULY educated consumer would avoid as much consumption as possible... what with the environmental side-effects, dwindling resources, and uselessness of most of the crap we buy.

Originally Posted by tommo

Agreed, sorry about that.

don't be, there's another thread for sopa now. I just thought it was kinda funny, a great example of the add of ED.

I think, in a perfect world, people would be educated about all this stuff that they would be paying for in taxes. They would then be able to decide whether the government was running it correctly, to it's best ability, and if they were, they would pay those taxes for it.
In the real world, you need to force people. At the same time, as you've said, the government run things we have now, especially education, aren't exactly the best they can be by a long shot.

Yet we're still forced to pay for them lol

Why do you need to use force? If you can do it with persuasion then using force would actually hurt your cause because it makes it look like you can't(it makes you look unjustified). And if you can't do it with just persuasion then what makes you think that it is actually a good thing?

Education is an absolute joke. I don't know about America, but here every school has to run on a state-decided curriculum anyway, regardless of whether they're private or public. So you could change it by whatever bureaucratic means anyway, but then you're still paying for education lol

This is a great example of why using force to make people provide social services is a bad idea. If it doesn't work well we end up having basically no ability to change it. Oh wait we can vote![/SARCASM]

I did find "ethical shopping" for America but the site looks dodgy, and it says "Coke agrees to stop advertising to children" on it's front page, which I just don't believe.

I think if we had more groups like this, and better ones, we could effectively manage some of the major issues. The government can't fix this problem without a total 180 of our culture and economics.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You can't use our public systems to attack socialism because they're not socialist, they're monopolistic industrial complexes run by money. What I'm saying is that government SHOULD act as an accountable distributor of product that aren't best run by greed. I'm not saying it does.

I wasn't arguing against socialist schools, I'm arguing against state schools. I'm not even anti-socialist really, just anti state. If you can fund those schools without using force I'd be totally in support of them. I probably wouldn't give you any money, but I might volunteer some time.

Why do you think that a group of people who are driven by power will make better decisions than a group of people driven by greed?

But you missed my point. My point is that private schools do a fairly decent job of education. It's not perfect, but it's the best choice aside from home schooling.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

don't be, there's another thread for sopa now. I just thought it was kinda funny, a great example of the add of ED.

haha very true.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Why do you need to use force? If you can do it with persuasion then using force would actually hurt your cause because it makes it look like you can't(it makes you look unjustified). And if you can't do it with just persuasion then what makes you think that it is actually a good thing?

MY system would be good enough for most people to agree with it. Don't ask me what my system would be lol But I would take all profit out of education for a start and it would involve the internet a lot more than the current system.
The ones who didn't pay for it could not use it. So it's a sort of underhanded force. But also, the results would speak for themselves, and if people realised that it's better, they would obviously pay for it.
If I wanted everyone to pay for it, I would need to use some sort of force because some people are just plain selfish. They'll let everyone else take the burden of paying for it while they reap all the benefits.

The problem with education in this argument is that the people need to be educated properly first before they would agree to pay for actual good education. Sort of a Catch-22.
So if any force is necessary, it is to force the education taxes first, for good education, and then everything else will follow. Maybe.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

I think if we had more groups like this, and better ones, we could effectively manage some of the major issues. The government can't fix this problem without a total 180 of our culture and economics.

Yeah, they need funding from companies which are ethical, or better, the government, to avoid bribes etc.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

don't be, there's another thread for sopa now. I just thought it was kinda funny, a great example of the add of ED.

Why do you need to use force? If you can do it with persuasion then using force would actually hurt your cause because it makes it look like you can't(it makes you look unjustified). And if you can't do it with just persuasion then what makes you think that it is actually a good thing?

This is a great example of why using force to make people provide social services is a bad idea. If it doesn't work well we end up having basically no ability to change it. Oh wait we can vote![/SARCASM]


I think if we had more groups like this, and better ones, we could effectively manage some of the major issues. The government can't fix this problem without a total 180 of our culture and economics.



I wasn't arguing against socialist schools, I'm arguing against state schools. I'm not even anti-socialist really, just anti state. If you can fund those schools without using force I'd be totally in support of them. I probably wouldn't give you any money, but I might volunteer some time.

Why do you think that a group of people who are driven by power will make better decisions than a group of people driven by greed?

But you missed my point. My point is that private schools do a fairly decent job of education. It's not perfect, but it's the best choice aside from home schooling.

My point is that you cant blame public schools for the poor education they offer. But I would take your money "at gunpoint" as you like to put it. I would have private schools banned and force people to contribute to the community they're in. Private schools are just class warfare.Then again, I don't think school should be required either. It should be optional to go but everyone in the community should pay for it.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

My point is that you cant blame public schools for the poor education they offer. But I would take your money "at gunpoint" as you like to put it. I would have private schools banned and force people to contribute to the community they're in. Private schools are just class warfare.Then again, I don't think school should be required either. It should be optional to go but everyone in the community should pay for it.

Why not? They have a poorly written curriculum and do all sorts of other things that are obviously counter productive. Who's to blame then? Taxpayers for not giving 70% of their wages to education?

Not all private schools are like that. I went to a catholic school; I think it recieved a small amount of gov funding, but it was a private school. Over half of the kids their were somewhat poor. Not scraping by, but not doing all that well either. There are plenty of non-violent ways to get funding for education, so why do you think you have a right send someone to my house to kidnap me if I don't give you my money to pay for your schooling?

Two questions(you guys seem to be avoiding answering them): What gives you the right to use force simply because you are in the majority? And why do you think people driven by power will make better choices than those driven by greed? Fuck, thrreee: Do you really think that gov will ever get to a point where it isn't driven by power(because to me that's the only way it will ever actually provide something good for people in terms of education. Those in power do not want people to be well educated, well educated people don't want to work in factories or other shit jobs they need to make their wealth. The only way to remove power from the situation is to remove domination from it, the only way to remove domination from it is to remove [the initiation of] force).

I deleted my response for you tommo, sorry. I don't have time to type up another. Maybe later.

Why do you insist on using strawmen? Just argue the argument we're having, don't make one up so it's easier to counter me. Talking about kidnapping is an extreme misuses of my intention of the word force.

That being said, yes I do believe the government will get to the point where it's not pursuing pure power, but first you have to localize it to the most communal level and give the community the power. Over the last 30 years productivity has gone up in this country but education has remained the same or declined. The rich are getting wealthier and more powerful while all the most basic needs of society are being left to crumble.

If they want to participate in this system, they must help with it too. The rich are nothing more but a hand-out class, asking for bail-outs and subsidies while never doing a damn thing for the people. They are parasites. Not all rich, obviously, just the ones that use that type of language to describe the poor. They describe themselves perfectly. They're a welfare class, a beggar class. Why is it society must hold up their pillars and yet, rather than support education they have transformed it into a factory outputting an obedient working class? Then they say the system is broken because it's a public system and private systems just work better. The only thing that's public about our school system is the way they pay themselves.

I'm not saying nothing educational can be organized privately in order to research the best way to educate kids and evolve out of this tragedy, the mass-produced education. But I think private schools serve as an excuse to let the broken system remain as is, which is an assault against the middle class.

To me a democratic government can only truly exist on a community level. You can branch up into a republic to some degree it must exist as a force to enable the community to lift itself up rather than as a means to concentrate power. Claiming the government is greedy is no excuse to hand over more power to people who are greedy by disposition. We can change government. The entitlement class (top 1%) will always ask for more.

I love the "who pays for school" discussion! If we HAVE to use democratic means, I prefer school systems to be locally-funded by tax levies; that's the way our schools are funded here (for the most part.) If the community WANTS to pay for a school, they get to vote for it.

Although I don't believe that the rich can be classified as a "hand-out" class; ALL classes will take handouts if they can get them; middle-class students with student debt want debt-forgiveness, poor families who cannot afford healthy food for their children want a way to provide, and the wealthy want a way to recoup some of their taxed money through bailouts. Everyone wants MORE, regardless of how much they have.

Democracy is nothing more than 50% + 1 imposing their will on the 50% - 1. If you're in the majority, that's great! If you're in the minority... too bad.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I love the "who pays for school" discussion! If we HAVE to use democratic means, I prefer school systems to be locally-funded by tax levies; that's the way our schools are funded here (for the most part.) If the community WANTS to pay for a school, they get to vote for it.

Although I don't believe that the rich can be classified as a "hand-out" class; ALL classes will take handouts if they can get them; middle-class students with student debt want debt-forgiveness, poor families who cannot afford healthy food for their children want a way to provide, and the wealthy want a way to recoup some of their taxed money through bailouts. Everyone wants MORE, regardless of how much they have.

Democracy is nothing more than 50% + 1 imposing their will on the 50% - 1. If you're in the majority, that's great! If you're in the minority... too bad.

It's funny that you say a community gets to vote for them...then complain that democracy is nothing but majority rule.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

It's funny that you say a community gets to vote for them...then complain that democracy is nothing but majority rule.

Note that I said "If we HAVE to use democratic means." I'd prefer meaningful discussion and compromises in which both sides get something in a town forum type event, but that's not what HAPPENS. So if we HAVE to be democratic, I support local funding, NOT state or federal.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Note that I said "If we HAVE to use democratic means." I'd prefer meaningful discussion and compromises in which both sides get something in a town forum type event, but that's not what HAPPENS. So if we HAVE to be democratic, I support local funding, NOT state or federal.

Taxation is theft and democracy is mob rule. There is no compromise in that.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Taxation is theft and democracy is mob rule. There is no compromise in that.

Taxation isn't theft if you can get people to agree on it! Which is easiest how? Local level.

You know what I consider theft? Working 40 hours a week to make some asshole rich who doesn't do shit but sits and bitches about social programs causing an entitlement class.

I was listening to a Joe Rogan podcast recently, and he brought up a good point.... People say that it's no that bad, you only work 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week if you work 5 days. But that's complete bullshit.
You also have to count the time getting to and from work, which can be easily an hour or two for some people. Plus the time getting ready and coming home and unwinding for the day/showering etc. to get work crap off your mind.
That's like 3 or 4 hours all up. So you could basically say work takes up 10-12 hours of every day. For most people.
Plus you also can't do what you want to do for the rest of that 12-14 hours. Because you need to be able to work the next day and a lot of things would prevent you from doing so. And obviously 7-8 hours are taken up sleeping.

Conservatively, going with the 10 hours of your day taken up, that's 118 hours you have left to do what you want, assuming what you want to do won't affect your work, if it would, you have to do something else.
That's 69 hours left if you subtract 7 hours of sleeping per day. 62 if you sleep 8 hours, which is recommended.
Thank god we lucid dream!